Perhaps "TO I-81", as I-690 West does go there. It would make sense, considering I-481 and NY 290 are also mentioned.
Um, shields are a little new for that. NY 415 has been decommissioned for sometime in Syracuse. It is now Onondaga CR 77, so really not much of a chance.
Don't expect completion of a superhighway version of Route 219 to make its way down into ski country anytime soon.
The newest section of road construction, landslide and all, has ballooned to $122 million from its original cost of $85.6 million, representing a 42 percent increase.
Cleanup work where the landslide occurred at the Town of Concord's Scoby Hill added $25 million more, and that's on top of an additional $12 million in miscellaneous overruns for the 4.2 miles of roadway that includes a double bridge spanning high above Cattaraugus Creek.
The price tag for the next 3.7-mile section is estimated at about $72 million, but bidding of the project has been delayed for two years because of questions concerning the environmental impact on wetlands.
And it will be at least a year before motorists will be able to bypass Springville at Route 39 on the newest section and drive into Cattaraugus County's Town of Ashford, where they will exit back onto existing 219 at Peters Road.
This latest stretch of north-south, four-lane expressway was supposed to open in December.
Found a Clearview guide sign along the Whitestone Expressway southbound on GSV today ahead of Exit 15.
http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.787308,-73.821999&spn=0.000016,0.007113&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.787435,-73.824007&panoid=QbutMwcL0lIMv7r3R9cOCw&cbp=12,188.21,,0,7.16
This a NYC thing, or just a random exception?
Does anyone know what this concrete structure is?
http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=43.153029~-77.607722&style=h&lvl=19&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1 (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=43.153029~-77.607722&style=h&lvl=19&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1)
Does anyone have any idea of why the north-south roads near Henrietta are at an angle? It's not like there's any mountains to go around. Here's (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.052207,-77.626648&spn=0.105494,0.222988&t=m&z=13) a map link of the area I'm referring to.
Ugh! Don't tell me they're eliminating the loop ramps on the L.I.E.!
Does any part of the Long Island Expressway allow for 65 mph since NY adapted the law. I know that when the 65 mph law was allowed on interstates DE, MD, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI, and MA did not allow anything above 55, so this particular interstate never got it then, but since NY implemented the 65 on interstates has at least the Suffolk part of the Expressway allow any part to be 65?
I was on Canal St. EB through Ellenville today (Canal and Center are the two-way couplets for NY 52, a unique situation where both roads are signed as 52 in both directions). I noticed that the reference route markers on Canal read "1V01" instead of "1101" - a V instead of a tens digit. That would seem to indicate Center as the main route and Canal as some sort of alternate designation. Also, the eastern end of canal was in the 2V01 range, suggesting a control section reset where the reference markers reappeared. (There were almost none through town that I saw.)
Well, that would suggest what we've already been saying, that 52 WB officially follows Canal and 52 EB officially follows Center. Even though both directions are signed as the actual route.I was on Canal St. EB through Ellenville today (Canal and Center are the two-way couplets for NY 52, a unique situation where both roads are signed as 52 in both directions). I noticed that the reference route markers on Canal read "1V01" instead of "1101" - a V instead of a tens digit. That would seem to indicate Center as the main route and Canal as some sort of alternate designation. Also, the eastern end of canal was in the 2V01 range, suggesting a control section reset where the reference markers reappeared. (There were almost none through town that I saw.)
Yes, the V is standard for one-way couplets, although Ellenville might be the only place it's actually used. (That might be because couplets are usually found on locally-maintained streets, which don't have reference markers posted.) See http://empirestateroads.com/rm/2.html
I seem to remember seeing a pic of the LIE with a 65 speed limit sign in the pic. I don't know where along the highway it was though. Most likely out in Suffolk County. Personally, I can't confirm the speed limit on the LIE as I've never been on it. Hell, I was only out on Long Island once, and I used the Southern State Parkway. I remember that being posted at 55, but traffic was moving around 70.I don't know where you saw it, but I imagine it might've been somewhere east of William Floyd Parkway.
I'm not sure how accurate that report is; I-84 was transferred back to NYSDOT, so it can't be a growing burden. Who knows what other errors could be in the report.
I'm not sure how much raising truck tolls would help. There are already a lot of shunpiking trucks on NY 5 and NY 31. Do we really want more of them?
Well. One of the last vestiges of the Richmond Parkway extension has met its fate. I passed under the ex-overpasses between Exits 11 and 12, and well, there's nada left of the main overpasses. There are some overpasses left and one ramp, but that's it.Now I'm wishing for a nuclear holocaust. NYSDOT has no credibility left. They've gone from Robert Moses types to John Norquist types.
They've gone from Robert Moses types to John Norquist types.Scumbags to a different type of scumbags?
Okay, but it would be great if they revived the ramps, and the road it was intended for. Of course the fact that they "widened" NY 112 from a two-lane undivided highway to a two-lane divided highway from Coram to Port Jefferson Station doesn't leave me with that much faith in them.
To be fair, the reason the unused interchange is being removed is because the highway that goes through it is being widened and the extra lanes wouldn't fit under the existing ramps.Also, at some point even unused overpasses need maintenance, and why spend money on something like that?
Adam, why don't you support it?
Traffic-wise, it would probably be a net benefit to the state, taking pressure off of I-278, especially coming up Todt Hill. Thing is, without improvements from there into the Verrazano (and I mean more than NYSDOT is currently constructing, at least one more lane each way), you'd still have the bottleneck there. Overall, not really necessary, although would have definitely been nice.Adam, why don't you support it?
It got canned. It isn't coming back. Staten Islanders won't be begging for it either.
Traffic-wise, it would probably be a net benefit to the state, taking pressure off of I-278, especially coming up Todt Hill. Thing is, without improvements from there into the Verrazano (and I mean more than NYSDOT is currently constructing, at least one more lane each way), you'd still have the bottleneck there. Overall, not really necessary, although would have definitely been nice.Adam, why don't you support it?
It got canned. It isn't coming back. Staten Islanders won't be begging for it either.
Next you'll tell me NJ 85 isn't opening next year.Traffic-wise, it would probably be a net benefit to the state, taking pressure off of I-278, especially coming up Todt Hill. Thing is, without improvements from there into the Verrazano (and I mean more than NYSDOT is currently constructing, at least one more lane each way), you'd still have the bottleneck there. Overall, not really necessary, although would have definitely been nice.Adam, why don't you support it?
It got canned. It isn't coming back. Staten Islanders won't be begging for it either.
I don't question it had net benefits. However, but at least around here, once a proposal is killed, it isn't coming back, as much as people may want it. The Richmond Parkway extension isn't going to be constructed as much as we may dream and hope it might happen. I miss seeing these ramps go, but if its going to get them a net benefit of extra lanes, then so be it.
Plus it's in Region 1 and US 11 is in quirky Region 7 (also known as the only region that posts exit numbers on both a route's beginning and ending termini, though this won't be obvious until I-781 is completed).
TOLLROADSblog: E-ZPass innovations drive transponder use over 80% at MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 87% at plaza to go AET[/url]
TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass innovations drive transponder use over 80% at MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 87% at plaza to go AET[/url]
I've seen raw numbers elsewhere in the system. The market penetration (ha) rate was 76% to 79% depending on time of day and direction, obviously lower overnight when truck traffic rises and highest during commutes. 80% doesn't surprise me as a peak, but it does as an average. Then again, if it's Bayonne going AET, I could believe 87%, because there's no non-local traffic going that way.
They would have an incentive, but they would also have to have the tags. A lot of cross-country trucks won't have tags for every agency, or even any agency - remember that truckers typically pay out of pocket, so it's up to them to get tags. I also live in New Jersey where we have a fair number of trucks that can't get E-ZPass due to illegality of the company, truck, owner, etc....... But basically, I've seen the raw numbers, so whatever the explanation, I know the result.TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass innovations drive transponder use over 80% at MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 87% at plaza to go AET[/url]
I've seen raw numbers elsewhere in the system. The market penetration (ha) rate was 76% to 79% depending on time of day and direction, obviously lower overnight when truck traffic rises and highest during commutes. 80% doesn't surprise me as a peak, but it does as an average. Then again, if it's Bayonne going AET, I could believe 87%, because there's no non-local traffic going that way.
Why would truck traffic result in a lower percentage of toll paid by electronic means?
(I am not questioning your observations, just curious.)
It seems to me that they have a better incentive in terms of money (as compared to four-wheeled vehicles) to pay electronically than by cash.
The E-ZPass discount at the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge for a 5-axle combination is almost $23. At the N.Y. MTA B&T "major" crossings it's about half that, at $11.37.
They would have an incentive, but they would also have to have the tags. A lot of cross-country trucks won't have tags for every agency, or even any agency - remember that truckers typically pay out of pocket, so it's up to them to get tags. I also live in New Jersey where we have a fair number of trucks that can't get E-ZPass due to illegality of the company, truck, owner, etc....... But basically, I've seen the raw numbers, so whatever the explanation, I know the result.TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass innovations drive transponder use over 80% at MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 87% at plaza to go AET[/url]
I've seen raw numbers elsewhere in the system. The market penetration (ha) rate was 76% to 79% depending on time of day and direction, obviously lower overnight when truck traffic rises and highest during commutes. 80% doesn't surprise me as a peak, but it does as an average. Then again, if it's Bayonne going AET, I could believe 87%, because there's no non-local traffic going that way.
Why would truck traffic result in a lower percentage of toll paid by electronic means?
(I am not questioning your observations, just curious.)
It seems to me that they have a better incentive in terms of money (as compared to four-wheeled vehicles) to pay electronically than by cash.
The E-ZPass discount at the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge for a 5-axle combination is almost $23. At the N.Y. MTA B&T "major" crossings it's about half that, at $11.37.
I see a lot of trucks pulled over at the GW Bridge. (Keep in mind the tunnels do not have large trucks going through.) There is enforcement at every tunnel entrance, so it would be difficult to sneak a commercial vehicle in there, but weight wouldn't likely be an issue. I don't know why they get pulled over at the GW, but they do, but it's only EB because of the toll plaza. There's no way to enforce WB.
How aggressive are the various police agencies in North Jersey (NJSP) and New York City (NYPD) and the Port Authority's police when it comes to commercial vehicle (including weight) enforcement?
I see a lot of trucks pulled over at the GW Bridge. (Keep in mind the tunnels do not have large trucks going through.) There is enforcement at every tunnel entrance, so it would be difficult to sneak a commercial vehicle in there, but weight wouldn't likely be an issue. I don't know why they get pulled over at the GW, but they do, but it's only EB because of the toll plaza. There's no way to enforce WB.
How aggressive are the various police agencies in North Jersey (NJSP) and New York City (NYPD) and the Port Authority's police when it comes to commercial vehicle (including weight) enforcement?
Roxana Sorina Buta, dark-eyed and lithe, hurried home from work as a waitress on May 24, scurrying through rain and 1:30 a.m. darkness toward the subway. She got to Broadway and stepped into the crosswalk when the light turned green.
At the same time a New York City dump truck rumbled eastbound on 14th Street and turned south on Broadway. On the video taken in a Citibank on that corner, you can see the truck making a fast, seamless turn. If you look very closely, you will also see a shadow flicker in front of the truck’s right headlight.
That was Ms. Buta, and the truck hit her square.
Ms. Buta, 21, an aspiring actress, the only child of immigrants from Romania, was no more.
but southbound you are "55 for the next 34 miles" about 2 miles before the exit... Of course, it is not an direct connection, but still...
Southbound, unchanged; at the merge of I-481 into I-81.
Northbound, it is now posted 55 before the I-481 split. If memory serves correctly, this was the original location of the change, which was pushed past I-481, perhaps when 65 was permitted on I-481 (as well as NY-695, and NY-5 bypass in Camillus, etc.) This is also where a new reference segment begins on the Reference Marker system.
Other boundaries did not seem to change (through Binghamton, or around local roads in Syracuse).
I thought the "within city limits" restriction was removed, but could be mistaken there... The differences in where zones start/end is odd, but made sense (65 past the split onto a road that is 65, for example).Well, there are a few stretches of 65 in cities, but it's not the norm... mainly, stuff like I-86 skirting through Corning. I-81's 55 zones in Binghamton follow the city line despite the first exit being a couple of miles down the road.
Or NY 8... I'm not entirely convinced region 2 knows what freeways are. I think NY 49 only has it because it's future I-790.Southbound, unchanged; at the merge of I-481 into I-81.
Northbound, it is now posted 55 before the I-481 split. If memory serves correctly, this was the original location of the change, which was pushed past I-481, perhaps when 65 was permitted on I-481 (as well as NY-695, and NY-5 bypass in Camillus, etc.) This is also where a new reference segment begins on the Reference Marker system.
Other boundaries did not seem to change (through Binghamton, or around local roads in Syracuse).
At least there's 65 MPH stretches leading to Syracuse. For the life of me I can't figure out why NY 5S and NY 12 going into Utica aren't 65 MPH until the city limit. The only possible reason is for revenue generation purposes. The only 65 MPH stretch of highway in R2 is NY Route 49. The freeway portions of 5S and 12 are engineered to be more 65-friendly than NY Route 49 is .
Build higher. That’s what the federal government is saying to the owners of structures badly damaged by Sandy. Northeast flood zones now have tougher re-building requirements that apply across the board: to houses, businesses and government infrastructure.
Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood stood in front of an Amtrak electrical station in a New Jersey swamp to make their point: any structure more than half destroyed by Sandy that is being rebuilt with federal funds, must be lifted higher than before. The new standards require a building owner to consult an updated FEMA flood map, find the new recommended height for his structure and then lift it a foot above that.
LaHood explained why: “So that people don’t have to go through the same heartache and headache and backache that it’s taken to rebuild.”
LaHood says the Amtrak electrical plant, which was knocked out by Sandy, will be lifted several feet at a cost of $25 million. A statement from the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force has details on the new standards:
I-81's 55 zones in Binghamton follow the city line despite the first exit being a couple of miles down the road.
And, finally, heading southbound you have this major exit coming up with traffic (especially trucks) starting to shift into the right lane to get to I-476 or the left lane to avoid all that right lane traffic. No such issue northbound.Quotebut southbound you are "55 for the next 34 miles" about 2 miles before the exit... Of course, it is not an direct connection, but still...
You're also on a notable downhill grade going southbound on that stretch...
- In Oneida County, Reference Markers used a different font, and the numbers were smaller than normal. The ones in the city of Rome looked normal.
- Along the NY 46/NY 49 duplex, all of the Reference Markers were on the north/east side of the road
- Street name signs along Black River Blvd. in Rome are HUGE, and I thought they were Clearview until I compared the picture I took of one with the Roadgeek Fonts. I'd say it might be Series C or D:
(http://mjr1990.webng.com/AARoads/Black River Blvd Sign In Rome.jpeg)
As for why this intersection is pictured, we missed the turn to stay on NY 26 north, so we were waiting to turn to get back to it.
- I was unable to get a picture, but there was a sign that read "THOMAS st" (in that exact upper/lowercase combination). If I could have gotten a picture, I'd post it in "Worst of Road Signs".
Just northwest of where the widened median on Southern State Parkway near Belmont Lake State Park begins, there's a strip of undeveloped land along Lakeway Drive and Hilltop Avenue running as far as Little East Neck Road. Was this part of some proposed spur to and from Southern State?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:40.713333,-73.357222&hl=en&ll=40.733308,-73.365111&spn=0.011105,0.026157&t=h&z=16
If not, why does that strip of undeveloped land exist in the first place?
Anybody know the history of NY button copy? For example, CT used non-reflective button copy until 1980 or so and then switched to rivted and then to reflectorized button copy by 1985. Then phased out all button copy in 1995ish.
What is up with the Alternate I-495 designation?It's essentially a C/D road that uses the lower level through the cemeteries.
If that is the case, then it is part of I-495 proper as it is a c/d road even though underneath the mainline instead of on the sides. The Alternate is not a bannered route, but just a secondary alignment that is acting like an alternate.
On another note, I like the way NYCDOT pleases both the feds and themselves at the same time using both "Riverhead" and the traditional "Eastern LI" on the guide signs.
That one's a little different and more technically correct/accurate because of the word TO being situated between the ALT wording and I-278 shield.If that is the case, then it is part of I-495 proper as it is a c/d road even though underneath the mainline instead of on the sides. The Alternate is not a bannered route, but just a secondary alignment that is acting like an alternate.
On another note, I like the way NYCDOT pleases both the feds and themselves at the same time using both "Riverhead" and the traditional "Eastern LI" on the guide signs.
As NE wrote, it is just another way to indicate to traffic that the forthcoming lower level continues through.
Another instance of ALT Interstate signage in NYC is for Astoria Boulevard, which trucks are directed to in place of the GCP to make the connection between I-278 (BQE) and I-678 (Van Wyck) for LaGuardia Airport.
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york278/i-278_wb_exit_045_05.jpg) (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york278/i-278_wb_exit_045_05.jpg)
NYS DOT screwed up on the left sign. The words NY Airports should be in mixed-case lettering and the arrows are supposed to be over the lanes affected. How can DOT or their contractor be so sloppy?
Isn't this part of I-278 maintained by NYCDOT, though?I don't think so: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region11/general-info/built-and-unbuilt-arterial-system
TBTA, like lots of agencies that just maintain bridges and their approaches, has given us plenty of signage monstrosities since it isn't something they have a lot of experience with or pay a lot of attention to. Those signs are pretty much standard expectation for TBTA, there is worse out there.
Psst, guys... that pair of signs was installed by MTA Bridges & Tunnels (a.k.a. TBTA), being physically located on the structure of the Triboro Bridge and all. ;-)All depends on the engineers designing the signs. Keep an eye out for the next couple of projects on the Verrazano. ;)
TBTA, like lots of agencies that just maintain bridges and their approaches, has given us plenty of signage monstrosities since it isn't something they have a lot of experience with or pay a lot of attention to. Those signs are pretty much standard expectation for TBTA, there is worse out there.
Right now the Port Authority uses 1, 2, 3, where the exits are officially 1A, 1B, 1C-D. NYSDOT had planned to convert I-95 to sequential (seems more confusing to me to have the numbers reset where the Thruway takes over, and they must have seen that too, because the NYSDOT signs that had been converted reverted some time later).
All depends on the engineers designing the signs. Keep an eye out for the next couple of projects on the Verrazano. ;-)
After spotting a police car with two huge boxes on its trunk – that turned out to be license-plate-reading cameras – a man in New Jersey became obsessed with the loss of privacy for vehicles on American roads. (He’s not the only one.) The man, who goes by the Internet handle “Puking Monkey,” did an analysis of the many ways his car could be tracked and stumbled upon something rather interesting: his E-ZPass, which he obtained for the purpose of paying tolls, was being used to track his car in unexpected places, far away from any toll booths.
Puking Monkey is an electronics tinkerer, so he hacked his RFID-enabled E-ZPass to set off a light and a “moo cow” every time it was being read. Then he drove around New York. His tag got milked multiple times on the short drive from Times Square to Madison Square Garden in mid-town Manhattan…
I thought it was common knowledge states used E-ZPasses for things like travel times?
From what I know about MA though, no identifying information is stored when a transponder is read for this purpose, and it's illegal to use E-ZPasses for law enforcement purposes.
In short, sure, yeah, this guy's E-ZPass gets read all the time driving around, but that doesn't mean he's being tracked, or the government is logging whis travels. It just means that E-ZPasses are a convenient source of data for calculating traffic conditions.
Did you know that originally it was illegal for any agency or company to use social security numbers, except for the Social Security Administration?[citation needed]
I thought it was common knowledge states used E-ZPasses for things like travel times?
From what I know about MA though, no identifying information is stored when a transponder is read for this purpose, and it's illegal to use E-ZPasses for law enforcement purposes.
Did you know that originally it was illegal for any agency or company to use social security numbers, except for the Social Security Administration?
I was told by people at the traffic operations center that they used both.
Note how nobody is upset about using bluetooth signals though, only E-ZPass.
Upon a roadway which is divided into three lanes and provides for two-way movement of traffic a vehicle shall not be driven in the center lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction when such center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance, or in preparation for making a left turn or where such center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the same direction that the vehicle is proceeding and such allocation is designated by official traffic-control devices.
Of course. Bluetooth is used for what they want (handsfree phone usage and, in some cars, audio streaming) and toll tags are used for what they have to have to travel on certain roads (toll payments). Naturally the one they have to have is the one they'll complain about.
I'm pretty sure that PHLBOS explained a while back that they were using Bluetooth only. But, I could be wrong. I've beenI don't believe that I was ever involved in such of a discussion. You might be right about the issue at hand but wrong on who explained it. :)
wrong before. I'm getting used to it.
Aiiieeeee!!!! X-(
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5456/10038478183_d68b8988d1.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038478183/)
IMG_1631 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038478183/) by NateOMatic (http://www.flickr.com/people/44780657@N02/), on Flickr
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5343/10038474143_1675620f25.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038474143/)
IMG_1630 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038474143/) by NateOMatic (http://www.flickr.com/people/44780657@N02/), on Flickr
Obviously a new standard for reference routes.
Of course. Bluetooth is used for what they want (handsfree phone usage and, in some cars, audio streaming) and toll tags are used for what they have to have to travel on certain roads (toll payments). Naturally the one they have to have is the one they'll complain about.
Nope. From the Social Security Administration's FAQ:
Did you know that originally it was illegal for any agency or company to use social security numbers, except for the Social Security Administration?
-Didn't the government promise that SSNs wouldn't be used for ID?
For the first few decades that SSN cards were issued, they carried the admonition: "Not to be used for Identification." Unfortunately there was never any law passed instituting this as a policy.
I have to admit that I have NEVER seen an upside down marker (other than NY 69 or NY 96) like that in the Empire State.
Wow. Just Wow.
I have to admit that I have NEVER seen an upside down marker (other than NY 69 or NY 96) like that in the Empire State.
Wow. Just Wow.
From the Social Security Administration's FAQ:
-Didn't the government promise that SSNs wouldn't be used for ID?
For the first few decades that SSN cards were issued, they carried the admonition: "Not to be used for Identification." Unfortunately there was never any law passed instituting this as a policy.
The amber glow of the New York City streetlight is going away. In an energy-saving effort, the city plans to replace all of its 250,000 streetlights with brighter, whiter, energy-saving, light-emitting diode fixtures in one of the nation’s largest retrofitting projects, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, said in a news conference on Thursday.
I noticed on Google Maps that I-99 is labeled up to Corning, NY. Are they jumping the gun here?
N.Y. Times: City to Fit All Streetlights With Energy-Saving LED Bulbs (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/nyregion/city-to-fit-all-streetlights-with-energy-saving-led-bulbs.html)
How do you like the LED streetlights so far? How do they compare to the previous (high or low pressure sodium vapor?) lights re: the way they illuminate the street? The town next to mine is changing over too and I'm curious as to what others think of the LED lights.They are getting put up throughout Baltimore City and I'm not much of a fan. They aren't as warm as the old lights and seem to be dimmer. The orange glow from the old lights helped to see pedestrians and other things along the street.
Not that any NYSDOT region is really normal, for that matter. They all have some strange quirk.You're definitely right. However, given that I was raised in it and live in it, I'll never be able to put my finger on what makes NYSDOT Region 9 so Region 9.
N.Y. Times: City to Fit All Streetlights With Energy-Saving LED Bulbs (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/nyregion/city-to-fit-all-streetlights-with-energy-saving-led-bulbs.html)I'm actually going to miss those.QuoteThe amber glow of the New York City streetlight is going away. In an energy-saving effort, the city plans to replace all of its 250,000 streetlights with brighter, whiter, energy-saving, light-emitting diode fixtures in one of the nation’s largest retrofitting projects, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, said in a news conference on Thursday.
Hellooooooooo light pollution, and hi to circadian rhythm disorders too! I can't wait for the unintended consequences.N.Y. Times: City to Fit All Streetlights With Energy-Saving LED Bulbs (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/nyregion/city-to-fit-all-streetlights-with-energy-saving-led-bulbs.html)I'm actually going to miss those.QuoteThe amber glow of the New York City streetlight is going away. In an energy-saving effort, the city plans to replace all of its 250,000 streetlights with brighter, whiter, energy-saving, light-emitting diode fixtures in one of the nation’s largest retrofitting projects, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, said in a news conference on Thursday.
Don't like ours installed a couple of years ago in Seattle. They're way brighter than the previous lights. I'm not sure why a front yard needs to be lit up like home plate at a night game. Need heavy curtains.Remember, though, that back in 1970, no one liked the yellowish-orange glow of sodium vapor lights either, but in the years since, most, if not all, have been accustomed to seeing them at night.
The light is also an ugly greyish blue that makes people look about a week dead.
Remember, though, that back in 1970, no one liked the yellowish-orange glow of sodium vapor lights either, but in the years since, most, if not all, have been accustomed to seeing them at night.Learn your lights. You're referring to low-pressure sodium. The modern lights are high-pressure sodium. There is a huge difference, and yes, LPS lights are awful.
I may be in the minority here, but I actually favor the LED lights over the sodium, particularly because of that soft blue light compared to the harsh orange of the older ones.
Work zones without lowered speed limits? The majority of work zones I've passed through in region 9 just left the posted speed limit intact (the only exceptions I can think of right now are Kamikaze Curve and some work NYSDOT was doing on I-88 near Belden in August 2011), in contrast to, well, anywhere else.Not that any NYSDOT region is really normal, for that matter. They all have some strange quirk.You're definitely right. However, given that I was raised in it and live in it, I'll never be able to put my finger on what makes NYSDOT Region 9 so Region 9.
What is it?
Work zones without lowered speed limits? The majority of work zones I've passed through in region 9 just left the posted speed limit intact (the only exceptions I can think of right now are Kamikaze Curve and some work NYSDOT was doing on I-88 near Belden in August 2011), in contrast to, well, anywhere else.
Also: not numbering freeway/freeway interchanges (though this used to be the norm in region 3 as well)
I meant to say high-pressure sodium lights in my original post, but you were right about everything else. Mercury vapor lights were always my favorite, because of the soft blue light they gave off.Remember, though, that back in 1970, no one liked the yellowish-orange glow of sodium vapor lights either, but in the years since, most, if not all, have been accustomed to seeing them at night.Learn your lights. You're referring to low-pressure sodium. The modern lights are high-pressure sodium. There is a huge difference, and yes, LPS lights are awful.
I may be in the minority here, but I actually favor the LED lights over the sodium, particularly because of that soft blue light compared to the harsh orange of the older ones.
Until recent renovations, the Cross Country Mall in Yonkers, NY, featured old LPS lamps. I know what the hell I'm talking about.
The effects of nocturnal blue light exposure on such a scale will be catastrophic. Go read up on the literature. We don't need the entire Big Apple pounding everyone's melanopsin receptors so hard it starts (subtly) killing people.
Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area?By train.
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area?
By train.
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area? I was looking at I-95 with GSV and the section on 95 through Manhattan looks like the most frightening piece of Interstate in the country. I don't think other freeways (like the BQE) would be any better.Eh, it's not TOO bad. Just make sure to hit it at an odd time, like early Sunday morning, and stay in the left lane at all costs.
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area? I was looking at I-95 with GSV and the section on 95 through Manhattan looks like the most frightening piece of Interstate in the country. I don't think other freeways (like the BQE) would be any better.
when I lived out east, I'd avoid it by taking I-84 to I-380 to I-81.
(I looked on Google Maps - is it just me or are 84 and 380 now cosigned so that 84 ends at 81?)
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area? I was looking at I-95 with GSV and the section on 95 through Manhattan looks like the most frightening piece of Interstate in the country. I don't think other freeways (like the BQE) would be any better.
(I looked on Google Maps - is it just me or are 84 and 380 now cosigned so that 84 ends at 81?)I think it's always been that way, certainly by 1970 (the PA official map says "I-81E junction I-80 to junction I-81 and Scranton" and "I-84 junction I-81 to New York state line").
But poo. The original plan for I-84 would have crossed I-81E (1965 Rand McNally shows halfway between Elmhurst and Moscow) and hit I-81 near Moosic. The 1964 RMcN NJ page (http://web.archive.org/web/20060514222805/http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg377a/58a.jpg) barely shows it.(I looked on Google Maps - is it just me or are 84 and 380 now cosigned so that 84 ends at 81?)I think it's always been that way, certainly by 1970 (the PA official map says "I-81E junction I-80 to junction I-81 and Scranton" and "I-84 junction I-81 to New York state line").
There are three major limited access interconnections of the proposed Interstate System within Lackawanna County:
1. Interstate 81 and Interstate 81E in Dunmore Borough.
2. Interstate 81 and Interstate 84 in Moosic Borough.
3. Interstate 84 and Interstate 81E in the southeast corner of Roaring Brook Township.
Given some of the horror stories I've heard about traffic backups northbound trying to get through the toll barrier on the GWB,If traffic is heavy, you can exit onto local streets and loop around to the separate toll on the Palisades Parkway entrance.
I drove through NYC on I-95 once, southbound, early (like around 7 a.m.) on a Sunday morning. Had no issues whatsoever.
Given some of the horror stories I've heard about traffic backups northbound trying to get through the toll barrier on the GWB, if I was going north, I'd definitely do something that involved the Tappan Zee Bridge. Coming from my area, it would most likely be I-78 east to I-287 north to I-87 south.
NE2, if you exit I-95 onto local streets in Fort Lee, where do you access the Palisades Pkwy. Southbound into the bridge? Looking at a street map it looks like you can only enter the Parkway northbound in Fort Lee.There's a southbound entrance from Hudson Terrace between Washington and Myrtle.
Thanks NE2, you're right. I see it on Google Earth. You'd go east on the service road parallel to the toll plaza, then north on Hudson Terrace to the entrance. Interesting. Have you actually done this, and saved any substantial time?I've never driven over the GWB, but I remember this being discussed years ago on m.t.r.
Thanks NE2, you're right. I see it on Google Earth. You'd go east on the service road parallel to the toll plaza, then north on Hudson Terrace to the entrance. Interesting. Have you actually done this, and saved any substantial time?
I think to avoid huge tolls, I-84 would be the best.
What's tricky is getting to Long Island. That there isn't always a good answer to, you kinda have to plan your trip around rush hour. (or better yet, ask yourself, "why am I going to Long Island?")
What's tricky is getting to Long Island. That there isn't always a good answer to, you kinda have to plan your trip around rush hour. (or better yet, ask yourself, "why am I going to Long Island?")
To visit Suffolk and Nassau counties and thus clinch New York, or at least that's why *I* will be going to Long Island if the opportunity ever presents itself.
A little off topic but it's NY.
I ran across this sign today and was shocked to find a date on the back. November, 1965 it said.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7397/10713772953_f2f9d5d475.jpg)
Also close by is the last known state named I-287 in the wild.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3803/10713568206_e77dff2326.jpg)
It looks like the interstate shield was added as an afterthought. Where was this? NY 22? NY 100?
Eh, it's not TOO bad. Just make sure to hit it at an odd time, like early Sunday morning, and stay in the left lane at all costs.In this context, "not TOO bad" means "f---ing awesome". It's quite the rush for a first timer and it never gets old. If it's the right time of night, I'll take the Cross Bronx anytime. It sure beats I-84, the Pocono Boreway, or I-84, the New York State Ticketway, or 87/287, which gets old after a while.
But we hit so much traffic near Milford that I bailed onto the Wilbur Cross. I've still never been on Connecticut's I-395. Doubt I'll ever get around to it. The potholes on I-95 in NYC were awful and I was reminded why the Merritt Parkway is a respite from I-95.
The first time I drove the Cross Bronx was in October of 1988, I was going from DC to Norwalk CT for a Saturday morning liquidation auction of old 19c metalworking tools. Hit the CB at about 11PM, there was a stripped car on the shoulder with an active fire in a stripped out hood compartment with 6-8 homeless using the fire to get warm. Disturbing
But we hit so much traffic near Milford that I bailed onto the Wilbur Cross. I've still never been on Connecticut's I-395. Doubt I'll ever get around to it. The potholes on I-95 in NYC were awful and I was reminded why the Merritt Parkway is a respite from I-95.
I took I-95 from the New Jersey Turnpike all the way to the Portsmouth (N.H.) meet earlier this year. The condition of the Cross-Bronx Expressway was terrible, but the Connecticut Turnpike was much worse in terms of delay, with a double lane closure in Fairfield County that delayed traffic by over an hour.
Noted several stripped cars on cinder blocks during my first ever NYC roadtrip in September 1993 too. Saw some other intimidating things that night as well.
....
double lane closurea really bad time
OK, all of you people going "OMG, your car better be in good condition, you don't want to have a breakdown in The Bronx!"... chill. Note how the stories people are telling about seeing crazy stuff on the Cross Bronx are all from 20+ years ago. The Bronx, and New York City as a whole, is a much nicer place in 2013 than it was in 1993. If you have a breakdown on the Cross Bronx, it's the same as having a breakdown anywhere else. You call a tow truck and get the problem dealt with.Actually one NYC highway incident a friend of my brother's had back in 1993 occurred along the Henry Hudson Parkway on a Sunday morning. Two groups of people were coming down from MA to NYC (to attend Times Square Church on W 51st & Broadway) when one of the cars bumped the other car while in traffic. The front bumper of the the car that rear-ended the other literally fell off.
Now, granted, there are still some rough areas of The Bronx. But if you're on the highway you're fine. And don't be scared to poke around on city streets, either. There's lots to see and the risk to you in broad daylight is... really not that great. It's The Bronx, not Mogadishu.
OK, all of you people going "OMG, your car better be in good condition, you don't want to have a breakdown in The Bronx!"... chill. Note how the stories people are telling about seeing crazy stuff on the Cross Bronx are all from 20+ years ago. The Bronx, and New York City as a whole, is a much nicer place in 2013 than it was in 1993. If you have a breakdown on the Cross Bronx, it's the same as having a breakdown anywhere else. You call a tow truck and get the problem dealt with.
Now, granted, there are still some rough areas of The Bronx. But if you're on the highway you're fine. And don't be scared to poke around on city streets, either. There's lots to see and the risk to you in broad daylight is... really not that great. It's The Bronx, not Mogadishu.
OK, all of you people going "OMG, your car better be in good condition, you don't want to have a breakdown in The Bronx!"... chill. Note how the stories people are telling about seeing crazy stuff on the Cross Bronx are all from 20+ years ago. The Bronx, and New York City as a whole, is a much nicer place in 2013 than it was in 1993. If you have a breakdown on the Cross Bronx, it's the same as having a breakdown anywhere else. You call a tow truck and get the problem dealt with.
Now, granted, there are still some rough areas of The Bronx. But if you're on the highway you're fine. And don't be scared to poke around on city streets, either. There's lots to see and the risk to you in broad daylight is... really not that great. It's The Bronx, not Mogadishu.
But we hit so much traffic near Milford that I bailed onto the Wilbur Cross. I've still never been on Connecticut's I-395. Doubt I'll ever get around to it. The potholes on I-95 in NYC were awful and I was reminded why the Merritt Parkway is a respite from I-95.
I took I-95 from the New Jersey Turnpike all the way to the Portsmouth (N.H.) meet earlier this year. The condition of the Cross-Bronx Expressway was terrible, but the Connecticut Turnpike was much worse in terms of delay, with a double lane closure in Fairfield County that delayed traffic by over an hour.
Then you must have just hit the Connecticut Turnpike at a really bad time. The Connecticut Turnpike can sometimes get backed up, but if you travel it when it's not rush hour then it's generally fine. The Cross Bronx is pretty much always backed up, unless it's 3 AM or something like that.
I remember taking the bus from The City back to Hartford and we took the Cross Bronx and it was flooded a BMW was stuck in water up to the top of its tires and only one lane was getting through on the shoulder. After seeing that when I do drive through the area (going to/from Baltimore) I go through Westchester on the Tappan Zee. The backups on 95 through the City and Fairfield County with the construction in New Haven makes 95 a nightmare. The Merritt is OK during the day as long as there isn't an accident but the lack of merging space is problematic. I guess that it's the price you have to pay for a scenic route.
So, have they taken down the "stay in locked car" signs then?
OK, all of you people going "OMG, your car better be in good condition, you don't want to have a breakdown in The Bronx!"... chill. Note how the stories people are telling about seeing crazy stuff on the Cross Bronx are all from 20+ years ago. The Bronx, and New York City as a whole, is a much nicer place in 2013 than it was in 1993. If you have a breakdown on the Cross Bronx, it's the same as having a breakdown anywhere else. You call a tow truck and get the problem dealt with.
Now, granted, there are still some rough areas of The Bronx. But if you're on the highway you're fine. And don't be scared to poke around on city streets, either. There's lots to see and the risk to you in broad daylight is... really not that great. It's The Bronx, not Mogadishu.
If this were Facebook I'd be pressing Like right here.
I just drove the expanded to three lanes section of I-87 between exits 23 and 24. The southbound roadway is still at 55 MPH with the right-hand lane closed as there is still some work in progress around the Exit 23 interchange, but other than that, signs are in place and it looks complete.This 6-lane expansion has been a long time in coming.
The overhead signs on I-87 SB are really odd looking in that the arrows are abnormally small and the 87 marker is off center with the word "SOUTH" crammed up against the right hand margin of the sign. I guess someone at the Thruway Authority has no idea how to work GuidSIGN or SignCAD.
Also I drove Bruckner Blvd and found a couple other goodies but felt safe doing so.Exactly. It's not 1989 anymore. If you want to find a neighborhood you'll be too uncomfortable to pull over in, well, the Bronx won't cut it anymore. You'll have to go somewhere far more dangerous, like Syracuse.
I've driven the Cross Bronx, and while it's roadgeek worthy, I'm glad I got it out of the way. ...but I'm still missing the Bruckner.Correct this IMMEDIATELY. The Bruckner is a glorious road. Old truss bridges on an Interstate! And make sure you drive both the Blvd and the Expwy.
I just drove the expanded to three lanes section of I-87 between exits 23 and 24. The southbound roadway is still at 55 MPH with the right-hand lane closed as there is still some work in progress around the Exit 23 interchange, but other than that, signs are in place and it looks complete.This 6-lane expansion has been a long time in coming.
The overhead signs on I-87 SB are really odd looking in that the arrows are abnormally small and the 87 marker is off center with the word "SOUTH" crammed up against the right hand margin of the sign. I guess someone at the Thruway Authority has no idea how to work GuidSIGN or SignCAD.
The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so.
The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so.
What's NRBC? They did a whole batch of sign replacements on the Cross Island Parkway at the end of last year, right around the time of Hurricane Sandy.
The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so.
What's NRBC? They did a whole batch of sign replacements on the Cross Island Parkway at the end of last year, right around the time of Hurricane Sandy.
Non-reflective button copy. It's part of what gave NYC highways character.
The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so.
What's NRBC? They did a whole batch of sign replacements on the Cross Island Parkway at the end of last year, right around the time of Hurricane Sandy.
Non-reflective button copy. It's part of what gave NYC highways character.
Yep, they replaced most of the signs, at least from I-495 to I-678, just before the hurricane. There was also one by the Throgs Neck Bridge (I-295) going north that had survived that replacement, but I noticed it was replaced more recently when I was on there this past weekend.
The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so.
What's NRBC? They did a whole batch of sign replacements on the Cross Island Parkway at the end of last year, right around the time of Hurricane Sandy.
Non-reflective button copy. It's part of what gave NYC highways character.
Yep, they replaced most of the signs, at least from I-495 to I-678, just before the hurricane. There was also one by the Throgs Neck Bridge (I-295) going north that had survived that replacement, but I noticed it was replaced more recently when I was on there this past weekend.
So is there any non-reflective button copy left in the 5 boroughs of NYC?
Given how active NYSDOT has been with sign replacements in the city I expect most of the button copy will be gone in a few years.
PHLBOS, that's incredible that the T'way Authority is replacing those signs in Rockland County when they are only a little over 20 years old and probably in good condition as you say. Especially considering, it took them 35 years to replace the original inadequately designed and deteriorated blue-background signs from the mid-1950's. They go from one extreme to the other!
Not sure if this is the proper thread to comment regarding recent NYSTA BGS' but I noticed a couple new ones erected near the Palisades Interstate Parkway (PIP) interchange (Exits 13 N-S) along I-87 North/287 West last night.
In addition to overuse of the Clearview font (numerals and all-Caps text), whatever reflectivity materials NYSTA is using on those new BGS'; it absolutely sucks in terms of night visibility.
As I mentioned in the clearview thread, Yates County also uses clearview.
That wasn't the issue I encountered with my headlights aiming at the new Thruway's BGS. The issue I had was that the white lettering was that it appears as a dark grey against the green background. It's as if the white lettering wasn't reflectorized.Not sure if this is the proper thread to comment regarding recent NYSTA BGS' but I noticed a couple new ones erected near the Palisades Interstate Parkway (PIP) interchange (Exits 13 N-S) along I-87 North/287 West last night.
In addition to overuse of the Clearview font (numerals and all-Caps text), whatever reflectivity materials NYSTA is using on those new BGS'; it absolutely sucks in terms of night visibility.
I've noticed that with some new signs in CT, at night the reflectibility is awful. When headlights shine on some of the signs with white letters on green background, the whole sign looks white. It looks bleached out from the headlights.
Did they change what's written on the signs, or are they just new style?Other than the listing of Bear Mountain as Bear Mtn. (the older BGS' spell out the word Mountain); the BGS' messages are the same as the old BGS and are the exact same size in terms of height & width.
The issue I had was that the white lettering was that it appears as a dark grey against the green background. It's as if the white lettering wasn't reflectorized.It IS dark grey lettering; that's the current NYSTA standard, luckily they don't replace signage as often as NYSDOT does.
As I mentioned in the clearview thread, Yates County also uses clearview.
Now that's random. The most obscure county in New York goes and makes itself special.
NYSTA doesn't have anything to do with the Northway, but it might be a locally provided sign.
As I mentioned in the clearview thread, Yates County also uses clearview.
There is a proof of these brown clear view signs it's actually found on the I-87 Northway in Albany county on the southbound side and in some cases clearview distance signs are found in random places from exit 15 to 24 on I-87 NY thruwayNYSTA doesn't have anything to do with the Northway, but it might be a locally provided sign.
As I mentioned in the clearview thread, Yates County also uses clearview.
There's actually Clearview scattered throughout the Empire State on all NYSDOT maintained roads, mostly because one of the contractors took it upon themselves to use Clearview instead of the FHWA alphabet. They thought they had to.
I believe the Hudson Valley heritage area sign might have been installed by the Thruway Authority as part of the Canal Corporation. All of the Erie Canal Corridor signs are in Clearview, regardless of whether they're on the Thruway or a NYSDOT road. In that instance I believe it's the Canal Corporation/Thruway Authority installing the signs as well.
The Thruway Authority has always been odd with their sign designs but they make a huge mess with Clearview. And if the new overhead signs in the Albany area are any indication, someone doesn't know how to maneuver sign legend around in GuidSIGN because the centering of markers, destinations, etc is all out of whack.
Now let me get this straight vdeane......... You're telling us that with a national standard (MUTCD Sec. 2E.05) specifying white lettering, the NYSTA goes and uses gray lettering !!! ???? You (or they) have got to be kidding! What planet are those people on????!!!!Florida's new signing for street names on both I-95 and I-75 are now using upper cases as well. So the NYSTA is not alone in that practice. Also, I have seen NYSDOT box their street names on signs like for Taft Road in Syracuse area which is not standard anywhere, or at least anywhere I have traveled to in my years.
I've noticed for the last 20 years that the Thuway's signing always seems to be a little off in various ways. For instance, in some areas they still have road names printed in all upper-case letters, a 1950's practice. It's like they're 50 years behind the times.......... Why don't they just do their signing the same as NYS DOT does, which isn't perfect either, but it is much better than NYSTA's work. Very strange.
I've noticed for the last 20 years that the Thuway's signing always seems to be a little off in various ways. For instance, in some areas they still have road names printed in all upper-case letters, a 1950's practice. It's like they're 50 years behind the times.......... Why don't they just do their signing the same as NYS DOT does, which isn't perfect either, but it is much better than NYSTA's work. Very strange.
I actually like NY's practice of putting road/street names in a box. Makes them look like route markers vs. destinations reached by the exit.
So do many agencies. NJDOT will mix route numbers and street names on a sign, as well as destinations. We have enough exits that lead to more than one road where that's necessary.
And as you can guess, I disagree with the Federal Manual's recommending not having a street name and destination on the same sign.
Vdeane, what do you mean by a hybrid? If memory serves, those signs on the New England Thruway went up in the 1980's replacing the original blue signs from the late 1950's. The legends are almost a carbon copy with no modernization, like maybe changing the street names to mixed-case.It's the same font and style as the boxed street name signs; they're just missing the box.
I actually like NY's practice of putting road/street names in a box. Makes them look like route markers vs. destinations reached by the exit.Actually, the boxing makes the street name listing resemble a street-sign blade; which may have been the intended effect.
I actually like NY's practice of putting road/street names in a box. Makes them look like route markers vs. destinations reached by the exit.Actually, the boxing makes the street name listing resemble a street-sign blade; which may have been the intended effect.
I was noticing something when I read Wikipedia's article on Lexington Avenue in NYC. That not only is the avenue 110 city blocks long, but it exceeds 5 miles in length. In fact, according to them, it is 5.5 miles in total from 131st Street to 21st Street.The avenues aren't on a strict spacing apart, unlike the streets. It's more apparent when you play around in Google Maps and really go from Hudson to East, rather than when you focus in on Midtown and notice that 5-6-7-8 all appear the same distance apart.
If that is true then, twenty NYC blocks are equivalent to one mile, thus making Penn Station and Times Square one half mile apart. In addition Pennsylvania Station is one tenth of a mile across the track layout. You would never know it as a foot pedestrian as I have walked from Radio City all the way down to Herald Square and it really did not seem that far as one mile in my neighborhood seems further.
I am though interested in what the distance is between each numbered avenue? I know all avenues (excluding Madison and Lexington for they are not part of the original 1811 street grid) are equally spaced apart. The distance between Park and both 3rd and 5th are the same as between 10th and 11th as Park is technically 4th Avenue in the 1811 grid. Lexington and Madison are half of that away from their parallel avenues and of course Broadway cuts carelessly across the grid so it has no steady point (at least below 68th Street anyway) from numbered avenues. Does anyone know the distance across town between avenues that is set by the 1811 street plan?
The avenues aren't on a strict spacing apart, unlike the streets. It's more apparent when you play around in Google Maps and really go from Hudson to East, rather than when you focus in on Midtown and notice that 5-6-7-8 all appear the same distance apart.
The bridge was built in 1940 and still exists in the 2003 NBI, but is gone in 2007. Maybe Christie sat on it.Christie wasn't Governor of NJ in 2007.
No, he was governor of NY.I guess he had to be, since the real Gov. of NY (Spitzer) was too busy being *ahem* Client #9. :)
.@NYSDOT to undertake feasibility study on connecting I-81 in Watertown to I-87 in Champlain, improving #NorthCountry access #NYSOS14https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/421002857605648384
NYSDOT's apparently going to study the feasibility of connecting I-81 to I-87:Would the connection be a reroute/extension of I-81 (I-81 north of the connector would be redesignated as I-181) or designated as either I-181 or 187?
While I disagree with the governor and NYSDOT's decision to do this, exactly why reroute I-81 from the Canadian border?
On a similar note, I have to agree with NE2 on this. Is US 11 that bad between Rouses Point and Watertown?
Wouldn't a better connection to ON-401 be a better idea?
NYSDOT's apparently going to study the feasibility of connecting I-81 to I-87:They're really studying improvements to the US 11 corridor, not a new highway or certainly I-98.Quote.@NYSDOT to undertake feasibility study on connecting I-81 in Watertown to I-87 in Champlain, improving #NorthCountry access #NYSOS14https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/421002857605648384
Wouldn't a better connection to ON-401 be a better idea?
So perhaps an interstate connection from the bridge to Cornwall over to I-87 is a more (but probably still not) feasible option? I don't cross the border enough to know if it would be worth the trouble for a Watertown to Plattsburgh traveler to take I-81, cross the border to 401, cross back at Cornwall, for this potential new interstate the rest of the way. I'm thinking US 11 wouldn't seem all that bad by comparison to 2 border crossings.
So perhaps an interstate connection from the bridge to Cornwall over to I-87 is a more (but probably still not) feasible option? I don't cross the border enough to know if it would be worth the trouble for a Watertown to Plattsburgh traveler to take I-81, cross the border to 401, cross back at Cornwall, for this potential new interstate the rest of the way. I'm thinking US 11 wouldn't seem all that bad by comparison to 2 border crossings.
If I were the border guard, I'd probably single anyone out who did that for secondary and searches. If you don't need to cross the border, and you choose to just for the fun of it, that would definitely come across as suspicious, and not really a valid reason for entering Canada. In otherwords, the border guard would likely think it is odd that you choose to subject yourself to border inspections and pay tolls twice when there is a perfectly good road that avoids that hassle and cost, so they may think you wanted to come in for another reason that you aren't telling them. At any rate, the secondary inspection and interrogations would then negate any Time savings that the freeway would offer.
Only time when crossing through Canada makes sense is when you save lots of miles (Buffalo to Detroit) or have no other option ( Alaska, Point Roberts).
If I were the border guard, I'd probably single anyone out who did that for secondary and searches. If you don't need to cross the border, and you choose to just for the fun of it, that would definitely come across as suspicious, and not really a valid reason for entering Canada. In otherwords, the border guard would likely think it is odd that you choose to subject yourself to border inspections and pay tolls twice when there is a perfectly good road that avoids that hassle and cost, so they may think you wanted to come in for another reason that you aren't telling them. At any rate, the secondary inspection and interrogations would then negate any Time savings that the freeway would offer.
Only time when crossing through Canada makes sense is when you save lots of miles (Buffalo to Detroit) or have no other option ( Alaska, Point Roberts).
If I were the border guard, I'd probably single anyone out who did that for secondary and searches. If you don't need to cross the border, and you choose to just for the fun of it, that would definitely come across as suspicious, and not really a valid reason for entering Canada. In otherwords, the border guard would likely think it is odd that you choose to subject yourself to border inspections and pay tolls twice when there is a perfectly good road that avoids that hassle and cost, so they may think you wanted to come in for another reason that you aren't telling them. At any rate, the secondary inspection and interrogations would then negate any Time savings that the freeway would offer.
Only time when crossing through Canada makes sense is when you save lots of miles (Buffalo to Detroit) or have no other option ( Alaska, Point Roberts).
You're coming from the wrong direction anyway (DC). Those of us in the northern tier of states have a different view of the border. Many of us would like border patrol to feck off and go away. Seriously, there's no point to having customs or border patrol between two pretty much equal (in culture and standard of living) countries.
^^ That's why the best answer is always "tourism". Never ever tell the border guards anything more, and never tell them anything more than they ask. The US customs folks don't need to know every little detail of where you've been in Canada (I find them far more obnoxious than the Canadian ones). My grandmother made the mistake of opening her mouth at the Ambassador Bridge once (early 1970s) and got a secondary. It was over dishes bought in Windsor. The customs official was oblivious up until she opened her mouth.
Does Canada stamp US passports now? They didn't used to. In the absence of a physical stamp, there is no way to tell that a trip is for transit purposes only unless the Canadian and US immigration authorities are sharing entry data in real time. Are they?
Does Canada stamp US passports now? They didn't used to. In the absence of a physical stamp, there is no way to tell that a trip is for transit purposes only unless the Canadian and US immigration authorities are sharing entry data in real time. Are they?They are. It's part of the Beyond the Border initiative.
Does Canada stamp US passports now? They didn't used to. In the absence of a physical stamp, there is no way to tell that a trip is for transit purposes only unless the Canadian and US immigration authorities are sharing entry data in real time. Are they?They are. It's part of the Beyond the Border initiative.
But I'm always asked purpose of trip, and if I said passing through from Watertown to Cornwall, I would certainly expect to be waved into secondary.
Passport stamping is a random event. Never in primary, randomly in secondary, typically via air. They do have a pilot program to swap data....entry into Canada sent to US as exit from US, and vice versa. Pilot program in effect at Niagara crossings for now, but eventually they will be able to see the time stamp on the records when they scan your ID.
All electronic. It was that or set up exit booths, since the US wants to track who's leaving the country. I was under the impression that it was supposed to rollout permanently on Jan 1, but now I can't find anything saying they went past the pilot state.Does Canada stamp US passports now? They didn't used to. In the absence of a physical stamp, there is no way to tell that a trip is for transit purposes only unless the Canadian and US immigration authorities are sharing entry data in real time. Are they?They are. It's part of the Beyond the Border initiative.
Since when? I got no stamp crossing at the Blue Water Bridge last year.
While I disagree with the governor and NYSDOT's decision to do this, exactly why reroute I-81 from the Canadian border?
On a similar note, I have to agree with NE2 on this. Is US 11 that bad between Rouses Point and Watertown?
I'd prefer to see it as I-81, or perhaps I-98. But my guess is that it will be a long time before this feasibility study would lead to anything. How long has it taken to get I-86 from expressway to what we have so far? 150 or so miles of brand new interstate seems much more expensive.
There are a few minor projects coming along on the Quickway as well; the ones I know of being the Neversink River Bridge (under construction), "exit 111" (and a few others like it) (not yet designed as far as I know), exit 122 (status unknown), and whatever issue is preventing designation between Windsor and Deposit. Exit 131 is also on the I-86 upgrade banner, but I suspect that project is pure traffic management since the existing interchange looks fine.
Not sure why the 10 mile segment in Orange County with covered signs isn't designated yet; maybe NYSDOT doesn't want to have three I-86 segments?
I don't cross the border enough to know if it would be worth the trouble for a Watertown to Plattsburgh traveler to take I-81, cross the border to 401, cross back at Cornwall, for this potential new interstate the rest of the way.
The avenues aren't on a strict spacing apart, unlike the streets. It's more apparent when you play around in Google Maps and really go from Hudson to East, rather than when you focus in on Midtown and notice that 5-6-7-8 all appear the same distance apart.
Actually, if you look really closely, the streets aren't a strict spacing apart, either. The width of private property between streets is constant (210 feet), but since the width of the streets themselves is not, the centerline to centerline distance between blocks varies. Usually it's 260 feet but when you have a major cross street (23rd, 34th, etc.) it goes up to about 280 feet. So, 20 blocks = 1 mile is not precisely true from a surveying perspective, but it's more than close enough for day to day purposes (off by at most 1%).
US 11 traffic varies by what's going on with the colleges. Could be either nothing or long lines of cars depending on the day. Gouverneur and Canton and never fun either (neither is Potsdam, but I never had the experience of driving straight through it).I don't cross the border enough to know if it would be worth the trouble for a Watertown to Plattsburgh traveler to take I-81, cross the border to 401, cross back at Cornwall, for this potential new interstate the rest of the way.
Even if there were zero time delay to crossing the border, it still wouldn't be worth it. US 11 in the north country is a fairly quick moving road. Going up to ON 401 and then back into the US at Cornwall adds about 35 miles compared to just taking US 11 and, according to Google, also adds about 20 minutes.
NYSDOT's apparently going to study the feasibility of connecting I-81 to I-87:They're really studying improvements to the US 11 corridor, not a new highway or certainly I-98.Quote.@NYSDOT to undertake feasibility study on connecting I-81 in Watertown to I-87 in Champlain, improving #NorthCountry access #NYSOS14https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/421002857605648384
The Associated Press
Rekindled I-98 idea draws cheers from officials
WATERTOWN – Officials in northern New York say they’re encouraged that the state plans to look into the feasibility of building an interstate highway across the North Country.
Construction of a so-called “Rooftop Highway” that would be officially known as Interstate 98 has been discussed for years.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo mentioned the I-98 idea during his State of the State speech this week. He’s proposing to have state transportation officials re-examine the feasibility of building the Rooftop Highway.
Supporters say building a 140-mile highway between Watertown and the Canadian border at Champlain would boost the region’s economy.
Opponents say an interstate would have the opposite effect by diverting traffic away from local communities. They say money should be spent to improve Route 11, the main east-west road spanning the North Country.
On April 30, 1937, Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia renamed the westerly approach to the Triborough Bridge the Major William F. Deegan Boulevard.
In other news,
http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/70672/Page+010+++Manhattan++Bronx+++Map+No++2/New+York+City+1949+Five+Boroughs+Street+Atlas/New+York/
I've maintained for years that I saw a map with "Deegan Blvd." on it in the place that I-87 now occupies in NYC. This map finally proves me correct.
Re: the destinations shown, I'm not familiar with this location but I note on the map that Elmira seems to be a larger city than Corning, so you might have a point. All through these forums there is controversy about whatever destinations are displayed. There is plenty of lack of consistency and no apparent logic in many locations nationwide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/nyregion/a-colossal-bridge-will-rise-across-the-hudson.html?hp&_r=0
Interesting article in the Times on the New Tappan Zee.
The bridge will also have all-electronic toll collection, eliminating backups at tollbooths.
Something intriguing in photo #5: it appears the bridge was originally tolled in both directions! That I did not know! Looking at Historic Aerials it seems the tolls switched to one way sometime between 1965 and 1974.Surprised you didn't know that. No NJ crossings started out as one-way tolling, on any river.
Poking around it appears this was the case for all Hudson River crossings back in the day. Huh.
QuoteThe bridge will also have all-electronic toll collection, eliminating backups at tollbooths.
QuoteThe bridge will also have all-electronic toll collection, eliminating backups at tollbooths.
And those that don't have EZPass?
No NJ crossings started out as one-way tolling, on any river.The Ellis/Liberty Island ferries :bigass:
Bill by mail / photo tolling.QuoteThe bridge will also have all-electronic toll collection, eliminating backups at tollbooths.
And those that don't have EZPass?
Something intriguing in photo #5: it appears the bridge was originally tolled in both directions! That I did not know! Looking at Historic Aerials it seems the tolls switched to one way sometime between 1965 and 1974.Also the case with all Thruway barriers except the Grand Island bridges.
Poking around it appears this was the case for all Hudson River crossings back in the day. Huh.
Surprised you didn't know that. No NJ crossings started out as one-way tolling, on any river.
Also the case with all Thruway barriers except the Grand Island bridges.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/nyregion/a-colossal-bridge-will-rise-across-the-hudson.html?hp&_r=0
Interesting article in the Times on the New Tappan Zee.
I haven't seen any indication of returning to two-way tolling. Then again, there are so many agencies up here that they would all have to agree to do it, all at once in a coordinated effort, to prevent mass shunpiking. So that's why.Surprised you didn't know that. No NJ crossings started out as one-way tolling, on any river.Also the case with all Thruway barriers except the Grand Island bridges.
All Maryland toll crossings and its one toll road (at the time) were two-way tolls up to the early 1990's, when then-Gov. William Donald Schaefer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer) ordered the MdTA to convert most of them to one-way tolls (the three crossings of the Baltimore Harbor remained (and remain) two-way tolls because there was concern that one-way tolling would result in excessive shunpiking through downtown Baltimore in the tolled direction).
I understand that Schaefer was especially irritated at the queues crossing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (U.S. 50/U.S. 301) westbound to pay the toll on his way back from summer weekends spent in Ocean City (Md.).
With cashless/open road tolling, I hope that toll authorities return to two-way toll collection.
The announcement was bold, if somewhat quixotic: Mayor Bill de Blasio, whose campaign was focused on reforming the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk practices, would commit his administration to reducing traffic deaths “literally” to zero.
In his administration’s first 40 days, that pledge translated into a series of ticket blitzes against drivers – and, in unusually large numbers, jaywalkers.
Jaywalking tickets grew nearly eightfold this year, despite the mayor’s insistence that his plan for safer streets did not include singling out pedestrians. Through Feb. 9, there were 215 jaywalking summonses issued, compared with 27 over the same period last year; tickets issued to drivers were down slightly.
Noticed new Welcome to NY signs on I-81 at the PA/NY line this weekend -- was not expecting it, so sorry no pictures. Haven't seen anything online about the switch, and the usual green sign was on the US-15 state line signs a week ago (3/14/14).
The new sign consists of a primary welcome sign, followed by three more I Love NY signs, each with a different message (reminded me a bit of the NJ-style select a toll lane concept), I believe they were "discover" "tour" and "taste" or something like that, followed by another I Love NY Welcome Center sign for the gateway rest area. Just a head's up for anyone in the area.
Not all that important but Suffolk County finally posted CR 56 shields on Victory Avenue in Brookhaven. It's been signed like that on paper for a while but I never saw posted shields for as long as I've been aware.
While I'm not 100% sure, it looks like the construction at the I-87/I-95 interchange in the Bronx is largely done. I noticed several new signs up near the south (west) end of the Cross Bronx Expressway (I-95/US Route 1) today. Amazingly, the bus I was on didn't experience a single slowdown or backup after 1 pm on that stretch today, from the interchanges of I-278 to I-87. That almost never happens!New York forgot US 9.
(http://i.imgur.com/X6GoELg.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/X6GoELg.jpg)Is it me or is something a tad odd regarding the font in that US 1 shield?
Not all that important but Suffolk County finally posted CR 56 shields on Victory Avenue in Brookhaven. It's been signed like that on paper for a while but I never saw posted shields for as long as I've been aware.
Town Line Road in Hauppauge was only signed as Suffolk CR 76 on paper for years, then new county route shields started being posted about 10 years ago. This wouldn't be a first for Suffolk County then.
US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system, but on the other hand, no one's really taking that exit to follow US 9. They're either heading into a Manhattan/Bronx neighborhood or taking a freeway like the Deegan or Henry Hudson to another exit.
Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
179th (it's even signed, albeit with an erroneous NY 9 shield), though upon further thinking, I think Alps means the southbound I-95 sign for exit 1A, since only the northbound 1A services US 9 (though the northbound 1A signs doesn't mention US 9 either until after the ramp leaves I-95).I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
181st Street, then.
179th (it's even signed, albeit with an erroneous NY 9 shield), though upon further thinking, I think Alps means the southbound I-95 sign for exit 1A, since only the northbound 1A services US 9 (though the northbound 1A signs doesn't mention US 9 either until after the ramp leaves I-95).I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
181st Street, then.
179th (it's even signed, albeit with an erroneous NY 9 shield), though upon further thinking, I think Alps means the southbound I-95 sign for exit 1A, since only the northbound 1A services US 9 (though the northbound 1A signs doesn't mention US 9 either until after the ramp leaves I-95).I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
181st Street, then.
No, 181st. As you say, we're talking about the southbound exit 1A (or 1); heck, 181st is even mentioned on the signage shown upthread.
1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway.
It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.
I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.
181st Street, then.
What I've never understood is while on I-95 NB, the BGS for Exit 1(A) has always had a NY 9A shield but never a US 9 shield. There is a small secondary sign on the GWB that says US 9 use Exit 1A. The older version of the sign only had a NY 9A shield as well. How does a SR get priority billing on a BGS over a US route?
What I've never understood is while on I-95 NB, the BGS for Exit 1(A) has always had a NY 9A shield but never a US 9 shield. There is a small secondary sign on the GWB that says US 9 use Exit 1A. The older version of the sign only had a NY 9A shield as well. How does a SR get priority billing on a BGS over a US route?
-NYSDOT prefers to forget that US 220 technically enters NY
What about Interstate 508?
781I.
Reference markers have since been installed, along with mileposts (which are using Series C numbers despite there being plenty of room for Series D!)
Not all that important but Suffolk County finally posted CR 56 shields on Victory Avenue in Brookhaven. It's been signed like that on paper for a while but I never saw posted shields for as long as I've been aware.I actually saw those back in November 2013 around Horse Block Road.
On another topic, did anybody notice that on NY 22, there are no signs telling you when you've entered either NYC or Mount Vernon?
Makes me wonder if NY 22 is state or city maintained inside the Bronx. The old sign on US 1 was definitely a state job, but that's 1, not 22, and maintenance can change over time. Both NYC and NYS would have reason to put up an "Entering New York" or "Bronx" sign.Not all that important but Suffolk County finally posted CR 56 shields on Victory Avenue in Brookhaven. It's been signed like that on paper for a while but I never saw posted shields for as long as I've been aware.I actually saw those back in November 2013 around Horse Block Road.
On another topic, did anybody notice that on NY 22, there are no signs telling you when you've entered either NYC or Mount Vernon?
Makes me wonder if NY 22 is state or city maintained inside the Bronx.
Funny, because I always thought street name signs and "NYC LAW: No Turn On Red" signs were reasonable substitutes. I certainly remember there being no NYC Border signage on the L.I.E. I didn't see those until the mid-1970's and until that time I though the New York City-Nassau County line stretched as far out as the New Hyde Park Road interchange (Hey, I was a little kid back then. Don't judge me).On another topic, did anybody notice that on NY 22, there are no signs telling you when you've entered either NYC or Mount Vernon?
No, but it doesn't surprise me. There is no signage when you enter Queens on Northern Boulevard (NY 25A), and there's no signage entering either Queens or Nassau on Union Turnpike (NY 25C). In fact, for a while, there was no signage when you entered Queens on the Long Island Expressway (I-495).
Google Maps seems to put the Queens/Nassau County border in the middle of Exit 32 for I-495 (L.I.E.).
Yeah, just east of where 260th Street and Hewlett Street end at the service roads, around where the original westbound off-ramp and eastbound on-ramp were before they were set further away from the Little Neck Parkway bridge.
speaking of....LI & Queens have been replacing glorious old signs with half-baked new ones. Is this the same on Staten Island? Any non-reflective button copy left?
STOCKHOLM – Across this Scandinavian capital of graceful cyclists and speed-regulating shrubbery, cabbies who drive Volvos and pedestrians who look over their shoulders before jaywalking, a simple figure rules:
Zero. It is the number of people permitted to die in Swedish traffic, according to national law.
For nearly two decades, every rising barrier and reduced speed limit has been tailored to this seemingly impossible goal, of eradicating traffic deaths and serious injuries, and its guiding premise: Every inch of street space must anticipate, and accommodate, human error.
While roadway deaths have not been eliminated, the country’s rate of fatalities has been whittled down to an international low. Now its approach faces perhaps its stiffest test: the streets of New York City.
In a bid to reverse generations of roadway unruliness, Mayor Bill de Blasio has put the strategy, known as Vision Zero, at the forefront of his transportation and policing agendas, targeting 2024 as the first year with no traffic deaths.
The result: a hump every 20 meters in some neighborhoods, and some very slow trips home.
A veteran taxi driver, Nabil Bellar, 42, said he had never been asked to speed up.
“They say, ‘I have time, you don’t need to stress,’ ” he said of his typical passenger, as he waited outside Stockholm Central Station.
Retime traffic signals so drivers don't hit a red light every other block.
Traffic lights in NYC on main streets are timed in such a way that you either win or lose. If you hit it right, you can get a succession of green lights. I once got 9 greens in a row going 40 mph on Queens Blvd years ago. But if you hit it wrong, you get many reds like the poster said above.That's confusing. NYC = Manhattan. You meant to say "Outer Boroughs."
speaking of....LI & Queens have been replacing glorious old signs with half-baked new ones. Is this the same on Staten Island? Any non-reflective button copy left?
This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.610057,-74.117009,3a,52.5y,106.05h,98.17t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sy76nyln2Qdaxgy-_U-WOkQ!2e0) ("Todt Hill Rd →") is still standing as of last week. So there's one.
This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.560917,-74.199199,3a,26.4y,208.64h,92.72t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHDzFVRu4QaMWmmqMerZ6Nw!2e0) on the West Shore is also still kicking last I checked.
As for Brooklyn, yep, the BQE still has a bunch through downtown in both directions.
Driving in Harlem I got all the greens and was going faster than the FDR.
I remember on the BELT EB, exit 19 had old signs that used to have an interstate shield covered with NY-878 shields. Was interstate was it? Still there or gone?
Manhattan avenues have well-timed signals, but they are the exception, not the rule as far as NYC goes. It is easy to coordinate them since they are one-way.
This right here is why this same concept will not work in New York. New Yorkers are the last people in the world to relax and slow down, and attempts to get people to do so only enrage them.
I have seen the Exit 19 signs. No greenout. The NY shield is just slapped right over the old I-78 shield. One hopes for an errant gust of wind.I remember on the BELT EB, exit 19 had old signs that used to have an interstate shield covered with NY-878 shields. Was interstate was it? Still there or gone?
There is still some button copy in that area but I don't know of any signs still around with an interstate shield greened out. In that spot I suspect it would have been I-78.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/alternativesAbsolutely NO to the street-level alternatives!!
I-81 teardown...but not really. Thoughts?
Based on your pictures (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/belt/e.html) it looks like there is a defined shadow where the I-78 shield once was, but that it was removed when the NY 878 shield was put up. So, a gust of wind wouldn't reveal anything other than more of the shadow.
You got me, though - I never noticed that!
At any rate, there should be at least one sign still standing that exhibits this trait (the "right lane" advance sign), but most are gone.
You are basically echoing, with a different connotation, what my coworkers told me, i.e. "the only people around here who want it torn down are people at SU".
As for downtown access, yes, the number of traffic signals those cars have to pass through wouldn't change, but the number of cars passing through them would.
I don't know enough to have a strong opinion about the I-81 teardown option. But, wouldn't I-81 be rerouted onto current I-481 in such a case, hopefully causing a majority of the traffic that passes through downtown but does not stop would to bypass downtown completely?
Can Cuomo make NYSDOT and NYSTA share the same sets of exit numbers? :pan:He may be the most powerful man in the state, but he's still a mere mortal.
Your colleagues are under the opinion that the majority of local folks want the viaduct to remain, but what I'm hearing from many city officials is the opposite. I've also noted that a lot of the support for retaining the viaduct is coming from adjacent towns. Whether a majority of the residents of Syracuse itself want the teardown or not is a reality that is hard to pinpoint.
Sorry if this is a dumb question or doesn't belong in this thread, but why is there a NYSDOT, NYCDOT, and NYSTA? Living in CT government and administrative divisions are relatively simple because we're a small state, so I'm curious how a big state like our neighbor to the west has these different entities and how/why they came to be. Thanks.
Sorry if this is a dumb question or doesn't belong in this thread, but why is there a NYSDOT, NYCDOT, and NYSTA? Living in CT government and administrative divisions are relatively simple because we're a small state, so I'm curious how a big state like our neighbor to the west has these different entities and how/why they came to be. Thanks.
*NYSDOT: State highways
*NYSTA: NY Thruway system and occasional free roads (I-84, I-287)
*NYSBA: Hudson River toll bridges in-state
*NYCDOT: City highways, including state routes in city limits
*MTA: City toll bridges
*PANYNJ: NY-NJ crossings (toll)
*NYPAJIBC: NY-PA crossings (free)
*NFBC: Niagara Falls crossings (toll)
*Other random bridge agencies (Peace Bridge, each of the St. Lawrence bridges)
I'm sure there are more.
“O.K. You sure you want to do this? Can you use this? Let me give you some background. You follow?”
Actually, given the tale that Barton Silverman was about to tell, I most definitely would not follow.
He is best known as a sports photographer whose images have long graced the pages of The New York Times. But in 1962, he was a Brooklyn kid working his way through college as a lab assistant at the paper. It was the kind of job in which an ambitious would-be photographer had to find his own assignments and make his own breaks.
And almost fall off the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge in the process.
He was 19 and living in Bensonhurst with his mother, Stella. An employment agency’s classified ad for a lab assistant caught his attention.
*NYSDOT: State highways
*NYSTA: NY Thruway system and occasional free roads (I-84, I-287)
*NYSBA: Hudson River toll bridges in-state
*NYCDOT: City highways, including state routes in city limits
*MTA: City toll bridges
*PANYNJ: NY-NJ crossings (toll)
*NYPAJIBC: NY-PA crossings (free)
*NFBC: Niagara Falls crossings (toll)
*Other random bridge agencies (Peace Bridge, each of the St. Lawrence bridges)
I'm sure there are more.
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me. The older clearview on the other hand...
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me. The older clearview on the other hand...
Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me. The older clearview on the other hand...
Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.
I actually had trouble reading some of the newer Clearview signs on the Thruway near Buffalo. There is something majorly wrong with them. It was dark, and the signs were not illuminated, just lit by headlights. The retroreflection made the signs just appear like one bright green blur, and you couldn't read the lettering on them. It wasn't until you were practically below them that the angle was such that you could make out the legend for a split second before driving under it. Luckily I knew exactly where I was going and didn't actually need to read the signs, but still, that was very disconcerting to say the least.
I-84, I-287, and the canal system were transferred to the Thruway in the 90s to continue taking tolls. I-84 was transferred back when the downtown Buffalo barriers went away. Region 8 still isn't happy about that one. They close I-84 every time it snows because they don't want to do more snow removal.
Adding the Peace Bridge to the other Niagara bridges feels weird to me, especially since the other three are clustered near the falls and it's a ways upriver.
If NYSDOT and NYSTA actually merged, I suspect you'd have more lower-level people cut than upper. When the soft merge between Region 1 and Main Office happened (moved into the same building and share many administrative functions, but retaining a separate agency code and layoff unit and authoritative relationship between the two, basically giving Main Office all the benefits of a merger but none of the drawbacks), there was a LOT of attrition of titles. Region 1 is now the smallest region and in many ways short staffed. Planning, for example, is three full time people and one part timer. The other regions all have in excess of 7. What used to be Region 1's IT and HR staff is now gone and we have to deal with the Kingdoms in Main Office that are difficult to contact and never get anything done on time. All the higher-ups continue on as usual, though. Did I mention that the state built a brand-new building for Region 1 just two years before?
There's now talk of putting the Thruway in the same building as DOT. That's going to be very, very interesting, as the Thruway people are better paid than DOT for the exact same job (better union). Of course, this would all be housed in a new building at Thruway headquarters in the middle of nowhere, rather than in the wonderfully-located DOT building or the vacant state campus.
Pretty sure the tolls would continue as always. As far as I know, the Thruway doesn't even have plans to expand the use of E-ZPass on the ticket system.
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me. The older clearview on the other hand...
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me. The older clearview on the other hand...
Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.
I actually had trouble reading some of the newer Clearview signs on the Thruway near Buffalo. There is something majorly wrong with them. It was dark, and the signs were not illuminated, just lit by headlights. The retroreflection made the signs just appear like one bright green blur, and you couldn't read the lettering on them. It wasn't until you were practically below them that the angle was such that you could make out the legend for a split second before driving under it. Luckily I knew exactly where I was going and didn't actually need to read the signs, but still, that was very disconcerting to say the least.
I-84, I-287, and the canal system were transferred to the Thruway in the 90s to continue taking tolls. I-84 was transferred back when the downtown Buffalo barriers went away. Region 8 still isn't happy about that one. They close I-84 every time it snows because they don't want to do more snow removal.
Adding the Peace Bridge to the other Niagara bridges feels weird to me, especially since the other three are clustered near the falls and it's a ways upriver.
If NYSDOT and NYSTA actually merged, I suspect you'd have more lower-level people cut than upper. When the soft merge between Region 1 and Main Office happened (moved into the same building and share many administrative functions, but retaining a separate agency code and layoff unit and authoritative relationship between the two, basically giving Main Office all the benefits of a merger but none of the drawbacks), there was a LOT of attrition of titles. Region 1 is now the smallest region and in many ways short staffed. Planning, for example, is three full time people and one part timer. The other regions all have in excess of 7. What used to be Region 1's IT and HR staff is now gone and we have to deal with the Kingdoms in Main Office that are difficult to contact and never get anything done on time. All the higher-ups continue on as usual, though. Did I mention that the state built a brand-new building for Region 1 just two years before?
There's now talk of putting the Thruway in the same building as DOT. That's going to be very, very interesting, as the Thruway people are better paid than DOT for the exact same job (better union). Of course, this would all be housed in a new building at Thruway headquarters in the middle of nowhere, rather than in the wonderfully-located DOT building or the vacant state campus.
Pretty sure the tolls would continue as always. As far as I know, the Thruway doesn't even have plans to expand the use of E-ZPass on the ticket system.
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me. The older clearview on the other hand...
Why on earth doesn't the Thruway go to AET? The one-time buyout of contract people would cost much less than perpetually adding future pension/health care obligations to its books.
Civil servant unions in New York run the state. It's almost to the point where the main destination of toll revenue is the salaries of those involved in toll collection. The minute a politician suggests AET, the CSEA will make sure they don't serve another term. It's also part of the reason why there are so many redundant authorities, not just in transportation.
Not gonna happen in the (Union) Empire State...
I actually had trouble reading some of the newer Clearview signs on the Thruway near Buffalo. ... The retroreflection made the signs just appear like one bright green blur, and you couldn't read the lettering on them.
Not gonna happen in the (Union) Empire State...They said the same thing for over a decade about the Massachusetts Turnpike - no AET ever. However, that has since changed with the November 2009 MassDOT "merger". At present, the MassPike and Boston Harbor tunnels are now scheduled to convert to AET sometime in 2016. Of course, that doesn't mean that the toll taker unions won't try to block AET at the last minute. However, so far, there's been no indications they plan to seriously fight AET implementation.
Not gonna happen in the (Union) Empire State...They said the same thing for over a decade about the Massachusetts Turnpike - no AET ever. However, that has since changed with the November 2009 MassDOT "merger". At present, the MassPike and Boston Harbor tunnels are now scheduled to convert to AET sometime in 2016. Of course, that doesn't mean that the toll taker unions won't try to block AET at the last minute. However, so far, there's been no indications they plan to seriously fight AET implementation.
Admittedly, it took legislation filed by the Governor to eliminate the Turnpike Authority and create the present MassDOT, but the Legislature went along with it. If theUnionCommonwealth of Massachusetts can manage that, I'd say there's hope for New York State.
I just hope it doesn't take the kind of crash that gave Connecticut a distaste for toll booths for New York to wake up and join the 21st century.
As vocal as the anti-toll lobby in Connecticut was following the 1983 Stratford toll plaza crash, the reason the tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike were eliminated was far simpler. IIRC, the State used Federal funds to rebuild the Mianis River Bridge that had collapsed earlier that year. Part of the Federal legislation authorizing that funding required Connecticut to permanently remove tolls from the Turnpike.
Of course, stating "We're going to remove tolls as the result of a fatal crash" makes the pols look much better, and also makes it more likely the media will actually cover the story, then "The Feds are making us remove tolls" does.
As vocal as the anti-toll lobby in Connecticut was following the 1983 Stratford toll plaza crash, the reason the tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike were eliminated was far simpler. IIRC, the State used Federal funds to rebuild the Mianis River Bridge that had collapsed earlier that year. Part of the Federal legislation authorizing that funding required Connecticut to permanently remove tolls from the Turnpike.
Of course, stating "We're going to remove tolls as the result of a fatal crash" makes the pols look much better, and also makes it more likely the media will actually cover the story, then "The Feds are making us remove tolls" does.
That can't be the only reason. Tolls were also removed from the Merritt and from a few bridges near Hartford at about the same time.
Here's a page that seems to logically explain it. (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0122.htm)
Getting slightly back on topic, were any of the downstate New York parkways ever tolled?
Getting slightly back on topic, were any of the downstate New York parkways ever tolled?
Yes. Hutchison River, Southern State, and the Robert Moses Causeway were tolled at one point. I think the Saw Mill may have been, but I'm not certain.
I don't know much about the Buffalo signs. Of course, both NYSDOT and NYSTA have been known to erect old-standard signs that simply had their contract/project delayed. When I think of their modern clearview, I typically think of this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.090804,-73.928697,3a,75y,315.59h,85.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sDdgTgrbvDm5ypiHHPszAZg!2e0Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me. The older clearview on the other hand...
Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.
I don't know much about the Buffalo signs. Of course, both NYSDOT and NYSTA have been known to erect old-standard signs that simply had their contract/project delayed. When I think of their modern clearview, I typically think of this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.090804,-73.928697,3a,75y,315.59h,85.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sDdgTgrbvDm5ypiHHPszAZg!2e0Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me. The older clearview on the other hand...
Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.
I've said before that I'm glad Kentucky's state employees aren't unionized. I don't think a union would have too much success in getting much accomplished, since budget decisions such as pay increases are proposed by the governor and enacted by the legislature. Even if a union negotiated a raise, the legislature could refuse to fund it.That's definitely different than how it works in NY. Here, pay is a contract item negotiated between the union and the governor. If the budget from the legislature/governor can't be met with the existing pay rate, a mass layoff happens (or a new contract, but there are enough senior people who would sooner vote themselves a pay raise than keep less senior workers employed, so a new contract is not likely to happen again like it did in 2011).
I've said before that I'm glad Kentucky's state employees aren't unionized. I don't think a union would have too much success in getting much accomplished, since budget decisions such as pay increases are proposed by the governor and enacted by the legislature. Even if a union negotiated a raise, the legislature could refuse to fund it.That's definitely different than how it works in NY. Here, pay is a contract item negotiated between the union and the governor. If the budget from the legislature/governor can't be met with the existing pay rate, a mass layoff happens (or a new contract, but there are enough senior people who would sooner vote themselves a pay raise than keep less senior workers employed, so a new contract is not likely to happen again like it did in 2011).
To clarify a few misconceptions:
C.L.: The days of civil service unions running N.Y.S. are long gone, unless you consider having a choice of accepting 0%-0%-0% + 9 days' furlough + a 20% increase in health insurance contributions + yearly increases in taxes or losing your job a good deal. When you have a governor that has no competition as far as the eye can see, he can dictate his terms.
Val: There aren't any mass layoffs when contracts expire. You just continue under the existing terms, and then back-date any adjustments whenever it's settled. (usually 12-18 months) You'll find out first hand next April.
Duke: The public doesn't support us one bit, in part fuelled by the ignorance of the paper and other peoples' comments. The perception amongst anyone who isn't a state employee is that we're underworked, overpaid and have golden benefits, all at their expense, while they have much less themselves.
http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/crossing-info/e-zpass
Niagara Falls Bridge Commission to accept E-ZPass starting August 11, 2014. At Lewiston-Queenston and Rainbow Bridges, E-ZPass will read first, only if no E-ZPass is read will it look for a Nexus Toll account or Express Pass. On the Whirlpool Bridge, Nexus Toll accounts will be debited first (since it is required to scan the card to get onto the bridge), and if the Nexus card doesn't have a NFBC toll account established, or if there is a toll account without sufficient fare, then E-ZPass will be charged.
In other big NFBC news, the Canada-bound Whirlpool Bridge will be completely closed for several weeks in September and October, while they expand the Canadian Plaza to 2 lanes. Posted detour is via the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge, which will have its Nexus hours changed to match those of the closed Whirlpool Bridge. They already successfully reconfigured the lanes to allow those with Nexus cards to bypass the regular lane queues by using the truck lane.
More info: http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/news-links2/news-links/389-auto-generate-from-title
http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/crossing-info/e-zpass
Niagara Falls Bridge Commission to accept E-ZPass starting August 11, 2014. At Lewiston-Queenston and Rainbow Bridges, E-ZPass will read first, only if no E-ZPass is read will it look for a Nexus Toll account or Express Pass. On the Whirlpool Bridge, Nexus Toll accounts will be debited first (since it is required to scan the card to get onto the bridge), and if the Nexus card doesn't have a NFBC toll account established, or if there is a toll account without sufficient fare, then E-ZPass will be charged.
In other big NFBC news, the Canada-bound Whirlpool Bridge will be completely closed for several weeks in September and October, while they expand the Canadian Plaza to 2 lanes. Posted detour is via the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge, which will have its Nexus hours changed to match those of the closed Whirlpool Bridge. They already successfully reconfigured the lanes to allow those with Nexus cards to bypass the regular lane queues by using the truck lane.
More info: http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/news-links2/news-links/389-auto-generate-from-title
About time. Won't stop me from detouring to the Peace Bridge to avoid the waits, but it'll certainly be nice for my weekend jaunts to Niagara Falls, as we could use the Rainbow Bridge without cash.
http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/crossing-info/e-zpass
Niagara Falls Bridge Commission to accept E-ZPass starting August 11, 2014. At Lewiston-Queenston and Rainbow Bridges, E-ZPass will read first, only if no E-ZPass is read will it look for a Nexus Toll account or Express Pass. On the Whirlpool Bridge, Nexus Toll accounts will be debited first (since it is required to scan the card to get onto the bridge), and if the Nexus card doesn't have a NFBC toll account established, or if there is a toll account without sufficient fare, then E-ZPass will be charged.
In other big NFBC news, the Canada-bound Whirlpool Bridge will be completely closed for several weeks in September and October, while they expand the Canadian Plaza to 2 lanes. Posted detour is via the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge, which will have its Nexus hours changed to match those of the closed Whirlpool Bridge. They already successfully reconfigured the lanes to allow those with Nexus cards to bypass the regular lane queues by using the truck lane.
More info: http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/news-links2/news-links/389-auto-generate-from-title
About time. Won't stop me from detouring to the Peace Bridge to avoid the waits, but it'll certainly be nice for my weekend jaunts to Niagara Falls, as we could use the Rainbow Bridge without cash.
Before I had Nexus, I would usually do the Peace Bridge into Canada because it was annoying to have to pay cash at the other crossings. Coming back, I would take whatever was convenient. NFBC website has wait times for all bridges, so if you have a Smartphone (with a data plan for the other country), you can check wait times as you approach.
Is it just me, or are the signs in the top plans in FHWA font? I guess I was right about the Thruway dropping Clearview.
Is it just me, or are the signs in the top plans in FHWA font? I guess I was right about the Thruway dropping Clearview.
This contract is D214331. Looking at the plans, here is what I see:
* Sheets 4-6 have sign sketches, all of which show the signs with Clearview. Note 2 (all sheets) says that the new sign panels will be furnished by the Thruway Authority. (Are the originals already Clearview?)
* Sheet 12 has a schedule table for signs that are to be relocated. The signs shown in the accompanying sketches all use Series E Modified.
The Thruway may very well be getting ready to dump Clearview, but I don't think that conclusion can be reached solely on the basis of this plans set. Could they be treading water until FHWA actually pulls the trigger on revocation of the Clearview interim approval?
The rest area plans are pretty interesting in that regard. "Text Stop" (formerly known as service/parking area) signs installed within the past couple years are all-Clearview. The signs specified in the contract are E Modified. Again, it doesn't mean anything, but it certainly raises an eyebrow.If those signs are similar to ones I've seen along I-684; clearly the fabricator screwed up in using Clearview. Since the lettering for those signs are in ALL CAPS; Clearview is not supposed to be used at all. Yes, I'm aware that many agencies ignore that FHWA tid-bit; but such restrictions still exist nonetheless.
The rest area plans are pretty interesting in that regard. "Text Stop" (formerly known as service/parking area) signs installed within the past couple years are all-Clearview. The signs specified in the contract are E Modified. Again, it doesn't mean anything, but it certainly raises an eyebrow.If those signs are similar to ones I've seen along I-684; clearly the fabricator screwed up in using Clearview. Since the lettering for those signs are in ALL CAPS; Clearview is not supposed to be used at all. Yes, I'm aware that many agencies ignore that FHWA tid-bit; but such restrictions still exist nonetheless.
Is it just me, or are the signs in the top plans in FHWA font? I guess I was right about the Thruway dropping Clearview.
This contract is D214331. Looking at the plans, here is what I see:
* Sheets 4-6 have sign sketches, all of which show the signs with Clearview. Note 2 (all sheets) says that the new sign panels will be furnished by the Thruway Authority. (Are the originals already Clearview?)
* Sheet 12 has a schedule table for signs that are to be relocated. The signs shown in the accompanying sketches all use Series E Modified.
The Thruway may very well be getting ready to dump Clearview, but I don't think that conclusion can be reached solely on the basis of this plans set. Could they be treading water until FHWA actually pulls the trigger on revocation of the Clearview interim approval?
Speaking of plans...
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262671
D262671 will replace a section of the Robert Moses Parkway with a new "Riverway"
Uh oh. Given NYSDOT's pure love of roundabouts, there are many more coming I'm sure. :no:
Very good point. I have family in WNY (in Olean) and those types of intersections are not as prolific as in eastern NY around Albany - where they seem to be a dime a dozen :-D - the NY 67 corridor with something like 5 or 6 in a row comes to mind ;)
Ehm... that article is talking about the southern section, above the falls.
Ehm... that article is talking about the southern section, above the falls.
There are some documents in there pertaining to the northern section too.
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?
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.
While looking around today, I found something pretty interesting: the Greater Buffalo-Niagara RTC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update (http://www.gbnrtc.org/planning/metropolitan-transportation-plan/). 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?
While looking around today, I found something pretty interesting: the Greater Buffalo-Niagara RTC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update (http://www.gbnrtc.org/planning/metropolitan-transportation-plan/). Located inside are a slew of projects to be completed, including: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.
- 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?
While looking around today, I found something pretty interesting: the Greater Buffalo-Niagara RTC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update (http://www.gbnrtc.org/planning/metropolitan-transportation-plan/). Located inside are a slew of projects to be completed, including: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.
- 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?
Of course, simply being on a metropolitan master plan doesn't mean much with NYSDOT in preservation mode.
NY 950A - the Buffalo edition. Just look far bottom.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/17152429@N03/14882497160/in/photostream/
WOW! Excellent find!
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
Spotted this gem en route to a party (https://www.flickr.com/photos/48110267@N04/15062525986/). 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.
Spotted this gem en route to a party (https://www.flickr.com/photos/48110267@N04/15062525986/). 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?
NY 950A - the Buffalo edition. Just look far bottom.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/17152429@N03/14882497160/in/photostream/
Some streets in downtown Rochester that were converted to one-way in the 60s are about to be converted back: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/09/02/st-paul-north-clinton-become-two-way/14993773/
Some streets in downtown Rochester that were converted to one-way in the 60s are about to be converted back: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/09/02/st-paul-north-clinton-become-two-way/14993773/
If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.I've been saying that for years. He should also extend the West Shore Expressway northeast to the Willowbrook Expressway, the Willowbrook Expressway to the Great Kills Park, and revive the Wolfe's Pond Parkway, and possibly even the Shore Front Drive.
If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.I've been saying that for years. He should also extend the West Shore Expressway northeast to the Willowbrook Expressway, the Willowbrook Expressway to the Great Kills Park, and revive the Wolfe's Pond Parkway, and possibly even the Shore Front Drive.
I think it's interesting that Cuomo is talking about reducing congestion on NY 440 being critical to NYC and yet the West Shore Expressway was the least congested road I have ever seen in NYC. It actually felt rural when I was on it on the way to the NYC meet.440 is awesome. Newly paved and low volume. As for 278... While they are replacing the Goethals just blow up the whole damn road and start over. The condition of that road... I don't think anyone would notice if it was blown up. Maybe even make it smoother
If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.
It's pathetic that we've gotten to a point where converting limited-access highways into dead end streets is considered "realistic."If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.
What should he do if he wants to support a politically realistic proposal instead?
the ramp to I-84 from I-684 NB is being fixed. The sharp curve and the mid-1980s reflecotized button copy are going away.NYSDOT Region 10 should get rid of the sharp curve on the ramp between westbound Northern State Parkway and Sunken Meadow State Parkway. The last time I checked, there was still enough room to put a bridge for the ramp under Harned Road. While they're at it, they should do the same with the east to southbound ramp between the Southern State Parkway and NY 135 with a bridge under Seaman's Neck Road.
It's pathetic that we've gotten to a point where converting limited-access highways into dead end streets is considered "realistic."If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.
What should he do if he wants to support a politically realistic proposal instead?
Blast from the past: as-builts for early NYC freeways (Bronx River Parkway extension, Major Deegan, Bruckner, Sheridan, Cross-Bronx, etc.) under "Supplemental Information" here:Excellent find J N!
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_DIGITAL_DOCS.show?p_arg_names=p_d_id&p_arg_values=D262631
I have a 1967 Hagstrom that shows I-878 on the Bruckner east of the Sheridan.This is correct.
The map I have has 278 on the Bruckner west of the Sheridan. It has no shield on the Sheridan itself, leaving it somewhat ambiguous.278 used the Sheridan, Nassau was 78, as was the Clearview.
Can't comment on what the current 878 was since it's only a map of The Bronx.
Not sure if this was mentioned before, but how come there is a "Dept. of Transportation" decal on every single traffic sign in NYC? (strangely except street signs attached to poles) Actually there are a few "one way" signs that don't have it. But a lot do.
I think at the time of Duke's 1967 map and at the time (mid-1970s) of the contract plans I posted earlier, the Nassau was signed as I-78. Actually I think it was signed that way up until the mid-1980s. The I-878 designation didn't come into play until the late 80s. I'm not sure when NY-878 shields went up.Can BARELY see it - won't spoil it for other searchers...
This photo shows a ghost I-78 shield....look closely.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2924/14022861829_f2fdb10a94_z.jpg)
Another question;
Before the Throgs Neck Bridge was built, there used to be this bi-directional southbound off-ramp leading to Bell Boulevard. Should that ramp be revived, but only for traffic coming off the Throgs Neck Bridge?
Is not NJ 495 still called Route 3?
I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it. The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation.I always say "take Route 3 to the tunnel." Picked it up from my parents, who predate 1980, but I still catch myself using it.
I don't know if anyone else is like me, but in New York/New Jersey, I see the state route versions of 3DIs as just part of the 3DI because most of the 3DIs don't even meet Interstate standards anyway so it really doesn't make a difference in my eyes if it says NY 878 or I-878, NJ-495 or I-495, because it's the interstate number in practice and in the eyes of everyone who drives itThat's how it works in NY, especially since everything is "route X". Most people from Rochester don't consider I-590 and NY 590 to be separate roads but rather one continuous road (and the mileposts reflect that). Ditto for 390, 690, 890, and 787.
I don't know if anyone else is like me, but in New York/New Jersey, I see the state route versions of 3DIs as just part of the 3DI because most of the 3DIs don't even meet Interstate standards anyway so it really doesn't make a difference in my eyes if it says NY 878 or I-878, NJ-495 or I-495, because it's the interstate number in practice and in the eyes of everyone who drives itThat's how it works in NY, especially since everything is "route X". Most people from Rochester don't consider I-590 and NY 590 to be separate roads but rather one continuous road (and the mileposts reflect that). Ditto for 390, 690, 890, and 787.
I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it. The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation.I always say "take Route 3 to the tunnel." Picked it up from my parents, who predate 1980, but I still catch myself using it.
No dude, I say "take Route 3 to Hoboken" too. Trust me, 495 never enters my consciousness. I've heard it as "I-495" more often than "Route 3", but nonzero times.I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it. The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation.I always say "take Route 3 to the tunnel." Picked it up from my parents, who predate 1980, but I still catch myself using it.
I don't see this phrasing as meaning to imply that 495 is part of 3 so much as it is just shorthand. "Take route 3 to route 495 to the tunnel" is more technically correct but also more wordy. "Take route 3 to the tunnel" ignores the 495 designation but sufficiently conveys the necessary information, because drivers will clearly see signs saying "Lincoln Tunnel" when they get to the 3/495 junction.
Hell, when I write down or describe my routes, I often omit and leave implied little steps. I've stated "I-80 to the George Washington Bridge" plenty of times. This neglects to explicitly state that one technically must get on I-95 first, but it isn't necessary to say that since there isn't another logical route to get from 80 to the GWB.
Indeed, this is something I find annoying about the "step by step" directions generated by computers. They relay the most obvious steps with equal prominence to the most counterintuitive ones. It's as if they are written for mindless idiots who have no clue how to navigate and are just blindly following instructions or something.
Indeed, this is something I find annoying about the "step by step" directions generated by computers. They relay the most obvious steps with equal prominence to the most counterintuitive ones. It's as if they are written for mindless idiots who have no clue how to navigate and are just blindly following instructions or something.They are and GPS navigational systems have further compounded the situation IMHO.
On to something else speaking of the LIE. I noticed that on Google maps that both the Queens- Midtown Tunnel and the LIRR East River Tunnels criss cross under the east shore of the East River. Both the highway tubes and the rail tunnels cross paths with each other similar to the FDR Drive and the Brooklyn- Battery Tunnels do under the Staten Island Ferry Terminal in Manhattan.
I was wondering if anyone knows for sure which tunnels are on top and which ones are on the bottom? I am guessing that the Railroad is on top because of the grade factor and that it was built first. The Queens- Midtown was built in the late 40's decades after PRR built the rail under the river. Trains as you know have to have a shallow grade over road vehicles so given where the portals of the rail tunnels located just to the north of the LIE just east of the Pulaski Bridge shows me that there is not enough distance for the LIRR to drop below the I-495 tunnels as well.
However, I cannot find any information on building designs for the underground tunnels and, of course, Google makes it all in one D so you cannot see which is higher and which is lower.
I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it. The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation.
Thankfully much of those issues will be resolved in the next decade with the Maxwell Rd extension (allowing traffic to bypass most of Wolf Rd) and the Exit 3/4 redesign that's coming up. I've ended up attempting to bypass the Northway at least three other times in the morning this past six months and also a couple times in the evening; none of them nearly this bad, though.How often do you have a (D) pro-highway and an (R) anti-highway?
Some election news: Elise Stefanic (R) beat out Aaron Wolfe (D) in the North Country's congressional race, which could have implications for any road improvements up there; Wolfe supported building I-98 but Stefanic wants traffic to stay on US 11. Not that anything's likely to be done in the near term, but now it's even less likely.
Would the I-98 go as far east as the I-89 in Vermont?
Northern New England could certainly use an Interstate to parallel US 2, though. Same thing with cancelled I-92 and US 4.
I-92/US 4, yes. It would also pull traffic off VT-NH 9. I-98/US 2, no.QuoteNorthern New England could certainly use an Interstate to parallel US 2, though. Same thing with cancelled I-92 and US 4.
Living here, I'd disagree. There just isn't the population, traffic, or growth potential to justify the cost.
How often do you have a (D) pro-highway and an (R) anti-highway?I know. It's usually the opposite.
I-92/US 4, yes. It would also pull traffic off VT-NH 9. I-98/US 2, no.
QuoteI-92/US 4, yes. It would also pull traffic off VT-NH 9. I-98/US 2, no.
US 4 could use some improvement, yes...but there isn't enough here to justify a full-fledged Interstate. Not for the cost required to plow over the Whites and adjacent ridges.
On paper, US 11 has relatively low traffic counts, but the small towns can't handle the through traffic.
At least get a freeway from I-87 to past Rutland (I-187?). Much of the Vermont section is already built and there's support in that part of New York for a NY 149 / US 4 bypass.
QuoteOn paper, US 11 has relatively low traffic counts, but the small towns can't handle the through traffic.
I did not see this as an issue when I traveled the corridor this past spring.QuoteAt least get a freeway from I-87 to past Rutland (I-187?). Much of the Vermont section is already built and there's support in that part of New York for a NY 149 / US 4 bypass.
Connecting 87 to Rutland is probably justified, but Rutland to WRJ while busy is not enough to warrant a full freeway, nevermind that the topography would make it exhorbantly expensive.
Does Stefanic think that ON 401 is adequate for the needs of the area?Believe it or not, the area is effectively a part of Canada every time there's a snowstorm, and it's very common for people who need to fly in or out to use Montreal's airport year round.
I think there is enough. There's more than many other places (I-91 in northern VT) that have justified Interstates. The terrain can't be any worse than I-89. Feds ought to contribute 80% and put it on the NHS.QuoteI-92/US 4, yes. It would also pull traffic off VT-NH 9. I-98/US 2, no.
US 4 could use some improvement, yes...but there isn't enough here to justify a full-fledged Interstate. Not for the cost required to plow over the Whites and adjacent ridges.
In a way I have to admire Vermont in their preservation of their environment.
Absolutely, that is why Vermont did not want WalMart to come in as it would have killed the Downtown Shopping that is a big part of the state's economy.In a way I have to admire Vermont in their preservation of their environment.
Certainly isn't a bad thing. That's why New York made Adirondack and Catskill Parks- protect the natural environment for generations to come. You only have to look at Pennsylvania and West Virginia with their many abandoned mines to see that it certainly paid off for New York and Vermont. Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks. If the environment went down the drain, so would the economies of Vermont and New York north of I-90.
At least get a freeway from I-87 to past Rutland (I-187?). Much of the Vermont section is already built and there's support in that part of New York for a NY 149 / US 4 bypass.
At least get a freeway from I-87 to past Rutland (I-187?). Much of the Vermont section is already built and there's support in that part of New York for a NY 149 / US 4 bypass.
Agree there should be a connector between the end of the US 4 expressway on the VT/NY border and the Northway. As far as extending it east of Rutland, I don't really see that need. Rutland is a good stopping point for an expressway. It would serve Rutland and during winter, ski traffic tends to split in the Rutland area, with some going south towards Okemo and others going east or north.
A north/south bypass of Rutland would be nice, perhaps starting at the end of the present US 4 expressway, and heading east then north. That would be enough for now.
As far as extending the expressway into New York, how would it go? A straight shot west towards the Northway, or a route roughly following US 4/NY 149 down to Glens Falls?
Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks.
Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks.
Which is bullshit. It's your land, that you own...why should a government agency have the right to dictate what you can and can not build on it?
What is the process for getting an improvement approved? Is it a rubber stamp (as long as it's something like a shed) or is it common for the government to not allow you to build a shed in your backyard?
And for my money, I'd say that the stretch from the Adirondacks in New York across to the White Mountains in New Hampshire is the most beautiful area in the country.
Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks.
Which is bullshit. It's your land, that you own...why should a government agency have the right to dictate what you can and can not build on it?
As far as extending the expressway into New York, how would it go? A straight shot west towards the Northway, or a route roughly following US 4/NY 149 down to Glens Falls?
This is not a free nation as many of us want it to be. Even our founding fathers realized that we have to give up some of our own personal liberties for the overall good of our fellow man.Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks.
Which is bullshit. It's your land, that you own...why should a government agency have the right to dictate what you can and can not build on it?
How is this any different from zoning? Just because you own your house, you should be able to knock it down and put up a 24-hour gas station/strip club/liquor store right in the middle of your residential street?
This is not a free nation as many of us want it to be. Even our founding fathers realized that we have to give up some of our own personal liberties for the overall good of our fellow man.Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks.
Which is bullshit. It's your land, that you own...why should a government agency have the right to dictate what you can and can not build on it?
How is this any different from zoning? Just because you own your house, you should be able to knock it down and put up a 24-hour gas station/strip club/liquor store right in the middle of your residential street?
True our nation got more controlled over time as at one time you could build anything on your own land without applying for a building permit and have the building department (which never existed in the 18th and 19th centuries) tell you when, how, and if you could build it like now. If you owned land and wanted to put up a log cabin on it you could do it and build it yourself. Now you have to apply for permits. Be subject to inspection along the way. Even have them tell you when you can occupy it when completed.
However, this is all for control for not just to be a communist nation as some would say, but for safety and to protect our resources at the same time. Just like the FCC only gives out X amount of radio station licenses per area. This is to control frequencies not to put caps on the amount of radio stations, but so each one has its own frequency that no one else can take and it controls the amount of stuff on the dial to keep things sort of uniform.
Freedom comes with a price tag. There is no such thing as FREE remember. We are a free nation, but not completely.
QuoteAs far as extending the expressway into New York, how would it go? A straight shot west towards the Northway, or a route roughly following US 4/NY 149 down to Glens Falls?
Personally, I'd take a different approach. Continue south from Fort Ann along or near the canal, then cut west near Fort Edward parallel to NY 197, meeting I-87 in the vicinity of Exit 17. More direct for Rutland-bound traffic and it's easier terrain.
Is not the Pine Barrens in South Jersey sort of like the Parks in New York? Is not development limited there to preserve what is left of rural New Jersey that is the state with the most people per square mile.
If it is how is Ocean County growing at an astronomical rate as it is one of New Jersey's fastest growing counties? Separate question here.
The possibility of making NY 7/VT 9 a 37-mile expressway has been debated intermittently since 1966. The only section ever built is the current NY 7 from Interstate 87 to the Collar City Bridge into Troy. It took 20 years to finally build and open after years of lawsuits by homeowners in the Maplewood section of the Town of Colonie, Albany County, when they were finally persuaded to give up and take the offers from the State of New York.
I was just recently looking at Arkansastravelguy's FB photos of his NYC road trip, and saw that NYCDOT now conforms to MUTCD standards on Park Avenue between 57th and 45th Streets where in the past one four way tower signal existed at all intersections without even pedestrian signals.
I guess that story about the fact the MTA Metro North Tunnels are beneath Park Avenue preventing normal installations was hogwash as his photos show regular NYC assemblies on mast arms. The usual double guy but painted green both the poles and the signal heads now grace Park Avenue in that 12 block section.
I am surprised that originally they did not adopt the rest of NY's signaling practice like they did on Staten Island at the end of the Korean War Vets Parkway by using NYS span wire there.
The poles could have been placed on the sidewalk of the side street off of the tunnel roof deck and strung across Park Avenue to the other opposing corner. It would not be the first time span wire used in urban areas as Baltimore has had them even after MD went mast arms outside the city limits there. Even in the Business District Baltimore had the span wiring where most cities usually do not like the clutter of overhead wiring.
Than how did Westchester, Rockland, and even Nassau fit all into this with their many populated areas? Also Staten Island uses span wires on Richmond Avenue at the Korean War Vets Parkway terminus and that is part of NYC, even though some want to secede and someday we may have that vote to become their own city independent of the other 4 boroughs.
I am surprised that originally they did not adopt the rest of NY's signaling practice like they did on Staten Island at the end of the Korean War Vets Parkway by using NYS span wire there.
The poles could have been placed on the sidewalk of the side street off of the tunnel roof deck and strung across Park Avenue to the other opposing corner.
For some perspective here, this is a picture of the yard north of Grand Central from shortly after it opened:
(http://i.imgur.com/uksWUiW.jpg)
All of those tracks are still there, buried under everything else later built above it. Park Ave runs smack down the middle of all that. Off to the side of the tunnel? Hah!
Subway and bus fares will rise again in March. The only questions are by how much and for which riders.
When the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s board members meet this week, they are expected to discuss proposals for a 4 percent increase in fares and tolls across the system’s trains, buses, tunnels and bridges. The fares are scheduled to rise every two years as part of the authority’s long-term revenue plans, but details of the upcoming increase are still being worked out. Riders will have a chance to weigh in at public hearings next month.
Whenever NYC hosts parades they close off all the minor the cross streets but keep the major ones open for cross traffic. Basically when the light turns red the parade stops and bikes/peds/cars get to cross. The parade resumes forward progress when the light turns green again. Although in practice there will be cops to assist in directing traffic so the phases of the signal are not necessarily strictly followed.
Has to have been no later than 10/2012, it's on Street View: http://goo.gl/maps/ME3yC (and considering it's right after the Thruway Exit 47 toll plaza, it's almost certainly NYSTA's doing).
Clearview alert: One of the Exit 1 advances on I-490 EB was replaced with a new Clearview sign at some point within the past year or two. Don't know how recently, as I'm rarely on that stretch of highway, especially going EB, but I figured I'd mention it as I saw it today on my way to drive the Inner Loop one last time.
Has to have been no later than 10/2012, it's on Street View: http://goo.gl/maps/ME3yC (and considering it's right after the Thruway Exit 47 toll plaza, it's almost certainly NYSTA's doing).
As I said, I'm never on that side of Rochester, so "new" means "within past 3 years". I do know that there's a bunch of relatively-new signage between I-390 and I-590, inclusive. Some of that has gone up within the past year.
Whenever NYC hosts parades they close off all the minor the cross streets but keep the major ones open for cross traffic. Basically when the light turns red the parade stops and bikes/peds/cars get to cross. The parade resumes forward progress when the light turns green again. Although in practice there will be cops to assist in directing traffic so the phases of the signal are not necessarily strictly followed.
It's not like the parade is constantly moving. Each float/band/act stops in front of Macy's to do their thing for NBC viewers at home. They can get stuff across when everything is stopped for the performances, as long as floats don't block the box.
Do locals still refer to the Inner Loop as 'the moat'?
Do locals still refer to the Inner Loop as 'the moat'?
Did we ever?
Do locals still refer to the Inner Loop as 'the moat'?
Did we ever?
None of my Rochester friends knew of anyone calling it that.
Do locals still refer to the Inner Loop as 'the moat'?
Did we ever?
None of my Rochester friends knew of anyone calling it that.
I have a quick question about the I-95/I-87 junction in the Bronx: How long has Exit 1D been there? I don't remember seeing that before!I think that's brand-new. Always used to just be 1C for the whole exit. But, ya know, every ramp gets a number. GSP southbound 130 is now 130A/B because two ramps. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that you should number diverges from the mainline, not splits downwind from there.
Does the NYSDOT have a page on their website to report a maintenance issue on a state highway? I could not locate it.Best I can think of is the contact page for the residencies: https://www.dot.ny.gov/about-nysdot/faq/residencies
I have a quick question about the I-95/I-87 junction in the Bronx: How long has Exit 1D been there? I don't remember seeing that before!
(http://i.imgur.com/ruWz12e.jpg)
By one rough calculation – dividing the $3.9 billion amortized at 4 percent interest by the 24,539,849 vehicle round trips taken in 2012 – paying off construction bonds could add more than $6 to the amount paid for each trip through the tollbooths. That is why state officials are trying hard to find alternative financing.
One transportation consultant, who asked not to be identified because of a potential role in helping the state set the new toll, said a ballpark estimate was that for every $1 billion in outside financing, the per-car price could be reduced by $2.50.
I have a quick question about the I-95/I-87 junction in the Bronx: How long has Exit 1D been there? I don't remember seeing that before!
(http://i.imgur.com/ruWz12e.jpg)
That's within the past year. For a while it was 3N-S because NYSDOT (or the PA, I never remember which) was going to switch the numbering to sequential exits, with 9A being Exit 1, the HRD being 2, and the Deegan being 3. They since reversed on that call and went back. The PA part of the roadway (under the apartments on the Trans Manhattan Expwy) still has the sequential numbers on their signs, so that's a little confusing.
Here is the new signage for the exit, courtesy of the Prospect Mountain contractors:Why is that cantilevered gantry so unusually thick?
(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10616662_606943829417682_4390073928759756017_n.jpg?oh=9e4add93798f2b7be06610fb3b9306ff&oe=54FC6A23)
Likely designed to AASHTO 2009 (with 2010 and 2011 addenda) wind speed and fatigue requirements.Here is the new signage for the exit, courtesy of the Prospect Mountain contractors:Why is that cantilevered gantry so unusually thick?
(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10616662_606943829417682_4390073928759756017_n.jpg?oh=9e4add93798f2b7be06610fb3b9306ff&oe=54FC6A23)
Assuming that other new or recently-erected gantries and structures (examples: the new BGS gantries along I-95 & 93 in MA and along I-95 & US 202 in PA) are designed for such requirements; I still think that the above-gantry is grossly overdesigned.Likely designed to AASHTO 2009 (with 2010 and 2011 addenda) wind speed and fatigue requirements.Here is the new signage for the exit, courtesy of the Prospect Mountain contractors:Why is that cantilevered gantry so unusually thick?
(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10616662_606943829417682_4390073928759756017_n.jpg?oh=9e4add93798f2b7be06610fb3b9306ff&oe=54FC6A23)
The milemarker is a new FHWA standard enhanced location marker. R7's been using them for ten years now.
The mile marker is temporary. Similar permanent ones have gone up on I-81 just south of this location, but they look less cheap and better overall.
Additionally, regarding the cantilever, these have really come into vogue here in the Binghamton area over the last several months. Nearly every sign in Broome County was replaced (sign bridge and all) over the summer, and quite a few full overhead gantries were replaced by these cantilever assemblies. In a couple locations, it seems ill fitting, because the overhead gantry provided additional information that is now either absent or present only on locally installed ground mounted signs.
The mile marker is temporary. Similar permanent ones have gone up on I-81 just south of this location, but they look less cheap and better overall.
Additionally, regarding the cantilever, these have really come into vogue here in the Binghamton area over the last several months. Nearly every sign in Broome County was replaced (sign bridge and all) over the summer, and quite a few full overhead gantries were replaced by these cantilever assemblies. In a couple locations, it seems ill fitting, because the overhead gantry provided additional information that is now either absent or present only on locally installed ground mounted signs.
Are there any going up like these?
[Pic snipped]
The mile marker is temporary. Similar permanent ones have gone up on I-81 just south of this location, but they look less cheap and better overall.
Additionally, regarding the cantilever, these have really come into vogue here in the Binghamton area over the last several months. Nearly every sign in Broome County was replaced (sign bridge and all) over the summer, and quite a few full overhead gantries were replaced by these cantilever assemblies. In a couple locations, it seems ill fitting, because the overhead gantry provided additional information that is now either absent or present only on locally installed ground mounted signs.
Are there any going up like these?
[Pic snipped]
Please tell me that's in Pennsylvania
Out of curiosity, does anyone here know if NYSDOT / NYSTA used to use Series E for their state route shields on overhead guide signs, or Series F? I've been toying around with some NYSDOT-style signs, and looking at pictures of older signs, part of me wants to think they used F, but it seems more likely that they would've used E. I can't find anything in the state supplement of the MUTCD either.
Additionally, regarding the cantilever, these have really come into vogue here in the Binghamton area over the last several months. Nearly every sign in Broome County was replaced (sign bridge and all) over the summer, and quite a few full overhead gantries were replaced by these cantilever assemblies. In a couple locations, it seems ill fitting, because the overhead gantry provided additional information that is now either absent or present only on locally installed ground mounted signs.Did they finally fix the missing gantries on I-88 between exits 1 and 2?
Did they finally fix the missing gantries on I-88 between exits 1 and 2?
Did they finally fix the missing gantries on I-88 between exits 1 and 2?
Nope, I was very surprised to see that they didn't, and didn't even build mounting brackets to possibly put them up next year. The gantries have been missing for nearly ten years, since they were taken out by a couple of trucks. A gantry on the expressway portion of NY-26 in Vestal had been missing just as long for the same reason, but was replaced this summer.
The gantries at exit 2 westbound and exit 1 westbound were both replaced, with some good and some bad signs. Again, if I can ever get my girlfriend to agree to drive me around, I'll snag some pictures.
I just drove under the new gantries today and while I couldn't snap any photos, I didn't see anything alarming with the design of the sign panels. I did notice that the up arrow on the Exit 1 panel was in the upper right hand corner of the sign (like Connecticut does) over the word "Binghamton". I always appreciate that because it reduces the size of the panel without really compromising legibility.
As mentioned before the two other overhead signs are still missing but the nifty temporary signs are still there.
I did notice that the Exit 2 WB overhead sign at the gore now has markers for both NY 12 A and To NY 12.
I foolishly hadn't considered that, but the custom in this area so far has been to have it on the sign and green it out, or just put a 17 shield and worry about it later. Hopefully that's indeed the case because another shield would make it look much better.
In Tioga County it appears that Region 9 has decided on I-86 as a lone wolf. All of the NY-17 shields, by ramps and on the road itself, have been removed and then replaced directly on top of I-86 shields to be popped off once the extension is approved. It's an interesting approach, instead of having I-86 mounted on a separate assembly à la Region 6.Paging CapHwys (though he apparently hasn't posted here).
Have any Clearview signs turned up on the Clearview Expressway (I-295 in Queens) yet? Clearview on the Clearview IOW? (Hopefully motorists have a clear view thereof)
ixnay
Have any Clearview signs turned up on the Clearview Expressway (I-295 in Queens) yet? Clearview on the Clearview IOW? (Hopefully motorists have a clear view thereof)
ixnay
Not gonna happen until NYSDOT adopts Clearview, which probably won't happen (if it ever does) before interim approval is rescinded.
Have any Clearview signs turned up on the Clearview Expressway (I-295 in Queens) yet? Clearview on the Clearview IOW? (Hopefully motorists have a clear view thereof)
ixnay
Not gonna happen until NYSDOT adopts Clearview, which probably won't happen (if it ever does) before interim approval is rescinded.
I've had some conversations over the years with some of the folks that maintained the NYSMUTCD and the current NYS supplement to the National MUTCD and they said there are no plans to ever adopt Clearview (other than the CorCraft signs that CorCraft went out and switched themselves). The only reason NYS requested interim approval for Clearview was to accommodate the Thruway signs.
The logbook is different from signage. While it isn't typical practice for a non-reference route to be unsigned, US 11's north end, I-478 and I-878 tell us that it can happen here in the Empire State. I-86 won't be complete until they get rid of the at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock, which hasn't even started construction.Plus there's the numerous routes where NYSDOT internal documents and signage disagree on what path they take, such as the southern end of NY 12E.
Have any Clearview signs turned up on the Clearview Expressway (I-295 in Queens) yet? Clearview on the Clearview IOW? (Hopefully motorists have a clear view thereof)
ixnay
Not gonna happen until NYSDOT adopts Clearview, which probably won't happen (if it ever does) before interim approval is rescinded.
I've had some conversations over the years with some of the folks that maintained the NYSMUTCD and the current NYS supplement to the National MUTCD and they said there are no plans to ever adopt Clearview (other than the CorCraft signs that CorCraft went out and switched themselves). The only reason NYS requested interim approval for Clearview was to accommodate the Thruway signs.
Yeah well, the reason the NJ Turnpike Authority is finally changing to MUTCD signage had something to do with what you're talking about, though I don't know the exact details. But apparently some sort of pressure was brought to force compliance by a toll authority.
They probably threatened NJDOT.No to both. The agency wanted to do this to stay ahead of the game before the FHWA comes knocking.
At some point in the past couple of months, NY 954L in Buffalo (Broadway) between Fillmore Ave and US 62/NY 130 got a road diet. Knew this was going to happen, but thought it was a year or two out. As part of a resurfacing project, 4-lane road with extra-wide curb lanes was restriped as 2 with a center turn lane, plus dedicated parking and bike lanes. Unlike most signs on this stretch of NYSDOT-maintained road, new signage as part of this project is NYSDOT-standard, complete with U-poles and Z-bars.
Road diets are becoming pretty common in Buffalo (a city-maintained stretch of NY 384 is another example), but this is the first I know of by NYSDOT in the area other than the Robert Moses Parkway.
Traffic calming is one possibility. Another is simply right-sizing the road to the traffic (Rochester Inner Loop being one example of this). As a general rule, you don't need 4 lanes for an urban street with ADT less than 15K (and especially less than 10K). 2 lanes with a center left turn lane will work just fine, especially if there is an appreciable volume of left-turning traffic...studies have found that the 3-lane is more efficient than a 4-lane in this scenario.
The Broadway example that cl94 cited earlier appears to have an ADT level just under 15K. Barring other potential factors/issues, it's an appropriate candidate for downsizing.
Traffic calming is one possibility. Another is simply right-sizing the road to the traffic (Rochester Inner Loop being one example of this). As a general rule, you don't need 4 lanes for an urban street with ADT less than 15K (and especially less than 10K). 2 lanes with a center left turn lane will work just fine, especially if there is an appreciable volume of left-turning traffic...studies have found that the 3-lane is more efficient than a 4-lane in this scenario.
The Broadway example that cl94 cited earlier appears to have an ADT level just under 15K. Barring other potential factors/issues, it's an appropriate candidate for downsizing.
15K for an urban street, I would stick with four lanes. During your peak hours you'll have 700 or 800 people in a single lane, which is really pushing the boundaries of what you want. The fourth lane comes in handy at a traffic signal. I've never run into a 4-to-3 diet with those kinds of volumes where I said, hm, okay, I'll take the shitty traffic in exchange for community improvement.
15K for an urban street, I would stick with four lanes. During your peak hours you'll have 700 or 800 people in a single lane, which is really pushing the boundaries of what you want. The fourth lane comes in handy at a traffic signal. I've never run into a 4-to-3 diet with those kinds of volumes where I said, hm, okay, I'll take the shitty traffic in exchange for community improvement.
There's probably a newer set of counts that isn't on the data viewer and, given the depopulation of the neighborhood and the closing of the largest office building in Buffalo and the outsourcing of its jobs, it's very possible that volumes are much lower. Just look at an aerial of the area to see how many empty lots there are (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8935825,-78.8424874,2217m/data=!3m1!1e3), and that's 2+ years ago.Latest count on Broadway from Fillmore to US 62, taken 100' E of Mohr St in April 2014, has a total AADT of 16,310 (8029 EB, 8217 WB) with peak hour volumes of 761 EB and 721 WB.
You're right about the latter, but FHWA are not traffic engineers per se. Will traffic get through there? Yes, but a lot more unhappily. I don't buy the new-age hippy-dippy BS.Quote15K for an urban street, I would stick with four lanes. During your peak hours you'll have 700 or 800 people in a single lane, which is really pushing the boundaries of what you want. The fourth lane comes in handy at a traffic signal. I've never run into a 4-to-3 diet with those kinds of volumes where I said, hm, okay, I'll take the shitty traffic in exchange for community improvement.
FHWA mentions that 4-to-3s are doable up to about 20K, though the particulars will depend on the specific scenario.
Which means the PHV is still acceptable with one lane. Vehicles are spaced 4.73 seconds apart on average, which would be well under jam density, even at 30 mph.I'm looking at traffic lights in a suburban to semiurban area. If not, you get US 30 in PA, which is an absolutely dreadful road with all the trucks (or just one slow driver) and no passing zones. 800/hr is a LOT to get through a traffic light in one lane.
I'm not saying I think there shouldn't be two travel lanes, but the left lane was rarely usable at intersections due to people turning left and the lack of PPLT phasing. I've rarely seen an intersection along that street that didn't have someone turning left and forcing everyone else into one lane. Also, I think the expectation/hope was that people coming from Walden Avenue would use parallel (and underutilized) Sycamore Street instead of Broadway, as the latter would no longer be a speedway.
NYSDOT's "striping shields" get a mention on Slate's "What's That Thing?" recurring feature:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/12/18/what_s_that_thing_demystifying_new_york_road_signs.html
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/all-electronic-tolls-inch-forward-in-new-york-city-1420512727)
Two key issues are:
1) Some legal agreement bars the MTA from pursuing scofflaws with Connecticut plates at all
2) New York lacks a law allowing the DMV to suspend registrations of people with unpaid tolls, thus making collections difficult and expensive.
Apparently they are working on 1 and lobbying Albany to fix 2, but won't move further until both are taken care of.
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/all-electronic-tolls-inch-forward-in-new-york-city-1420512727)
Two key issues are:
1) Some legal agreement bars the MTA from pursuing scofflaws with Connecticut plates at all
2) New York lacks a law allowing the DMV to suspend registrations of people with unpaid tolls, thus making collections difficult and expensive.
Apparently they are working on 1 and lobbying Albany to fix 2, but won't move further until both are taken care of.
It's too bad they implemented cashless toll on the Henry Hudson as that is a toll bridge that leads to Connecticut (not directly).
There probably are relatively few Connecticut plates at the Verrazano Bridge.
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/all-electronic-tolls-inch-forward-in-new-york-city-1420512727)
Two key issues are:
1) Some legal agreement bars the MTA from pursuing scofflaws with Connecticut plates at all
2) New York lacks a law allowing the DMV to suspend registrations of people with unpaid tolls, thus making collections difficult and expensive.
Apparently they are working on 1 and lobbying Albany to fix 2, but won't move further until both are taken care of.
It's too bad they implemented cashless toll on the Henry Hudson as that is a toll bridge that leads to Connecticut (not directly).
There probably are relatively few Connecticut plates at the Verrazano Bridge.
They did it on Henry Hudson because it's only passenger cars and nearly 90% of cars crossing have E-ZPass. Easier to implement if you don't have to worry about different vehicle classes.
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/all-electronic-tolls-inch-forward-in-new-york-city-1420512727)
Two key issues are:
1) Some legal agreement bars the MTA from pursuing scofflaws with Connecticut plates at all
2) New York lacks a law allowing the DMV to suspend registrations of people with unpaid tolls, thus making collections difficult and expensive.
Apparently they are working on 1 and lobbying Albany to fix 2, but won't move further until both are taken care of.
It's too bad they implemented cashless toll on the Henry Hudson as that is a toll bridge that leads to Connecticut (not directly).
There probably are relatively few Connecticut plates at the Verrazano Bridge.
They did it on Henry Hudson because it's only passenger cars and nearly 90% of cars crossing have E-ZPass. Easier to implement if you don't have to worry about different vehicle classes.
Sorry for the late response, but that's a terrible excuse. There are plenty of AET gantries for multiple vehicle classes out there, so the technology is available.
THe busiest crossings should get the technology first, and I believe that the Verrazano is probably the busiest under MTA's jurisdiction.
Sorry for the late response, but that's a terrible excuse. There are plenty of AET gantries for multiple vehicle classes out there, so the technology is available.Keep in mind that the AET system at the Henry Hudson was, in fact, a TRIAL. It makes sense to try things where the impact is minimized if something goes wrong. I'd say that the MTA considers the trial a success given that they plan to demolish the booths soon. They don't yet have plans to expand it, though, because of difficulties collecting tolls/fees from NY and CT residents who don't pay. I'm sure it will expand once they can get the NY legislature to pass a bill suspending the registrations of people with unpaid tolls and a revised agreement with CT allowing them to bill CT cars by licence plate.
THe busiest crossings should get the technology first, and I believe that the Verrazano is probably the busiest under MTA's jurisdiction.
Sorry for the late response, but that's a terrible excuse. There are plenty of AET gantries for multiple vehicle classes out there, so the technology is available.Keep in mind that the AET system at the Henry Hudson was, in fact, a TRIAL. It makes sense to try things where the impact is minimized if something goes wrong. I'd say that the MTA considers the trial a success given that they plan to demolish the booths soon. They don't yet have plans to expand it, though, because of difficulties collecting tolls/fees from NY and CT residents who don't pay. I'm sure it will expand once they can get the NY legislature to pass a bill suspending the registrations of people with unpaid tolls and a revised agreement with CT allowing them to bill CT cars by licence plate.
THe busiest crossings should get the technology first, and I believe that the Verrazano is probably the busiest under MTA's jurisdiction.
I saw a VMS yesterday stating new traffic pattern at the Major Deegan interchange with Monsholu Parkway. I didn't drive up that far anybody know what it is?
(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10616662_606943829417682_4390073928759756017_n.jpg?oh=9e4add93798f2b7be06610fb3b9306ff&oe=54FC6A23)
Point of this post: When was this flyover built? Early or mid-60s, I imagine. (Too bad NY doesn't put years of completion on overpasses a la NJDOT, MassDOT, or Maryland's SHA or MdTA).http://uglybridges.com/1376885
^^ That flyover was replaced either last year or the year before...
Any updates with I-86 and NY-17 and when it'll be complete? I noticed bridge work over I-84. Plus there are future I-86 END signs at I-84 but the DOT site says I-86 ends at I-87.
What's the end of the designation east of Elmira? My understanding is that it's the Tioga County line, but in forum discussions a segment of I-86 is regularly cited in Bradford County, PA. Has it been extended to US 220?
NYSDOT replaces sign on route 104 in Webster due to spelling error.Can we get a cleaner link without all the pop-up/survey mumbo-jumbo?
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2015/01/23/phillips-road-sign-webster-mistake/22232375/
http://www.13wham.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/misspelled-exit-sign-replaced-rt-104-19517.shtmlNYSDOT replaces sign on route 104 in Webster due to spelling error.Can we get a cleaner link without all the pop-up/survey mumbo-jumbo?
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2015/01/23/phillips-road-sign-webster-mistake/22232375/
What's the end of the designation east of Elmira? My understanding is that it's the Tioga County line, but in forum discussions a segment of I-86 is regularly cited in Bradford County, PA. Has it been extended to US 220?
Tioga County line at the east end of the stretch in PA. It spends a very short amount of time in Tioga County before it dips into PA. Effectively ends at NY 34, which is very close to US 220.
What's the end of the designation east of Elmira? My understanding is that it's the Tioga County line, but in forum discussions a segment of I-86 is regularly cited in Bradford County, PA. Has it been extended to US 220?
Tioga County line at the east end of the stretch in PA. It spends a very short amount of time in Tioga County before it dips into PA. Effectively ends at NY 34, which is very close to US 220.
OK. I had read (here (http://www.tiogacountyny.com/whats-new/business/interstate-86.html)) that the designation was due to be extended to US 220, but I never heard that it actually took place. Wikipedia still shows the end at the Chemung/Tioga County line–but of course, it also says elsewhere that it still ends at NY 352 in Elmira, whereas the exit listing shows the Bradford/Tioga terminus.
Can you give a source for the new terminus? It would be nice to have Wikipedia up to date on this. (FWIW, this link (http://www.the-leader.com/article/20150110/News/150119991) still says that the route is "awaiting designation" in Tioga County.)
EDIT: Another source (http://www.stargazette.com/story/news/local/2015/01/09/push-interstate-completion-cuomo/21518607/) corroborates that it isn't I-86 east of Chemung County yet, according to the chariman of the I-86 coalition.
In NYC, there is the Kew Gardens untanglement project, Goethals replacement which will add a lane and the Kosusco Bridge expansion/replacement, which will help congestion and add capacity. Any other big scale road projects coming down the pike in NYC?Verrazano Bridge redecking, removal of median barrier and addition of reversible lane on the Upper Level, and construction of a Bus/HOV ramp on the east side
What is it about NY that they can't make good looking interstate shields?!
I've seen many on all interstates where the numbers are too low, too big, a large space in between them etc etc.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.537221,-73.781158,3a,75y,267.96h,84.81t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s90SXtjMQMpcA6TrDcaH2kg!2e0
I see those same issues on state shields, too. Also there are 4 or 5 different state shield shape variations of there. Height vs. width, depth of curve, border width, etc.
www.aaroads.com/shields/thumbs.php?state=NY (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/thumbs.php?state=NY) Too lazy to document it myself.
28 and 17 show the most variation, 7 shows the most contrast (Don't count the cutouts, obviously.)
WKTV (http://www.wktv.com/news/5-8-12_arterial_construction_is_right_on_schedule.html): Arterial construction (Utica) right on schedule. Working at a breakneck speed crews are plugging away on a complete reconstruction of Utica's arterial system.
If anyone has pictures, do share!!! I can't go down there.
WKTV (http://www.wktv.com/news/5-8-12_arterial_construction_is_right_on_schedule.html): Arterial construction (Utica) right on schedule. Working at a breakneck speed crews are plugging away on a complete reconstruction of Utica's arterial system.
If anyone has pictures, do share!!! I can't go down there.
I'll try to grab a GoPro video of the area this week. I must admit that I like the way they're handling traffic and I'm surprised at how quickly they're coming along. The only disappointing aspect of this project to me is that when it's done there will still be two traffic lights on the Arterial, which are suppose to be addressed in the next phase, which has absolutely no funding or timeline at the moment. Other than that, I think this will be a great boost to the area.
In a dramatic makeover, the Peace Bridge will be redecked, adding a fourth traffic lane as vehicles approach the Canadian inspection plaza and a revamped sidewalk/bike path that includes an overlook at the international line where the U.S. and Canada meet over the Niagara River.
The first phase of the $80 million project will begin this year and be stretched over the next few years to limit impacts on traffic flows between Buffalo and Fort Erie. The work is part of an ongoing $167 million capital improvement plan that the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority has undertaken in recent years.
What are you twinning here? Peace Bridge isn't the constraint, Customs is.QuoteIn a dramatic makeover, the Peace Bridge will be redecked, adding a fourth traffic lane as vehicles approach the Canadian inspection plaza and a revamped sidewalk/bike path that includes an overlook at the international line where the U.S. and Canada meet over the Niagara River.
The first phase of the $80 million project will begin this year and be stretched over the next few years to limit impacts on traffic flows between Buffalo and Fort Erie. The work is part of an ongoing $167 million capital improvement plan that the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority has undertaken in recent years.
http://m.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2015/03/27/80m-peace-bridge-work-to-feature-new-deck-added.html
Peace Bridge to be re decked with half of a fourth-lane to be added. Pretty pointless IMo without constructing a twin. It's polishing a turd.
What are you twinning here? Peace Bridge isn't the constraint, Customs is.QuoteIn a dramatic makeover, the Peace Bridge will be redecked, adding a fourth traffic lane as vehicles approach the Canadian inspection plaza and a revamped sidewalk/bike path that includes an overlook at the international line where the U.S. and Canada meet over the Niagara River.
The first phase of the $80 million project will begin this year and be stretched over the next few years to limit impacts on traffic flows between Buffalo and Fort Erie. The work is part of an ongoing $167 million capital improvement plan that the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority has undertaken in recent years.
http://m.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2015/03/27/80m-peace-bridge-work-to-feature-new-deck-added.html
Peace Bridge to be re decked with half of a fourth-lane to be added. Pretty pointless IMo without constructing a twin. It's polishing a turd.
Northway Exit 4 construction is happening starting February 23. Well, the overpasses are being replaced this year at least, probably because it's time to replace them anyway.I believe the overpasses are original from 1962 and are they narrow.
http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html)
Northway Exit 4 construction is happening starting February 23. Well, the overpasses are being replaced this year at least, probably because it's time to replace them anyway.I believe the overpasses are original from 1962 and are they narrow.
http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html)
What are you twinning here? Peace Bridge isn't the constraint, Customs is.QuoteIn a dramatic makeover, the Peace Bridge will be redecked, adding a fourth traffic lane as vehicles approach the Canadian inspection plaza and a revamped sidewalk/bike path that includes an overlook at the international line where the U.S. and Canada meet over the Niagara River.
The first phase of the $80 million project will begin this year and be stretched over the next few years to limit impacts on traffic flows between Buffalo and Fort Erie. The work is part of an ongoing $167 million capital improvement plan that the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority has undertaken in recent years.
http://m.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2015/03/27/80m-peace-bridge-work-to-feature-new-deck-added.html
Peace Bridge to be re decked with half of a fourth-lane to be added. Pretty pointless IMo without constructing a twin. It's polishing a turd.
From talking with the Peace Bridge Authority's engineering firm, I agree. The plan is to eventually twin it, but that's 15-20 years out. Right now it's building queuing capacity for the American side because of how hard local residents are pushing back. They just finished widening the American approach until just before the through truss span to accommodate trucks queuing (pretty amazing, considering that they were only putting girders up when I was on the site 6 months ago). By widening the Canadian approach, they can make it 2 lanes into the US at all times to prevent traffic from backing up into Fort Erie.
I thought so. If I remember correctly, the concrete pillars are also the round type, which I do not think are placed any longer. These were also placed in the days when the concrete was painted white.Northway Exit 4 construction is happening starting February 23. Well, the overpasses are being replaced this year at least, probably because it's time to replace them anyway.I believe the overpasses are original from 1962 and are they narrow.
http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html)
They are. They're one of only 4 sets south of Exit 17 that are original (including the Twin Bridges and NY 146, which I think are). As with every other replacement project south of Saratoga, they're building in capacity for 8 lanes if they every decide to widen. I don't know about NY 146, but I know the bridge over NY 29 is likely on the list because it only has a 14 foot actual clearance (if not also in bad shape).
I thought so. If I remember correctly, the concrete pillars are also the round type, which I do not think are placed any longer. These were also placed in the days when the concrete was painted white.Northway Exit 4 construction is happening starting February 23. Well, the overpasses are being replaced this year at least, probably because it's time to replace them anyway.I believe the overpasses are original from 1962 and are they narrow.
http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html)
They are. They're one of only 4 sets south of Exit 17 that are original (including the Twin Bridges and NY 146, which I think are). As with every other replacement project south of Saratoga, they're building in capacity for 8 lanes if they every decide to widen. I don't know about NY 146, but I know the bridge over NY 29 is likely on the list because it only has a 14 foot actual clearance (if not also in bad shape).
P.P.S. By any chance, does anyone know who Roadwaywiz is?
P.P.S. By any chance, does anyone know who Roadwaywiz is?
Roadwaywiz is Dan Murphy.
He has a facebook page for his road videos as well: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Roadwaywiz/257582354410961?fref=ts
Hold it with the foaming. Way too early for that and, if anything ever gets built, a southern bypass that serves the dual purpose of rerouting through traffic and getting trucks off of US 20 is more likely. There also isn't an available number unless they renumber I-690.
At this point, anything to the south would have to begin west of Hamburg and run in the remaining undeveloped, relatively flat area between there and Pembroke. Might be too far east for most people. A northern bypass could use the LaSalle Expressway, but it'd have to stay in Niagara County until around NY 78 to avoid Amherst and Clarence and not merge into I-90 until near Pembroke. Again, it might be too far out to do anything and you'd be committing everyone to one river crossing that has no expansion plans.
Similarly, Rochester intends to complete its highway plan and build an intermodal freeway to finish I-390.
http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2015/04/southern-communities-active-transportation-plan-rochester-to-henrietta/
Similarly, Rochester intends to complete its highway plan and build an intermodal freeway to finish I-390.
http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2015/04/southern-communities-active-transportation-plan-rochester-to-henrietta/
Similarly, Rochester intends to complete its highway plan and build an intermodal freeway to finish I-390.
http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2015/04/southern-communities-active-transportation-plan-rochester-to-henrietta/
Some permanent-looking emergency detour signs went up along I-290 at Exit 3 pretty recently. I'm assuming yesterday, as that's the date on the back of them. Detour A turns onto US 62 NB from the WB exit ramp and a Detour B sign is posted at the SB-WB entrance ramp. Anyone know what's up with these signs or if they're being posted elsewhere?
For those interested in the progress of the Utica North-South Arterial project, I did a dash cam video last night. Here's part 1, heading north/east to south/west with a little bit extra. It's in real time and there's no groovy music but you'll get an idea of what's going on.
https://youtu.be/D_h0M4gCk50 (https://youtu.be/D_h0M4gCk50)
I'll post part 2 later today or tomorrow, which has the other direction and some of the side streets around the project.
Probably concrete. I don't know if NY has any pure asphalt bridges, at least on state roadways. They're pretty much all concrete or overlays. The new Arterial lanes are concrete, so the bridges should be as well.
Probably concrete. I don't know if NY has any pure asphalt bridges, at least on state roadways. They're pretty much all concrete or overlays. The new Arterial lanes are concrete, so the bridges should be as well.
^^ There are no pure asphalt bridges. Asphalt is a "flexible" pavement and a bridge made of that would not hold up. You can place an asphalt overlay over a concrete or timber deck, but as a non-structural component.There are also steel grate decks, and I've seen those with a coat of asphalt (it sinks in and you end up with a composite steel-asphalt surface). Finally, you have "plastic timber" decks starting to pop up, and composites will form an ever-increasing component of future structures. Between steel, concrete, wood, and composites, every bridge has at least one of the four. (And concrete for bridges always has steel inside.)
^^ There are no pure asphalt bridges. Asphalt is a "flexible" pavement and a bridge made of that would not hold up. You can place an asphalt overlay over a concrete or timber deck, but as a non-structural component.There are also steel grate decks, and I've seen those with a coat of asphalt (it sinks in and you end up with a composite steel-asphalt surface). Finally, you have "plastic timber" decks starting to pop up, and composites will form an ever-increasing component of future structures. Between steel, concrete, wood, and composites, every bridge has at least one of the four. (And concrete for bridges always has steel inside.)
Also, any update on what the designation is or will be for the old US 219 alignment from NY 39-Springville to Peters Road?
Plus the counties do NOT want that bridge. They are fighting Region 5 at ever turn on that.
Does anyone know why the ramp from the HRD NB to E. 125th st (Exit 19) is closed?
and what are they doing on the Deegan Expwy up by Yankee Stadium? Looks like there's room for another lane there.
Plus the counties do NOT want that bridge. They are fighting Region 5 at ever turn on that.
Erie County might have the money to maintain it if they didn't maintain every flipping road south of US 20A or in the eastern border towns
The Deegan should be 4 lanes northbound from the Stadium to the GWB.
That brings up an interesting question: disregarding the 5 boroughs, which New York counties lack county route signage? The only one I know of offhand is Onondaga (CR 57/Old NY 57 doesn't count since it's officially a different county route number).
Montgomery County doesn't use the standard marker but if you look closely, there's little tenth-type markers at an interval I have yet to determine with county route numbers.
Montgomery County doesn't use the standard marker but if you look closely, there's little tenth-type markers at an interval I have yet to determine with county route numbers.
Speaking of markers, I just saw this interesting video today about how to interpret the NYS markers (I've only known how to interpret the simple Interstate ones)
Montgomery County doesn't use the standard marker but if you look closely, there's little tenth-type markers at an interval I have yet to determine with county route numbers.
Speaking of markers, I just saw this interesting video today about how to interpret the NYS markers (I've only known how to interpret the simple Interstate ones)
You know there's a website for that, doncha? ;-)
WOW! Awesome! Are we going to get quizzed on that later on? :)
I wonder how Connecticut would do that with a mere 8 counties? I don't know how we do the districts here.
Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?
ixnay
Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?
ixnay
Yep, that's me! It's pretty much an antique website anymore, but it used to be the only place on the internet you could find out about this stuff. :-)
Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?
ixnay
Yep, that's me! It's pretty much an antique website anymore, but it used to be the only place on the internet you could find out about this stuff. :-)
Holy crap, I used to eagerly look forward to the Interchange of the Week. Belated thanks.
Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?
ixnay
Yep, that's me! It's pretty much an antique website anymore, but it used to be the only place on the internet you could find out about this stuff. :-)
Holy crap, I used to eagerly look forward to the Interchange of the Week. Belated thanks.
Ah yes, when aerial imagery had to be manually downloaded and mosaicked. That site today would basically a collection of Google Maps links. ;-)
Those are the state highway ones. I actually have my own page on them too: http://nysroads.com/ref-markers.php
Here's the official manual: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/rmm
I love your site. Still the best New York-oriented page out there.
Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?
ixnay
Yep, that's me! It's pretty much an antique website anymore, but it used to be the only place on the internet you could find out about this stuff. :-)
Holy crap, I used to eagerly look forward to the Interchange of the Week. Belated thanks.
Ah yes, when aerial imagery had to be manually downloaded and mosaicked. That site today would basically a collection of Google Maps links. ;-)
I love your site. Still the best New York-oriented page out there.
I am glad people still find it informative. I turned down an offer once to sell the domain name, so at least that's not for nothing. Unfortunately I really don't work on it anymore, except that I did finally compile the Nassau County highway listing a few years ago, thus filling probably the biggest outstanding informational hole on the site (I still haven't found a county highway map of any validity, so I made my own (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/nassaumaps.html) out of NYSDOT topo quads):Hmm... makes me wonder if I should create county/reference route lists after all. Where did you go for county route data? I imagine most of it can be found on the NYSDOT highway inventory.
http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crnassau.html
I am glad people still find it informative. I turned down an offer once to sell the domain name, so at least that's not for nothing. Unfortunately I really don't work on it anymore, except that I did finally compile the Nassau County highway listing a few years ago, thus filling probably the biggest outstanding informational hole on the site (I still haven't found a county highway map of any validity, so I made my own (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/nassaumaps.html) out of NYSDOT topo quads):Hmm... makes me wonder if I should create county/reference route lists after all. Where did you go for county route data? I imagine most of it can be found on the NYSDOT highway inventory.
http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crnassau.html
I am glad people still find it informative. I turned down an offer once to sell the domain name, so at least that's not for nothing. Unfortunately I really don't work on it anymore, except that I did finally compile the Nassau County highway listing a few years ago, thus filling probably the biggest outstanding informational hole on the site (I still haven't found a county highway map of any validity, so I made my own (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/nassaumaps.html) out of NYSDOT topo quads):Hmm... makes me wonder if I should create county/reference route lists after all. Where did you go for county route data? I imagine most of it can be found on the NYSDOT highway inventory.
http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crnassau.html
That's where I've gotten it recently. But it used to all come, primarily, from the counties' own highway maps (which I had an ongoing, partially-completed goal to collect in person at the county highway office), and I find I miss the sense of authority that comes with using the info straight from the source instead of filtered through the state's databases. On the other hand, not all counties used to record their data with that much precision, so it's a balancing act.
(If you're interested in particulars, each county's sources are listed at the bottom of its page on my site.)
And I should probably add that I was always partial to J.P.'s site myself. :-)
Downtown Utica to undergo a road diet. Thoughts?
You can call it a bureaucratic blunder … or a Washington blooper.
But any way you slice it a move by the federal government to make the city remove Times Square’s iconic billboards falls in the category of “whose bright idea is this?”
The feds say many of Times Square’s huge and neon-lit billboards must come down or the city will lose about $90 million in federal highway money.
The edict comes from a 2012 law that makes Times Square an arterial route to the national highway system. And that puts it under the 1965 Highway Beautification Act, which limits signs to 1,200 square feet. It took the feds until now to realize that Times Square was included, Kramer reported.
Feds tell New York City to remove iconic Times Square billboards or face funding cuts (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/05/05/times-square-billboards-highway-beautification-act/)
My thoughts on this, are pretty plain and simple: bullshit. I would be disgusted if the federal government forced New York City to remove those billboards in Times Square. That's what practically makes it Times Square. I hope the City doesn't play ball with the feds. Sometimes the feds aren't in the right.
I have been saying for a long time that they need to do exactly as they described in that news story and I plan on attending the public meetings. One of the biggest issues of downtown Utica is that it's not pedestrian friendly at all, especially since they pushed NY 5S through there as a boulevard (there are sections where it's three lanes in one direction and five in the other). Traffic frequently sails through there way above the posted speed limit. I welcome this approach. Good for region 2!
I'm fairly certain that the city will get a quick exemption for this and this nonsense will be forgotten. Love it or hate it, Times Square is a part of Americana at this point. I'm sure that they'll move on from this and the bonehead at the DOT will be a nice stern lecture about splitting hairs a bit too closely.
I have been saying for a long time that they need to do exactly as they described in that news story and I plan on attending the public meetings. One of the biggest issues of downtown Utica is that it's not pedestrian friendly at all, especially since they pushed NY 5S through there as a boulevard (there are sections where it's three lanes in one direction and five in the other). Traffic frequently sails through there way above the posted speed limit. I welcome this approach. Good for region 2!
Having only recently seen Utica with my own eyes (and sometimes skeptical of plans for road "diets"), I think this might be a good idea for the core area of Utica. Struck me as peculiar that N.Y. 5S goes pretty quickly from being a freeway-class road east of town to an urban street, with relatively little in the way of warning to drivers.
Wonder why there was apparently no consideration given to a direct, high speed connection between 5S and the Thruway in Utica?
Downtown Utica to undergo a road diet. Thoughts?
I have been saying for a long time that they need to do exactly as they described in that news story and I plan on attending the public meetings. One of the biggest issues of downtown Utica is that it's not pedestrian friendly at all, especially since they pushed NY 5S through there as a boulevard (there are sections where it's three lanes in one direction and five in the other). Traffic frequently sails through there way above the posted speed limit. I welcome this approach. Good for region 2!
I have been saying for a long time that they need to do exactly as they described in that news story and I plan on attending the public meetings. One of the biggest issues of downtown Utica is that it's not pedestrian friendly at all, especially since they pushed NY 5S through there as a boulevard (there are sections where it's three lanes in one direction and five in the other). Traffic frequently sails through there way above the posted speed limit. I welcome this approach. Good for region 2!
Having only recently seen Utica with my own eyes (and sometimes skeptical of plans for road "diets"), I think this might be a good idea for the core area of Utica. Struck me as peculiar that N.Y. 5S goes pretty quickly from being a freeway-class road east of town to an urban street, with relatively little in the way of warning to drivers.
Wonder why there was apparently no consideration given to a direct, high speed connection between 5S and the Thruway in Utica?
There was a "phase 3" of the late 1980s MUD project (the project that reconfigured I-790) to connect the freeway end at Leland Ave to either Routes 5 or 5S near Dyke Rd. (sources differ as to whether it was 5 or 5S) but that phase of the project never came to fruition.
I'm fairly certain that the city will get a quick exemption for this and this nonsense will be forgotten. Love it or hate it, Times Square is a part of Americana at this point. I'm sure that they'll move on from this and the bonehead at the DOT will be a nice stern lecture about splitting hairs a bit too closely.
I'm fairly certain that the city will get a quick exemption for this and this nonsense will be forgotten. Love it or hate it, Times Square is a part of Americana at this point. I'm sure that they'll move on from this and the bonehead at the DOT will be a nice stern lecture about splitting hairs a bit too closely.
CityLab.com: No, the Feds Are Not Requiring Times Square to Remove Its Billboards - But why are Broadway and 7th Avenue now classified as national highways? (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/05/no-the-feds-are-not-requiring-times-square-to-remove-its-billboards/392657/)
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!
Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.
On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!
Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.
On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.
Speaking of counters, I went over some on Rt. 75 earlier today, though I could never see a diet happening on that road.
While we're on the topic of Hamburg, will CR 204 McKinley Pkwy ever get resurfaced or widened? I don't think I've ever seen it with fresh asphalt.
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!
Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.
On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.
Speaking of counters, I went over some on Rt. 75 earlier today, though I could never see a diet happening on that road.
While we're on the topic of Hamburg, will CR 204 McKinley Pkwy ever get resurfaced or widened? I don't think I've ever seen it with fresh asphalt.
I'm talking about human counters with Jamar TDCs. Only way to get counts at intersections. NY 75 is not getting a diet.
Erie County DPW is really bad about keeping PSIs/PCIs at a reasonable level. They're just getting to some stuff up north that has been a mess since I moved here in 2007. Bowen Road has gotten little more than a couple crappy overlays and much of the surface consists of cold-mix pothole fill. Tonawanda Creek Road has been closed because it's been falling into the creek for a decade with a reopening not occurring until at least 2018. Goodrich Road will supposedly be redone this year, but I'm not holding my breath. Hell, even their reconstruction projects have had crappy results. The surface of the reconstructed North French and Robinson Roads corridor is already seeing distress and that was completed last fall. William Street in Lancaster, reconstructed top-down 5 years ago, is in similar shape to parallel US 20, which hasn't been resurfaced in 15 years (IINM).
Basically, Erie County maintains too much mileage, so nothing gets done when it should be done and a highway has to have devolved to gravel before they'll even touch it. McKinley Parkway, while not nice, is a hell of a lot better than most county-maintained roads here. We probably have quite a while before that'll be redone. To give you an idea, they just redid Losson Road in Cheektowaga last year. The bumps could destroy your suspension and some of the cracks and holes could swallow a small child. It was significantly worse than McKinley Parkway is now. Of course, I could be wrong, but this is Erie County we're talking about and road maintenance is not a top priority.
False. Camera technology can track vehicle paths.cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!
Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.
On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.
Speaking of counters, I went over some on Rt. 75 earlier today, though I could never see a diet happening on that road.
While we're on the topic of Hamburg, will CR 204 McKinley Pkwy ever get resurfaced or widened? I don't think I've ever seen it with fresh asphalt.
I'm talking about human counters with Jamar TDCs. Only way to get counts at intersections. NY 75 is not getting a diet.
False. Camera technology can track vehicle paths.cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!
Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.
On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.
Speaking of counters, I went over some on Rt. 75 earlier today, though I could never see a diet happening on that road.
While we're on the topic of Hamburg, will CR 204 McKinley Pkwy ever get resurfaced or widened? I don't think I've ever seen it with fresh asphalt.
I'm talking about human counters with Jamar TDCs. Only way to get counts at intersections. NY 75 is not getting a diet.
The camera installations that I'm aware of are temporary, not permanent....and used for origin-destination studies. That's probably along the lines of what Alps was alluding to.
Bridge replacement project on I-290 at NY 265/384 is making progress. Exit 1 (NY 384) has been converted to a partial diamond for the duration of construction and no entrance is provided to WB I-290, requiring a 10 minute detour to access I-190 from NY 384. 4 lanes total through the site. NYSDOT borrowed something I've only seen in Ohio- instead of running all lanes over one span or building a temporary span to keep all lanes together, one EB lane runs contraflow through the site and the other runs on the EB side.
Needless to say, the area is quite a mess right now and US 62 and NY 384 are clogged as a result. If you're going to Niagara Falls and don't want to get stuck in it, I'd recommend using I-190 or NY 33 and NY 198 to bypass it.
Bridge replacement project on I-290 at NY 265/384 is making progress. Exit 1 (NY 384) has been converted to a partial diamond for the duration of construction and no entrance is provided to WB I-290, requiring a 10 minute detour to access I-190 from NY 384. 4 lanes total through the site. NYSDOT borrowed something I've only seen in Ohio- instead of running all lanes over one span or building a temporary span to keep all lanes together, one EB lane runs contraflow through the site and the other runs on the EB side.
Needless to say, the area is quite a mess right now and US 62 and NY 384 are clogged as a result. If you're going to Niagara Falls and don't want to get stuck in it, I'd recommend using I-190 or NY 33 and NY 198 to bypass it.
Sounds pretty busy. How is the Cleveland Dr. project going?
Also, question that just jumped into my head: could the Buffalo area implement HOV lanes on highways, and if it could, where and if not, why?
Bridge replacement project on I-290 at NY 265/384 is making progress. Exit 1 (NY 384) has been converted to a partial diamond for the duration of construction and no entrance is provided to WB I-290, requiring a 10 minute detour to access I-190 from NY 384. 4 lanes total through the site. NYSDOT borrowed something I've only seen in Ohio- instead of running all lanes over one span or building a temporary span to keep all lanes together, one EB lane runs contraflow through the site and the other runs on the EB side.
Needless to say, the area is quite a mess right now and US 62 and NY 384 are clogged as a result. If you're going to Niagara Falls and don't want to get stuck in it, I'd recommend using I-190 or NY 33 and NY 198 to bypass it.
Sounds pretty busy. How is the Cleveland Dr. project going?
Also, question that just jumped into my head: could the Buffalo area implement HOV lanes on highways, and if it could, where and if not, why?
Bridge is down. I have a picture of the monotube that I've yet to post. It'll be done by the end of the summer.
Region 5 won't implement HOV lanes. I can almost guarantee it. There aren't enough HOVs and, due to ROW constraints, construction would be prohibitively expensive, especially given how little they'd be used. Heck, there are only a few places where another general purpose lane is needed (and many of those are currently 4 lanes). Main issues around here are related directly to interchange geometry. I-90 Exit 51's auxiliary lanes are very substandard and Exit 50 doesn't have enough lanes to accommodate the main movement.
I came across the history of the Adirondack Northway (I-87), including a number of different ways that it could have been routed, plus the story of the missing Exit 3.
http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/05/27/northway-history (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/05/27/northway-history)
From the times I've had to go north of the Twin Bridges during rush hour, it seems like the bridges themselves don't actually cause the backup, and that reporting backups as such is more an anomaly of traffic reporters than anything else. The evening backups start as isolated backups at I-90, NY 5, Albany-Shaker Rd, NY 2/NY 7, and NY 7, and eventually merge into one big backup, with traffic picking up north of NY 7 and remaining slow through exit 9. The morning backups are at exits 9, 8A, and 8, with slow traffic all the way down to NY 7.
NY 7 currently backs up to Troy. I-90 can back up all the way to Everett Rd depending on the number of tourists. I-90's issues seem to be caused more by the Thruway having toll booths than anything else.
One thing I thought of was the idea of setting up movable barriers on the Northway to create a reversible 4/2 lane situation rather than the current 3/3. During non-peak times it would remain 3/3 just as it is now, but in rush hour an "express" lane could be carved out from the opposite direction carriageway.
There's probably a million reasons not to do that, but it's something I thought of when commuting one day.
Heck, it's so bad that it even has me considering a move to downtown Albany after a life spent in the suburbs!
The speed limit on the section of the Scajaquada Expressway where a car jumped a curb, crossed a grassy median and killed a 3-year-old boy on Saturday was lowered to 30 mph Sunday on orders of the governor.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo directed state Transportation Commissioner Joan McDonald to immediately lower the speed limit from the current 50 mph and install “park-appropriate” guard rails where the expressway passes through Delaware Park.
In his letter, sent late Sunday, Cuomo also directed the department to install speed messaging boards to alert drivers of the change, which is effective immediately.
“I am deeply saddened to learn of the tragic car crash in Buffalo on Saturday that claimed the life of a young child and severely injured another,” Cuomo wrote in his letter. “While law enforcement agencies are still investigating the circumstances surrounding this terrible crash, it is clear that immediate action needs to be taken to improve safety for motorists and pedestrians on the portion of the Scajaquada Expressway that passes through Delaware Park.”
Well, it will be a bit of time before I move if I do anyways. My current lease goes through next April. Next year isn't looking like an opportune time to move, which will push it out another year. That's probably a good thing; the rent at the place I'm looking at is a couple hundred more a month for the cheapest unit (compensated with included internet, however) than what I have now and I'm not sure how utility costs will pan out (especially since my current apartment includes heat in the rest and the one I'm looking at comes with a washer and dryer in the unit; my salary increases a bit each year until I reach top of grade). Between the off street parking (some of which is indoors), the in-unit washer/dryer (which has been on my wish list for a year now), and the wonderful location (right on top of both I-787 and the bus line that goes to NYSDOT, and right in the heart of Albany) makes it seem too good to be true.QuoteHeck, it's so bad that it even has me considering a move to downtown Albany after a life spent in the suburbs!
To be fair, if you're going to be Region 1's Bike/Ped Coordinator (as you'd mentioned on Facebook), this might not be a bad thing...
Yeesh. More politicians just pulling numbers out of their rears. When will Cuomo start letting the agencies do their jobs instead of doing it for them?
Any idea of the specific limits of where it will be 30? The limits of the park appear to be rather ambiguous on Google Maps, the western side in particular, and the location of the eastern end leaves me wondering if it will be before or after the intersection.
Yeesh. More politicians just pulling numbers out of their rears. When will Cuomo start letting the agencies do their jobs instead of doing it for them?
Any idea of the specific limits of where it will be 30? The limits of the park appear to be rather ambiguous on Google Maps, the western side in particular, and the location of the eastern end leaves me wondering if it will be before or after the intersection.
I'll check it out when I drive into work tomorrow. The MPO has me on Elmwood all week, so I may as well drive through the area instead of taking 190. Personally, I think it's BS. Install the Jersey barriers that should have been there all along and that would stop it. Problem is that people in Buffalo don't know how to stay in their lanes or control their vehicles. Someone drives into a building at least 1-2 times a week around here.
Oh, and the GBNRTC did a study on what would happen if the speed limit was lowered to 30 on NY 198. LOS F during weekday rush hour. Things are going to be pretty bad come 8:00 tomorrow morning.
NY 198 is 30 east of Grant St. Basically the entire thing. Some people are going 30, others 60, so it's very unsafe. Nowhere for a cop to sit, either, so it's the wild west out there. I expect accidents to skyrocket.
In my late teens I was hanging out in that part of Buffalo and used to ask why 198 was not at least below grade through the park? Locals always told me that had been the plan but they ran into a high water table aquifer that would have required continuous pumping. Is that true?
Meanwhile, when a road is dangerously over capacity for the amount of space there is(geographic/physical limitations not withstanding), and major accidents are a common occurrence(US 4/NY 149 to VT come to mind), nothing is done. Not to take away from this tragedy, it is a sad thing that happened for sure. You have to look at the flip side as well.
Billu Joel is getting part of NY 107 in Nassau County named after him.
http://m.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/pols-vote-rename-part-n-y-highway-billy-joel-article-1.2242177 (http://m.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/pols-vote-rename-part-n-y-highway-billy-joel-article-1.2242177)
What I want:
30 mph posted speed limit.
One lane in each direction.
Bike lanes in each direction.
Parallel parking on the street, to alleviate parking pressure in the park itself and the frequent illegal parking on the grass along Nottingham.
Sidewalks and pedestrian-scaled streetlights (not highway standards) to really drive home that this is a slow parkway through the park, and NOT meant as a through road connecting 33 and 190.
Build the park right up to the new road so it really feels like the park surrounds the street, rather than being divided by it.
I can take or leave the roundabouts and medians.
QuoteWhat I want:
30 mph posted speed limit.
One lane in each direction.
Bike lanes in each direction.
Parallel parking on the street, to alleviate parking pressure in the park itself and the frequent illegal parking on the grass along Nottingham.
Sidewalks and pedestrian-scaled streetlights (not highway standards) to really drive home that this is a slow parkway through the park, and NOT meant as a through road connecting 33 and 190.
Build the park right up to the new road so it really feels like the park surrounds the street, rather than being divided by it.
I can take or leave the roundabouts and medians.
Region 5 has eliminated any alternative containing fewer than four lanes. Less than 4 and the model shows that most of the surrounding streets are at LOS F. I saw the model myself. It isn't pretty. Imagine the George Washington Bridge on a weekday morning if a deck was closed and that's kind of what it looked like. Traffic much worse than anything you'd ever see in Buffalo.
These people might want 2 lanes, but I'd expect hell to freeze over before Region 5 builds it and the money has to come from somewhere.
A city resident wants to slam the brakes on car services that charge passengers the full toll for bridges and tunnels – even though their drivers get E-ZPass discounts.
Ralph Gemelli, a retired criminal investigator for the state Department of Taxation and Finance, says in a Manhattan lawsuit that he hired Carmel Car and Limousine Service four times between October and March.
On each trip, the Queens man noticed his driver using a windshield-mounted E-ZPass device to pay the toll, the suit says.
But when Gemelli received an itemized bill for the trips, he discovered that he had been charged the full toll price.
It looks like the Utica area is getting the "Highway Info" signs along some of the expressways over the next couple of weeks. I noticed that NY 49 EB between NY 291 and Cavanaugh Rd, NY 840 EB between NY 5A and NY 5/8/12 and a couple of other places now have empty sign posts near some ground work that looks like electrical work was done. The mounts are definitely not for VMSes but they look to be the right size for the Highway Info signs, like as found on the Thruway. I haven't found any plans online but when the installations are complete I'll snap a photo.
I'm curious if they'll be "Highway Info" / "Traffic Advisory When Flashing" or "Urgent Message When Flashing", as I've seen both variations in the Empire State.
It looks like the Utica area is getting the "Highway Info" signs along some of the expressways over the next couple of weeks. I noticed that NY 49 EB between NY 291 and Cavanaugh Rd, NY 840 EB between NY 5A and NY 5/8/12 and a couple of other places now have empty sign posts near some ground work that looks like electrical work was done. The mounts are definitely not for VMSes but they look to be the right size for the Highway Info signs, like as found on the Thruway. I haven't found any plans online but when the installations are complete I'll snap a photo.
I'm curious if they'll be "Highway Info" / "Traffic Advisory When Flashing" or "Urgent Message When Flashing", as I've seen both variations in the Empire State.
Do you mean electronic billboards or flashers (e.g. Tune to 1610 AM)?
Also, how is the Arterial doing?
Bridge replacement project on I-290 at NY 265/384 is making progress. Exit 1 (NY 384) has been converted to a partial diamond for the duration of construction and no entrance is provided to WB I-290, requiring a 10 minute detour to access I-190 from NY 384. 4 lanes total through the site. NYSDOT borrowed something I've only seen in Ohio- instead of running all lanes over one span or building a temporary span to keep all lanes together, one EB lane runs contraflow through the site and the other runs on the EB side.
Needless to say, the area is quite a mess right now and US 62 and NY 384 are clogged as a result. If you're going to Niagara Falls and don't want to get stuck in it, I'd recommend using I-190 or NY 33 and NY 198 to bypass it.
Traffic lights, crosswalks and speed bumps will be installed along the Scajaquada Expressway/Route 198 in the next few months, with the ultimate goal of turning its full length into a parkway.
Assemblyman Sean Ryan outlined those plans during a news conference Thursday near the pedestrian overpass of Route 198.
Since the death of three-year-old Maksym Sugorovskiy Saturday when he was hit by a car that veered off the expressway and into Delaware Park, Ryan has led the charge to implement long-talked-about changes along the road.
“One thing we know for sure: 30 miles an hour will be the speed limit,” Ryan said.
The day after the fatal incident, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo directed state Transportation Commissioner Joan McDonald to immediately lower the speed limit, from 50 to 30 mph, and install “park-appropriate” guard rails where the expressway passes through the park.
Though numerous signs and message boards alerting motorists to the new speed limit also were installed, many vehicles still exceed that limit, according to roadside signs that record oncoming vehicle speed.
More 198 stuff...
http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/scajaquada-to-become-parkway-with-crosswalks-and-speed-bumps-ryan-says-20150604
It looks like you've done your research on all of this. I am not a fan of the local political scene on either side of the aisle either. On a personal note I'm from the area but attend college in the Mohawk Valley. Did you complete concentration-specific courses in your sophomore or junior year if I may ask?
And the decision to lower the speed limit by not 5 but a whole 20mph....how do they know that'll solve the problem? The decision was made within hours and those signs were made quickly. Amazing. Idk why the gov chose this accident over others. Plus stoplight sand speed bumps too. Definitely not thinking of the region as a whole
It looks like you've done your research on all of this. I am not a fan of the local political scene on either side of the aisle either. On a personal note I'm from the area but attend college in the Mohawk Valley. Did you complete concentration-specific courses in your sophomore or junior year if I may ask?
I took stuff early and I'm graduating a semester early. I've already taken just about every transportation course UB offers. Concentration-specific stuff is mainly taken senior year thanks to the wonderful SUNY gen ed requirements that ABET happens to hate. Taking the last one in the fall.
What's funny is that, not one month ago, someone from the MPO did a presentation in my traffic operations class. Spent 20 minutes showing us the NY 198 model and what would happen if any one of the things these people want were implemented. Heck, the old (2005) study posted online has it being bad and traffic in the area has only gotten worse as Elmwood Village has become more hip.
Do any of the NYSDOT people here know if there's a gag order over there? My agency is keeping quite the low profile during all of this and I haven't heard anything from the normally attention-seeking Region 5.
And the decision to lower the speed limit by not 5 but a whole 20mph....how do they know that'll solve the problem? The decision was made within hours and those signs were made quickly. Amazing. Idk why the gov chose this accident over others. Plus stoplight sand speed bumps too. Definitely not thinking of the region as a whole
Buying votes. Expressway runs in the middle of the only wealthy and predominantly-white neighborhood in the city. Full of political donors. Politicians have been drooling at this opportunity for years to get their hands on donor money.
Do note that, for the past few years, there has been a car going off the road almost daily in the vicinity of Buffalo that hits a person or building. This is not an isolated incident by any means. The day after this happened, a kid was hit in a small town in southern Erie County. Certainly isn't anybody jumping on the bandwagon to do traffic calming or modifications NY 16 (which really needs them, especially in that area).
I've been keeping mum publicly for two reasons: can't fix stupid and I don't want to lose my job. The Buffalo News just posted a story about how the 2005 study recommended a "tree-lined parkway". There were a couple key details they left out or minimized:
*Old study recommended 4 lanes, not 2
*Article was critical of importance NYSDOT placed on traffic flow. Believe it or not, that is the main concern.
*Stuff has changed for the most recent model
The most recent model shows the facility failing if the current grade separations are eliminated. As the surface roads already fail at each crossing due to surrounding intersections, this is quite true. The best model I saw, IMHO, gave the three middle interchanges quadrant roadways on the south side. Roundabouts at NY 198, signals at the surface road. Easily had the best flow. In doing this, there was an uninterrupted pathway along the creek and north side of the roadway. I think there was an unsignalized superstreet or something similar at Lincoln Parkway, as well. Kept through traffic moving while slowing things down. Interchanges at each end were unchanged.
Honestly, nobody will suggest this, but I'd be in favor of capping it east of Delaware Avenue and keeping the expressway at a decent speed, with quadrant roadway intersections from there west. They're already looking at capping NY 33 and this would allow them to really rebuild Humboldt Parkway.
I saw some "road porn" on the 90 today. They were widening it between exit 50 and 51, something I never really expected to see.
Found another Erie County CR shield this morning. Along NY 5 in the Town of Evans (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.691825,-79.000556,3a,43.5y,217.28h,76.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_0jkp0ZGRueVpSEhNWBG_w!2e0). Only one I know of in the 400s and the road is quite minor.
Until now, most of the shields I knew of are/were on relatively major roads. This changes the whole game. You never know where you could find one of these things and there's no way in hell one person could drive every mile of Erie County's immense system.
Which raises another question: did Erie County once sign every county route? I understand the shields in Tonawanda (former state route) and what was once in Hamburg (major connector highway), but this road goes nowhere.
Found another Erie County CR shield this morning. Along NY 5 in the Town of Evans (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.691825,-79.000556,3a,43.5y,217.28h,76.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_0jkp0ZGRueVpSEhNWBG_w!2e0). Only one I know of in the 400s and the road is quite minor.
Until now, most of the shields I knew of are/were on relatively major roads. This changes the whole game. You never know where you could find one of these things and there's no way in hell one person could drive every mile of Erie County's immense system.
Which raises another question: did Erie County once sign every county route? I understand the shields in Tonawanda (former state route) and what was once in Hamburg (major connector highway), but this road goes nowhere.
That's pretty crazy. The only time I have seen a county shield is somewhere around Springville or East Otto, which may actually fall in this category of "unaccounted" shields, if that's what you're implying.
Found another Erie County CR shield this morning. Along NY 5 in the Town of Evans (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.691825,-79.000556,3a,43.5y,217.28h,76.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_0jkp0ZGRueVpSEhNWBG_w!2e0). Only one I know of in the 400s and the road is quite minor.
Until now, most of the shields I knew of are/were on relatively major roads. This changes the whole game. You never know where you could find one of these things and there's no way in hell one person could drive every mile of Erie County's immense system.
Which raises another question: did Erie County once sign every county route? I understand the shields in Tonawanda (former state route) and what was once in Hamburg (major connector highway), but this road goes nowhere.
Wow. I've driven by Electric many times in my life but have never been down it. I'll have to head over there sometime this week.
CR 51 is gone and has been for a while.
There's at least one on East River Road in Grand Island as of last August.
Forgot about the Colvin one-I know I've seen it before. I'm rarely south of Buffalo, so I knew nothing about most of the other ones
Where is the one on Kenmore Avenue? I've certainly been on it enough to have likely seen it
Still, it raises a question: was stuff once posted regularly? If I were the DPW, I'd just make a new set of public numbers and post those with the pentagon, but certain areas at least seem to have a concentration of the shields that makes me wonder (Tonawanda/Grand Island, Hamburg/Evans)
Oh, I know the number system is still in use and NYSDOT recognizes it. Former US 219 south of Springville does not have a number (at least not in NYSDOT's database). Their network might even be larger than Suffolk County's network
Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close.
but Erie County is like the midwest and west, with the counties controlling everything outside of developed areas.
Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close.
Not by mileage, no. But in terms of number of routes or segments, I don't think anyone will beat Nassau County.
Nassau changes route numbers when street names change. That system is crazy.Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close.
Not by mileage, no. But in terms of number of routes or segments, I don't think anyone will beat Nassau County.
Nassau changes route numbers when street names change. That system is crazy.Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close.
Not by mileage, no. But in terms of number of routes or segments, I don't think anyone will beat Nassau County.
Nassau changes route numbers when street names change. That system is crazy.Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close.
Not by mileage, no. But in terms of number of routes or segments, I don't think anyone will beat Nassau County.
I completely agree that Nassau probably has the highest number of "numbered routes" with its crazy alphanumeric numbering system. Seemingly no pattern or anything (most counties with a lot of routes seem to have some sort of pattern). Has anyone bothered to count how many they actually have (including the reference routes they maintain)? I know Erie is in the neighborhood of 400, but Nassau is probably closer to 500
I completely agree that Nassau probably has the highest number of "numbered routes" with its crazy alphanumeric numbering system. Seemingly no pattern or anything (most counties with a lot of routes seem to have some sort of pattern).The pattern is street names. If a street name does not alphabetically match up to its alpha number, that means the name was changed more recently. Of course, the regular-numbered routes are much less patterned...
Nassau County has 263 different CR designations, plus 2 reference routes under county jurisdiction. Erie County has 380 numerical designations plus 2 unnumbered CRs. Since it was mentioned earlier, Onondaga is around 290. Most other counties (including Suffolk, which has a seemingly-large system) have under 100 route numbers.
Nassau County has 263 different CR designations, plus 2 reference routes under county jurisdiction. Erie County has 380 numerical designations plus 2 unnumbered CRs. Since it was mentioned earlier, Onondaga is around 290. Most other counties (including Suffolk, which has a seemingly-large system) have under 100 route numbers.
Of Nassau County's 263 different designations, how many are applied separately to two or more entirely different roads? A quick scan suggests something like 20% of them do (somewhat less as the numbers go higher, though).
Any dollars lying around to fix Tonawanda Creek Rd? It looks like an expensive but important project.
There doesn't seem to be a shortage of projects happening in the area, that's good to see.Those have been showing up in the Rochester area in recent years although still rare. The new signals they just installed on NY 33 in Gates have back plates with the yellow surround. The signals they installed at the diverging diamond at I 590 Exit 1 may be the first ones with back plates in the Rochester area.
How widespread are these style of lights in NY? I saw this at Union and Main in West Seneca:
Image Snipped
I'll cross-reference the ID numbers later to find out how many different names there are. Not as east because some physical roads change nanes while retaining the same alignment and CR number.
I'll cross-reference the ID numbers later to find out how many different names there are. Not as east because some physical roads change nanes while retaining the same alignment and CR number.
In my listing I have it separated into numbered sub-entries where they are actually different streets, vs. continuous alignments which are grouped together.
In other words, you'd just need to count all the (2)s and (3)s and add them to what you've counted so far. :-)
iPhone
Buffaboy: when you said " these style of lights" earlier, are you referring to the doghouse signals or the mast arms?
I really thought you were talking about the use of back plates on the lights. Those are rather uncommon in NY.Buffaboy: when you said " these style of lights" earlier, are you referring to the doghouse signals or the mast arms?
I meant both the signals and arms. From my experience there aren't many in Region 5 nor are there many in Region 3. Most are string lights. I know Cleveland has switched many of their lights over, but I can't tell if there's an advantage over the standard.
This website (http://trafficsignals.net/east.htm) has an interesting overview of lights by state.
I really thought you were talking about the use of back plates on the lights. Those are rather uncommon in NY.Buffaboy: when you said " these style of lights" earlier, are you referring to the doghouse signals or the mast arms?
I meant both the signals and arms. From my experience there aren't many in Region 5 nor are there many in Region 3. Most are string lights. I know Cleveland has switched many of their lights over, but I can't tell if there's an advantage over the standard.
This website (http://trafficsignals.net/east.htm) has an interesting overview of lights by state.
Mast arms are very common here in the Rochester area mainly because that is the standard for signals owned by Monroe County since the '90's. County owned signals on span wire are over 20 years old. However, NYSDOT signals are still mostly span wire for new signals but plenty of mast arms here too for their signals.
After thinking about it, I actually did mean back plates. The mast arms aren't common but they aren't uncommon AFAIK. Especially in villages or at busy off-ramps.
Back plates on the other hand, the two I posted on the previous page and at Milestrip Road and the 219 are the only ones I can come up with off the top of my head.
Signals with backplates in Monroe Co. that I know of.After thinking about it, I actually did mean back plates. The mast arms aren't common but they aren't uncommon AFAIK. Especially in villages or at busy off-ramps.
Back plates on the other hand, the two I posted on the previous page and at Milestrip Road and the 219 are the only ones I can come up with off the top of my head.
There are a decent amount of backplates in the region. Partial list follows:
*US 20 at Townline Rd, Lancaster/Alden
*US 20 at Three Rod Rd/Sandridge Rd, Alden
*NY 325 at DuPont plant, Tonawanda
*NY 325 at Kenmore Ave, Tonawanda
*NY 384 at I-190, Niagara Falls
*US 62 at Melody Ln, North Tonawanda
*NY 263 at Crosspoint Pkwy, Amherst
*NY 78 at Olmsted Ave, Depew
I know I've seen others elsewhere, but that's all I can immediately think of.
Genesee County (in R4) also has a few installations with backplates, including 2 along US 20. One of these (a beacon in Bethany) has reflective backplates.
NY 33 at Wegman Rd.
NY 33 at Wegman Rd.
Ah, you mean right there in front of Tops. :spin:
NY 33 at Wegman Rd.
Ah, you mean right there in front of Tops. :spin:
NY 33 at Wegman Rd.
Ah, you mean right there in front of Tops. :spin:
"Tops never mops, look at their floors..." :awesomeface:
Good ones guys! :)NY 33 at Wegman Rd.
Ah, you mean right there in front of Tops. :spin:
Just checked the map, that's pretty hilarious.NY 33 at Wegman Rd.
Ah, you mean right there in front of Tops. :spin:
"Tops never mops, look at their floors..." :awesomeface:
Wegmans: Every day you get depressed.
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) will host public information meetings to discuss plans for a future safety improvement project on Route 5S in the City of Utica, Oneida County.
Two sessions will be held on Thursday, June 25, 2015 at the Utica State Office Building, 1st floor conference room, located at 207 Genesee Street, Utica, New York. The first session will be from 2 p.m. — 4 p.m. and the second session will be from 6 p.m — 8 p.m.
The project is located on Route 5S from Broad Street to Cornelia Street and is currently in the early stages of development. The purpose of the meetings is to provide the public, local businesses and elected officials with information regarding the project and to give everyone an opportunity to comment on the proposed project.
My Utica people, this needs to happen...
My Utica people, this needs to happen...
There are people in Utica?
My Utica people, this needs to happen...
There are people in Utica?
Having spent a year there, they are some of the friendliest I've met...
My Utica people, this needs to happen...
There are people in Utica?
Having spent a year there, they are some of the friendliest I've met...
I have a friend from there. He said recently the best ticket in town was watching buildings get demolished. :D
Is there a Wegman's in Niagra Falls?
Is there a Wegman's in Niagra Falls?
Closest is on Military Road (NY 265)
A glimpse into the possible future of I-787...
http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/06/25/four-takeaways-from-the-kickoff-for-the-study-abou (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/06/25/four-takeaways-from-the-kickoff-for-the-study-abou)
I think that it was pointed out by someone the last time I brought up this topic was that the I-787 study should have taken place some 10-15 years ago. Based on how I-787 is used (along with I-81 in Syracuse and I-190 in Buffalo), I don't see any reason why the highways should be kiboshed for something more aesthetically pleasing or urban friendly, as these highways have a useful utility.A glimpse into the possible future of I-787...
http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/06/25/four-takeaways-from-the-kickoff-for-the-study-abou (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/06/25/four-takeaways-from-the-kickoff-for-the-study-abou)
It won't go away unless there's a replacement, whether it be a tunnel, major widening/upgrades to existing facilities, and/or a new route on a new alignment. We're talking about a road with an AADT nearing 100,000 and much of that volume is concentrated into a couple of peak times. The MPO knows that. I'm convinced the main purpose of the study is to show the public what would happen if it came down.
When I was little, the section of Albany along the Hudson River where Interstate 787 stands today was a huge area of rundown, gritty buildings, both industrial and residential on Belgian block streets.
Along came urban renewal ideas in the 1960's. One of these ideas was to clear away all the old buildings, build a grand plaza of State buildings, a new Dunn Memorial Bridge and an Interstate highway along the derelict riverfront. Governor Nelson Rockefeller wanted to project the grandeur of New York as the economic and political powerhouse of the nation and Albany as its capital. Money seemed like no object. New York had plenty of money and people.
Now, New York is "the Cadillac of welfare," in the words of former Governor Mario Cuomo, and the best and brightest flee the welfare capital of America. New York is a shadow of its former self.
Interstate 787 was a solution in the late 1960's and 1970's. It is now reviled by certain groups.
Why aren't there more of these types of stacked solutions like what's in St. Louis (I-64):
The eastbound and westbound lanes converge into this double-decker viaduct.
If any of 787 is to be boulevarded, it'd have to be a longer stretch, so that traffic actually is forced to slow down.
I am going to try to make the workshop in Watervliet on Tuesday 6/30 for the I-787 study. For a road like I-787 through Albany, I don't see where converting the freeway to a boulevard makes sense, considering the volume of traffic, the fact that a railroad also runs within the median for a portion of I-787 through downtown Albany and its common usefulness as a primary corridor between Albany and Troy. There's also the matter of the Port of Albany to consider as well. Given those factors, I think that I-787 will remain as a freeway.
Agreed. I don't think that there's an adequate alternative if I-787 was torn down, as it is a critical piece of the local highway network. The Northway, Thruway and I-90 would then become overburdened at times, in my opinion. Plus, there's the question of funding.I am going to try to make the workshop in Watervliet on Tuesday 6/30 for the I-787 study. For a road like I-787 through Albany, I don't see where converting the freeway to a boulevard makes sense, considering the volume of traffic, the fact that a railroad also runs within the median for a portion of I-787 through downtown Albany and its common usefulness as a primary corridor between Albany and Troy. There's also the matter of the Port of Albany to consider as well. Given those factors, I think that I-787 will remain as a freeway.
I really don't see how it could be torn down at this point. At least for the I-81 viaduct, people are pointing to I-481.
Agreed. I don't think that there's an adequate alternative if I-787 was torn down, as it is a critical piece of the local highway network. The Northway, Thruway and I-90 would then become overburdened at times, in my opinion. Plus, there's the question of funding.I am going to try to make the workshop in Watervliet on Tuesday 6/30 for the I-787 study. For a road like I-787 through Albany, I don't see where converting the freeway to a boulevard makes sense, considering the volume of traffic, the fact that a railroad also runs within the median for a portion of I-787 through downtown Albany and its common usefulness as a primary corridor between Albany and Troy. There's also the matter of the Port of Albany to consider as well. Given those factors, I think that I-787 will remain as a freeway.
I really don't see how it could be torn down at this point. At least for the I-81 viaduct, people are pointing to I-481.
What COULD eventually be torn down is the massive tangle of ramps at and near the Dunn Bridge.
What COULD eventually be torn down is the massive tangle of ramps at and near the Dunn Bridge.
Yes. Hell, I'd say replace the Dunn Memorial Bridge and redo the ramps. That would do more than tearing out I-787.
What COULD eventually be torn down is the massive tangle of ramps at and near the Dunn Bridge.
Yes. Hell, I'd say replace the Dunn Memorial Bridge and redo the ramps. That would do more than tearing out I-787.
This, plus I think many of these stubs like the "highway" that runs under the Empire State Plaza need to be reconfigured for the current usage, it just looks odd on a map and is really just a glorified entrance to a parking garage.
Does Albany have more vehicular traffic than Buffalo (by AADT)?
Does Albany have more vehicular traffic than Buffalo (by AADT)?
Don't know about more, but on a fun visit to Region 5 I had some time ago, they showed how in Buffalo they don't have the rush hour "bumps" on a daily traffic volume graph. It peaks around lunch time. :D
Does Albany have more vehicular traffic than Buffalo (by AADT)?
Don't know about more, but on a fun visit to Region 5 I had some time ago, they showed how in Buffalo they don't have the rush hour "bumps" on a daily traffic volume graph. It peaks around lunch time. :D
Does Albany have more vehicular traffic than Buffalo (by AADT)?
Don't know about more, but on a fun visit to Region 5 I had some time ago, they showed how in Buffalo they don't have the rush hour "bumps" on a daily traffic volume graph. It peaks around lunch time. :D
Working for the Buffalo MPO in the field, I can confirm that. In most parts of Buffalo, traffic is pretty sustained throughout the day. Peak hours do have higher counts during the rush hours than the lunch period, but there's not as much of a variation as is present elsewhere. Most of Niagara Falls does have its daily peak hour from 12-1 PM (tourists, Canadians, shoppers).
Albany's terrain funnels traffic onto a few highways, while flat Buffalo has a lot of parallel routings that spread traffic out over a large area. You don't have the dense network of 4+ lane highways crisscrossing the region because the central business districts of Albany, Schenectady, and Troy are in deep valleys and river crossings are limited, with the bridges being major choke points. The foothills for each of the surrounding mountain ranges go right up to the valley. Complicating matters, many of the major surface highways are on routings dating back to the 1600s.
AADTs on the expressways tend to be higher in Albany due to the lack of good surface routings (and the lack of river crossings altogether), with only the stretches between Exits 50-51 and 53-54 (adjacent exits between freeways) on I-90 east of Buffalo being higher. In terms of sustained volume over a long distance, the Northway has the highest AADT upstate, with counts over 100,000 up into Saratoga County.
Since I've just gotten back from New York City...
my route to get back home included some sidetracking. The route between I-495 and the NJ Turnpike was different.
What my parents took: I-495 WB through the Queens-Midtown (told them to take exit 17W), I-95 south thru the GWB, NJ Turnpike north to exit 14
My suggested routing: I-495 WB to exit 17W (I-278 WB), then take exit 26 on I-278 to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, continue on NY 9A north to exit 10, take I-95 southbound to exit 6 on the NJ Turnpike.
What roadgeek delights were there on my suggested routing and my parents routing?
That's a part of it. Of course, all the development goes that way because it's the only direction one can go without running into tolls and/or mountains within a few miles. During the summer and fall, there's also a ton of tourist traffic going up that way.Does Albany have more vehicular traffic than Buffalo (by AADT)?
Don't know about more, but on a fun visit to Region 5 I had some time ago, they showed how in Buffalo they don't have the rush hour "bumps" on a daily traffic volume graph. It peaks around lunch time. :D
Working for the Buffalo MPO in the field, I can confirm that. In most parts of Buffalo, traffic is pretty sustained throughout the day. Peak hours do have higher counts during the rush hours than the lunch period, but there's not as much of a variation as is present elsewhere. Most of Niagara Falls does have its daily peak hour from 12-1 PM (tourists, Canadians, shoppers).
Albany's terrain funnels traffic onto a few highways, while flat Buffalo has a lot of parallel routings that spread traffic out over a large area. You don't have the dense network of 4+ lane highways crisscrossing the region because the central business districts of Albany, Schenectady, and Troy are in deep valleys and river crossings are limited, with the bridges being major choke points. The foothills for each of the surrounding mountain ranges go right up to the valley. Complicating matters, many of the major surface highways are on routings dating back to the 1600s.
AADTs on the expressways tend to be higher in Albany due to the lack of good surface routings (and the lack of river crossings altogether), with only the stretches between Exits 50-51 and 53-54 (adjacent exits between freeways) on I-90 east of Buffalo being higher. In terms of sustained volume over a long distance, the Northway has the highest AADT upstate, with counts over 100,000 up into Saratoga County.
The Northway traffic counts, I bet they are so high as a result of most Albany suburbs located north (Clifton Park) and the presence of tech offices along the corridor.
I made a mistake; my parents took the Midtown Tunnel, went north (no idea which avenue) to 41st Street (my dad says 39th, which is wrong), took the Lincoln Tunnel to the NJ Turnpike.Since I've just gotten back from New York City...
my route to get back home included some sidetracking. The route between I-495 and the NJ Turnpike was different.
What my parents took: I-495 WB through the Queens-Midtown (told them to take exit 17W), I-95 south thru the GWB, NJ Turnpike north to exit 14
My suggested routing: I-495 WB to exit 17W (I-278 WB), then take exit 26 on I-278 to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, continue on NY 9A north to exit 10, take I-95 southbound to exit 6 on the NJ Turnpike.
What roadgeek delights were there on my suggested routing and my parents routing?
Well, that depends on a couple things:
—From Exit 10 on NY 9A, how would your routing have gotten up to I-95? The direct connection is at Exit 14, and that's pretty darn roadgeek-delightful.
—How did your parents' routing get you from I-495 to the GWB? Everything on I-95 between the bridge and I-87 at the Highbridge Interchange is fascinating.
Either way, you got the bridge itself and the crazy interchange on the NJ side, so that's pretty cool. However, your routing would have given you the cool cantilevered section of I-278 through Brooklyn Heights, but perhaps at the expense of the more interesting bits of FDR Drive, depending on whether that was on your parents' route.
I made a mistake; my parents took the Midtown Tunnel, went north (no idea which avenue) to 41st Street (my dad says 39th, which is wrong), took the Lincoln Tunnel to the NJ Turnpike.
The Utica area has a bunch of new VMSes as of Friday.
* NY 49 EB between NY 291 and Cavanaugh Rd interchanges
* NY 8 NB between Washington Mills and New Hartford interchanges
* NY 840 EB between NY 5A and NY 5/8/12 interchanges
* NY 8/12 SB between Mulaney Rd and River Rd interchanges
These panels are smaller than those found elsewhere in the state and are really thin panels mounted on extruded metal. I was surprised to see that VMSes were installed, I was sure they'd be "Traveler Advisory" signs with a radio frequency and flashing lights indication "Urgent Message When Flashing".
I don't know that the Utica area has enough traffic to warrant all of these signs (there were already three along NY 5/8/12), but only time will tell.
The Utica area has a bunch of new VMSes as of Friday.
* NY 49 EB between NY 291 and Cavanaugh Rd interchanges
* NY 8 NB between Washington Mills and New Hartford interchanges
* NY 840 EB between NY 5A and NY 5/8/12 interchanges
* NY 8/12 SB between Mulaney Rd and River Rd interchanges
These panels are smaller than those found elsewhere in the state and are really thin panels mounted on extruded metal. I was surprised to see that VMSes were installed, I was sure they'd be "Traveler Advisory" signs with a radio frequency and flashing lights indication "Urgent Message When Flashing".
I don't know that the Utica area has enough traffic to warrant all of these signs (there were already three along NY 5/8/12), but only time will tell.
Those are all logical places to have signs. Notifies traffic entering Utica from most of the major approaches about any issues. Honestly, I think every highway of importance should have VMSes at regular intervals to inform drivers about conditions. Just makes sense to do so.
Speaking of electronic signs, the travel time signs along I-990 north of Buffalo went online about a month and a half ago after being installed and inactive for over 2 years. After speaking with a higher-up at NITTEC, I am able to confirm that other dedicated travel time signs are planned for Erie and Niagara Counties and along the 400-series highways in the Niagara Region.
IP addresses are the four-number strings like 74.125.224.72 that you'll sometimes see in your browser's address bar, in the guts of your smartphone's system settings, or that you might be asked to type in to your cable modem or WiFi router. That address, 74.125.224.72, is one of many that should take you to Google.com.
It's like the highway system. If you're driving through New York, you might take Interstate 95 or I-190 or I-287. But in plain English, it's all the New York State Thruway.
This is about as borderline off-topic as you can get, but in this NBC News article about the lack of new IP addresses, it mentions I-95 as part of the New York State Thruway. Well that's not the case...right? I can't seem to find an answer.The best part of that quote is that they managed to name all of the highways that are owned by the Thruway Authority but are not part of the Thruway. (Yes, part of 287 is, but part isn't.)
It's an interesting article as well though.QuoteIP addresses are the four-number strings like 74.125.224.72 that you'll sometimes see in your browser's address bar, in the guts of your smartphone's system settings, or that you might be asked to type in to your cable modem or WiFi router. That address, 74.125.224.72, is one of many that should take you to Google.com.
It's like the highway system. If you're driving through New York, you might take Interstate 95 or I-190 or I-287. But in plain English, it's all the New York State Thruway.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/internet-now-officially-too-big-ip-addresses-run-out-n386081?cid=sm_fb
Garden State Parkway Extension?This is about as borderline off-topic as you can get, but in this NBC News article about the lack of new IP addresses, it mentions I-95 as part of the New York State Thruway. Well that's not the case...right? I can't seem to find an answer.The best part of that quote is that they managed to name all of the highways that are owned by the Thruway Authority but are not part of the Thruway. (Yes, part of 287 is, but part isn't.)
It's an interesting article as well though.QuoteIP addresses are the four-number strings like 74.125.224.72 that you'll sometimes see in your browser's address bar, in the guts of your smartphone's system settings, or that you might be asked to type in to your cable modem or WiFi router. That address, 74.125.224.72, is one of many that should take you to Google.com.
It's like the highway system. If you're driving through New York, you might take Interstate 95 or I-190 or I-287. But in plain English, it's all the New York State Thruway.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/internet-now-officially-too-big-ip-addresses-run-out-n386081?cid=sm_fb
Garden State Parkway Extension?QuoteIt's like the highway system. If you're driving through New York, you might take Interstate 95 or I-190 or I-287. But in plain English, it's all the New York State Thruway.The best part of that quote is that they managed to name all of the highways that are owned by the Thruway Authority but are not part of the Thruway. (Yes, part of 287 is, but part isn't.)
Garden State Parkway Extension?QuoteIt's like the highway system. If you're driving through New York, you might take Interstate 95 or I-190 or I-287. But in plain English, it's all the New York State Thruway.The best part of that quote is that they managed to name all of the highways that are owned by the Thruway Authority but are not part of the Thruway. (Yes, part of 287 is, but part isn't.)
Also, if we're counting roads that are partly on the mainline and partly not, then logically 90 must count as well (Berkishire Section).
The entire Berkshire Spur is on the ticket system, so I'm inclined to consider it differently from the other spurs (Niagara Thruway, Garden State Parkway, Cross-Westchester Expressway, and New England Thruway; formerly I-84)Garden State Parkway Extension?QuoteIt's like the highway system. If you're driving through New York, you might take Interstate 95 or I-190 or I-287. But in plain English, it's all the New York State Thruway.The best part of that quote is that they managed to name all of the highways that are owned by the Thruway Authority but are not part of the Thruway. (Yes, part of 287 is, but part isn't.)
Also, if we're counting roads that are partly on the mainline and partly not, then logically 90 must count as well (Berkishire Section).
The entire Berkshire Spur is on the ticket system
The entire Berkshire Spur is on the ticket system
No it isn't. The ticket system ends between B2 and B3. One can enter at B3 and head to Massachussets without giving NYSTA a cent of their money.
Time for a thread split, perhaps, for the Scajaquada discussion?
iPhone
Time for a thread split, perhaps, for the Scajaquada discussion?
iPhone
Time for a thread split, perhaps, for the Scajaquada discussion?
iPhone
How the street names of Albany, NY came to be...
http://m.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Uncovering-backstory-of-Albany-s-800-street-names-6378756.php?cmpid=fb (http://m.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Uncovering-backstory-of-Albany-s-800-street-names-6378756.php?cmpid=fb)
Anybody who spends time in a car or bus in Manhattan knows that traffic congestion isn’t getting better and, indeed, may be getting worse. The average daytime speed of cars in Manhattan’s business districts has fallen to just under 8 miles per hour this year, from about 9.15 miles per hour in 2009.
City officials say that car services like Uber and Lyft are partly to blame. So Mayor Bill de Blasio is proposing to cap their growth, at least temporarily. It’s a bad idea. There are smarter ways to reduce congestion.
The New York City Council could soon take up Mr. de Blasio’s solution, which is to cap the number of cars that companies like Uber can add for up to a year while the city studies the issue. Uber is pushing back forcefully, accusing the mayor of catering to the entrenched taxi interests that supported his campaign for mayor. The company’s smaller competitors like Lyft are worried the proposal would simply entrench Uber’s dominance.
Oneida County Route 34 / Marcy-SUNYIT Parkway has apparently been renamed Marcy-SUNY Parkway. Crews have been covering up the "IT" on signs all along the route with tape that matches the green background of the sign really well.
The guide panels for the interchange with NY Route 49 have not been updated yet. I'm curious to see if the new overhead signs going up in the area will include the "IT" or not, requiring modification after installation.
Region 5 is changing reference markers again. NY 263 got new reference markers this week. Formerly, the section that bypassed UB was marked as the mileage plus 10, with RMs containing the mileage via the original aligment picking up again at North Forest Road. Mileage was redone for the entire section north of Flint Road, with all RMs north of there showing actual mileage via the current alignment. As we all know, reference markers are never supposed to change, even if a new alignment is opened or the route number changes.
First question; What's that sign underneath the "Do Not Enter" sign there? And another OT one; Did NYSDOT get rid of the westernmost gas station along the Belt Parkway? Because I was looking for that and with or without the misdirection of Google Maps, I couldn't find it.Region 5 is changing reference markers again. NY 263 got new reference markers this week. Formerly, the section that bypassed UB was marked as the mileage plus 10, with RMs containing the mileage via the original aligment picking up again at North Forest Road. Mileage was redone for the entire section north of Flint Road, with all RMs north of there showing actual mileage via the current alignment. As we all know, reference markers are never supposed to change, even if a new alignment is opened or the route number changes.
Well, at least this is still there for pre-re-alignment NY 263:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3746/19483571608_302ebd14a8_c.jpg)
The new I-81 southbound bridge as part of the Prospect Mountain Interchange reconstruction project in Binghamton is now open. This is part of the NY 17 (future I-86) construction.
Related press release: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-opening-i-81-southbound-bridge-over-chenango-river (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-opening-i-81-southbound-bridge-over-chenango-river)
SCH-I545
SERVICE ROAD ONLYYes, I do notice that about Upstate New York.
NO EXIT
Lot of old and weird stuff in that area.
I was theorizing that as well. There was a small project to work on the acceleration/deceleration lanes in Tioga County; other than that, I can't think of anything that was needed between Chemung and Kamikaze Curve.
NYSDOT has gotten sick of waiting for AASHTO and is just putting up signs when they feel like it.
QuoteNYSDOT has gotten sick of waiting for AASHTO and is just putting up signs when they feel like it.
It's not AASHTO...it's FHWA. And FHWA could easily smack NYSDOT back if they're signing an Interstate route without authorization.
Here's a press release about the NY 347 reconstruction on Long Island.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island)
I actually grew up down the street from NY 347 during the 1980s and 1990s. There was discussion on how to reconstruct the highway even back then.
I have to agree that redesigning NY 347 as a Jersey freeway would have been the way to go, as opposed to the highway design being inspired by Queens Boulevard and being passed off as an "urban greenway".Here's a press release about the NY 347 reconstruction on Long Island.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island)
I actually grew up down the street from NY 347 during the 1980s and 1990s. There was discussion on how to reconstruct the highway even back then.
They spent all that money to put in a bike path noone uses. I used to travel up and down that road weekly to Lake Grove I don't recall seeing anyone using the bike path, with the occasional person using it like a sidewalk. The new section has narrower lanes and a lower speed limit where clearly there was nothing wrong with the 55mph limit that was there before. They should have made it like those freeways in Jersey where theres stuff on the side of the road but they still have proper interchanges.
I've moved away from Long Island some time ago,
I have to agree that redesigning NY 347 as a Jersey freeway would have been the way to go, as opposed to the highway design being inspired by Queens Boulevard and being passed off as an "urban greenway".Here's a press release about the NY 347 reconstruction on Long Island.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island)
I actually grew up down the street from NY 347 during the 1980s and 1990s. There was discussion on how to reconstruct the highway even back then.
They spent all that money to put in a bike path noone uses. I used to travel up and down that road weekly to Lake Grove I don't recall seeing anyone using the bike path, with the occasional person using it like a sidewalk. The new section has narrower lanes and a lower speed limit where clearly there was nothing wrong with the 55mph limit that was there before. They should have made it like those freeways in Jersey where theres stuff on the side of the road but they still have proper interchanges.
I've moved away from Long Island some time ago, but I never saw NY 347 as bicycle friendly.
Hey, NYSDOT READ MY SIGNATURE!Here's a press release about the NY 347 reconstruction on Long Island.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island)
I actually grew up down the street from NY 347 during the 1980s and 1990s. There was discussion on how to reconstruct the highway even back then.
They spent all that money to put in a bike path noone uses. I used to travel up and down that road weekly to Lake Grove I don't recall seeing anyone using the bike path, with the occasional person using it like a sidewalk. The new section has narrower lanes and a lower speed limit where clearly there was nothing wrong with the 55mph limit that was there before. They should have made it like those freeways in Jersey where theres stuff on the side of the road but they still have proper interchanges.
Considering that NY 347 is still a higher speed corridor that goes through a mix of suburban neighborhoods and shopping centers, I don't envision that many people using the highway as a bike route. However, there's been a bit of a cultural shift towards bicycle transportation, so I could be wrong.I have to agree that redesigning NY 347 as a Jersey freeway would have been the way to go, as opposed to the highway design being inspired by Queens Boulevard and being passed off as an "urban greenway".Here's a press release about the NY 347 reconstruction on Long Island.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island)
I actually grew up down the street from NY 347 during the 1980s and 1990s. There was discussion on how to reconstruct the highway even back then.
They spent all that money to put in a bike path noone uses. I used to travel up and down that road weekly to Lake Grove I don't recall seeing anyone using the bike path, with the occasional person using it like a sidewalk. The new section has narrower lanes and a lower speed limit where clearly there was nothing wrong with the 55mph limit that was there before. They should have made it like those freeways in Jersey where theres stuff on the side of the road but they still have proper interchanges.
I've moved away from Long Island some time ago, but I never saw NY 347 as bicycle friendly.
Part of the problem, of course, is that in the local culture, one thing you cannot do is instruct people how and where to walk, stand or ride, as they will do so where they are most comfortable. For example, when a park in my Bronx neighborhood was rehabilitated, they installed both a hard-surfaced path for pedestrian traffic (and bicycles, where there isn't an adjacent street), and a cinder jogging track parallel to it. But almost universally, if you see both pedestrians and joggers present, the pedestrians will be using the jogging track and the joggers will be on the hard-surfaced path.
How this related to NY 347, I guess, is that if people don't see it as a bicycle route, they won't use it as one; and if they do, they're as likely to ride in the roadway as to use a bicycle path, especially if it has pedestrians obstructing it (which isn't at all surprising).
I was travelling around the Buffalo area, and I made observations that are giving me questions:
- Why are the Grand Island bridges always backed up?
- What is the GIB construction project for?
- Will the Robert Moses parkway be reduced to 35 MPH in its entirety?
- Will anything ever be done to the stub of the Lasalle Expressway?
Also, why are boulevards and parkways now the trend?
Thanks.
I was travelling around the Buffalo area, and I made observations that are giving me questions:
- Why are the Grand Island bridges always backed up?
- What is the GIB construction project for?
- Will the Robert Moses parkway be reduced to 35 MPH in its entirety?
- Will anything ever be done to the stub of the Lasalle Expressway?
Also, why are boulevards and parkways now the trend?
Thanks.
As the resident transportation person in my circle, I feel like I'm always answering the first 2 questions here.
1. Volume and tolls. I don't have enough data (namely PHVs and truck percentages) to calculate capacity, but I know it's at jam density just because there aren't enough lanes. Actual 2011 count was 70,788 on the South Grand Island Bridge, with the NB side having 4 more vehicles than the SB side. I don't need PHVs to tell you that if traffic follows a standard pattern, a 4-lane expressway with an AADT of 71K will have issues. Tolls reduce capacity greatly because everyone needs to slow down, but problems would exist even without the tolls.
2. Redecking. SB side of the South Grand Island Bridge was redecked a couple of years ago. They're extending the life another 20-30 years so they can actually fund a replacement. A replacement will almost certainly be constructed before it has to be redecked again. Same reason the Tappan Zee Bridge was redecked a few years ago even though its replacement has been on the books for a while.
3. Doubtful, especially not the section north of Lewiston.
4. Doubtful. No reason to. Projected AADT at the ET in 2013 was around 11K and I know it isn't all at once. ET functions well as it is with no delays due to low volumes. When it comes time for the bridges to be reconstructed, we might see it lowered to grade, but until then, no reason to waste money on a little-used highway.
5. Boulevards calm traffic and can help to prevent collisions. The oft-hated raised median on NY 5 near the SUNY Buffalo campus was installed because people in Buffalo are known to use center turn lanes as suicide lanes, especially at that location.
Parkways are another story. This is a parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.770888,-73.869663,3a,75y,329.12h,83.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYaKJTc6DTzF9yljLIDBKNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Parkways have fallen out of fashion.
"Robust" funding may be returning to NYSDOT in exchange for state spending to cover MTA deficits, per Gov Cuomo.
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/239193/cuomo-upstate-will-gets-its-infrastructure-bucks-to-balance-mta/ (http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/239193/cuomo-upstate-will-gets-its-infrastructure-bucks-to-balance-mta/)
Parkways are another story. This is a parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.770888,-73.869663,3a,75y,329.12h,83.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYaKJTc6DTzF9yljLIDBKNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Parkways have fallen out of fashion.
Parkways are another story. This is a parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.770888,-73.869663,3a,75y,329.12h,83.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYaKJTc6DTzF9yljLIDBKNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Parkways have fallen out of fashion.
That looks more like a freeway that is just being called a parkway. This (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.001839,-76.865332,3a,75y,3.13h,80.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy7ggphEeTn225y2eQVquTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) is a better example of parkway.
Parkways are another story. This is a parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.770888,-73.869663,3a,75y,329.12h,83.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYaKJTc6DTzF9yljLIDBKNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Parkways have fallen out of fashion.
That looks more like a freeway that is just being called a parkway. This (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.001839,-76.865332,3a,75y,3.13h,80.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy7ggphEeTn225y2eQVquTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) is a better example of parkway.
As far as New York is concerned, a parkway is nothing more than a freeway that bans trucks. As the peraob who asked the question is, judging by context, likely referring to something within the state, the New York definition applies.
Well superficially that seems like good news. I wonder what this would entail? I would like to see the non-tolled portions of the Thruway in Buffalo widened to 8 lanes and a redesigned Exit 51. Still as I suggested, I will believe it when I see it.
"Robust" funding may be returning to NYSDOT in exchange for state spending to cover MTA deficits, per Gov Cuomo.
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/239193/cuomo-upstate-will-gets-its-infrastructure-bucks-to-balance-mta/ (http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/239193/cuomo-upstate-will-gets-its-infrastructure-bucks-to-balance-mta/)
The word on the street is that this is may be all just talk when it comes down to it. I heard from a source that the New York State Department of Budget is arguing that upstate transportation dollars should also take into account the Thruway, Bridge Authority and others on top of NYSDOT and therefore upstate NY already has close to funding parity with the MTA. In other words, DOB is saying "Um...the coffers are dry...where do you think this money is coming from?"
Like I said, just something that I heard.
Regarding my second question when I asked about that sign on NY 263; Did NYSDOT get rid of the westernmost gas station along the Belt Parkway? Because I was looking for that and with or without the misdirection of Google Maps, I couldn't find it.Still there as of June 25th, 2015, because that's when I last visited New York. I don't know if you mean the one between exits 10 and 11.
No, I meant between the Verrazano—Narrows Bridge and the last exit with the Gowanus Expressway in Sunset Park.Regarding my second question when I asked about that sign on NY 263; Did NYSDOT get rid of the westernmost gas station along the Belt Parkway? Because I was looking for that and with or without the misdirection of Google Maps, I couldn't find it.Still there as of June 25th, 2015, because that's when I last visited New York. I don't know if you mean the one between exits 10 and 11.
No, I meant between the Verrazano—Narrows Bridge and the last exit with the Gowanus Expressway in Sunset Park.Regarding my second question when I asked about that sign on NY 263; Did NYSDOT get rid of the westernmost gas station along the Belt Parkway? Because I was looking for that and with or without the misdirection of Google Maps, I couldn't find it.Still there as of June 25th, 2015, because that's when I last visited New York. I don't know if you mean the one between exits 10 and 11.
No, I meant between the Verrazano—Narrows Bridge and the last exit with the Gowanus Expressway in Sunset Park.Regarding my second question when I asked about that sign on NY 263; Did NYSDOT get rid of the westernmost gas station along the Belt Parkway? Because I was looking for that and with or without the misdirection of Google Maps, I couldn't find it.Still there as of June 25th, 2015, because that's when I last visited New York. I don't know if you mean the one between exits 10 and 11.
I don't think there was ever a gas station on the Belt other than the one by Exits 10-11. Steve Anderson's nycroads site only mentions that gas station. Given that the Belt is basically shoved between a park and the water past the Verrazano until it reaches the Gowanus, I don't see where they would have put a gas station.
Yes, I think there once was a gas station on the eastbound side north of the Verrazano Bridge. I'm talking circa 1970. I only remember it 'cause I think I stopped there to make a phone call back then.
Here's a press release about the NY 347 reconstruction on Long Island.I remember that. I've also mentioned this before but I once knew of an attractive girl who seemed to have a crush on me, until she found out I wanted those upgrades. She lived a whopping mile away from the road, and she thought the proposed service roads would somehow take her house.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island)
I actually grew up down the street from NY 347 during the 1980s and 1990s. There was discussion on how to reconstruct the highway even back then.
I usually pin the time I left LI as August 1998, but I was in college between then and 2002, so I left for good in 2002.Here's a press release about the NY 347 reconstruction on Long Island.I remember that. I've also mentioned this before but I once knew of an attractive girl who seemed to have a crush on me, until she found out I wanted those upgrades. She lived a whopping mile away from the road, and she thought the proposed service roads would somehow take her house.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-56-million-improvements-along-route-347-long-island)
I actually grew up down the street from NY 347 during the 1980s and 1990s. There was discussion on how to reconstruct the highway even back then.
Refresh my memory; When did you move away from Long Island?
http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/08/13/thinking-about-the-direction-of-central-ave (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/08/13/thinking-about-the-direction-of-central-ave)Light rail?
West of Clinton Ave, there's too much traffic, though converting from 5 lane undivided to 4 lane divided would help (so would getting rid of the too-many driveways and traffic signals along that stretch). But east of Clinton Ave/Manning Blvd, traffic volumes drop below 20K so a road diet east of that point is possible/feasible.
West of Clinton Ave, there's too much traffic, though converting from 5 lane undivided to 4 lane divided would help (so would getting rid of the too-many driveways and traffic signals along that stretch). But east of Clinton Ave/Manning Blvd, traffic volumes drop below 20K so a road diet east of that point is possible/feasible.
I agree with you about the traffic signals -- the Capital District simply has too many in general. However, I'm scratching my head about getting rid of the suicide lane. It's too vital.
I agree with you about the traffic signals -- the Capital District simply has too many in general. However, I'm scratching my head about getting rid of the suicide lane. It's too vital.
QuoteI agree with you about the traffic signals -- the Capital District simply has too many in general. However, I'm scratching my head about getting rid of the suicide lane. It's too vital.
The idea being that one would replace the center left turn lane with a raised median (landscaped where possible) and left turn lanes at intersections. Businesses would howl at the "loss of access", but such a configuration is FAR SAFER and has higher traffic capacity than the free-for-all that exists with a flush center LTL.
Perhaps something like NY 252/Jefferson Rd, with media replacing the turn lane and U turns allowed at the lights? Of course, Jefferson Rd was also widened when they did this, and I'm not sure how much room there is to do that to Central Ave.
Or larger vehicles could just "go around the block". Though I do realize that the farther away from downtown Albany one gets, the less of a streetgrid that exists. Another huge fault of suburban development.
The delivery folks would figure it out. If it works in Buffalo (as was noted above), no reason why it can't work in Albany.
It doesn't help that the capital district is a little odd, with city downtowns essentially adjacent to suburban stip malls with no buffer.
The delivery folks would figure it out. If it works in Buffalo (as was noted above), no reason why it can't work in Albany.
Eh? Growing up in Rochester, the development was like an onion: downtown, urban in the outer part of the city, urban/older suburban in the near suburbs (many of which were functionally part of the city, down to the mailing address), modern suburban only in the exurbs. In Albany, it's downtown, clumps of urban development in some neighborhoods, and endless sprawl in even the first ring suburbs. Growing up in Rochester and living in the Albany area now, both are in first ring suburbs just a few miles from downtown, but in Brighton I was in a 50s neighborhood surrounded by 40s development that looked like it was part of the city, and in Colonie/Latham the neighborhood is late 60s/70s era and much less dense. In Brighton, only Monroe Ave (NY 31) was a strip mall corridor; in Colonie, most of the major roads are strip mall corridors.It doesn't help that the capital district is a little odd, with city downtowns essentially adjacent to suburban stip malls with no buffer.
No different from most of the northeast.
Eh? Growing up in Rochester, the development was like an onion: downtown, urban in the outer part of the city, urban/older suburban in the near suburbs (many of which were functionally part of the city, down to the mailing address), modern suburban only in the exurbs. In Albany, it's downtown, clumps of urban development in some neighborhoods, and endless sprawl in even the first ring suburbs. Growing up in Rochester and living in the Albany area now, both are in first ring suburbs just a few miles from downtown, but in Brighton I was in a 50s neighborhood surrounded by 40s development that looked like it was part of the city, and in Colonie/Latham the neighborhood is late 60s/70s era and much less dense. In Brighton, only Monroe Ave (NY 31) was a strip mall corridor; in Colonie, most of the major roads are strip mall corridors.It doesn't help that the capital district is a little odd, with city downtowns essentially adjacent to suburban stip malls with no buffer.
No different from most of the northeast.
No, it won't. :P Have to look at the local characteristics of the avenue that you're dieting. Just because it works in a totally different city, doesn't mean that it'll work in yours.
Recently, I found a new proposal for allegedly improving NY 27 east of Route 112, and I don't like it. I can't find the link right now, but...
1)They plan to add the new service roads between the ROW for the proposed service road and the main roads.
2)They're proposing too many ramps between Hospital Road and Patchogue-Yaphank Road. Plus, one of the proposals involves redirecting the eastbound service road towards North Dunton Avenue.
3)They want a stupid traffic circle at Horse Block Road, Victory Boulevard, and some of the Sunrise Highway ramps, and worse, they want to reduce the ramps at Exit 57!
:angry:
I'd love to see that link. Also the Dunton Avenue proposal makes sense. I'm guessing it'd be a similar setup as the SSP exit WB for Carleton Avenue?Unfortunately it isn't like the Heckscher Parkway/Carleton Avenue interchange (not that it'd work there), and it's not like your map either. I may have to search through the history on my PC to find the link.
Did a quick mockup of what I'm thinking:
(http://i.imgur.com/pYzmQo2.png)
The other part I'd like is an EB Sunrise Service Rd. east of William Floyd, bonus points if it accesses the Southport Shopping Center. It'd help with Montauk Hwy traffic.
I'm just going to leave this here and walk away...
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/21/dix-hills-lie-rest-stop/
I'm just going to leave this here and walk away...
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/21/dix-hills-lie-rest-stop/
About flipping time they built it. All I have to say.
They might as well put up signs saying "abandon hope all ye who enter here".
Ok, if anybody lives in Long Island, let's just hope you are NOT, I repeat NOT a rich d-bag who hates every road that exists. Otherwise if it won't work, to build the LIS bridge, I like this strategy:
1. Demolish all roads in and leading to the Hamptons
2. Give at least two months
3. If they beg and plead you've done it right.
4. Restore the roads and build the bridge
Can't believe NYC ever tried this out.
The most recent proposal is a tunnel between Rye and Oyster Bay. With this, I-287 would be extended through the tunnel and down the SOB. Enough cleared ROW exists on the Oyster Bay side to get started and the Rye end is practically on the water. A bridge-tunnel would make the Rye approach easier and might lower costs. This proposal has the advantage of providing an easy bypass of the Cross Bronx while still serving Nassau County.
I could also see a Bridgeport-Stony Brook crossing. Would connect Nicolls Rd and Route 8. The Sound is narrower here than it is near New Haven and it still has major highway connections on both ends. I-91 would be ideal, but it's the widest part of the Sound.
NYC's interstate numbering is a total disaster. It's like someone drunkenly assigned numbers to the 3dis down there.
What was the original plan for I-495 crossing the Sound? I've never heard the story of why that never happened.
What was the original plan for I-495 crossing the Sound? I've never heard the story of why that never happened.
http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/eastern-sound/
What was the original plan for I-495 crossing the Sound? I've never heard the story of why that never happened.
http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/eastern-sound/
That site just does not load correctly for me...which is odd because it used to.
As a lifelong Long Islander I gotta agree that Duke87 pretty much nailed it.I agree with everything except the line about everything east of the Cross Island sinking into the Atlantic. Plus the congestion on the Cross Bronx is the best reason to revive the Mid-Manhattan and Lower Manhattan Expressways.
Unfortunately, whenever anyone brings up a Long Island Sound crossing in an official setting, they usually get committed to a mental institution.Ask me if I give a shit. If you've read any of my posts, you know I don't.
I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.
I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.
Just squeezing this in, I understand bridge pouring is underway on the Utica arterial, no?
I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.
For some reason, it seems the Taste of NY initiative is some huge priority for the Governor's Office. That's the only reason why things went as fast as they did to having trees being cut down for the LIE rest area. A little political gumption and the bulldozers get moving as quickly as they can to meet it.
(emphasized personal opinion)
Just squeezing this in, I understand bridge pouring is underway on the Utica arterial, no?
I believe the WB bridges are already poured. Pretty sure the timeline to move the WB traffic to the new roadway is September. EB will stay on the old roadway/diverted section.
I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.
For some reason, it seems the Taste of NY initiative is some huge priority for the Governor's Office. That's the only reason why things went as fast as they did to having trees being cut down for the LIE rest area. A little political gumption and the bulldozers get moving as quickly as they can to meet it.
(emphasized personal opinion)
Downstate gets priority over upstate on many things.
I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.
For some reason, it seems the Taste of NY initiative is some huge priority for the Governor's Office. That's the only reason why things went as fast as they did to having trees being cut down for the LIE rest area. A little political gumption and the bulldozers get moving as quickly as they can to meet it.
(emphasized personal opinion)
Downstate gets priority over upstate on many things.
495 was proposed to cross the sound once or twice, but the original intent was only from the NJ Turnpike to I-278 (I think - you may correct me if it's 678 or 295). Everything east of there started out as NY 495, and only later was the Interstate number extended. So while 495 now is a very long spur, it started out as an urban link deserving of an even number.NYC's interstate numbering is a total disaster. It's like someone drunkenly assigned numbers to the 3dis down there.
They all made sense if the network was completed. Other than not connecting to the parent, I-278 and I-678 have compliant numbering. 695 and 895 are compliant. 495 was supposed to cross the Sound. 295 and 878 were added later. There is really no reason to change numbers other than to make a very insignificant portion of the population happy. And, given how NYC really only allows trucks on Interstates, they all have to remain Interstates or risk making truck travel even worse than it already is.
I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.
For some reason, it seems the Taste of NY initiative is some huge priority for the Governor's Office. That's the only reason why things went as fast as they did to having trees being cut down for the LIE rest area. A little political gumption and the bulldozers get moving as quickly as they can to meet it.
(emphasized personal opinion)
Downstate gets priority over upstate on many things.I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.
For some reason, it seems the Taste of NY initiative is some huge priority for the Governor's Office. That's the only reason why things went as fast as they did to having trees being cut down for the LIE rest area. A little political gumption and the bulldozers get moving as quickly as they can to meet it.
(emphasized personal opinion)
Downstate gets priority over upstate on many things.
This situation is just not that simple, as the local opposition shows.
Makes me wonder where the money is going.The Politician's big fat bank accounts.
I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.
For some reason, it seems the Taste of NY initiative is some huge priority for the Governor's Office. That's the only reason why things went as fast as they did to having trees being cut down for the LIE rest area. A little political gumption and the bulldozers get moving as quickly as they can to meet it.
(emphasized personal opinion)
Downstate gets priority over upstate on many things.I think it's funny that the state doesn't have enough money to reopen the "temporarily" closed rest areas (or at least close them permanently) but is somehow able to pay for a new one.
For some reason, it seems the Taste of NY initiative is some huge priority for the Governor's Office. That's the only reason why things went as fast as they did to having trees being cut down for the LIE rest area. A little political gumption and the bulldozers get moving as quickly as they can to meet it.
(emphasized personal opinion)
Downstate gets priority over upstate on many things.
This situation is just not that simple, as the local opposition shows.
Correct. Both areas are facing cutbacks right now. NIMBYs down there are more powerful than the ones upstate as well. Makes me wonder where the money is going.
I'd work on rail freight mobility before trying to build a toll bridge across the Sound. Are all the rail lines on Long Island passenger only? Any of them have unused ROW wide enough to put in a freight line?
I'd work on rail freight mobility before trying to build a toll bridge across the Sound. Are all the rail lines on Long Island passenger only? Any of them have unused ROW wide enough to put in a freight line?
Interestingly, I have seen no discussion anywhere of Cuomo's slipping in of the Cross-Harbor freight tunnel in a speech about projects the state needs to push, along with LaGuardia and I think the Hudson rail tunnel.
No mention of the impossibly expensive Port Authority replacement.
I'd work on rail freight mobility before trying to build a toll bridge across the Sound. Are all the rail lines on Long Island passenger only? Any of them have unused ROW wide enough to put in a freight line?
Interestingly, I have seen no discussion anywhere of Cuomo's slipping in of the Cross-Harbor freight tunnel in a speech about projects the state needs to push, along with LaGuardia and I think the Hudson rail tunnel.
No mention of the impossibly expensive Port Authority replacement.
Please, if the Town of Hempstead was a city, it would be the 16th largest in the nation. Insane amount of people on the island and there's no way to get stuff there. Few things complicating matters:
-53' trailers have to go in/out via the Clearview and Cross Bronx/Bruckner. No exceptions.
-48' trailers have to use Interstates. Could theoretically take I-278 to the LIE if going to/from the south/west. Things are a little fuzzy with these and it's unclear if such a truck could go from the Van Wyck to Sunrise Highway, for example.
-Combinations under 55' total length can use truck routes as well, which include Atlantic Avenue, Conduit Boulevard, and a few other major thoroughfares.
If anything, the truck regulations are a major reason why a Long Island Sound crossing is needed. Everything would go in/out via there regardless of how much the toll is because it would be relatively unrestricted.
cl94, can you fill me in on what's going on with Lake Ave in Orchard Park? It's been closed for a few months now.
NYSDOT - project D262988 - sign face layouts have an NY 11 instead of a US 11 shield in the plans! Can this be averted in time or once the sign plans have been submitted is it too late?The direction cardinals are shown in mixed-case lettering as well. IIRC, such are still to be done in all-caps (with a taller first letter) per MUTCD.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262988
Sign plans are in supplemental information
NYSDOT - project D262988 - sign face layouts have an NY 11 instead of a US 11 shield in the plans! Can this be averted in time or once the sign plans have been submitted is it too late?The direction cardinals are shown in mixed-case lettering as well. IIRC, such are still to be done in all-caps (with a taller first letter) per MUTCD.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262988
Sign plans are in supplemental information
At least there's no Clearview font on the signs.
They're in the supplemental, which likely means they aren't finalized. Typically, finalized sign layouts will show up under "plans".
They're in the supplemental, which likely means they aren't finalized. Typically, finalized sign layouts will show up under "plans".
I don't think a set of plans will be issued for bidding. This appears to be a small-signs job, which NYSDOT tends to do with proposal books only. NYSDOT also customarily does not include sign panel details in its plans. The supplemental documentation uploaded for bidding purposes tends to be final, though it can be changed by amendment.
The notice to contractors should identify a point of contact for questions. I would suggest one of us sends an email to point out the errors, such as NY 11 shield used for US 11, cardinal direction words in mixed-case, etc. This might result in revised signface layouts being issued.
Party poopers. Y'all should wait until the erroneous signs are posted, take a picture, and then complain.
The Prospect Mountain interchange is progressing nicely. Still a bit of work to do--probably will take all of the two to three years of completion that is projected.
Party poopers. Y'all should wait until the erroneous signs are posted, take a picture, and then complain.You're right. What's the fun in doing that, when you can wait until the general public sees it and doesn't care?! Anyone who thinks otherwise, well: :pan: On topic, did they show what the new state line would look like?
On topic, did they show what the new state line would look like?I would assume this design:
On topic, did they show what the new state line would look like?I would assume this design:
(http://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i90/101_2392-s.JPG)
Nope... the contract plans linked above show a sign with this logo:does MUTCD allow this type of thing? When you come in on I-90 EB from PA, you are bombarded with all kinds of signs, something I haven't seen outside of New York.
https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#imgrc=Br3caJG67CqmRM%3A
In green, with "WELCOME TO" above. Perhaps for use on 2-lane roads at the border (ie-non-interstate).
Perhaps meant to replace this style:
https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#tbm=isch&q=welcome+to+new+york+state&imgrc=0eiH-8xbr-Q0rM%3A
Party poopers. Y'all should wait until the erroneous signs are posted, take a picture, and then complain.
Perhaps meant to replace this style:
https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#tbm=isch&q=welcome+to+new+york+state&imgrc=0eiH-8xbr-Q0rM%3A
Nope... the contract plans linked above show a sign with this logo:does MUTCD allow this type of thing? When you come in on I-90 EB from PA, you are bombarded with all kinds of signs, something I haven't seen outside of New York.
https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#imgrc=Br3caJG67CqmRM%3A
In green, with "WELCOME TO" above. Perhaps for use on 2-lane roads at the border (ie-non-interstate).
Perhaps meant to replace this style:
https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#tbm=isch&q=welcome+to+new+york+state&imgrc=0eiH-8xbr-Q0rM%3A
Party poopers. Y'all should wait until the erroneous signs are posted, take a picture, and then complain.
I spoke with R9, they are fixing the signing plans.
Nope... the contract plans linked above show a sign with this logo:Kinda surprising, given that NYSDOT has historically used the same welcome sign for all roads. Guess somebody didn't want to pay for the full-size sign on two lane roads.
https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#imgrc=Br3caJG67CqmRM%3A
In green, with "WELCOME TO" above. Perhaps for use on 2-lane roads at the border (ie-non-interstate).
Perhaps meant to replace this style:
https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+new+york+state+of+opportunity&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CD8QsARqFQoTCMajuKbYxccCFUE3PgodHIgAhA&biw=1440&bih=775#tbm=isch&q=welcome+to+new+york+state&imgrc=0eiH-8xbr-Q0rM%3A
Party poopers. Y'all should wait until the erroneous signs are posted, take a picture, and then complain.I know you're being sarcastic, but better off preventing taxpayer waste if you can. Of course, once the sign is made, may as well be quiet and leave it out.
Is Alfred E. Neuman no longer the governor?What, you worry?
Is Alfred E. Neuman no longer the governor?What, you worry?
I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.
Besides, that interchange was originally built for the cancelled I-687 project. It was to go to I-87 where Exit 3 would have served the connection there. More information can be found here:I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.
Google "I-687". That's why.
I saw a power transmission line travels between the two trumpets, I was definitely wrong assuming that's where the routing of I-687 was supposed to go.I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.
Google "I-687". That's why.
I saw a power transmission line travels between the two trumpets, I was definitely wrong assuming that's where the routing of I-687 was supposed to go.I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.
Google "I-687". That's why.
I-687 is the main reason Exits 4-5 on I-87 are so messed up. The C-D setup was supposed to continue on as I-687. Now that Exit 1 has been rebuilt to handle heavy traffic to/from the north, an expressway would be redundant.
I-687 is the main reason Exits 4-5 on I-87 are so messed up. The C-D setup was supposed to continue on as I-687. Now that Exit 1 has been rebuilt to handle heavy traffic to/from the north, an expressway would be redundant.
Plus we now have the "Alternate 7" freeway connecting the Northway at Exit 7 to I-787 in Green Island/Watervliet that handles a lot of the traffic from the north into Albany.
I-687 is the main reason Exits 4-5 on I-87 are so messed up. The C-D setup was supposed to continue on as I-687. Now that Exit 1 has been rebuilt to handle heavy traffic to/from the north, an expressway would be redundant.
Plus we now have the "Alternate 7" freeway connecting the Northway at Exit 7 to I-787 in Green Island/Watervliet that handles a lot of the traffic from the north into Albany.
It is way, way, way, way past time for people to be still calling it Alt 7. It's become the MA 128 of the Capital Region of NY.
I-687 is the main reason Exits 4-5 on I-87 are so messed up. The C-D setup was supposed to continue on as I-687. Now that Exit 1 has been rebuilt to handle heavy traffic to/from the north, an expressway would be redundant.
Plus we now have the "Alternate 7" freeway connecting the Northway at Exit 7 to I-787 in Green Island/Watervliet that handles a lot of the traffic from the north into Albany.
It is way, way, way, way past time for people to be still calling it Alt 7. It's become the MA 128 of the Capital Region of NY.
Only difference is that Route 128 is still signed as such. Alternate 7 signs haven't even existed in my lifetime.
I-687 is the main reason Exits 4-5 on I-87 are so messed up. The C-D setup was supposed to continue on as I-687. Now that Exit 1 has been rebuilt to handle heavy traffic to/from the north, an expressway would be redundant.
Plus we now have the "Alternate 7" freeway connecting the Northway at Exit 7 to I-787 in Green Island/Watervliet that handles a lot of the traffic from the north into Albany.
It is way, way, way, way past time for people to be still calling it Alt 7. It's become the MA 128 of the Capital Region of NY.
Only difference is that Route 128 is still signed as such. Alternate 7 signs haven't even existed in my lifetime.
HA! Good point.
Traffic reports routinely call it "Alternate 7" or "Alt 7" still here. They have over the years I've lived here, anyway.
They'd still need to differentiate it from the rest of route 7, which is a completely different exit (plus the amount of traffic moving between the two segments of NY 7 is quite low; they might as well be different routes for all intents and purposes).Since when did I-684 move 140 miles north?
I wouldn't call I-684 obsolete. I-90 has large backups every single day west of exit 5 at every single merge (and I-787 and NY 7 have their own issues as well). Diverting some of that traffic away would help matters.
Corporate Woods Boulevard
They'd still need to differentiate it from the rest of route 7, which is a completely different exit (plus the amount of traffic moving between the two segments of NY 7 is quite low; they might as well be different routes for all intents and purposes).
They'd still need to differentiate it from the rest of route 7, which is a completely different exit (plus the amount of traffic moving between the two segments of NY 7 is quite low; they might as well be different routes for all intents and purposes).
No, they don't. It's NY 7 west of the Northway and NY 7 east of Northway and nothing ever happens on the segment of NY 7 west of the Northway except for traffic getting backed up at Wade Road and the Sonic now.
There is no reason to all anything "Alternate 7" at all.
Since I made that typo.They'd still need to differentiate it from the rest of route 7, which is a completely different exit (plus the amount of traffic moving between the two segments of NY 7 is quite low; they might as well be different routes for all intents and purposes).Since when did I-684 move 140 miles north?
I wouldn't call I-684 obsolete. I-90 has large backups every single day west of exit 5 at every single merge (and I-787 and NY 7 have their own issues as well). Diverting some of that traffic away would help matters.
Once in a blue moon the traffic reports even mention accidents on random side streets in faraway towns, so it's not impossible. Plus, if one were to say "backups on the Northway from Route 7 to the twins", to which exit (6 or 7) would they be referring? Could be either.They'd still need to differentiate it from the rest of route 7, which is a completely different exit (plus the amount of traffic moving between the two segments of NY 7 is quite low; they might as well be different routes for all intents and purposes).
No, they don't. It's NY 7 west of the Northway and NY 7 east of Northway and nothing ever happens on the segment of NY 7 west of the Northway except for traffic getting backed up at Wade Road and the Sonic now.
There is no reason to all anything "Alternate 7" at all.
Since I made that typo.They'd still need to differentiate it from the rest of route 7, which is a completely different exit (plus the amount of traffic moving between the two segments of NY 7 is quite low; they might as well be different routes for all intents and purposes).Since when did I-684 move 140 miles north?
I wouldn't call I-684 obsolete. I-90 has large backups every single day west of exit 5 at every single merge (and I-787 and NY 7 have their own issues as well). Diverting some of that traffic away would help matters.Once in a blue moon the traffic reports even mention accidents on random side streets in faraway towns, so it's not impossible. Plus, if one were to say "backups on the Northway from Route 7 to the twins", to which exit (6 or 7) would they be referring? Could be either.They'd still need to differentiate it from the rest of route 7, which is a completely different exit (plus the amount of traffic moving between the two segments of NY 7 is quite low; they might as well be different routes for all intents and purposes).
No, they don't. It's NY 7 west of the Northway and NY 7 east of Northway and nothing ever happens on the segment of NY 7 west of the Northway except for traffic getting backed up at Wade Road and the Sonic now.
There is no reason to all anything "Alternate 7" at all.
Once in a blue moon the traffic reports even mention accidents on random side streets in faraway towns, so it's not impossible. Plus, if one were to say "backups on the Northway from Route 7 to the twins", to which exit (6 or 7) would they be referring? Could be either.
Once in a blue moon the traffic reports even mention accidents on random side streets in faraway towns, so it's not impossible. Plus, if one were to say "backups on the Northway from Route 7 to the twins", to which exit (6 or 7) would they be referring? Could be either.
Once in a blue moon the traffic reports even mention accidents on random side streets in faraway towns, so it's not impossible. Plus, if one were to say "backups on the Northway from Route 7 to the twins", to which exit (6 or 7) would they be referring? Could be either.
It's a very short distance between those exits, so it really doesn't matter.
Going back to the discussion of I-87 and the Albany area.. Has NYSDOT ever had plans of widening the Northway between the Thruway and the Twin Bridges from 6 lanes to 8 lanes? Last time I was in the area it seemed pretty congested.
To eliminate the bottleneck, you'd have to replace the Twin Bridges or build another span for one direction of traffic and have the other carriageway split.
On a different note...
I was on I-86 near Salamanca earlier today. The rebuild is evidently being completed in 2+ segments, with the dividing line in the middle of the US 219 concurrency. The western segment (that brought the full closure) had a full-depth reconstruction last year. Wearing course is asphalt, which Region 5 seems to be preferring as of late. Eastern segment. which was reconstructed this year, is having the top layer of asphalt paved as we speak. Down to one lane in each direction. As part of the work, maintenance was done to the bridges and the median jersey barrier was replaced with a constant slope barrier. Enhanced milemarkers were installed, but most other signs were not replaced. Any and all mention of NY 17 has been removed from this segment.
I've found it's usually closer to exit 7 that backups form, at least outside of tourist season. Of course, since I get off at exit 6, I take advantage of that fact and zoom by the stopped cars on the times when the queue extends further back. Once it gets too far back, however, oftentimes some yahoos try to use the exit only lane as a passing lane and slow everyone down when they merge back.Once in a blue moon the traffic reports even mention accidents on random side streets in faraway towns, so it's not impossible. Plus, if one were to say "backups on the Northway from Route 7 to the twins", to which exit (6 or 7) would they be referring? Could be either.
It's a very short distance between those exits, so it really doesn't matter.
Precisely. The concurrency is shorter than Latham Farms (the adjacent strip mall) is long. WB NY 7 even stays on a C/D road. If Exit 7 is backed up, Exit 6 is almost always congested as well.
Given the condition of those bridges, I'd favor replacements.Going back to the discussion of I-87 and the Albany area.. Has NYSDOT ever had plans of widening the Northway between the Thruway and the Twin Bridges from 6 lanes to 8 lanes? Last time I was in the area it seemed pretty congested.
As bridges south of Exit 13 are replaced, they are being widened to accommodate 8 lanes. At this point in time, it's not being widened, nor is any plan to do so in the near future. Most of this is because the bottleneck is between Exits 7 and 8. Except on the segment south of NY 5, traffic counts on I-87 are highest between Exits 5 and 8. To eliminate the bottleneck, you'd have to replace the Twin Bridges or build another span for one direction of traffic and have the other carriageway split.
In reality, it needs 8 lanes south of Exit 9. Doing this would reduce traffic on US 9 to a reasonable level and might even divert traffic from NY 32. Yet, due to not having several million dollars to replace the bridges, nothing is being widened.
Given the condition of those bridges, I'd favor replacements.
Given the condition of those bridges, I'd favor replacements.
Even it is replaced, the MPO appears to be quite opposed to adding lanes anywhere, operating under the "automated vehicles will solve everything" viewpoint. Yeah, about that...
Would that be the same guy who wants to reduce the speed limit on Wolf Rd to 25 and implement a road diet? But yeah, CDTC is very much in bike/ped advocacy mode right now.Given the condition of those bridges, I'd favor replacements.
Even it is replaced, the MPO appears to be quite opposed to adding lanes anywhere, operating under the "automated vehicles will solve everything" viewpoint. Yeah, about that...
Heh. I remember working with one of the honchos of CDTC. He really did seem to be determined to bring the world of The Jetsons into reality. He had all sorts of quixotic ideas, but you're right: Adding lanes isn't on their radar and, in reality, not on NYSDOT's, either. In fact, I heard one office director at NYSDOT gripe about the Thruway work between Exits 23 and 24: "That's not our policy!" He growled.
Would that be the same guy who wants to reduce the speed limit on Wolf Rd to 25 and implement a road diet? But yeah, CDTC is very much in bike/ped advocacy mode right now.Given the condition of those bridges, I'd favor replacements.
Even it is replaced, the MPO appears to be quite opposed to adding lanes anywhere, operating under the "automated vehicles will solve everything" viewpoint. Yeah, about that...
Heh. I remember working with one of the honchos of CDTC. He really did seem to be determined to bring the world of The Jetsons into reality. He had all sorts of quixotic ideas, but you're right: Adding lanes isn't on their radar and, in reality, not on NYSDOT's, either. In fact, I heard one office director at NYSDOT gripe about the Thruway work between Exits 23 and 24: "That's not our policy!" He growled.
I think it's current Region 1 policy that any widening of the Northway would be HOV/HOT/etc. lanes and not general purpose lanes. Ramp meters were also considered and rejected.
You've got to be kidding me. By any chance, is that dimwit from Albany? Everyone I know who grew up or lived there for a long time wants everything widened. At the current rate of population growth, it'll all be LOS F in 10-15 years if nothing is widened.Not sure where he's from. This isn't something that's being seriously looked at right now; it was mentioned in a design for bike/ped training given by the FHWA. Increasing bike/ped accessibility is currently a big priority of the MPO and the municipalities in the area.
Queens, NY people:Some. Not for long. Actually, I think only at CBB now.
Anybody know if the old button copy on Rockwaway Point Blvd by the Cross Bay Bridge and the Marine Parkway Bridge?
Widening the Cross Bronx wouldn't do anything unless there's another bridge between the Bronx and the island or I-95 gets widened up to New Haven. If they could dualize the Throgs Neck and improve the Clearview, that's one thing, but there are multiple bottlenecks.Believe it or not, I'm not sure I'd advocate widening the Cross Bronx, but I like the idea of dualizing the Throgs Neck Bridge. You could reduce congestion coming on and off the Cross Island Parkway, and get rid of weaving between the Cross Bronx and Throgs Neck Expressways.
Would AET tolling on the NYC bridges help traffic?Widening the Cross Bronx wouldn't do anything unless there's another bridge between the Bronx and the island or I-95 gets widened up to New Haven. If they could dualize the Throgs Neck and improve the Clearview, that's one thing, but there are multiple bottlenecks.Believe it or not, I'm not sure I'd advocate widening the Cross Bronx, but I like the idea of dualizing the Throgs Neck Bridge. You could reduce congestion coming on and off the Cross Island Parkway, and get rid of weaving between the Cross Bronx and Throgs Neck Expressways.
Would AET tolling on the NYC bridges help traffic?Widening the Cross Bronx wouldn't do anything unless there's another bridge between the Bronx and the island or I-95 gets widened up to New Haven. If they could dualize the Throgs Neck and improve the Clearview, that's one thing, but there are multiple bottlenecks.Believe it or not, I'm not sure I'd advocate widening the Cross Bronx, but I like the idea of dualizing the Throgs Neck Bridge. You could reduce congestion coming on and off the Cross Island Parkway, and get rid of weaving between the Cross Bronx and Throgs Neck Expressways.
And from pictures I've seen of New York City's expressways and parkways, it is impossible to widen outwards. What about elevating new lanes over the existing lanes or going underground?
And from pictures I've seen of New York City's expressways and parkways, it is impossible to widen outwards. What about elevating new lanes over the existing lanes or going underground?Underground, you face the issue of centuries of buried utilities that in essence, no one really knows what's under there until they start digging. Many of these utilities could be active and unmapped or incorrectly mapped, and you might find all sorts of other stuff along the way. Not to mention crossing streets with known utilities and subway lines, and having to relocate everything you go near. Cost- and effort-prohibitive.
Would AET tolling on the NYC bridges help traffic?Widening the Cross Bronx wouldn't do anything unless there's another bridge between the Bronx and the island or I-95 gets widened up to New Haven. If they could dualize the Throgs Neck and improve the Clearview, that's one thing, but there are multiple bottlenecks.Believe it or not, I'm not sure I'd advocate widening the Cross Bronx, but I like the idea of dualizing the Throgs Neck Bridge. You could reduce congestion coming on and off the Cross Island Parkway, and get rid of weaving between the Cross Bronx and Throgs Neck Expressways.
They're working on AET as we speak, but tollbooth capacity isn't the issue. It's the lack of lanes on the crossings themselves. Every major crossing is a bottleneck because you have a bunch of expressways/parkways converging and the lanes aren't balanced. Backups originate at the merge point or after the tolls when a bunch of lanes get dropped. At GW, for example, you have I-95, Palisades Parkway, US 1/9, and NJ 4 feeding into 7 lanes of traffic. Backups there originate after the tolls.
Heck, backups often extend through the tolls. I've gone through E-ZPass lanes without having to slow down because traffic was backed up so much.
Would that be the same guy who wants to reduce the speed limit on Wolf Rd to 25 and implement a road diet? But yeah, CDTC is very much in bike/ped advocacy mode right now.Given the condition of those bridges, I'd favor replacements.
Even it is replaced, the MPO appears to be quite opposed to adding lanes anywhere, operating under the "automated vehicles will solve everything" viewpoint. Yeah, about that...
Heh. I remember working with one of the honchos of CDTC. He really did seem to be determined to bring the world of The Jetsons into reality. He had all sorts of quixotic ideas, but you're right: Adding lanes isn't on their radar and, in reality, not on NYSDOT's, either. In fact, I heard one office director at NYSDOT gripe about the Thruway work between Exits 23 and 24: "That's not our policy!" He growled.
I think it's current Region 1 policy that any widening of the Northway would be HOV/HOT/etc. lanes and not general purpose lanes. Ramp meters were also considered and rejected.
You've got to be kidding me. By any chance, is that dimwit from Albany? Everyone I know who grew up or lived there for a long time wants everything widened. At the current rate of population growth, it'll all be LOS F in 10-15 years if nothing is widened.
Region 5 might be a bunch of bozos, but GBNRTC wants almost everything in Buffalo widened with GP lanes to get the region to LOS C-D or better in addition to pushing transit and bike usage. Let's just say the people above me were not happy when Cuomo ordered the road diet on NY 198.
Cl94 is correct in his description of the physical nature of the Cross Bronx Expwy. It was probably the most difficult and challenging 5 miles of highway ever built thru any city anywhere. You can read about what it took to accomplish it in Robert Moses' biography The Power Broker, by Robert Caro. To do any kind of expansion would be even more cost prohibitive and complex than The Big Dig was in Boston which was a small job compared to what the Cross Bronx Expwy. would take. It is virtually impossible to do. And even if it were possible, the politicians who control the funding would never have the will to do it.
In my opinion, the best most feasible option is still the bridge or tunnel crossing Long Island Sound connecting I-287 at Rye to the vicinity of Oyster Bay on Long Island. But the politicians probably won't have the will to overcome the opposition of the affluent communities in those areas. So again nothing will get done.
I really miss the classic 1960's and 1970's Rand McNally cartography.I saw a power transmission line travels between the two trumpets, I was definitely wrong assuming that's where the routing of I-687 was supposed to go.I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.
Google "I-687". That's why.
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-687_ny.html
(http://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/albany_rand_1967.jpg)
Took a little trip from VT out to Massena, NY over the weekend.
(http://i.imgur.com/Xhnsp5q.jpg)
Is this any better for you? Still kinda blurry.
I'm grateful it has survived this long. (not sure how it survived, but still nice to see)
They're working on AET as we speak, but tollbooth capacity isn't the issue. It's the lack of lanes on the crossings themselves. Every major crossing is a bottleneck because you have a bunch of expressways/parkways converging and the lanes aren't balanced. Backups originate at the merge point or after the tolls when a bunch of lanes get dropped. At GW, for example, you have I-95, Palisades Parkway, US 1/9, and NJ 4 feeding into 7 lanes of traffic. Backups there originate after the tolls.
Agreed. I remember the days when all these roads existed or did not exist, as the case may be, and signed with the numbers indicated. I guess I am showing my age.I really miss the classic 1960's and 1970's Rand McNally cartography.I saw a power transmission line travels between the two trumpets, I was definitely wrong assuming that's where the routing of I-687 was supposed to go.I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.
Google "I-687". That's why.
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-687_ny.html
(http://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/albany_rand_1967.jpg)
Would AET tolling on the NYC bridges help traffic?
They're working on AET as we speak, but tollbooth capacity isn't the issue. It's the lack of lanes on the crossings themselves. Every major crossing is a bottleneck because you have a bunch of expressways/parkways converging and the lanes aren't balanced. Backups originate at the merge point or after the tolls when a bunch of lanes get dropped. At GW, for example, you have I-95, Palisades Parkway, US 1/9, and NJ 4 feeding into 7 lanes of traffic. Backups there originate after the tolls.
Heck, backups often extend through the tolls. I've gone through E-ZPass lanes without having to slow down because traffic was backed up so much.
Agreed. I remember the days when all these roads existed or did not exist, as the case may be, and signed with the numbers indicated. I guess I am showing my age.I really miss the classic 1960's and 1970's Rand McNally cartography.I saw a power transmission line travels between the two trumpets, I was definitely wrong assuming that's where the routing of I-687 was supposed to go.I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.
Google "I-687". That's why.
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-687_ny.html
(http://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/albany_rand_1967.jpg)
NY 85 was to continue north and connect with the proposed Interstate 687.Agreed. I remember the days when all these roads existed or did not exist, as the case may be, and signed with the numbers indicated. I guess I am showing my age.I really miss the classic 1960's and 1970's Rand McNally cartography.I saw a power transmission line travels between the two trumpets, I was definitely wrong assuming that's where the routing of I-687 was supposed to go.I was browsing Google Earth and I looked in the Albany area. Why is Corporate Woods Boulevard connected to I-90 in such a large trumpet with what appears to be a concrete, interstate grade roadway? There's a similar connection on I-787.
Google "I-687". That's why.
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-687_ny.html
(http://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/albany_rand_1967.jpg)
What, by the way, was the original plan for NY 85 north of I-90? It seems already to have been canceled by the time of this map.
Same here. Personally, I wish RandMcNally would revive the old graphics (but maybe still show the Interstate shields in their actual colors). It's worth noting that some of the 3di bubble-style shields out there resemble RMN's 3di shields shapewise. Sample 1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8110565,-75.4541434,3a,75y,6.49h,75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfetihnABXMsPmBGWrI_BEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1). Sample 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.102872,-75.2904043,3a,75y,212.14h,82.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spU5JA1BU_kMdaURftsPghg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).(http://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/albany_rand_1967.jpg)I really miss the classic 1960's and 1970's Rand McNally cartography.
I'm more interested in the use of proposed and under construction roads on these maps than the old graphics themselves.Same here. Personally, I wish RandMcNally would revive the old graphics (but maybe still show the Interstate shields in their actual colors). It's worth noting that some of the 3di bubble-style shields out there resemble RMN's 3di shields shapewise. Sample 1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8110565,-75.4541434,3a,75y,6.49h,75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfetihnABXMsPmBGWrI_BEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1). Sample 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.102872,-75.2904043,3a,75y,212.14h,82.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spU5JA1BU_kMdaURftsPghg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).(http://www.interstate-guide.com/maps/albany_rand_1967.jpg)I really miss the classic 1960's and 1970's Rand McNally cartography.
I'm more interested in the use of proposed and under construction roads on these maps than the old graphics themselvesI can see RMcN not getting into the controversy of proposed routes, but I would like to see a "approved - awaiting funding" for routes with an approved FEIS and other coordination.
Such would have been helpful while the US 202 Parkway was under construction south of Doylestown, Bucks County, PA. During the years the road was finally under construction, not one map/atlas showed the road as such (broken/dashed line). Only after the road opened, did maps/atlases started showing it. Contrast such to the decades of showing the Blue Route/I-476 as a dotted/dashed line.QuoteI'm more interested in the use of proposed and under construction roads on these maps than the old graphics themselvesI can see RMcN not getting into the controversy of proposed routes, but I would like to see a "approved - awaiting funding" for routes with an approved FEIS and other coordination.
All I know is that Rand McNally showed the Nashua, NH bypass as being under construction for what was probably decades. :D
All I know is that Rand McNally showed the Nashua, NH bypass as being under construction for what was probably decades. :D
All I know is that Rand McNally showed the Nashua, NH bypass as being under construction for what was probably decades. :D
Does it still show it as being under construction?
All I know is that Rand McNally showed the Nashua, NH bypass as being under construction for what was probably decades. :D
Does it still show it as being under construction?
No they finally dropped it.
It's about flipping time. I lived in Nashua long before I could remember anything and my parents said that was planned long before they moved there. Anyone know which edition finally removed it?
It's about flipping time. I lived in Nashua long before I could remember anything and my parents said that was planned long before they moved there. Anyone know which edition finally removed it?
They dropped it in the 2009 edition.
Has anyone else noticed the really bad potholes on the Sunrise Highway Service road in Babylon? They stuck ROUGH ROAD signs by one of the bad stretches, which looks literally like the surface of the moon, even worse than some of the sections of the FDR Drive.
Has anyone else noticed the really bad potholes on the Sunrise Highway Service road in Babylon? They stuck ROUGH ROAD signs by one of the bad stretches, which looks literally like the surface of the moon, even worse than some of the sections of the FDR Drive.
That's typical Erie County practice. Rough road sign goes up 5-10 years before they fix it.
Has anyone else noticed the really bad potholes on the Sunrise Highway Service road in Babylon? They stuck ROUGH ROAD signs by one of the bad stretches, which looks literally like the surface of the moon, even worse than some of the sections of the FDR Drive.
That's typical Erie County practice. Rough road sign goes up 5-10 years before they fix it.
Would we be able to throw Chautauqua County in to that as well? On I-86 east at the PA-NY state line, not only are there ROUGH ROAD signs, but they are in construction colors, with z-bars! (which I am told are indications of a long-term sign posting)
Oops - sorry I misread
Oops - sorry I misread
Actually, I don't think you did. Here in NY, there's a stark division between the municipalities, counties and NYSDOT. Cl94 was referring to the practice of Erie County in particular. I was just pointing out that for I-86, the roads were actually signed with those ROUGH ROAD signs you mentioned by NYSDOT rather than Chautauqua County.
It was also the case on NY 85. First case I was aware of where they were placed on a freeway. :wow:
I heard they're used as a means to mitigate liability, of all things.
It was also the case on NY 85. First case I was aware of where they were placed on a freeway. :wow:
I heard they're used as a means to mitigate liability, of all things.
its not the freeway part itself, its the service roads by the NY 231 Exit.
Does anyone know why this intersection is designed like this?: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2086705,-75.4569363,413m/data=!3m1!1e3It looks like that it favors NY 49 through traffic, but forgets that NY 26 is 4-lane divided.
Looks like NY 481 is next in the sign rehab department - from I-81 to Cicero-Baldwinsville - (officially exits 10-12 but there are a couple signs from exit 9)
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263008
https://www.flickr.com/photos/31954731@N00/5988854036Looks like NY 481 is next in the sign rehab department - from I-81 to Cicero-Baldwinsville - (officially exits 10-12 but there are a couple signs from exit 9)
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263008
Look at those erroneous NY11 shields!
Looks like NY 481 is next in the sign rehab department - from I-81 to Cicero-Baldwinsville - (officially exits 10-12 but there are a couple signs from exit 9)
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263008
Look at those erroneous NY11 shields!
I-290 EB bridges at Exit 1 are completed and open. The lane of EB traffic on the temporary span has been shifted to the new span. A small amount of paving remains on the EB side before everything can reopen for the winter. New span is 3 lanes plus 10' shoulder, so they may go without the temp spans for the next phase.
Breaking from typical NYSDOT practice, a full-depth reconstruction was completed just west of the NY 265 span and it is full-depth asphalt instead of the typical overlain concrete.
Also of note to me is the 2 mile advance signage. New York generally doesn't use those.
I-290 EB bridges at Exit 1 are completed and open. The lane of EB traffic on the temporary span has been shifted to the new span. A small amount of paving remains on the EB side before everything can reopen for the winter. New span is 3 lanes plus 10' shoulder, so they may go without the temp spans for the next phase.
Breaking from typical NYSDOT practice, a full-depth reconstruction was completed just west of the NY 265 span and it is full-depth asphalt instead of the typical overlain concrete.
Great. What's the ETA on the Cleveland Dr. bridgework and Lake Ave if you know?
Also, is there a case to have the Elm/Oak arterial in DT Buffalo downgraded? I don't know the traffic counts, but having driven down there for a summer job on that arterial, I'd answer with a big fat NO.
(http://i1.wp.com/buffalorising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/City-Park-Plan-2.jpg?resize=1000%2C521)
Also, where do you guys get your plans from? "Projects in your Neighborhood" on the DOT website or someplace else?
So just for the hell of it I was looking at the NY 5/8/12 executive summary and saw that they intend(ed) to lower the expressway and put Warren St and Noyes St overtop. Is this still in the plans, or is it scrapped?
https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region2/projects/arterial-viaduct-replacement/repository/Utica%20NS%20Arterial%20Study%20Exec%20Summary.pdf
So just for the hell of it I was looking at the NY 5/8/12 executive summary and saw that they intend(ed) to lower the expressway and put Warren St and Noyes St overtop. Is this still in the plans, or is it scrapped?
https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region2/projects/arterial-viaduct-replacement/repository/Utica%20NS%20Arterial%20Study%20Exec%20Summary.pdf
The Arterial project was split into two projects, the first project well underway. The second half, which would reconstruct the arterial from Burrstone Rd. to Noyes St., with an interchange at Oswego St and Noyes St carried over the Arterial, does not have funding secured at this time. The interim solution is two traffic signals remaining on the arterial until the second half of the entire project can be funded and completed. NYSDOT routinely evades any questions asking why there are two lights remaining on the Arterial.
Another interesting project in the works in the "Aud to Broad" project along NY 5S, which I think has been mentioned before. This will be a road diet, including possible roundabouts and traffic calming features along this stretch of NY 5S, making it more pedestrian friendly.
So just for the hell of it I was looking at the NY 5/8/12 executive summary and saw that they intend(ed) to lower the expressway and put Warren St and Noyes St overtop. Is this still in the plans, or is it scrapped?
https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region2/projects/arterial-viaduct-replacement/repository/Utica%20NS%20Arterial%20Study%20Exec%20Summary.pdf
The Arterial project was split into two projects, the first project well underway. The second half, which would reconstruct the arterial from Burrstone Rd. to Noyes St., with an interchange at Oswego St and Noyes St carried over the Arterial, does not have funding secured at this time. The interim solution is two traffic signals remaining on the arterial until the second half of the entire project can be funded and completed. NYSDOT routinely evades any questions asking why there are two lights remaining on the Arterial.
Another interesting project in the works in the "Aud to Broad" project along NY 5S, which I think has been mentioned before. This will be a road diet, including possible roundabouts and traffic calming features along this stretch of NY 5S, making it more pedestrian friendly.
The lights on the Arterial are definitely newer, although I'm not sure why they used fixed masts instead of sticking with what was (I assume) wires.
I haven't seen (nor looked for) any materials regarding the NY 5S project, but it's in need of a downgrade. I once almost got hit trying to cross Oriskany Blvd in an attempt to get to Union Station.
So just for the hell of it I was looking at the NY 5/8/12 executive summary and saw that they intend(ed) to lower the expressway and put Warren St and Noyes St overtop. Is this still in the plans, or is it scrapped?
https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region2/projects/arterial-viaduct-replacement/repository/Utica%20NS%20Arterial%20Study%20Exec%20Summary.pdf
The Arterial project was split into two projects, the first project well underway. The second half, which would reconstruct the arterial from Burrstone Rd. to Noyes St., with an interchange at Oswego St and Noyes St carried over the Arterial, does not have funding secured at this time. The interim solution is two traffic signals remaining on the arterial until the second half of the entire project can be funded and completed. NYSDOT routinely evades any questions asking why there are two lights remaining on the Arterial.
Another interesting project in the works in the "Aud to Broad" project along NY 5S, which I think has been mentioned before. This will be a road diet, including possible roundabouts and traffic calming features along this stretch of NY 5S, making it more pedestrian friendly.
Okay, here's what remains:Is not Exit 98 been fixed? According to Google the bypass of the small village or hamlet is completed with a grade separated diamond.
-The at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock
-The RIRO (Exit 111)
They're not signing it east of I-84 until the NY 17/32 interchange is rebuilt and the Crystal Run/I-84 project is finished. Almost everything else is remaining as-is due to terrain. A bunch of spot upgrades are in progress as well.
Okay, here's what remains:Is not Exit 98 been fixed? According to Google the bypass of the small village or hamlet is completed with a grade separated diamond.
-The at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock
-The RIRO (Exit 111)
They're not signing it east of I-84 until the NY 17/32 interchange is rebuilt and the Crystal Run/I-84 project is finished. Almost everything else is remaining as-is due to terrain. A bunch of spot upgrades are in progress as well.
Okay, here's what remains:
-The at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock
-The RIRO (Exit 111)
They're not signing it east of I-84 until the NY 17/32 interchange is rebuilt and the Crystal Run/I-84 project is finished. Almost everything else is remaining as-is due to terrain. A bunch of spot upgrades are in progress as well.
Is there any timeline of when the portion between exit 84 and exit 87 will be bypassed? It seems Interstate 86 should have stretched all the way from Interstate 90 to Interstate 87 by now.No idea. It appears that any timeline information on it is gone, so it might not even be on the STIP any more for all I know.
Okay, here's what remains:
-The at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock
-The RIRO (Exit 111)
They're not signing it east of I-84 until the NY 17/32 interchange is rebuilt and the Crystal Run/I-84 project is finished. Almost everything else is remaining as-is due to terrain. A bunch of spot upgrades are in progress as well.
This is the one (future) Interstate I have not been on in Upstate, at least past Binghamton. Going to NYC about 8 years ago my parents decided taking 86-81-380-80-280 would be quicker than NY 17. So since I've never been on it I can't say if it was or wasn't quicker, but I assume it has a 55 MPH posted limit.
Okay, here's what remains:
-The at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock
-The RIRO (Exit 111)
About half and half, but the 55 is relatively unenforced (but I wouldn't go much faster in a vehicle with poor handling). Do note that all but ~1 mile in Delaware County and ~1/4 of the length in Sullivan County is signed at 55. Traffic, when present, often moves a good 10-15+ over the limit. Compare that to I-80 in Stroudsburg, where you'll get a ticket for going 52.You sure about that? I breeze through at 65 with plenty of company.
Okay, here's what remains:
-The at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock
-The RIRO (Exit 111)
Unfortunately, this description is simply far, far too simplistic compared to the reality.
There were half-a-dozen individual projects that were needed in Region 8 alone that were never done since the program that funded I-86 projects was essentially yanked what's now a decent number of years ago (i.e., when NYSDOT priorities changed to preservation-only -- coffin nails were really driven as recently as 2012, though, although the programming of the conversion started slowing down a year or two prior). A couple of straggler projects deemed necessary were continued (e.g., Prospect Mountain), but most were put on the back-burner, and by back-burner, I mean way out of the STIP period.
Exit 111 is just one of the bigger projects on the list of back-burnered projects. For an example of another: Even the connection to I-87 needs additional work to garner designation. Any time that is brought up, the words "Woodbury Centre" causes the discussion to come to an abrupt halt. My bet is that we're not going to see I-86 connecting to I-87 in my lifetime.
Last I heard, work on the Hale Eddy to Hancock project -- essentially the next in line in terms of NYSDOT's I-86 programming some time ago now -- had ceased. That project is more hopeful than others, though, for being done sometime in the nearer future, I suppose (Region 6 wants to do it, I believe).
Anyway, the short of it is that the political weight behind I-86 is just not there anymore (e.g. Moynihan). NYSDOT commissioners and NY governors have, at most, just paid lip service to the conversion for the past few years.
It just ain't happening.
About half and half, but the 55 is relatively unenforced (but I wouldn't go much faster in a vehicle with poor handling). Do note that all but ~1 mile in Delaware County and ~1/4 of the length in Sullivan County is signed at 55. Traffic, when present, often moves a good 10-15+ over the limit. Compare that to I-80 in Stroudsburg, where you'll get a ticket for going 52.You sure about that? I breeze through at 65 with plenty of company.
I don't see how the pension fund affects funding that ends up in NYSDOT's capital program. My understanding is that the pension fund is a totally separate pot from the budget sources that fund NYSDOT.
Pension fund seems to be doing pretty well, too (http://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/22/new-york-pension-fund-increases/27790757/).
If the pension fund is separate, where the hell is the transportation funding going?
I don't see how the pension fund affects funding that ends up in NYSDOT's capital program. My understanding is that the pension fund is a totally separate pot from the budget sources that fund NYSDOT.
Pension fund seems to be doing pretty well, too (http://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/22/new-york-pension-fund-increases/27790757/).
If the pension fund is separate, where the hell is the transportation funding going? Entire state is losing funds.
QuoteIf the pension fund is separate, where the hell is the transportation funding going?
Transportation infrastructure is expensive. Bottom line. Period. As has been the case across most (all?) of the country, the costs of materials has jumped significantly in the past decade. Even though oil's come back down in recent weeks, steel and concrete are still expensive. And then there is payroll/personnel costs, which is the single largest expense (by far) for transit agencies.
I also confirmed today that the I-86 conversion from Hale Eddy to Hancock is off the program entirely. Nothing is happening on that project.
Does anyone know if every new project go through the typical NYSDOT letting process? I keep close tabs on project plans and such through the NYSDOT website, but there are new sign projects going on in the Central New York area that I've never seen plans for. I can't find PIN or contract numbers for some of these projects on the "Projects In Neighborhood" site... one example being the signing rehab project in R3 Oswego County on I-81. The SUNY POLY sign project in Utica is another example. Do some projects just skip the normal channels?
Does anyone know if every new project go through the typical NYSDOT letting process? I keep close tabs on project plans and such through the NYSDOT website, but there are new sign projects going on in the Central New York area that I've never seen plans for. I can't find PIN or contract numbers for some of these projects on the "Projects In Neighborhood" site... one example being the signing rehab project in R3 Oswego County on I-81. The SUNY POLY sign project in Utica is another example. Do some projects just skip the normal channels?
The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.
Does anyone know if every new project go through the typical NYSDOT letting process? I keep close tabs on project plans and such through the NYSDOT website, but there are new sign projects going on in the Central New York area that I've never seen plans for. I can't find PIN or contract numbers for some of these projects on the "Projects In Neighborhood" site... one example being the signing rehab project in R3 Oswego County on I-81. The SUNY POLY sign project in Utica is another example. Do some projects just skip the normal channels?
Will that be just a taping-over of the "Inst of Tech" on the BGSs or entirely new signs? I saw the concept on your site and thought that would be a good idea, however I know UB for instance is the control destination (along with Lockport) for I-990 in Amherst.
The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.
The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.
Because no one actually goes to Utica. Just a dim spot on your way elsewhere.
The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.Utica was a control city on the ramps from I-481 to I-90 (Thruway exit 34A). But it's been at least 5 years since I was past there.
I would like to know why "Albany" is used way out in Buffalo, when you have Rochester, the state's third largest city (in fact the I-190 control city for I-290 is that) and Syracuse that also is a big New York city. The last time I was there the NY 33 exit for I-90 E Bound and the pull through on 90 EB at the Exit 50 diverge said "Albany" and not Rochester or Syracuse which are even both bigger than Albany population wise.
Still, why Albany over the others? True Albany is the State Capital, but small in comparison to Syracuse, a much bigger city which is still a great distance away as well. Plus it intersects I-81 there just as Albany is where I-87 intersects I-90 (and the NYS Thruway).
QuoteThe one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.Utica was a control city on the ramps from I-481 to I-90 (Thruway exit 34A). But it's been at least 5 years since I was past there.
The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.
Because no one actually goes to Utica. Just a dim spot on your way elsewhere.
I would like to know why "Albany" is used way out in Buffalo, when you have Rochester, the state's third largest city (in fact the I-190 control city for I-290 is that) and Syracuse that also is a big New York city. The last time I was there the NY 33 exit for I-90 E Bound and the pull through on 90 EB at the Exit 50 diverge said "Albany" and not Rochester or Syracuse which are even both bigger than Albany population wise.
The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.
Because no one actually goes to Utica. Just a dim spot on your way elsewhere.I would like to know why "Albany" is used way out in Buffalo, when you have Rochester, the state's third largest city (in fact the I-190 control city for I-290 is that) and Syracuse that also is a big New York city. The last time I was there the NY 33 exit for I-90 E Bound and the pull through on 90 EB at the Exit 50 diverge said "Albany" and not Rochester or Syracuse which are even both bigger than Albany population wise.
Some of the overhead signs on I-90 EB in the Buffalo area list Rochester, mostly around the I-190 interchange. IIRC, the Rochester designation was originally an overlay over "Niagara Falls", when the Thruway urged Niagara Falls traffic to I-290. I believe the Rochester designation made it to the new (awful) signs put up in the last year or so. The control cities are listed out of order - Albany then Rochester.
Does anyone know if every new project go through the typical NYSDOT letting process? I keep close tabs on project plans and such through the NYSDOT website, but there are new sign projects going on in the Central New York area that I've never seen plans for. I can't find PIN or contract numbers for some of these projects on the "Projects In Neighborhood" site... one example being the signing rehab project in R3 Oswego County on I-81. The SUNY POLY sign project in Utica is another example. Do some projects just skip the normal channels?
Will that be just a taping-over of the "Inst of Tech" on the BGSs or entirely new signs? I saw the concept on your site and thought that would be a good idea, however I know UB for instance is the control destination (along with Lockport) for I-990 in Amherst.
The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.
UB is a secondary control. Given the short distance before Exit 1, I-290 Exit 4 is effectively the North Campus exit.The one thing I don't understand is why in Albany and Syracuse, Utica is not a BGS control destination (anywhere), but there are (I believe) 3 distance-list signs going eastbound on I-90.
Because no one actually goes to Utica. Just a dim spot on your way elsewhere.
Basically correct. Utica isn't a big destination. The city itself is 2/3 the population of Albany, even smaller than Schenectady. The metro area population is about 250,000. There is really nothing in Utica.
I have actually been to Utica a couple of times on business. There was recently a $20M investment made in their performing arts venue such that it went from one of the worst stops on the road to one of the best. Now, some productions are holding their technical rehearsals in the space, so that's one way they're bringing a little business back into the city.
iPhone
I have actually been to Utica a couple of times on business. There was recently a $20M investment made in their performing arts venue such that it went from one of the worst stops on the road to one of the best. Now, some productions are holding their technical rehearsals in the space, so that's one way they're bringing a little business back into the city.
iPhone
With the AMS Nano Plant and General Electric R&D coming to Nano Marcy (with a substantial investment and nearly 2500 employees), I believe Utica will be worthy of more traffic in the near future.
By now I think most people here have pieced together that I go to school in Marcy; where, I cannot say. One of my goals this summer is to get (potentially) an internship with the R2 DOT office, but that's no time soon. I need to build up experience over the next couple of semesters.
By now I think most people here have pieced together that I go to school in Marcy; where, I cannot say. One of my goals this summer is to get (potentially) an internship with the R2 DOT office, but that's no time soon. I need to build up experience over the next couple of semesters.
If you're thinking grad school or anything planning-related, you might want to look at an MPO. I know from experience that the Buffalo MPO pays pretty well and the supervisors are pretty good to work with.
By now I think most people here have pieced together that I go to school in Marcy; where, I cannot say. One of my goals this summer is to get (potentially) an internship with the R2 DOT office, but that's no time soon. I need to build up experience over the next couple of semesters.
If you're thinking grad school or anything planning-related, you might want to look at an MPO. I know from experience that the Buffalo MPO pays pretty well and the supervisors are pretty good to work with.
Interesting, does a typical assignment involve working on studies? That's what the HOCTS does.
I know this is PM-type stuff, but why would a CE major go into grad school to get a master's degree? My adviser said it helps you achieve seniority and an overall increase in pay, but is it so one can learn more about the concentration they choose?
Even more, what type of research would a civil engineering student expect to encounter if they're going for a Ph.D?
Only things that come to mind are the new Albany Shaker Rd bridges on the Northway that are currently being worked on. There's also the new Washington Ave/Fuller Road roundabout and I-787 has some bridge redecking going on between the Thruway and the SME. Patroon Island Bridge construction is also moving along nicely.
I have actually been to Utica a couple of times on business. There was recently a $20M investment made in their performing arts venue such that it went from one of the worst stops on the road to one of the best. Now, some productions are holding their technical rehearsals in the space, so that's one way they're bringing a little business back into the city.
iPhone
With the AMS Nano Plant and General Electric R&D coming to Nano Marcy (with a substantial investment and nearly 2500 employees), I believe Utica will be worthy of more traffic in the near future.
Heh. Marcy's on the other side of the Thruway from Utica. :D
By now I think most people here have pieced together that I go to school in Marcy; where, I cannot say. One of my goals this summer is to get (potentially) an internship with the R2 DOT office, but that's no time soon. I need to build up experience over the next couple of semesters.
If you're thinking grad school or anything planning-related, you might want to look at an MPO. I know from experience that the Buffalo MPO pays pretty well and the supervisors are pretty good to work with.
Interesting, does a typical assignment involve working on studies? That's what the HOCTS does.
I know this is PM-type stuff, but why would a CE major go into grad school to get a master's degree? My adviser said it helps you achieve seniority and an overall increase in pay, but is it so one can learn more about the concentration they choose?
Even more, what type of research would a civil engineering student expect to encounter if they're going for a Ph.D?
We might want the mods to split this into a separate college/grad school thread, but GBNRTC is mainly traffic counts. If it's a slow summer, they might want you in the office using software. Knowledge of Synchro is a huge plus. Transportation people love that because it shows you know how to do the dirty work.
Grad school is necessary for structural and geotechnical engineering. Not everything transportation-related requires it, but it's becoming a prerequisite for higher-level stuff and design work.
As for PhD, you've come to the right person. I'm starting my PhD in Transportation Engineering at Rensselaer in January. A lot of the research comes from Transportation Research Board (TRB) proposals, but other stuff is more localized. I'll likely have a lot more info on the process this time next week after I meet with my adviser.
Honestly, if you wanna know as much as possible about what's going on in transportation, you should try and find a way to get to the TRB Annual Meeting in DC every January (that goes for everyone). It's expensive (registration is reasonable for students, but hotels are not), but if you're really into transportation, it's an amazing experience. Countless research projects presented covering almost everything imaginable, workshops and case studies, and networking opportunities that allow you to meet transportation people from around the world. A bit closer to home, the Upstate NY section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers has their Annual Meeting in Buffalo on October 1st and 2nd. Again, great place to go if you want to know what's going on and meet like-minded professionals.
Back on topic, is there anything that's newish in the Albany I should check out when I'm there this weekend?
It's also good to join you local branch of YPT if there's on in the area.
CDTC has been using summer interns as of late to inventory all the pedestrian infrastructure in the area. Not sure what the extent of their traffic count program is. NYSDOT internships can be all over, but I can tell you that they don't pay anything (the only state agency to have no paid internships, btw). It's also good to join you local branch of YPT if there's on in the area.
Regarding the Thruway control cities, it appears from the signs that Buffalo, Albany, and NYC are the primary control cities, with Erie, Syracuse, and Montreal functioning as secondary control cities, and Rochester, Utica, and Boston as tertiary. It's about long distance travel, and because Albany is the capital district (and where the handoff between I-87 and I-90 is). And while Albany itself isn't big, the Capital District metro area is pretty sizeable, and according to Wikipedia's numbers from the 2010 Census, the second largest in the state after NYC (beating even Buffalo and nearly twice as large as Syracuse).
Regarding I-790, I believe there's a long range plan to get it re-routed onto NY 49.
Nowadays, you have to be careful with college and graduate school and getting the bang-for-the-buck. As my boss puts it: "What do you get when you graduate college with an engineering degree? An engineering degree. What do you get when you get a master's in engineering? An engineering degree." By this, he meant for engineers that want to get into the dirty work of doing engineering the cost of graduate school may not be worth the benefits.I got my Master's year paid for. Otherwise it definitely wouldn't have been worth it for what I'm doing now (as a practicing engineer).
Look at it this way: Those years that you are paying to go to school are years you could be earning money. Even in other areas, some of us who got masters in non-engineering fields and yet ended up in transportation are kicking ourselves since -- when the hiring windows are open -- the State of New York has been focusing on providing "traineeships" which only require a bachelor's. They start at a lower rate, but after a couple of years, you end up where you'd be if you had a master's. Again, getting a master's equals spending money when you could have been earning it.
Of course, if you want to go into research, you can go cl94's route. Had to snicker a little at his glowing review of TRB. NYSDOT used to send down a healthy contingent of individuals to TRB, funding them fully. Over the past few years, that contingent has become much smaller and NYSDOT is less willing to fund your attendance. You can still go on your own dime, of course.
However, regarding practitioners, the perspective on TRB research has been growing more and more critical. I'm hearing more people I work with say things like, "It's research for other researchers." It is sounding like transportation research is falling prey to the same pitfalls as other areas of academia: The research is more about churning it amongst other academic researchers trying to get tenure rather than actually providing informed opinions on policy and engineering practices that influence DOT behavior. This view has led to the diminished attendance at TRB over the years I've been in the business.
Heh. My master's years were "paid for" as well. Free tuition, lots of fees waived and a paid research assistantship. Wasn't enough to cover living expenses, however. :DNowadays, you have to be careful with college and graduate school and getting the bang-for-the-buck. As my boss puts it: "What do you get when you graduate college with an engineering degree? An engineering degree. What do you get when you get a master's in engineering? An engineering degree." By this, he meant for engineers that want to get into the dirty work of doing engineering the cost of graduate school may not be worth the benefits.I got my Master's year paid for. Otherwise it definitely wouldn't have been worth it for what I'm doing now (as a practicing engineer).
Look at it this way: Those years that you are paying to go to school are years you could be earning money. Even in other areas, some of us who got masters in non-engineering fields and yet ended up in transportation are kicking ourselves since -- when the hiring windows are open -- the State of New York has been focusing on providing "traineeships" which only require a bachelor's. They start at a lower rate, but after a couple of years, you end up where you'd be if you had a master's. Again, getting a master's equals spending money when you could have been earning it.
Of course, if you want to go into research, you can go cl94's route. Had to snicker a little at his glowing review of TRB. NYSDOT used to send down a healthy contingent of individuals to TRB, funding them fully. Over the past few years, that contingent has become much smaller and NYSDOT is less willing to fund your attendance. You can still go on your own dime, of course.
However, regarding practitioners, the perspective on TRB research has been growing more and more critical. I'm hearing more people I work with say things like, "It's research for other researchers." It is sounding like transportation research is falling prey to the same pitfalls as other areas of academia: The research is more about churning it amongst other academic researchers trying to get tenure rather than actually providing informed opinions on policy and engineering practices that influence DOT behavior. This view has led to the diminished attendance at TRB over the years I've been in the business.
As for I-86, exit 131 is still on the STIP mainly because there's a strong local push to get it built. Exit 122 was just completed, as was the total reconstruction between NY 17K and I-84 (and NOW Schumer wants to widen that section...), and the bridge over the Neversink River. I wouldn't be surprised if there's another unfunded project between exits 79 and 84, given the fact that I-86 ends at NY 79.
Prospect Mountain is the last project preventing the gap in the Southern Tier from being closed. That and being a very high profile project is probably the reason why it's still going. Aside from Hale Eddy and exit 131, the other projects aren't even sexy enough to put on the website, let along throw money at.
Yeah, Exit 122 was one of those very old stragglers from the "statewide significant" days. I'll check on Exit 131, but I'm betting it's in the same boat as Hale Eddy to Hancock.
If NYSDOT is stalling on I-86, then what's the point of trying to replace NY 17? Just delete the designation, or go balls to the wall and just sign it all along NY 17.
If NYSDOT is stalling on I-86, then what's the point of trying to replace NY 17? Just delete the designation, or go balls to the wall and just sign it all along NY 17.
I admit it has been a little while since I last checked exit 131 (last year?). Looks like it got nuked too, though the website still lists it as PIN 8006.96 if you dig far enough. Still, the municipalities push for it.
QuoteIf the pension fund is separate, where the hell is the transportation funding going?Transportation infrastructure is expensive. Bottom line. Period. As has been the case across most (all?) of the country, the costs of materials has jumped significantly in the past decade. Even though oil's come back down in recent weeks, steel and concrete are still expensive. And then there is payroll/personnel costs, which is the single largest expense (by far) for transit agencies.
QuoteIf the pension fund is separate, where the hell is the transportation funding going?Transportation infrastructure is expensive. Bottom line. Period. As has been the case across most (all?) of the country, the costs of materials has jumped significantly in the past decade. Even though oil's come back down in recent weeks, steel and concrete are still expensive. And then there is payroll/personnel costs, which is the single largest expense (by far) for transit agencies.
Steel prices have dropped considerably over the past year although they are still a bit higher than they were 15 years go. And of course the market remains volatile enough that anyone planning projects which will take years to complete cannot rely on the price staying as low as it is right now.
Realistically, though, while downstate suffers from costs having spiraled out of control (we're building the world's most expensive subway line ever!), upstate has not so much.
New York's lack of ability to pay for things cannot be pinned on any one problem in particular. What it is is the end result of a general philosophy that has persisted for decades of creating a government structure which is extremely feudal and inefficient, heavy on patronage, constantly finding new matters to meddle with, and then grabbing money from every which where to pay for it all, making the state an expensive place to live and do business without providing services in return that get people their money's worth.
As I've mentioned before, all those municipalities need to do is look at Binghamton to see an example where interstates were no economic saviors.I believe they actually want the interchange for the congestion mitigation.
As I've mentioned before, all those municipalities need to do is look at Binghamton to see an example where interstates were no economic saviors.I believe they actually want the interchange for the congestion mitigation.
I'm wondering if the budgetary concerns and projects falling off the STIP is why the Utica North-South Arterial is going to still have two traffic signals when this project is complete, when the original plan was to eliminate all traffic signals and have a second interchange at Oswego or Noyes Street.
I'm wondering if the budgetary concerns and projects falling off the STIP is why the Utica North-South Arterial is going to still have two traffic signals when this project is complete, when the original plan was to eliminate all traffic signals and have a second interchange at Oswego or Noyes Street.
I'm wondering if the budgetary concerns and projects falling off the STIP is why the Utica North-South Arterial is going to still have two traffic signals when this project is complete, when the original plan was to eliminate all traffic signals and have a second interchange at Oswego or Noyes Street.
Why can't the area just snatch some of the $500M of the economic competition money and use it for that?
Does anyone know if every new project go through the typical NYSDOT letting process? I keep close tabs on project plans and such through the NYSDOT website, but there are new sign projects going on in the Central New York area that I've never seen plans for. I can't find PIN or contract numbers for some of these projects on the "Projects In Neighborhood" site... one example being the signing rehab project in R3 Oswego County on I-81. The SUNY POLY sign project in Utica is another example. Do some projects just skip the normal channels?
Not every project goes through the typical NYSDOT letting process (e.g., local lets, design-build and VPPs being the typical exceptions), but the signing rehab should have been on there.
I'm wondering if the budgetary concerns and projects falling off the STIP is why the Utica North-South Arterial is going to still have two traffic signals when this project is complete, when the original plan was to eliminate all traffic signals and have a second interchange at Oswego or Noyes Street.
Why can't the area just snatch some of the $500M of the economic competition money and use it for that?
*guffaws*
:rofl:
That "economic competition" crap is just to funnel money to businesses who have friends in high places, not public agencies.
Actually, despite price fluctuations that should work in its favor, NYSDOT is finding that estimates are still out of line with the bids that come in. No one is yet sure why, is my understanding of the current state of affairs, but bids have been coming in high enough where NYSDOT regions have had to provide justifications for their acceptance or re-letting.
I'm wondering if the budgetary concerns and projects falling off the STIP is why the Utica North-South Arterial is going to still have two traffic signals when this project is complete, when the original plan was to eliminate all traffic signals and have a second interchange at Oswego or Noyes Street.
Why can't the area just snatch some of the $500M of the economic competition money and use it for that?
*guffaws*
:rofl:
That "economic competition" crap is just to funnel money to businesses who have friends in high places, not public agencies.
Ding, ding, ding! This state runs on patronage. Haven't you learned that yet? :spin:
New York's lack of ability to pay for things cannot be pinned on any one problem in particular. What it is is the end result of a general philosophy that has persisted for decades of creating a government structure which is extremely feudal and inefficient, heavy on patronage, constantly finding new matters to meddle with, and then grabbing money from every which where to pay for it all, making the state an expensive place to live and do business without providing services in return that get people their money's worth.QuoteIf the pension fund is separate, where the hell is the transportation funding going?Transportation infrastructure is expensive. Bottom line. Period. As has been the case across most (all?) of the country, the costs of materials has jumped significantly in the past decade. Even though oil's come back down in recent weeks, steel and concrete are still expensive. And then there is payroll/personnel costs, which is the single largest expense (by far) for transit agencies.
The Blenheim Covered Bridge in North Blenheim, Schoharie County, New York will be rebuilt as a replica, just 15 feet higher than the version that was washed away in 2011 by floodwaters from the remnants of Hurricane Irene. The historic Blenheim Covered Bridge was unique in that it featured dual carriageways.Would be nice if they could use the salvaged bits as part of the current bridge with just a display or two of the original jointwork, rather than build the whole thing new again.
http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/blenheim-covered-bridge-will-rise-again (http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/blenheim-covered-bridge-will-rise-again)
Meh, the roadgeek websites (such as yours) still show the old Blenheim. I think it's still not too late and the old Blenheim can live on. It's nothing bad.The Blenheim Covered Bridge in North Blenheim, Schoharie County, New York will be rebuilt as a replica, just 15 feet higher than the version that was washed away in 2011 by floodwaters from the remnants of Hurricane Irene. The historic Blenheim Covered Bridge was unique in that it featured dual carriageways.Would be nice if they could use the salvaged bits as part of the current bridge with just a display or two of the original jointwork, rather than build the whole thing new again.
http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/blenheim-covered-bridge-will-rise-again (http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/blenheim-covered-bridge-will-rise-again)
I'm not sure how much of the bridge was able to be salvaged, but I think that some of the wood was later found quite a ways downstream in the Schoharie Creek.The Blenheim Covered Bridge in North Blenheim, Schoharie County, New York will be rebuilt as a replica, just 15 feet higher than the version that was washed away in 2011 by floodwaters from the remnants of Hurricane Irene. The historic Blenheim Covered Bridge was unique in that it featured dual carriageways.Would be nice if they could use the salvaged bits as part of the current bridge with just a display or two of the original jointwork, rather than build the whole thing new again.
http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/blenheim-covered-bridge-will-rise-again (http://www.watershedpost.com/2015/blenheim-covered-bridge-will-rise-again)
For those keeping score, Interstate 781 exits have been renumbered to exits 1A-B with 1A for I-81 north.
Although really, there shouldn't be any exit numbers there since it's the end of the road.
There's no reason why "the end of the road" can't have exit numbers....
(new I-81 signs)
(new I-81 signs)
Holy crap, those actually look pretty damn good. Why can't all signs in our state look like that? Is it so hard for NYSDOT to keep to one consistent design?
The only one I knew of until recently was NY 390 at the Parkway (exit 27). I-781, of course, has recent exit numbers (fun fact: the original plan called for sequential numbers with I-81 as exit 1 (as now), US 11 as exit 2 (now exit 4), and Fort Drum as exit 3 (now unnumbered)). I-99 also has a numbered terminus (exits 12/13 at I-86; exit 12 was unnumbered prior to the conversion to mile-based numbering, and exit 13 was exit 4). I'm not aware of others off the top of my head, at least that don't involve stub ramps.There's no reason why "the end of the road" can't have exit numbers....
I mean it's a matter of opinion. As far as I know there isn't a standard addressing this.
I don't think it makes sense to have exit numbers when there is no through route. 781 is certainly not the only place in New York where this happens, but then there are also plenty of places in New York where it doesn't. If they're going to do it they should at least do it consistently.
(I'm also not a fan of fudging what should be exit 0 up to 1, but that's a separate argument)
The only one I knew of until recently was NY 390 at the Parkway (exit 27). I-781, of course, has recent exit numbers (fun fact: the original plan called for sequential numbers with I-81 as exit 1 (as now), US 11 as exit 2 (now exit 4), and Fort Drum as exit 3 (now unnumbered)). I-99 also has a numbered terminus (exits 12/13 at I-86; exit 12 was unnumbered prior to the conversion to mile-based numbering, and exit 13 was exit 4). I'm not aware of others off the top of my head, at least that don't involve stub ramps.
Alright, when the heck did Round Lake get a bunch of roundabouts? CR 80 is closed to eastbound traffic, there's a roundabout in front of Hannaford, and they're putting in another at the CR 80/Raylinsky Rd intersection.
Staying on Round Lake, when was the speed limit east of the bypass dropped to 20? Did NYSDOT finally transfer that section of highway to the village?
Alright, when the heck did Round Lake get a bunch of roundabouts? CR 80 is closed to eastbound traffic, there's a roundabout in front of Hannaford, and they're putting in another at the CR 80/Raylinsky Rd intersection.
Staying on Round Lake, when was the speed limit east of the bypass dropped to 20? Did NYSDOT finally transfer that section of highway to the village?
It looks like (according to Google Maps) the whole Malta/Round Lake area loves roundabouts for some reason. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Round+Lake,+NY/@42.9668285,-73.7950613,16.25z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x89de159b194b97df:0x866385d08d5f0424
I can't say I've ever seen 6 in a row like that in under a mile.
I knew about the Malta ones. I'm talking about the roundabouts on CR 80 west of I-87 that I saw nothing about.
I knew about the Malta ones. I'm talking about the roundabouts on CR 80 west of I-87 that I saw nothing about.
I knew about the Malta ones. I'm talking about the roundabouts on CR 80 west of I-87 that I saw nothing about.
Well, I seem to remember they started popping up in Round Lake soon after the craze started in Malta, along with the Round Lake Bypass construction. It all seems to be an outgrowth of the same local initiative, at least by my casual observation.
D262775 is for the Taconic State Parkway in Westchester County - a sign replacement. In the sign plans, a APL is in the works at exit 2 - on plans page 34.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262775
D262775 is for the Taconic State Parkway in Westchester County - a sign replacement. In the sign plans, a APL is in the works at exit 2 - on plans page 34.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262775
Forget about the APL- the Taconic is getting mile-based exit numbers. That's the big thing here.
Forget about the APL- the Taconic is getting mile-based exit numbers.
I'm pretty sure the Bronx River Parkway officially continues from the circle to NY 22.
Wonder if the change in signing will result in more people NOT taking the Sprain Brook south instead of the Taconic. The current signing is quite effective in that regard.
Also, where did those ugly Clearview exit signs on the Westchester County section of the BRP come from? They scream Region 8 with those boxed street names. I guess the county DPW outsourced their signing.
Wonder if the change in signing will result in more people NOT taking the Sprain Brook south instead of the Taconic. The current signing is quite effective in that regard.
Also, where did those ugly Clearview exit signs on the Westchester County section of the BRP come from? They scream Region 8 with those boxed street names. I guess the county DPW outsourced their signing.
The BRP numbers also reset where it splits off from the Sprain (the mileage doesn't, though). Makes me wonder if there were plans to continue the sequential numbering from the first part of the BRP onto the Sprain and Taconic that didn't happen for some reason (perhaps a question of what to do with the remaining piece of the Taconic?).I'm pretty sure the Bronx River Parkway officially continues from the circle to NY 22.
Officially, yes. That was the original northern end of the road. The Taconic came a little later. But since there are no exits along that little stretch and it is not signed as part of the mainline, this technical detail does not impact the ability of the BRP and the Taconic to be signed with one continuous set of mileage if R8 wanted to.
Of course, the designation setup in general is unusual. The BRP and Taconic are really old roads not built to anything close to modern standards. The BRP in the Bronx and the southern end of Westchester has since been rebuilt into something that looks more like a modern highway, as has most of the Taconic in northern Westchester. The part in between, however, was left as is and bypassed by building the Sprain.
The result is that today, the most logical through route as built and as followed by traffic is BRP - Sprain - Taconic. Following the Taconic or BRP designation at either end of the Sprain is a TOTSO, and takes one onto a much lower grade road.
If this were a numbered highway, it would probably follow the logical through route described above. But in the strange world of NY Parkways, moving a designation isn't done and so instead we have the current screwy setup which clings to some sanity by virtue of neither the Sprain nor the Taconic having any numbered exits.
But now NYSDOT is going to sign the Sprain from the Taconic as an exit rather than treating it like the through route. And, the next sign replacement project on the Sprain has a good shot at giving it its own set of self-contained exit numbers.
In other words, NYSDOT is creating another I-87, where what is effectively the same highway will have three sets of exit numbers because they reset every time the road changes names. :banghead:
In fairness, NYSDOT considers them all separate, even in referenece route numbers. They don't share names and while ROWs continue onto each other, they are all separate in NYSDOT's eyes (NY 907H-BRP/NY 987F-SBP/NY 987G-TSP).
What I am disappointed in, and maybe Rothman or cl94 can help, when will the rest of Putnam/Dutchess/Columbia ones will be released? It will be nice to see the exit numbers, especially as only P7 remains (http://tinyurl.com/taconicp7) southbound signed of the old system. It will also hopefully make the Columbia County part feel a little more like the rest by using the same numbering.
Why are people shocked at the Taconic getting mile-based exit numbers?
OT, the real upgraded parts needed are in Dutchess and Putnam County. The space is there but for some reason NYSDOT is doing nothing.
In fairness, NYSDOT considers them all separate, even in referenece route numbers. They don't share names and while ROWs continue onto each other, they are all separate in NYSDOT's eyes (NY 907H-BRP/NY 987F-SBP/NY 987G-TSP).
What I am disappointed in, and maybe Rothman or cl94 can help, when will the rest of Putnam/Dutchess/Columbia ones will be released? It will be nice to see the exit numbers, especially as only P7 remains (http://tinyurl.com/taconicp7) southbound signed of the old system. It will also hopefully make the Columbia County part feel a little more like the rest by using the same numbering.
No clue. I'm not with NYSDOT and I don't have MPO connections in that part of the state. The section being numbered is basically Interstate-grade freeway outside of a few low bridges. Just inside Putnam, RIROs and full-blown at-grade intersections begin.
NYSDOT isn't upgrading it because there's no demand and the terrain makes construction expensive. It's all mountains. There's nobody living on the east side of the Hudson. Ever been on the Taconic in Dutchess? It's empty.
OT, the real upgraded parts needed are in Dutchess and Putnam County. The space is there but for some reason NYSDOT is doing nothing.
D262955 - NY 17/I-81 Interchange Phase 2 - preliminary plans - have been released.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262955
Updated my Taconic Parkway exit list with the new numbers: http://nysroads.com/tsplist.php
D262955 - NY 17/I-81 Interchange Phase 2 - preliminary plans - have been released.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262955
D262955 - NY 17/I-81 Interchange Phase 2 - preliminary plans - have been released.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262955
The news we've all been waiting for in the Utica Arterial project: traffic to be shifted to the new bridge soon.
http://www.wktv.com/news/Arterial_Project_Shifts_into_High_Gear_Lane_Shifts_Coming.html
I always wonder how beautiful what is now New York City must have been when it was in its natural state.I can show you something closer to natural in the Bronx from the 1940's;
That section of the Southern State Pkwy. from the Queens County-line to the Wantagh Pkwy. is terribly antiquated to begin with. It is basically a (1950's) widened version of the original winding, park-like 1920's four-lane road. Some improvements have been made in recent years, but it's still an antiquated, winding road 'til you get as far east as the Wantagh Pkwy. (Exit-27). From there on east it's a somewhat straighter route.That's true, and knowing that I once suggested a major realignment project between Exits 20 and 21 to NYSDOT, and still think Meadowbrook Road (Exit 23) should be closed permanently.
A question about something that I always thought was peculiar. Why does the Southern Tier Expressway deviate from the PA Border by several miles between Olean and Painted Post? Why did NYDOT just build the freeway along the old NY 17 alignment before that freeway was built which is NY 417, that at one point comes 100 feet more from the border than it does at Waverly. I believe this current alignment ventures over 30 miles away at its furthest point.
A question about something that I always thought was peculiar. Why does the Southern Tier Expressway deviate from the PA Border by several miles between Olean and Painted Post? Why did NYDOT just build the freeway along the old NY 17 alignment before that freeway was built which is NY 417, that at one point comes 100 feet more from the border than it does at Waverly. I believe this current alignment ventures over 30 miles away at its furthest point.
I think the terrain is a little gentler on the northern route. NY 417 goes over some fairly high country in the southwestern corner of Steuben County. It may also have had something to do with getting Hornell on a freeway, though at the expense of Wellsville, of course.
A question about something that I always thought was peculiar. Why does the Southern Tier Expressway deviate from the PA Border by several miles between Olean and Painted Post? Why did NYDOT just build the freeway along the old NY 17 alignment before that freeway was built which is NY 417, that at one point comes 100 feet more from the border than it does at Waverly. I believe this current alignment ventures over 30 miles away at its furthest point.
I think the terrain is a little gentler on the northern route. NY 417 goes over some fairly high country in the southwestern corner of Steuben County. It may also have had something to do with getting Hornell on a freeway, though at the expense of Wellsville, of course.
A former boss of mine has an I-386 shield that was used by Wellsville representatives that were lobbying NYSDOT and Albany for a spur route to their town. I'm hoping to still inherit it.
A question about something that I always thought was peculiar. Why does the Southern Tier Expressway deviate from the PA Border by several miles between Olean and Painted Post? Why did NYDOT just build the freeway along the old NY 17 alignment before that freeway was built which is NY 417, that at one point comes 100 feet more from the border than it does at Waverly. I believe this current alignment ventures over 30 miles away at its furthest point.
I think the terrain is a little gentler on the northern route. NY 417 goes over some fairly high country in the southwestern corner of Steuben County. It may also have had something to do with getting Hornell on a freeway, though at the expense of Wellsville, of course.
A former boss of mine has an I-386 shield that was used by Wellsville representatives that were lobbying NYSDOT and Albany for a spur route to their town. I'm hoping to still inherit it.
A question about something that I always thought was peculiar. Why does the Southern Tier Expressway deviate from the PA Border by several miles between Olean and Painted Post? Why did NYDOT just build the freeway along the old NY 17 alignment before that freeway was built which is NY 417, that at one point comes 100 feet more from the border than it does at Waverly. I believe this current alignment ventures over 30 miles away at its furthest point.
I think the terrain is a little gentler on the northern route. NY 417 goes over some fairly high country in the southwestern corner of Steuben County. It may also have had something to do with getting Hornell on a freeway, though at the expense of Wellsville, of course.
A former boss of mine has an I-386 shield that was used by Wellsville representatives that were lobbying NYSDOT and Albany for a spur route to their town. I'm hoping to still inherit it.
A question about something that I always thought was peculiar. Why does the Southern Tier Expressway deviate from the PA Border by several miles between Olean and Painted Post? Why did NYDOT just build the freeway along the old NY 17 alignment before that freeway was built which is NY 417, that at one point comes 100 feet more from the border than it does at Waverly. I believe this current alignment ventures over 30 miles away at its furthest point.
I think the terrain is a little gentler on the northern route. NY 417 goes over some fairly high country in the southwestern corner of Steuben County. It may also have had something to do with getting Hornell on a freeway, though at the expense of Wellsville, of course.
A former boss of mine has an I-386 shield that was used by Wellsville representatives that were lobbying NYSDOT and Albany for a spur route to their town. I'm hoping to still inherit it.
WOW!! Is it state-named or is it neutered?
A question about something that I always thought was peculiar. Why does the Southern Tier Expressway deviate from the PA Border by several miles between Olean and Painted Post? Why did NYDOT just build the freeway along the old NY 17 alignment before that freeway was built which is NY 417, that at one point comes 100 feet more from the border than it does at Waverly. I believe this current alignment ventures over 30 miles away at its furthest point.
I think the terrain is a little gentler on the northern route. NY 417 goes over some fairly high country in the southwestern corner of Steuben County. It may also have had something to do with getting Hornell on a freeway, though at the expense of Wellsville, of course.
A former boss of mine has an I-386 shield that was used by Wellsville representatives that were lobbying NYSDOT and Albany for a spur route to their town. I'm hoping to still inherit it.
Haha, I'm surprised this was even considered.
Drove up to Westchester today, I noticed they were replacing the signs on the Cross County Parkway by Exit 6. They had a lane blocked as the crane was hoisting the new sign into place.
I believe some button-copy signs still survive on Long Island's Northern State Parkway from the 1984 re-signing project. Most or all of the overhead's have been replaced but there might still be some ground-mounted ones left. To my knowledge, those were the last button-copy signs erected on Long Island.
I believe some button-copy signs still survive on Long Island's Northern State Parkway from the 1984 re-signing project. Most or all of the overhead's have been replaced but there might still be some ground-mounted ones left. To my knowledge, those were the last button-copy signs erected on Long Island.
nope, theyre all gone, I've been on the entire Northern State as recently as August or so (not all at once, but sections here and there on different days) from Queens to Hauppauge, all the button copy is gone.
Wantagh parkway has one or two button letter signs left near the North end, the rest is all gone.
Recently the expressway part of Sunrise Highway got all new signs.
What's going on with the gantry on the NY 12 NB ramp to I-790 EB? A repair, or complete replacement?
What's going on with the gantry on the NY 12 NB ramp to I-790 EB? A repair, or complete replacement?
The signs were replaced in the late 2000s (maybe 2008 or so), but the structure itself is original to the 1989 reconstruction project.
What is the official name for I-290. I have two maps that show two completely different names, even though Youngman is used on both.
My old Exxon Map shows it as "Youngman Memorial Highway" and my Rand McNally shows it as the "Youngman Expressway." Which one of them is the official name?
When I lived in Buffalo about a million years ago, there was a sign on the east end that said "Elmer G. H. Youngmann Memorial Highway." My parents are the only people I ever heard call it "the Youngmann" and not "the 290".What is the official name for I-290. I have two maps that show two completely different names, even though Youngman is used on both.
My old Exxon Map shows it as "Youngman Memorial Highway" and my Rand McNally shows it as the "Youngman Expressway." Which one of them is the official name?
Officially, "Youngmann Memorial Highway", yet in the increasingly rare case it is referred to by name, people use the latter.
Interstate 790 has its first ground mounted route marker actually on the route in over 25 years. It has a black-on-white EAST banner to go with it, but hey, it's a start.
Temporary signs are up in Utica for the gantries that were removed and I only mention this again because as of tonight, officially:
Interstate 790 has its first ground mounted route marker actually on the route in over 25 years. It has a black-on-white EAST banner to go with it, but hey, it's a start.
It's on the post that used to hold the overhead signs for the ramp split 49 WEST/790 & 5 EAST.
Still confused by this... isn't I-86 supposed to (eventually) extend east of I-84 to the Thruway, and eventually replace NY 17? If so, why bother with the dual "I-86 West NY 17 West" signage? Just a slap of an I-86 shield alongside the NY 17 shield, or just replace the NY 17 with I-86 when the redesignation time comes.
Or maybe, at the rate the I-86 signing/upgrading is progressing, the I-84 signs will be due for replacement when I-86 makes it from I-84 to the Thruway!
Most people I know, including myself, call I-290 either "The Youngmann" or "The 290."When I lived in Buffalo about a million years ago, there was a sign on the east end that said "Elmer G. H. Youngmann Memorial Highway." My parents are the only people I ever heard call it "the Youngmann" and not "the 290".What is the official name for I-290. I have two maps that show two completely different names, even though Youngman is used on both.
My old Exxon Map shows it as "Youngman Memorial Highway" and my Rand McNally shows it as the "Youngman Expressway." Which one of them is the official name?
Officially, "Youngmann Memorial Highway", yet in the increasingly rare case it is referred to by name, people use the latter.
Most people I know, including myself, call I-290 either "The Youngmann" or "The 290."When I lived in Buffalo about a million years ago, there was a sign on the east end that said "Elmer G. H. Youngmann Memorial Highway." My parents are the only people I ever heard call it "the Youngmann" and not "the 290".What is the official name for I-290. I have two maps that show two completely different names, even though Youngman is used on both.
My old Exxon Map shows it as "Youngman Memorial Highway" and my Rand McNally shows it as the "Youngman Expressway." Which one of them is the official name?
Officially, "Youngmann Memorial Highway", yet in the increasingly rare case it is referred to by name, people use the latter.
Most people I know, including myself, call I-290 either "The Youngmann" or "The 290."When I lived in Buffalo about a million years ago, there was a sign on the east end that said "Elmer G. H. Youngmann Memorial Highway." My parents are the only people I ever heard call it "the Youngmann" and not "the 290".What is the official name for I-290. I have two maps that show two completely different names, even though Youngman is used on both.
My old Exxon Map shows it as "Youngman Memorial Highway" and my Rand McNally shows it as the "Youngman Expressway." Which one of them is the official name?
Officially, "Youngmann Memorial Highway", yet in the increasingly rare case it is referred to by name, people use the latter.
I don't know where, but I saw somewhere in the news today they called it "The Youngmann." Me and my family have always called it the 290, and the Scajacquada the 198, and NY 5 south of Buffalo "the Skyway," or "Route 5."
One restaurant capitalized on the "Rt 5" moniker, called Root Five in Hamburg. The food was good, but it's since switched hands and changed names.
Interesting article about NYC's $8bn MTA deal http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/will-upstate-roads-get-parity-with-mtas-8-billion-20151017
It's now called "The Public House on the Lake," and it's still open. Good views of the lake and what I would call decent food.
Interesting article about NYC's $8bn MTA deal http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/will-upstate-roads-get-parity-with-mtas-8-billion-20151017
Sounds like a typical Buffalo person who hates downstate. Honestly, the MTA has been getting shorted for quite a while. Thanks to Joe Bruno, Upstate got a lot of money it probably didn't deserve during the 90s and early 2000s. The $8B doesn't even cover the entire amount they were shorted by the state earlier this year. If the MTA can't run, NYC dies and if NYC dies, the state dies. Simple as that. Buffalo is getting plenty of money in the form of the Buffalo Billion. If you go on a per-person basis, the Buffalo Billion is more than what the MTA is getting, as the MTA service area covers at least 12-13 million people in New York and a good portion of Connecticut.
Of major metropolitan areas, Buffalo has among the better road conditions, TRIP said. About 12 percent of the Buffalo area’s roads are in poor condition, compared with 43 percent in New York City, 28 percent in Syracuse and 21 percent in Rochester.
Interesting article about NYC's $8bn MTA deal http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/will-upstate-roads-get-parity-with-mtas-8-billion-20151017
I'm wondering where that money is going to come from. It's not just going to poof into thin air, and this governor will NOT raise taxes or cut his pet projects (ex: Taste NY, rebuilding LaGuardia because Biden didn't like it, etc.). That leaves the agencies, whose operations are already being bled dry. So if you can't take money from any of those sources, where do you get it? Payroll. I will NOT be surprised in any way if we see layoffs over this (the union would never accept a pay cut, and I can't afford one anyways), and I do NOT want to lose my job so the state can funnel more money into the MTA black hole.In 2009 the MTA went bankrupt. They cut the V line, truncated the G line to Court Square in 2010, and changed the M line. What next, intentionally try and kill MTA by sucking all of their money out?
Remember when the residents of Rockland and Westchester Counties were in an uproar over the possibilities of $14 tolls to cross the Tappan Zee? The amount Cuomo wants to send to the MTA is DOUBLE the cost of that project (and the LaGuardia project is just as expensive as the Tappan Zee).
The MTA has numerous problems, and shoveling more money at them won't solve them. If they went bankrupt, maybe then they would solve their corruption issues. Besides, authorities are supposed to be self-sufficient anyways.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I'm wondering where that money is going to come from. It's not just going to poof into thin air, and this governor will NOT raise taxes or cut his pet projects (ex: Taste NY, rebuilding LaGuardia because Biden didn't like it, etc.). That leaves the agencies, whose operations are already being bled dry. So if you can't take money from any of those sources, where do you get it? Payroll. I will NOT be surprised in any way if we see layoffs over this (the union would never accept a pay cut, and I can't afford one anyways), and I do NOT want to lose my job so the state can funnel more money into the MTA black hole.In 2009 the MTA went bankrupt. They cut the V line, truncated the G line to Court Square in 2010, and changed the M line. What next, intentionally try and kill MTA by sucking all of their money out?
Remember when the residents of Rockland and Westchester Counties were in an uproar over the possibilities of $14 tolls to cross the Tappan Zee? The amount Cuomo wants to send to the MTA is DOUBLE the cost of that project (and the LaGuardia project is just as expensive as the Tappan Zee).
The MTA has numerous problems, and shoveling more money at them won't solve them. If they went bankrupt, maybe then they would solve their corruption issues. Besides, authorities are supposed to be self-sufficient anyways.
(personal opinion emphasized)
(ex: Taste NY,
In theory, authorities aren't supposed to take ANY taxpayer dollars at all. That's why they exist in the first place: to build something with bonds that are paid back through user fees. The MTA has always been a money pit. Several decades ago, the state tried to solve the money problem by dissolving the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority into the MTA and using the bridges to subsidize it. That did nothing to solve the MTA's financial woes... it did give us sky high bridge tolls and cancel the Long Island Sound Crossing.It all dates from 1992.
The MTA is going to be a black hole until they fix their corruption issues. If they will not do that willingly, then perhaps they should be dissolved and replaced with an agency. An agency that the governor can control. An agency where the governor could classify all critical job titles as non-union at stroke of a pen if they tried to strike (yes, the governor can DO that, and DID with IT staff just a few months ago). If they want taxpayer dollars, it should come with assurances that the money won't just be thrown at big raises for some patronage jobs or some pet project that benefits Uncle Billy's construction firm more than it does riders.
Honestly, I'd at least be a little less fearful of this if we knew where it was coming from. Between the Tappan Zee, LaGuardia, and this, that's $19 billion going to downstate. That's a LOT of money. And nobody has any idea where it's coming from. Right now, my job is one the line until my union settles with the governor for the next contract... and all current indicators point towards a leadership that will hold out for as long as it takes to get big raises and a governor that won't humor them. It's the 2011 mass layoff event all over again.
And just because the MTA's transit system is vital to NYC doesn't change the fact that the MTA itself is a slow, inefficient, corrupt, money black hole.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bay+Ridge,+Brooklyn,+NY/@40.605194,-74.029874,3a,66.8y,286.73h,96.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sU55y3SnO0IElA34lRX15nw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2455f3f1cab0d:0xa5a45198ea4d73d6It's due to the change in tolls for the bridge. I can't remember but there's a price under there ($11 if I remember). The patch must've only covered the amount, and the new amount wasn't put on the patch.
Why the hidden tolls for the Verrazano Bridge? Is the TBTA ashamed at what they charge?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bay+Ridge,+Brooklyn,+NY/@40.605194,-74.029874,3a,66.8y,286.73h,96.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sU55y3SnO0IElA34lRX15nw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2455f3f1cab0d:0xa5a45198ea4d73d6
Why the hidden tolls for the Verrazano Bridge? Is the TBTA ashamed at what they charge?
In theory, authorities aren't supposed to take ANY taxpayer dollars at all. That's why they exist in the first place: to build something with bonds that are paid back through user fees. The MTA has always been a money pit. Several decades ago, the state tried to solve the money problem by dissolving the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority into the MTA and using the bridges to subsidize it. That did nothing to solve the MTA's financial woes... it did give us sky high bridge tolls and cancel the Long Island Sound Crossing.
The MTA is going to be a black hole until they fix their corruption issues. If they will not do that willingly, then perhaps they should be dissolved and replaced with an agency. An agency that the governor can control. An agency where the governor could classify all critical job titles as non-union at stroke of a pen if they tried to strike (yes, the governor can DO that, and DID with IT staff just a few months ago). If they want taxpayer dollars, it should come with assurances that the money won't just be thrown at big raises for some patronage jobs or some pet project that benefits Uncle Billy's construction firm more than it does riders.
Because union members are higher ranking citizens than everyone else, all government agencies in New York City serve their interests first and satisfy the interests of everyone else only to the degree that can be done while still giving the union members everything they want. So long as this remains the case the MTA or whatever you replace it with will be a money pit the same way everything else down here is.
Several decades ago, the state tried to solve the money problem by dissolving the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority into the MTA and using the bridges to subsidize it. That did nothing to solve the MTA's financial woes... it did give us sky high bridge tolls and cancel the Long Island Sound Crossing.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bay+Ridge,+Brooklyn,+NY/@40.605194,-74.029874,3a,66.8y,286.73h,96.79t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sU55y3SnO0IElA34lRX15nw!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c2455f3f1cab0d:0xa5a45198ea4d73d6It's due to the change in tolls for the bridge. I can't remember but there's a price under there ($11 if I remember). The patch must've only covered the amount, and the new amount wasn't put on the patch.
Why the hidden tolls for the Verrazano Bridge? Is the TBTA ashamed at what they charge?
Because union members are higher ranking citizens than everyone else, all government agencies in New York City serve their interests first and satisfy the interests of everyone else only to the degree that can be done while still giving the union members everything they want. So long as this remains the case the MTA or whatever you replace it with will be a money pit the same way everything else down here is.
Cool, I didn't realize the city was giving me everything I want! When can I pick it up?
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want to see all these people forced to work in sweatshop conditions for shit pay and I acknowledge that unions play a significant role in preventing that. But NYC's unions have extended their power far beyond preventing management abuse and well into absolving themselves of accountability for anything and preserving the existence of obsolete jobs.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want to see all these people forced to work in sweatshop conditions for shit pay and I acknowledge that unions play a significant role in preventing that. But NYC's unions have extended their power far beyond preventing management abuse and well into absolving themselves of accountability for anything and preserving the existence of obsolete jobs.
Yeah, my union doesn't have anywhere near that kind of potency, though they raise a stink when necessary, and have gotten some things done. But it's one of "NYC's unions", hence my joke indicating how what you describe doesn't match my experience in reality. Unions, like everything else in the world, can be done well or they can be done poorly, or somewhere in between. NYC's unions don't fall totally into one category or the other, naturally, and so while I understand your inclination to generalize for brevity's sake, you can see how that sometimes means the argument doesn't ring true for those instances that are outside the generality.
The time has come – the Utica Arterial (southbound) is now open:
http://www.uticaod.com/article/20151022/NEWS/151029769
Granted they still have to shift the lanes eastward in the spring, but for the most part it's up and running.
I can't wait to get on it.
The time has come – the Utica Arterial (southbound) is now open:
http://www.uticaod.com/article/20151022/NEWS/151029769
Granted they still have to shift the lanes eastward in the spring, but for the most part it's up and running.
I can't wait to get on it.
Drove on it this afternoon. The Court St ramp is still blocked off and the striping indicates no lane changes at the moment, but it's always cool to get the new view off a new bridge.
D262955 (NY 17/I-81 in Binghamton) is now advertised, and for me represents 3.06 GB of last Monday's 4.03 GB NYSDOT construction plans download. I haven't attempted to go through the 8 volumes of plans in any detail yet, but I count 80 tasty pages of signface layouts.
That might just be part of the Arterial. I've been noticing imagery dated 2015 randomly popping up (sometimes only for one frame on a route) but never any blocks of areas with the new imagery. Not sure what's going on, but Google usually takes at least a year to get updated imagery out after they drive it.
Seems like all the new signals region 4 is installing have reflectorized backplates and FYA's.
cl94, where on Northern Blvd. is Region-10 installing a FYA? I'll have to take a look.
Seems like all the new signals region 4 is installing have reflectorized backplates and FYA's.
Backplates are the new standard. New NYSDOT installations and the one new NYSTA installation I've seen in Buffalo have backplates. A few other states, notably Ohio, have adopted reflectorized backplates as the standard.
I expect Region 1 to eventually go all-FYA for new installations, as they have (or will) installed them at 4 intersections in the Albany area. Even Region 10 is joining the fun- they're installing one on Northern Boulevard at some point. Still no word from Regions 3, 5, 7, or 8.
Seems like all the new signals region 4 is installing have reflectorized backplates and FYA's.
Backplates are the new standard. New NYSDOT installations and the one new NYSTA installation I've seen in Buffalo have backplates. A few other states, notably Ohio, have adopted reflectorized backplates as the standard.
I expect Region 1 to eventually go all-FYA for new installations, as they have (or will) installed them at 4 intersections in the Albany area. Even Region 10 is joining the fun- they're installing one on Northern Boulevard at some point. Still no word from Regions 3, 5, 7, or 8.
Backplates also mean pole mounts, right? Or still sticking with the strings lights?
Seems like all the new signals region 4 is installing have reflectorized backplates and FYA's.
Backplates are the new standard. New NYSDOT installations and the one new NYSTA installation I've seen in Buffalo have backplates. A few other states, notably Ohio, have adopted reflectorized backplates as the standard.
I expect Region 1 to eventually go all-FYA for new installations, as they have (or will) installed them at 4 intersections in the Albany area. Even Region 10 is joining the fun- they're installing one on Northern Boulevard at some point. Still no word from Regions 3, 5, 7, or 8.
Backplates also mean pole mounts, right? Or still sticking with the strings lights?
Depends. Region 10 is still putting in span wire in "less urbanized" areas and where the highway is wide, but a couple installations in Nassau County are pole mount using unique mast arms[/url also used by the County and Village of Hempstead. Can't find anything that isn't span wire in Suffolk at a quick glance.
Region 5 is exclusively mast arms. Region 1 had more mast arms than most regions to begin with, especially north of Albany, but they're exclusive as well. Pretty certain Region 4 is only mast arms.
(https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8395157,-73.6150495,3a,52.4y,14.06h,82.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLXIoIbCjO_m7kRsQoPhZIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Still no word from Regions 3, 5, 7, or 8.
Another day, another set of new FYAs in Region 1. This time we have the intersection of NY 7 and NY 142 in Center Brunswick (facing EB NY 7) and US 4 at NY 32 in Waterford (facing NB NY 32). Included in the plans but in a different contract are FYAs at NY 146 at Blue Barns Rd and Glenridge Rd (all approaches). Plans are here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=9870&p_is_digital=). All of the FYAs are being put on span wire.
D263075 - Safety improvements to I-890 at exit 4.Took a look at the exit numbering. EB 4A and 4B will become just 4 (makes sense on its own) but WB retains 4B and 4C. A little weird, and I'm wondering if it's even MUTCD compliant given that I-890 has mile-based numbers. Shoulding 4 and 4B become 4A and 4C become 4B?
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263075
I saw a FYA in Staten Island. It's turning from Lily Pond Ave. SB to I-278 EB. A green ball would be perfectly sufficient here.
cl94, since you mentioned Hempstead, have you seen that funky single mast-arm installation on Fulton Ave. (NY-24) a few blocks west of Hofstra U? Possibly the corner of Kernochan Ave.
That installation in Region-1 looks normal. The one in Hempstead uses an unusually wide pole and a very wide, long mast-arm in a similar diagonal configuration. It looks really weird.
Flashing Yellow Arrow
Given how many road forums you're on (between here and Facebook), I'm surprised you haven't caught onto it before now.
Given how many road forums you're on (between here and Facebook), I'm surprised you haven't caught onto it before now.
I've yet to see one IRL.
Are any coming to Region 5? Or 2?
Given how many road forums you're on (between here and Facebook), I'm surprised you haven't caught onto it before now.
I've yet to see one IRL.
Are any coming to Region 5? Or 2?
Take a quick trip out to Mohawk. Some on NY 5S.
Given how many road forums you're on (between here and Facebook), I'm surprised you haven't caught onto it before now.
I've yet to see one IRL.
Are any coming to Region 5? Or 2?
Take a quick trip out to Mohawk. Some on NY 5S.
I'm gonna say Rochester (Gates, actually) is a bit of a quicker trip for him. ;-)
Well, he was asking about Region 2...
Given how many road forums you're on (between here and Facebook), I'm surprised you haven't caught onto it before now.
I've yet to see one IRL.
Are any coming to Region 5? Or 2?
Take a quick trip out to Mohawk. Some on NY 5S.
I'm gonna say Rochester (Gates, actually) is a bit of a quicker trip for him. ;-)Well, he was asking about Region 2...
He goes to school in Utica. The ones in Mohawk are right there and are usually active. Many of the ones in Rochester don't go FYA full-time. The only Rochester ones I've actually seen doing their thing are the new ones in Gates.
The northbound lanes of the Utica North-South Arterial were moved over to the new overpass some time today. It is a single lane with a maximum width restriction of 10-feet (if memory serves correctly). A temporary Court Street off-ramp follows the old arterial detour, the NY 5A / NY 5S Downtown Utica interchange is closed to NB traffic at this time.
I'm not sure if Court Street is now open underneath the new bridge, but reports indicated it is slated to be open by Thanksgiving.
The NB interchange for NY 5A / NY 5S looks like it'll be open very soon as well. And it looked like they've already started dismantling the remaining parts of the old bridge so they can build the remainder of the new overpass.
Route 49 eastbound between Cavanaugh Road and Route 12 — overhead sign installation work to continue, weather permitting. Motorists will encounter a lane and shoulder closure and intermittent delays. Flaggers will control traffic during brief traffic stoppages.
Also, what's this all about?QuoteRoute 49 eastbound between Cavanaugh Road and Route 12 — overhead sign installation work to continue, weather permitting. Motorists will encounter a lane and shoulder closure and intermittent delays. Flaggers will control traffic during brief traffic stoppages.
Also, what's this all about?QuoteRoute 49 eastbound between Cavanaugh Road and Route 12 — overhead sign installation work to continue, weather permitting. Motorists will encounter a lane and shoulder closure and intermittent delays. Flaggers will control traffic during brief traffic stoppages.
The signs need to be added to the new gantry installed at the WB exit ramp for CR 34/Marcy-SUNY Pkwy. The gantry has been up for over a week, but with no signs. It looks like they're getting it done before Thanksgiving. The overhead installation with 1/4 mile advance sign for CR 34/Marcy-SUNY Pkwy and 1/2 mile for 5/8/12 was put up two weeks ago. This is finishing up the installation.
There has never been advance guide signs for the 49/I-790/5/8/12 interchange on NY 49 WB since the completion of the road over 10 years ago, they finally got the funding together to put up advance guide signs. Due to the proximity of the CR34/Marcy-SUNY Pkwy and 790/5/8/12 interchanges, overhead signs were necessary.
This is also the first time an Oneida County Route is mentioned on freeway guide signs and I think it's wonderful.
I noticed that a NYSDOT contractor is also working on replacing several ground mounted signs in the area but I haven't found a contract online for that. It looks like some of the SUNY POLY college symbol standalone signs are getting replaced with something more freeway friendly. :)
Also, what's this all about?QuoteRoute 49 eastbound between Cavanaugh Road and Route 12 — overhead sign installation work to continue, weather permitting. Motorists will encounter a lane and shoulder closure and intermittent delays. Flaggers will control traffic during brief traffic stoppages.
The signs need to be added to the new gantry installed at the WB exit ramp for CR 34/Marcy-SUNY Pkwy. The gantry has been up for over a week, but with no signs. It looks like they're getting it done before Thanksgiving. The overhead installation with 1/4 mile advance sign for CR 34/Marcy-SUNY Pkwy and 1/2 mile for 5/8/12 was put up two weeks ago. This is finishing up the installation.
There has never been advance guide signs for the 49/I-790/5/8/12 interchange on NY 49 WB since the completion of the road over 10 years ago, they finally got the funding together to put up advance guide signs. Due to the proximity of the CR34/Marcy-SUNY Pkwy and 790/5/8/12 interchanges, overhead signs were necessary.
This is also the first time an Oneida County Route is mentioned on freeway guide signs and I think it's wonderful.
I noticed that a NYSDOT contractor is also working on replacing several ground mounted signs in the area but I haven't found a contract online for that. It looks like some of the SUNY POLY college symbol standalone signs are getting replaced with something more freeway friendly. :)
Why they renamed the parkway "Marcy-SUNY" parkway is beyond me. It reinforces the misnaming of the school to things like "SUNY," "SUNY Tech" and I still here "SUNYIT" at times when it's been a year since the name change.
On the official project Facebook page, a NYSDOT representative responded to a question regarding the I-86 designation by saying that the entirety of the road in Tioga County is ready, but there are some deficiencies between the Broome County line and Prospect Mountain that need to be remediated before the designation can be extended through Broome County.
On the official project Facebook page, a NYSDOT representative responded to a question regarding the I-86 designation by saying that the entirety of the road in Tioga County is ready, but there are some deficiencies between the Broome County line and Prospect Mountain that need to be remediated before the designation can be extended through Broome County.Odd. I would have thought the Broome County section west of I-81 was already up to standards. What upgrades could it possibly need?
Veeerrry interesting. I guess that means we could see the I-86 designation be extended to either Exit 66 (NY 17C/NY 434/Apalachin), which is the easternmost exit in Tioga County, or the Tioga/Broome county line (between Exits 66 and 67) at some point in the near future.I believe the current plan is to sign it all the way between US 220 and the current segment east of I-81 in one fell swoop when the Prospect Mountain Phase II project is done.
On the official project Facebook page, a NYSDOT representative responded to a question regarding the I-86 designation by saying that the entirety of the road in Tioga County is ready, but there are some deficiencies between the Broome County line and Prospect Mountain that need to be remediated before the designation can be extended through Broome County.Odd. I would have thought the Broome County section west of I-81 was already up to standards. What upgrades could it possibly need?
Tioga County has several substandard ramps but I think NYSDOT was able to appease FHWA simply by lengthening the acceleration/deceleration lanes, which has been done in the past couple years.Veeerrry interesting. I guess that means we could see the I-86 designation be extended to either Exit 66 (NY 17C/NY 434/Apalachin), which is the easternmost exit in Tioga County, or the Tioga/Broome county line (between Exits 66 and 67) at some point in the near future.I believe the current plan is to sign it all the way between US 220 and the current segment east of I-81 in one fell swoop when the Prospect Mountain Phase II project is done.
"The tax payers will get caught holding the bag on this one. The ramp to the walkway bridge doesn't conform to code. Without checking a DOT engineer signed off on a elevation change. This doesn't meet American Disabilities Act, and needs to be changed. Secondly brigde bearing supprts on Court st. overpass were installed backwards. Again a DOT engineer signed off on this. It wasn't till final inspection that someone found the mistake. To fix this the bridge needs to be jacked up. The bearings are welde in so it will cost tax payers millons. Some one should lose their jobs here. But in good old DOT fashion they'll be hinden in the state office building playing video games till their retirement."
Given how many road forums you're on (between here and Facebook), I'm surprised you haven't caught onto it before now.
I've yet to see one IRL.
Are any coming to Region 5? Or 2?
Take a quick trip out to Mohawk. Some on NY 5S.
Given how many road forums you're on (between here and Facebook), I'm surprised you haven't caught onto it before now.
I've yet to see one IRL.
Are any coming to Region 5? Or 2?
Take a quick trip out to Mohawk. Some on NY 5S.
Oh I didn't even see this post. Will have to do.
Is this true?
dot engineers screw up rt12 projectQuote"The tax payers will get caught holding the bag on this one. The ramp to the walkway bridge doesn't conform to code. Without checking a DOT engineer signed off on a elevation change. This doesn't meet American Disabilities Act, and needs to be changed. Secondly brigde bearing supprts on Court st. overpass were installed backwards. Again a DOT engineer signed off on this. It wasn't till final inspection that someone found the mistake. To fix this the bridge needs to be jacked up. The bearings are welde in so it will cost tax payers millons. Some one should lose their jobs here. But in good old DOT fashion they'll be hinden in the state office building playing video games till their retirement."
Looks like a news article, but it somehow managed to escape the clippings.
Looks like a news article, but it somehow managed to escape the clippings.
I believe it's a mention in the Utica Topix board. Anything there should be taken with many grains of salt.
Looks like a news article, but it somehow managed to escape the clippings.On another Utica note - the other overhead signs on NY 49 EB at the Marcy-SUNY Pkwy interchange are going up today. I couldn't snap a photo but there are three signs on the installation:
Left side
NORTH 8 / NORTH 12
Poland
Watertown
EXIT 1/4 MILE
Middle
WEST 5 / SOUTH 8 / SOUTH 12
Downtown Utica
NEXT RIGHT
Right
Oneida CR 34
Marcy-SUNY Pkwy
(blank line)
(up arrow on the right side next to Marcy-SUNY Pkwy line)
The route markers are such are all standard and the signs look very good and MUTCD compliant. I'll try to snap photo in the next day or two.
Elderlee Inc is also working in the area installing ground mounted posts for the 1 MILE advance sign for the same interchange. They are also working on ground mounted signs on NY 8/12 NORTH between the NY 5A/5S and NY 49/I-790/NY 5 interchanges -- I think these are SUNY POLY signs they are replacing. :) Unfortunately I can't find anything online for ground mounted signs in R2 at this time.
Looks like a news article, but it somehow managed to escape the clippings.
I believe it's a mention in the Utica Topix board. Anything there should be taken with many grains of salt.
Don't even ask why I was browsing that site...Looks like a news article, but it somehow managed to escape the clippings.On another Utica note - the other overhead signs on NY 49 EB at the Marcy-SUNY Pkwy interchange are going up today. I couldn't snap a photo but there are three signs on the installation:
Left side
NORTH 8 / NORTH 12
Poland
Watertown
EXIT 1/4 MILE
Middle
WEST 5 / SOUTH 8 / SOUTH 12
Downtown Utica
NEXT RIGHT
Right
Oneida CR 34
Marcy-SUNY Pkwy
(blank line)
(up arrow on the right side next to Marcy-SUNY Pkwy line)
The route markers are such are all standard and the signs look very good and MUTCD compliant. I'll try to snap photo in the next day or two.
Elderlee Inc is also working in the area installing ground mounted posts for the 1 MILE advance sign for the same interchange. They are also working on ground mounted signs on NY 8/12 NORTH between the NY 5A/5S and NY 49/I-790/NY 5 interchanges -- I think these are SUNY POLY signs they are replacing. :) Unfortunately I can't find anything online for ground mounted signs in R2 at this time.
I'm glad they've gotten this done, seems like a decent assembly. I'll definitely be able to see this tomorrow.
Also, I know you're a pilot. Is it just me or do I see you in the sky sometimes?
Are these yellow on brown signs an Adirondack thing? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4805199,-73.8189322,3a,15y,166.29h,89.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5V6QUDsqVCspmfWH4njEuw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Are these yellow on brown signs an Adirondack thing? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4805199,-73.8189322,3a,15y,166.29h,89.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5V6QUDsqVCspmfWH4njEuw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Adirondack and Catskill, yes. Although that particular one looks pretty off-spec.
Are these yellow on brown signs an Adirondack thing? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4805199,-73.8189322,3a,15y,166.29h,89.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5V6QUDsqVCspmfWH4njEuw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Adirondack and Catskill, yes. Although that particular one looks pretty off-spec.
You can see a bunch of examples of these on my "New York State Touring Routes and Parkways Traveled" page:
http://www.teresco.org/pics/nyshighways/ (http://www.teresco.org/pics/nyshighways/)
Scroll to routes like NY 30 that spend some time in the Adirondacks.
I know there was some discussion of these here in the not-too-distant past in the context of an effort to force NY to stop using them because of readability problems. I like them and hope NY continues to use them.
The yellow on brown reference markers are the new standard for the Adirondacks (except for possibly I-87). Basically, the FHWA has allowed NY to retain yellow on brown for the Adirondacks, but not the Catskills, which will be white on brown going forward. Also, I believe some yellow and brown signs (such as Hospital signs) are reverting to their standard colors in both parks.
The yellow on brown reference markers are the new standard for the Adirondacks (except for possibly I-87). Basically, the FHWA has allowed NY to retain yellow on brown for the Adirondacks, but not the Catskills, which will be white on brown going forward. Also, I believe some yellow and brown signs (such as Hospital signs) are reverting to their standard colors in both parks.
The yellow on brown reference markers are the new standard for the Adirondacks (except for possibly I-87). Basically, the FHWA has allowed NY to retain yellow on brown for the Adirondacks, but not the Catskills, which will be white on brown going forward. Also, I believe some yellow and brown signs (such as Hospital signs) are reverting to their standard colors in both parks.
Why Adirondack and not Catskill? Doesn't a single standard serve the public better than two?
I think there's a "Historic Resource" argument to be made in the Adirondacks, since this practice has been going on long enough that yellow-on-brown is expected as part of the landscape. I don't think the Catskills are known for it quite the same way. SHPO does strange things. (State Historic Preservation Office - at least that's what the one in NJ is called.)The yellow on brown reference markers are the new standard for the Adirondacks (except for possibly I-87). Basically, the FHWA has allowed NY to retain yellow on brown for the Adirondacks, but not the Catskills, which will be white on brown going forward. Also, I believe some yellow and brown signs (such as Hospital signs) are reverting to their standard colors in both parks.
Why Adirondack and not Catskill? Doesn't a single standard serve the public better than two?
That's not a basic premise I would entertain, no. If diverse conditions warrant diverse standards, then a single standard would serve the public less well than two. Now, whether the Adirondack and Catskill preserves represent diverse conditions, that is certainly a good question.
I think there's a "Historic Resource" argument to be made in the Adirondacks, since this practice has been going on long enough that yellow-on-brown is expected as part of the landscape. I don't think the Catskills are known for it quite the same way. SHPO does strange things. (State Historic Preservation Office - at least that's what the one in NJ is called.)The yellow on brown reference markers are the new standard for the Adirondacks (except for possibly I-87). Basically, the FHWA has allowed NY to retain yellow on brown for the Adirondacks, but not the Catskills, which will be white on brown going forward. Also, I believe some yellow and brown signs (such as Hospital signs) are reverting to their standard colors in both parks.
Why Adirondack and not Catskill? Doesn't a single standard serve the public better than two?
That's not a basic premise I would entertain, no. If diverse conditions warrant diverse standards, then a single standard would serve the public less well than two. Now, whether the Adirondack and Catskill preserves represent diverse conditions, that is certainly a good question.
Because Obama signed the transportation bill on Friday, could we see the completion of the 219 corridor in the future?
Don't forget that NY doesn't even have the funding to do the environmental impact statement for the remainder of US 219, most of which isn't on Seneca land. The next project (formerly in the STIP, the only one that ever was), which probably would have been done by now had NYSDOT not switched into preservation mode a few years ago, would have extended the freeway south to Snake Run Rd.
Also, I-81 in Syracuse is now a high priority corridor.
They could also pull a Quebec and build an orphaned bypass of Ellicottville next before anything else, on the pretense of that being the most useful segment. But they won't do that.
Is there some particular reason the rest of 219 down to Salamanca needs to be full freeway or would an expressway ("West Virginia Freeway") design suffice? Would be cheaper both due to not needing as many overpasses and interchanges, and due to the potential of using the existing alignment as half the road in some places.
Pennsylvania will likely choose the WV Freeway option at best. It will simply cost too much to build a full freeway south of Bradford. The road should be designed to serve the communities along it; long-distance travel is well-served by I-390/US 15.
Is there some particular reason the rest of 219 down to Salamanca needs to be full freeway or would an expressway ("West Virginia Freeway") design suffice? Would be cheaper both due to not needing as many overpasses and interchanges, and due to the potential of using the existing alignment as half the road in some places.
Pennsylvania will likely choose the WV Freeway option at best. It will simply cost too much to build a full freeway south of Bradford. The road should be designed to serve the communities along it; long-distance travel is well-served by I-390/US 15.
Is there some particular reason the rest of 219 down to Salamanca needs to be full freeway or would an expressway ("West Virginia Freeway") design suffice? Would be cheaper both due to not needing as many overpasses and interchanges, and due to the potential of using the existing alignment as half the road in some places.
On the note of I-81 being designated a high priority corridor, what is the latest on the viaduct in Syracuse? Any options seemingly favored?I'm not aware of anything beyond the fact that the viaduct and boulevard alternatives are still being evaluated, along with an unspecified tunnel option that is not any of the alternatives investigated before nor the DestiNY USA proposal (which omitted the I-690 interchange).
I find it easy to get US 219 freeway from Ebensburg up until PA 36. North of there, it's pretty tricky due to how curvy the road is.Pennsylvania will likely choose the WV Freeway option at best. It will simply cost too much to build a full freeway south of Bradford. The road should be designed to serve the communities along it; long-distance travel is well-served by I-390/US 15.
Is there some particular reason the rest of 219 down to Salamanca needs to be full freeway or would an expressway ("West Virginia Freeway") design suffice? Would be cheaper both due to not needing as many overpasses and interchanges, and due to the potential of using the existing alignment as half the road in some places.
Except US 219 gets a heck of a lot of truck traffic that uses it between SW Pennsylvania and Buffalo, a lot of which is avoiding the tolls. Every small town will have to be bypassed unless they want to take out every house in the town. Most of it would need a bypass anyway to preserve access to the numerous homes built right on the road. That and the grades/curves in PA, even without the section that has the truck bypass, would need some major upgrades.
They could also pull a Quebec and build an orphaned bypass of Ellicottville next before anything else, on the pretense of that being the most useful segment. But they won't do that.
Is there some particular reason the rest of 219 down to Salamanca needs to be full freeway or would an expressway ("West Virginia Freeway") design suffice? Would be cheaper both due to not needing as many overpasses and interchanges, and due to the potential of using the existing alignment as half the road in some places.
On the note of I-81 being designated a high priority corridor, what is the latest on the viaduct in Syracuse? Any options seemingly favored?
He probably made it up on the spot. Likely referring to how West Virginia signs some of their expressway-grade facilities as "freeways"...
He probably made it up on the spot. Likely referring to how West Virginia signs some of their expressway-grade facilities as "freeways"...
Have you ever noticed most NY freeways are known as "Expressways?" Probably because that's what they actually are.
Have you ever noticed most NY freeways are known as "Expressways?" Probably because that's what they actually are.
The next project (formerly in the STIP, the only one that ever was), which probably would have been done by now had NYSDOT not switched into preservation mode a few years ago, would have extended the freeway south to Snake Run Rd.
Well, the last time I saw it on the public site, it was listen with a planned completion date that would now be in the past. Of course, that was ages ago, only a year or two after the extension to Peters Rd opened at the most.The next project (formerly in the STIP, the only one that ever was), which probably would have been done by now had NYSDOT not switched into preservation mode a few years ago, would have extended the freeway south to Snake Run Rd.
No, it would not have been done by now.
A long time ago in NYSDOT years (8 or so), the US 219 projects were sort of lumped into the same special group as the NY 17/I-86 conversion projects. Even before the I-86 project list was narrowed, the US 219 projects were the first from the hybrid group to be whittled away from getting any additional funding from NYSDOT's Main Office (i.e., on top of regional allocations).
I'll put it this way: I'd consider the NY 17/I-86 conversion "tabled," whereas I saw people simply run away from US 219 like the plague.
I did see some poor guy bring up US 219 and was immediately and practically shouted down a few years ago. Haven't heard a thing about it ever since.
(personal opinion expressed).
Well, the last time I saw it on the public site, it was listen with a planned completion date that would now be in the past. Of course, that was ages ago, only a year or two after the extension to Peters Rd opened at the most.The next project (formerly in the STIP, the only one that ever was), which probably would have been done by now had NYSDOT not switched into preservation mode a few years ago, would have extended the freeway south to Snake Run Rd.
No, it would not have been done by now.
A long time ago in NYSDOT years (8 or so), the US 219 projects were sort of lumped into the same special group as the NY 17/I-86 conversion projects. Even before the I-86 project list was narrowed, the US 219 projects were the first from the hybrid group to be whittled away from getting any additional funding from NYSDOT's Main Office (i.e., on top of regional allocations).
I'll put it this way: I'd consider the NY 17/I-86 conversion "tabled," whereas I saw people simply run away from US 219 like the plague.
I did see some poor guy bring up US 219 and was immediately and practically shouted down a few years ago. Haven't heard a thing about it ever since.
(personal opinion expressed).
and even a Long Island Sound crossing. It is that dead.The next project (formerly in the STIP, the only one that ever was), which probably would have been done by now had NYSDOT not switched into preservation mode a few years ago, would have extended the freeway south to Snake Run Rd.
No, it would not have been done by now.
A long time ago in NYSDOT years (8 or so), the US 219 projects were sort of lumped into the same special group as the NY 17/I-86 conversion projects. Even before the I-86 project list was narrowed, the US 219 projects were the first from the hybrid group to be whittled away from getting any additional funding from NYSDOT's Main Office (i.e., on top of regional allocations).
I'll put it this way: I'd consider the NY 17/I-86 conversion "tabled," whereas I saw people simply run away from US 219 like the plague.
I did see some poor guy bring up US 219 and was immediately and practically shouted down a few years ago. Haven't heard a thing about it ever since.
(personal opinion expressed).
Wow that's not good for that road!
So there is now a FYA on E 8th St at the intersection with Broadway in Manhattan. The put a dedicated right turn lane in and the FYA signs on the right side (the overhead signal is still a standard green). First time I've seen a FYA in Manhattan proper. Are they anywhere else?
He probably made it up on the spot. Likely referring to how West Virginia signs some of their expressway-grade facilities as "freeways"...
US 219 gets a heck of a lot of truck traffic that uses it between SW Pennsylvania and Buffalo, a lot of which is avoiding the tolls.
New ground-mounted signs were being put up yesterday in both directions on I-81 between exits 11-13. I have a couple pictures I managed to snap. On the new sign for exit 12, there are three destinations listed. I'm not sure I've ever seen that before. Does anybody have some other examples?
http://i.imgur.com/Cr7wWDh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UyPWrLV.jpg
New ground-mounted signs were being put up yesterday in both directions on I-81 between exits 11-13. I have a couple pictures I managed to snap. On the new sign for exit 12, there are three destinations listed. I'm not sure I've ever seen that before. Does anybody have some other examples?
http://i.imgur.com/Cr7wWDh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UyPWrLV.jpg
BGS on the Taconic Parkway for "Donald J Trump State Park." Didn't even know this existed.
(http://i.imgur.com/YFcCpIN.jpg)
I think I'm going to make a "Buffaboy State Park" near Utica.
Is there a map of where all of these "emergency detour" routes go to?
Is there a map of where all of these "emergency detour" routes go to?
Good question. Last week, I saw an "emergency detour E" along WB NY 33 between NY 78 and I-90. Being as the signs are quite new, I'm assuming they're for toll booth construction/congestion in Williamsville. Hopefully, the interim measure before AET conversion (20 mph lanes for EB and an extra WB lane) will reduce some of the backups. I'm assuming there's a C and D, likely for EB I-90 via NY 33 and NY 77 and I-290 to I-90 EB via NY 5 and NY 78.
Region 5 Detours A and B are for I-190 via I-290 and US 62.
Is there a map of where all of these "emergency detour" routes go to?
Good question. Last week, I saw an "emergency detour E" along WB NY 33 between NY 78 and I-90. Being as the signs are quite new, I'm assuming they're for toll booth construction/congestion in Williamsville. Hopefully, the interim measure before AET conversion (20 mph lanes for EB and an extra WB lane) will reduce some of the backups. I'm assuming there's a C and D, likely for EB I-90 via NY 33 and NY 77 and I-290 to I-90 EB via NY 5 and NY 78.
Region 5 Detours A and B are for I-190 via I-290 and US 62.
C is off of Exit 57 in Hamburg, and leads to US 20.
Is there a map of where all of these "emergency detour" routes go to?
Anyone notice that the letters for "emergency detour" in the sign are reflective but the letters for the detour letter are not? The actual letters for the detours seem to be as nonreflective as the lettering in the newer guide signs.
Anyone notice that the letters for "emergency detour" in the sign are reflective but the letters for the detour letter are not? The actual letters for the detours seem to be as nonreflective as the lettering in the newer guide signs.
No, but I did notice that the ones for Detour E in Cheektowaga and Amherst are in Clearview
Anyone notice that the letters for "emergency detour" in the sign are reflective but the letters for the detour letter are not? The actual letters for the detours seem to be as nonreflective as the lettering in the newer guide signs.
Looks like there are some new signs going up in the Utica area before the end of the year. I'll have to go on a scouting trip after work.
I mentioned to NYSDOT Region 2 that their method of signing SUNY POLY ran contrary to the MUTCD back in August. I don't know if the original work was temporary or not, but these signs do a much better job of relaying information at freeway speeds.
(http://upstatenyroads.com/public/sunypoly.jpg)
This is probably a stupid question, but why aren't routes in NY called SH 324 or SH 400 like in other states?
This is probably a stupid question, but why aren't routes in NY called SH 324 or SH 400 like in other states?
In New York, a state highway number is a three- or four-digit number used internally by NYSDOT to identify a state-maintained road. This is different from a state route number, which is a one- to three-digit number posted on signs for motorists to follow and may include locally maintained sections that don't have state highway numbers. While they may be treated as synonyms by people from other states, "state route" and "state highway" are not the same thing in New York.
In New York, a state highway number is a three- or four-digit number used internally by NYSDOT to identify a state-maintained road. This is different from a state route number, which is a one- to three-digit number posted on signs for motorists to follow and may include locally maintained sections that don't have state highway numbers. While they may be treated as synonyms by people from other states, "state route" and "state highway" are not the same thing in New York.
In New York, a state highway number is a three- or four-digit number used internally by NYSDOT to identify a state-maintained road. This is different from a state route number, which is a one- to three-digit number posted on signs for motorists to follow and may include locally maintained sections that don't have state highway numbers. While they may be treated as synonyms by people from other states, "state route" and "state highway" are not the same thing in New York.
In New York, a state highway number is a three- or four-digit number used internally by NYSDOT to identify a state-maintained road. This is different from a state route number, which is a one- to three-digit number posted on signs for motorists to follow and may include locally maintained sections that don't have state highway numbers. While they may be treated as synonyms by people from other states, "state route" and "state highway" are not the same thing in New York.
But even the interstates written into law are "interstate routes", like "interstate route 505" is generally I-81, except the portion written into law where Interstate Route 505 goes from Watertown to Plattsburgh via Massena and Malone.
Even in the law they're not written as "Interstate Highway".
http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/highway/hay0340-a_340-a.html (http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/highway/hay0340-a_340-a.html)
Correct. SH numbers are written in law as designations, but are rarely used in any common fashion. A few contract documents have them.
D263107 - a project for bridge rehab - has potentially an upgrade of NY 9N to US 9N as evidenced by the plans on page 17:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263107
In New York, a state highway number is a three- or four-digit number used internally by NYSDOT to identify a state-maintained road. This is different from a state route number, which is a one- to three-digit number posted on signs for motorists to follow and may include locally maintained sections that don't have state highway numbers. While they may be treated as synonyms by people from other states, "state route" and "state highway" are not the same thing in New York.
That's interesting...
Correct. SH numbers are written in law as designations, but are rarely used in any common fashion. A few contract documents have them.
Wait, the numbers are written into the law? I don't see them here: http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/highway/hay0341_341.html
In New York, a state highway number is a three- or four-digit number used internally by NYSDOT to identify a state-maintained road. This is different from a state route number, which is a one- to three-digit number posted on signs for motorists to follow and may include locally maintained sections that don't have state highway numbers. While they may be treated as synonyms by people from other states, "state route" and "state highway" are not the same thing in New York.
That's interesting...
That's the real and more helpful answer. ;-)
You can find the SH numbers on NYSDOT quadrangles (such as I have available here (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/nassaumaps.html)).Correct. SH numbers are written in law as designations, but are rarely used in any common fashion. A few contract documents have them.
Wait, the numbers are written into the law? I don't see them here: http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/highway/hay0341_341.html
Well, they're in there, but as references to themselves as recorded by the DOT. I feel as thought there may be an older source, from the 1920s, perhaps, that records the original SH designtions. I'm pretty sure I've seen it but I don't remember where; it may come up in a Google Books search.
D263107 - a project for bridge rehab - has potentially an upgrade of NY 9N to US 9N as evidenced by the plans on page 17:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263107
Yeesh. Probably just a mix-up as usual.
...
Oh. Part of the Critical Bridges over Troubled Water initiative to boot. Funded by HUD/FEMA...
D263107 - a project for bridge rehab - has potentially an upgrade of NY 9N to US 9N as evidenced by the plans on page 17:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263107
ALBANY – Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday he wants to put $22 billion toward upstate’s aging roads and bridges while spending another $1 billion to freeze tolls on the state Thruway.
Cuomo laid out part of his transportation plan at an event Wednesday in Liverpool, Onondaga County, the latest stop in a statewide tour this week that has seen him slowly roll out his agenda for 2016 ahead of his State of the State address and budget proposal Jan. 13.
The Democratic governor offered few specifics on his infrastructure spending push, but said the $22 billion would be spread out over five years. He also proposed spending $30 million on upstate New York’s public-transportation systems.
QuoteALBANY — Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday he wants to put $22 billion toward upstate’s aging roads and bridges while spending another $1 billion to freeze tolls on the state Thruway.
Cuomo laid out part of his transportation plan at an event Wednesday in Liverpool, Onondaga County, the latest stop in a statewide tour this week that has seen him slowly roll out his agenda for 2016 ahead of his State of the State address and budget proposal Jan. 13.
The Democratic governor offered few specifics on his infrastructure spending push, but said the $22 billion would be spread out over five years. He also proposed spending $30 million on upstate New York’s public-transportation systems.
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/06/cuomo-proposes-thruway-toll-freeze-22b-for-roads/78357802/
What would the money go to? Finishing I-86? Making I-90 4+ lanes from barrier to barrier in Buffalo? Finishing the Utica arterial?
Or is this just rhetoric? From what I understand most bridges cost under $50M to replace/repair.
offering a tax credit worth 50 percent of tolls for passenger vehicles with E-Z Pass that rack up more than $50 in tolls annually
Quoteoffering a tax credit worth 50 percent of tolls for passenger vehicles with E-Z Pass that rack up more than $50 in tolls annually
Though I have a sneaking suspicion that if this gets implemented Tappan Zee tolls will be explicitly excluded, for exactly that reason.
Bridges and repaving are what has been announced. 200+ bridges and 1300 miles. Rest will be announced at the State of the State a week from today.
What stuck out most wasn't a highway project. They're putting funds toward triple-tracking the LIRR main line and expanding Penn Station with additional tunnels. Not only will that do a lot for the City and Long Island, but it will likely have a positive effect on traffic as more trains would be able to run.
As to where the money would go, good flipping question. I have a few educated guesses:
-If Region 1 and CDTC would get with the picture, some would undoubtedly go to widening the Northway south of Clifton Park, but that's not going to happen until pigs fly.
-I-81 rebuild/replacement in Syracuse. Again, an obvious one, but this one actually may happen.
-Possible US 9 improvements near NY 149 and NY 149 improvements
-NY 78 improvements near Buffalo
-NY 198 rebuild
-Statewide signal upgrades for coordination, FYAs, etc. Wouldn't shock me because the state is trending toward eliminating traditional span-wire signals and using double span wires or (increasingly) mast arms.
-Unlikely, but statewide exit renumbering. Cost is the excuse and this will provide the money not covered by the feds.
-Assorted interchange rebuilds. I wouldn't be shocked to see a lot more SPUIs and/or DDIs being constructed over the next few years.
-Sign replacements for reflectivity. As in bye-bye button copy and first-generation retroreflective signage. A lot of signage has been replaced recently (I'm looking at you, Regions 1 and 5), but there is still some bad stuff out there (I'm still trying to figure out how Region 1 hasn't replaced a very faded brown sign at I-87 Exit 13).
A good chunk of the Upstate public transit funding is likely going to the planned Albany BRT expansion and Buffalo Light Rail, with some to Syracuse for their BRT/light rail study.
What I find interesting about this idea though is that it is in a way a whole new level of transponder discrimination. In order to get the higher discount on Thruway tolls, you need to be a New York State taxpayer. No one from out of state will be able to take advantage even if they get a NY tag.I don't think he mentioned E-ZPass, which would have the effect of incentivising cash usage if someone's usual annual toll amount is near $50. It also has the effect of possibly having some people forgetting to do this or deciding it's not worth the effort, giving the state money (like how companies profit off of rebates). Also, the reason he's doing this is to promote business in upstate NY... it's kinda a way of saying "you've gotta move your operations to NY to take advantage of this discount".
-Sign replacements for reflectivity. As in bye-bye button copy and first-generation retroreflective signage. A lot of signage has been replaced recently (I'm looking at you, Regions 1 and 5), but there is still some bad stuff out there (I'm still trying to figure out how Region 1 hasn't replaced a very faded brown sign at I-87 Exit 13).Region 1 hasn't actually been doing much guide sign replacements as of late. The newer style exit tabs are VERY rare here - I'm actually not sure if we have ANY of the rounded corner style that became common in other regions around 2010, and only a few of our signs use the modern style adopted in the past couple years (I can think of three and only three). Almost all of our signs are late 90s/00s style.
I don't think he mentioned E-ZPass
I don't think he mentioned E-ZPass
The WGRZ article linked above did.
As for all of these ideas, it's important to realize that in politics, seemingly radical proposals, good or bad, never get implemented as originally proposed. The governor is proposing a bunch of big things as a starting point for haggling, the eventual end result will be a scaled back version where some things happen as planned, some things happen differently or in a less grandiose manner, and some things simply don't happen.
Given how Albany has committed to giving the MTA a bunch of money, though, typical NY politics dictate that an equal sum of money be given to various items upstate.
DOT really needs the money although it is short sighted to be putting so much focus on building new things when funding levels as they stand are insufficient to prevent what we already have from falling apart.
Region 1 hasn't actually been doing much guide sign replacements as of late. The newer style exit tabs are VERY rare here - I'm actually not sure if we have ANY of the rounded corner style that became common in other regions around 2010, and only a few of our signs use the modern style adopted in the past couple years (I can think of three and only three). Almost all of our signs are late 90s/00s style.
Given how Albany has committed to giving the MTA a bunch of money, though, typical NY politics dictate that an equal sum of money be given to various items upstate.
New plans are out today. Region 5 is widening US 62 from the railroad overpass just east of the Niagara Falls airport out to Sy Road to include a full center turn lane. Only a minuscule portion of the dangerous section, but it's a start.
New plans are out today. Region 5 is widening US 62 from the railroad overpass just east of the Niagara Falls airport out to Sy Road to include a full center turn lane. Only a minuscule portion of the dangerous section, but it's a start.
I'm not familiar with that area, but it seems to be a worthwhile project.
What will happen under the bridge?
It's not worth the money to reconfigure this road. If they put up Jersey barriers with RIROs, won't this solve the problem?
New plans are out today. Region 5 is widening US 62 from the railroad overpass just east of the Niagara Falls airport out to Sy Road to include a full center turn lane. Only a minuscule portion of the dangerous section, but it's a start.
I'm not familiar with that area, but it seems to be a worthwhile project.
What will happen under the bridge?
Bridge is already divided. Something similar to what currently happens on the west side.It's not worth the money to reconfigure this road. If they put up Jersey barriers with RIROs, won't this solve the problem?
I saw the story and I know enough about this area to know that there is enough shunpike traffic to make a passing lane quite welcome. Enough people west of where the right lane ends go below the speed limit. You'll get road rage because people can't pass over a center turn lane. Center turn lanes are discouraged over 45 MPH because of the risk of head-ons, anyway. If anything, put in turn lanes at the intersections and leave it at that. Relatively inexpensive without decreasing capacity.
New plans are out today. Region 5 is widening US 62 from the railroad overpass just east of the Niagara Falls airport out to Sy Road to include a full center turn lane. Only a minuscule portion of the dangerous section, but it's a start.
I'm not familiar with that area, but it seems to be a worthwhile project.
What will happen under the bridge?
Bridge is already divided. Something similar to what currently happens on the west side.It's not worth the money to reconfigure this road. If they put up Jersey barriers with RIROs, won't this solve the problem?
I saw the story and I know enough about this area to know that there is enough shunpike traffic to make a passing lane quite welcome. Enough people west of where the right lane ends go below the speed limit. You'll get road rage because people can't pass over a center turn lane. Center turn lanes are discouraged over 45 MPH because of the risk of head-ons, anyway. If anything, put in turn lanes at the intersections and leave it at that. Relatively inexpensive without decreasing capacity.
Passing lane? Isn't that why it's a 4 lane highway?
Also, I definitely don't think a speed limit decrease should be considered for that stretch of road. Anybody who lives in the Southtowns knows that it's a long haul to get from NY 75 to Lakeview and beyond on US 20.
In addition, cl94, do you have an idea why the lights are supposedly timed to stop traffic frequently on US 20 from NY 75 to NY 240/277? That's according to some who I've spoken to that drive the route daily from Hamburg to Orchard Park/West Seneca. Since I've lived there for almost 2 decades now, I never really noticed it until now, but I do believe it because the lights appear to be spread out further after NY 240/277.
As to where the money would go, good flipping question.Do you know what'd be a good project to use that money for in Region 8? Filling in the damn Bear Mountain Parkway gap!
As to where the money would go, good flipping question.Do you know what'd be a good project to use that money for in Region 8? Filling in the damn Bear Mountain Parkway gap!
As to where the money would go, good flipping question.Do you know what'd be a good project to use that money for in Region 8? Filling in the damn Bear Mountain Parkway gap!
Thank you. They did rebuild some of that area recently, but it isn't enough. The ROW even exists.
Plan day at NYSDOT. Big one is the much-planned rebuild at the intersection of Walden Avenue (NY 952Q) and CR 57 (Central Avenue) in Lancaster. Plans here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=10586&p_is_digital=Y).
Unusual for R5, SB signals are on span wire AND they're putting in a channelized RT lane. While channelized lanes are often bad, this is a good spot for one due to the heavy turn traffic and relatively-light pedestrian usage.
Plan day at NYSDOT. Big one is the much-planned rebuild at the intersection of Walden Avenue (NY 952Q) and CR 57 (Central Avenue) in Lancaster. Plans here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=10586&p_is_digital=Y).
Unusual for R5, SB signals are on span wire AND they're putting in a channelized RT lane. While channelized lanes are often bad, this is a good spot for one due to the heavy turn traffic and relatively-light pedestrian usage.
It would've been nice if this meant 952Q would be decom'd for a touring route. But, nope.
Plan day at NYSDOT. Big one is the much-planned rebuild at the intersection of Walden Avenue (NY 952Q) and CR 57 (Central Avenue) in Lancaster. Plans here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=10586&p_is_digital=Y).
Unusual for R5, SB signals are on span wire AND they're putting in a channelized RT lane. While channelized lanes are often bad, this is a good spot for one due to the heavy turn traffic and relatively-light pedestrian usage.
It would've been nice if this meant 952Q would be decom'd for a touring route. But, nope.
If it wasn't for the lack of a good connection and the Tops distribution center, I'd swap the designation with NY 33 east of NY 78 and discourage truck traffic on current NY 33. It's used as a shunpike by less-experienced truckers.
Currently, Central Avenue NB has an advanced green with a leading left, while both directions get a lagging left if it senses a vehicle. SB congestion is miserable during the week as the SB phase is short and people don't know how to accelerate. NB needs 2 lanes because of the nearby high school. Per the plans, everything will be done during the summer. If this was R1 or R4, there would likely be FYAs at the intersection, but that's another story...
Plan day at NYSDOT. Big one is the much-planned rebuild at the intersection of Walden Avenue (NY 952Q) and CR 57 (Central Avenue) in Lancaster. Plans here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=10586&p_is_digital=Y).
Unusual for R5, SB signals are on span wire AND they're putting in a channelized RT lane. While channelized lanes are often bad, this is a good spot for one due to the heavy turn traffic and relatively-light pedestrian usage.
It would've been nice if this meant 952Q would be decom'd for a touring route. But, nope.
If it wasn't for the lack of a good connection and the Tops distribution center, I'd swap the designation with NY 33 east of NY 78 and discourage truck traffic on current NY 33. It's used as a shunpike by less-experienced truckers.
Currently, Central Avenue NB has an advanced green with a leading left, while both directions get a lagging left if it senses a vehicle. SB congestion is miserable during the week as the SB phase is short and people don't know how to accelerate. NB needs 2 lanes because of the nearby high school. Per the plans, everything will be done during the summer. If this was R1 or R4, there would likely be FYAs at the intersection, but that's another story...
Well, seeing this at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.699291,-73.8361773,3a,19.3y,239.98h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjaTct06ZsKtZ7DWzZEOng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was a pleasant surprise. I thought Region 1 got rid of every button copy gore sign. Unless there's something I'm missing, this and the overhead assembly just west of the toll booths at Exit 24 are the only remaining button copy on mainline I-87 outside of the Bronx.
Well, seeing this at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.699291,-73.8361773,3a,19.3y,239.98h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjaTct06ZsKtZ7DWzZEOng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was a pleasant surprise. I thought Region 1 got rid of every button copy gore sign. Unless there's something I'm missing, this and the overhead assembly just west of the toll booths at Exit 24 are the only remaining button copy on mainline I-87 outside of the Bronx.
Are those the only button copy signs Upstate?
Well, seeing this at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.699291,-73.8361773,3a,19.3y,239.98h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjaTct06ZsKtZ7DWzZEOng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was a pleasant surprise. I thought Region 1 got rid of every button copy gore sign. Unless there's something I'm missing, this and the overhead assembly just west of the toll booths at Exit 24 are the only remaining button copy on mainline I-87 outside of the Bronx.
Are those the only button copy signs Upstate?
Well, seeing this at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.699291,-73.8361773,3a,19.3y,239.98h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjaTct06ZsKtZ7DWzZEOng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was a pleasant surprise. I thought Region 1 got rid of every button copy gore sign. Unless there's something I'm missing, this and the overhead assembly just west of the toll booths at Exit 24 are the only remaining button copy on mainline I-87 outside of the Bronx.
Are those the only button copy signs Upstate?
Oh no. There's quite a few button copy signs in the Utica area. I-790 has an even mix of button and non-button copy signs. They date back to the reconstruction in 1989.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
I never even noticed!! Probably because I don't drive around the area very much, esp. at night.Well, seeing this at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.699291,-73.8361773,3a,19.3y,239.98h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjaTct06ZsKtZ7DWzZEOng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was a pleasant surprise. I thought Region 1 got rid of every button copy gore sign. Unless there's something I'm missing, this and the overhead assembly just west of the toll booths at Exit 24 are the only remaining button copy on mainline I-87 outside of the Bronx.
Are those the only button copy signs Upstate?
Oh no. There's quite a few button copy signs in the Utica area. I-790 has an even mix of button and non-button copy signs. They date back to the reconstruction in 1989.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Well, seeing this at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.699291,-73.8361773,3a,19.3y,239.98h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjaTct06ZsKtZ7DWzZEOng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was a pleasant surprise. I thought Region 1 got rid of every button copy gore sign. Unless there's something I'm missing, this and the overhead assembly just west of the toll booths at Exit 24 are the only remaining button copy on mainline I-87 outside of the Bronx.
Are those the only button copy signs Upstate?
Oh no. There's quite a few button copy signs in the Utica area. I-790 has an even mix of button and non-button copy signs. They date back to the reconstruction in 1989.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
There's even one or two on the Thruway mainline in Utica.
Well, seeing this at night (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.699291,-73.8361773,3a,19.3y,239.98h,91.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjaTct06ZsKtZ7DWzZEOng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was a pleasant surprise. I thought Region 1 got rid of every button copy gore sign. Unless there's something I'm missing, this and the overhead assembly just west of the toll booths at Exit 24 are the only remaining button copy on mainline I-87 outside of the Bronx.
Are those the only button copy signs Upstate?
Oh no. There's quite a few button copy signs in the Utica area. I-790 has an even mix of button and non-button copy signs. They date back to the reconstruction in 1989.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1180292,-75.2206995,3a,75y,109.55h,82.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ9CC63_LySOXHJqNNjXE0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
There's even one or two on the Thruway mainline in Utica.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1193943,-75.2238471,3a,15.1y,118.41h,102.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5udMxkZ1xEsKjtIZenmbPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Here it seems so weird to me that everybody's talking about the last button-copy signs. You guys should have been around thirty years ago for the last of the Thruway's big blue exit signs from the original 1950's construction. LOL
Here it seems so weird to me that everybody's talking about the last button-copy signs. You guys should have been around thirty years ago for the last of the Thruway's big blue exit signs from the original 1950's construction. LOL
I've seen the pictures. This is probably one of the early green signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9500725,-78.7626168,3a,40.7y,281.82h,84.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sglhY4_LEcaKLrB9Ub7tBFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) to be installed, though. Probably dates back to well before the last of the blue was gone.
Has anybody else noticed that Region 2's diagonal striping looks...different? Take a look at this image (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1133123,-75.2058489,390m/data=!3m1!1e3). Standard cross-hatching is present on the Thruway and Region 2's standard is on the surface streets. Is there a reason why R2 uses thinner stripes spaced closer together than is normal?
Official: Scajaquada Expressway (NY 198) to be converted to a boulevard: https://twitter.com/NYSDOTBuffalo/status/697576414791467009New Urbanists....
Has Mr. Driscoll ever seen the traffic counts on that road? It ranges from 38k on the low end to 71k on the high end. Those are peaceful, walkable boulevard traffic counts. Those are traffic counts in line with urban freeways and congested suburban arterials lined with strip malls. I'd rather cross the road at an overpass than a crosswalk anyways.
Given his position here, I guess we can count on I-81 getting torn down as well.
Official: Scajaquada Expressway (NY 198) to be converted to a boulevard: https://twitter.com/NYSDOTBuffalo/status/697576414791467009
This decision was no doubt inevitable after the incident last year where a kid got killed by a car that ran off the road. The reaction to that gave us a section with a 30 MPH speed limit and crosswalks, so now the ball is already rolling on making the route not a freeway anymore.
I don't really think this will have a major impact on traffic in Buffalo. Traffic that can reasonably divert to 290 will do so, traffic which cannot will continue using 198 and the trip will take a few minutes longer, and a few trips will be cancelled or diverted to different destinations as people adjust their travel patterns to account for the freeway's absence.
As to whether this is any indication as to what will happen with I-81 or the Sheridan, who knows. Those projects are different in scope and have different stakeholders. One thing is for certain, though: this will get added to the list of successful freeway removals, which are only going to become more popular in the coming years as the concept becomes more proven.
This decision was no doubt inevitable after the incident last year where a kid got killed by a car that ran off the road. The reaction to that gave us a section with a 30 MPH speed limit and crosswalks, so now the ball is already rolling on making the route not a freeway anymore. The current situation can't remain as is since having that sort of segment on what's otherwise a freeway is a safety nightmare unto itself. At this point finishing what's already been started and downgrading the whole route is politically easier than backpedaling and restoring the speed limit/removing the crosswalks.The crosswalks never actually got built... Region 5 backed out at the last minute as they were in bad locations (one was right on top of an overpass with sidewalks), even going so far as to remove the paths the paved to go to the crosswalks.
I don't really think this will have a major impact on traffic in Buffalo. Traffic that can reasonably divert to 290 will do so, traffic which cannot will continue using 198 and the trip will take a few minutes longer, and a few trips will be cancelled or diverted to different destinations as people adjust their travel patterns to account for the freeway's absence.
As to whether this is any indication as to what will happen with I-81 or the Sheridan, who knows. Those projects are different in scope and have different stakeholders. One thing is for certain, though: this will get added to the list of successful freeway removals, which are only going to become more popular in the coming years as the concept becomes more proven.
People are already diverting to local streets because, contrary to urbanist expectations, driving 30 on a residential street is a lot less painful than driving 30 on a major arterial. The residents on those streets are NOT happy.
People are already diverting to local streets because, contrary to urbanist expectations, driving 30 on a residential street is a lot less painful than driving 30 on a major arterial. The residents on those streets are NOT happy.
Where'd you hear this?
People are already diverting to local streets because, contrary to urbanist expectations, driving 30 on a residential street is a lot less painful than driving 30 on a major arterial. The residents on those streets are NOT happy.
Where'd you hear this?
More to the point, has this actually been confirmed by traffic count data, or is it hearsay from local residents complaining?
I can see it as being plausible that drivers might want to avoid the ludicrously underposted segment for fear of getting a speeding ticket. I can also see it as being plausible that this whole issue made people start paying more attention to cars passing by and so they perceive there as being more of them when really there aren't.
Check the daily clippings. There were a TON of articles on NY 198 recently, most of which mentioned the resident complaints (although they only devoted one sentence each to the topic). I think it was mentioned in a few earlier articles as well.
People are already diverting to local streets because, contrary to urbanist expectations, driving 30 on a residential street is a lot less painful than driving 30 on a major arterial. The residents on those streets are NOT happy.
Where'd you hear this?
This is a left field question. Which highway(S) in the Buffalo area could be widened with HOV lanes if needed?
This is a left field question. Which highway(S) in the Buffalo area could be widened with HOV lanes if needed?
None. Aren't enough multi-occupant vehicles to make it worthwhile.
This is a left field question. Which highway(S) in the Buffalo area could be widened with HOV lanes if needed?
None. Aren't enough multi-occupant vehicles to make it worthwhile.
But there would be under the hypothetical situation in which the question is being asked ("if needed"). Unless you're saying that if HOV lanes were needed, they wouldn't be needed? ;-)
This is a left field question. Which highway(S) in the Buffalo area could be widened with HOV lanes if needed?
None. Aren't enough multi-occupant vehicles to make it worthwhile.
But there would be under the hypothetical situation in which the question is being asked ("if needed"). Unless you're saying that if HOV lanes were needed, they wouldn't be needed? ;-)
If memory serves correctly, anything built by the Thruway Authority during its original construction should have the ROW and, in most places, appropriate bridge support placement and deck widths to accommodate additional lanes which could theoretically include HOV lanes. I believe that was one principle about the design of the Thruway that was from studying the PA Turnpike's construction over a decade earlier; they designed it to make accommodating additional lanes much easier, most likely with any additional lanes being added inward toward the median.
This is a left field question. Which highway(S) in the Buffalo area could be widened with HOV lanes if needed?
None. Aren't enough multi-occupant vehicles to make it worthwhile.
But there would be under the hypothetical situation in which the question is being asked ("if needed"). Unless you're saying that if HOV lanes were needed, they wouldn't be needed? ;-)
If memory serves correctly, anything built by the Thruway Authority during its original construction should have the ROW and, in most places, appropriate bridge support placement and deck widths to accommodate additional lanes which could theoretically include HOV lanes. I believe that was one principle about the design of the Thruway that was from studying the PA Turnpike's construction over a decade earlier; they designed it to make accommodating additional lanes much easier, most likely with any additional lanes being added inward toward the median.
More specifically, it has the ROW for 6 total lanes. The recent Albany widening was done without any impact to the bridges other than resurfacing of the one at Exit 23 and a deck replacement up at Crossgates. Sections built with 6 lanes do not have the ROW for additional lanes without major modifications, but other than south of Exit 16 and Exits 50-53, it opened with 4 lanes throughout. The spurs/extensions do not have the bridge widths for additional lanes, but the Berkshire Spur does have the ROW and lanes could be added with a few bridge replacements if traffic counts tripled and a capacity increase was necessary. They can't widen I-190 between the Peace Bridge and I-290 and it would have already been done if there was room for an extra lane.
Most NYSDOT expressways do not have this luxury, with I-490 west of Rochester being a notable exception, as it can accommodate 6 lanes east of NY 33A. If Region 1 so desired, NY 7 could also get an extra lane in each direction with little effort, while every bridge on I-87 between I-90 and Exit 13 built in the last 20-30 years is wide enough for an extra lane in each direction.
If the population of the city of Buffalo increased to 1,000,000+ people (highly unlikely), then I guess they'd build an upper deck. But by then they'll have removed I-190 and every other highway in the area :-D.
If the population of the city of Buffalo increased to 1,000,000+ people (highly unlikely), then I guess they'd build an upper deck. But by then they'll have removed I-190 and every other highway in the area :-D.
They'd also gain the right to enact No Turn On Red city-wide. :-D
If the population of the city of Buffalo increased to 1,000,000+ people (highly unlikely), then I guess they'd build an upper deck. But by then they'll have removed I-190 and every other highway in the area :-D.
They'd also gain the right to enact No Turn On Red city-wide. :-D
Amongst many other things intended to apply only to New York City. The "city of one million people or more" wording appears in a lot of state laws as a way of weaseling around the fact that due to the doctrine of home rule the state is prohibited from passing laws that apply specifically to one municipality.
Meanwhile Buffalo's population is nowhere near a million people and actively decreasing, so this isn't going to happen anytime soon.
If the population of the city of Buffalo increased to 1,000,000+ people (highly unlikely), then I guess they'd build an upper deck. But by then they'll have removed I-190 and every other highway in the area :-D.
They'd also gain the right to enact No Turn On Red city-wide. :-D
Amongst many other things intended to apply only to New York City. The "city of one million people or more" wording appears in a lot of state laws as a way of weaseling around the fact that due to the doctrine of home rule the state is prohibited from passing laws that apply specifically to one municipality.
Meanwhile Buffalo's population is nowhere near a million people and actively decreasing, so this isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Even if Buffalo annexed all of Erie County, it would fall just short of that >1,000,000 population requirement.
ixnay
Why does New York City have that stupid no turn on red rule anyway, so many street corners you can easily go right on red, especially in eastern queens and staten island which are more suburban than anything else.
The metro area includes all of Niagara and Cattaraugus Counties and is still about the same size as the Albany metro area, which doesn't officially include Warren or Washington Counties.
The City of Rochester has red light cameras at many intersections and I think most of the tickets generated are from rolling right turns on red. More of a cash cow than anything.Why does New York City have that stupid no turn on red rule anyway, so many street corners you can easily go right on red, especially in eastern queens and staten island which are more suburban than anything else.
Pedestrian traffic. So people making rights on red don't cut off/hit people crossing. Also reduces the people who make rights on red without stopping or think they have the right of way. Huge problem in Western New York
Why does New York City have that stupid no turn on red rule anyway, so many street corners you can easily go right on red, especially in eastern queens and staten island which are more suburban than anything else.
(The suburban areas you describe are very often posted with permissive right-on-red.)
Why does New York City have that stupid no turn on red rule anyway, so many street corners you can easily go right on red, especially in eastern queens and staten island which are more suburban than anything else.
Sounds like you don't walk around Manhattan too often. ;-)
(The suburban areas you describe are very often posted with permissive right-on-red.)
iPhone
Why does New York City have that stupid no turn on red rule anyway, so many street corners you can easily go right on red, especially in eastern queens and staten island which are more suburban than anything else.
Sounds like you don't walk around Manhattan too often. ;-)
(The suburban areas you describe are very often posted with permissive right-on-red.)
iPhone
Last time I was in Manhattan I was shunpiking to get around the Verezano bridge toll and opted to take the Williamsburg and then across Delancy Street and a few others to get to the Holland Tunnel.
Also not every street in east Queens and Staten Island have the permissive right on red. Only place in Queens I saw it consistently was Howard Beach/Broad Channel. The places off the highway i was in Staten Island didnt.
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?
When I lived in Albany and I didn't feel like taking the Thruway home to Ohio, it served well as the distance to Erie, PA via I-86/NY 17 from Albany on I-88 vs Thruway was only 10 miles.
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?
When I lived in Albany and I didn't feel like taking the Thruway home to Ohio, it served well as the distance to Erie, PA via I-86/NY 17 from Albany on I-88 vs Thruway was only 10 miles.
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?
When I lived in Albany and I didn't feel like taking the Thruway home to Ohio, it served well as the distance to Erie, PA via I-86/NY 17 from Albany on I-88 vs Thruway was only 10 miles.
Hell, the time difference to Buffalo isn't too great.
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?
When I lived in Albany and I didn't feel like taking the Thruway home to Ohio, it served well as the distance to Erie, PA via I-86/NY 17 from Albany on I-88 vs Thruway was only 10 miles.
Hell, the time difference to Buffalo isn't too great.
How do you get back up north to Buffalo from I-86, then, if you head down to I-88? Hard to believe that time difference "isn't too great."
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?
As someone living a little west of Albany, I-88 (to I-86) is a nice alternative to the Thruway when traveling west of Erie, and a good way down to I-81 if you want to avoid the I-95 corridor traveling south beyond DC. We sometimes do I-81/US 15 then cut to I-95 near or south of DC.
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?
When I lived in Albany and I didn't feel like taking the Thruway home to Ohio, it served well as the distance to Erie, PA via I-86/NY 17 from Albany on I-88 vs Thruway was only 10 miles.
Hell, the time difference to Buffalo isn't too great. If you want to shunpike, it's faster than taking US 20 across the state. I'll probably take that route returning to RPI from spring break to check on the Binghamton construction. If you're going across the state, you'll end up saving money, even if you use a little more gas.
Hahaha, it would be funny if it was a "single purpose boondoggle highway" like I-180 in IL.Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?
Everyone knows it's so you can get some chicken from Brooks BBQ on your trip.
As someone living a little west of Albany, I-88 (to I-86) is a nice alternative to the Thruway when traveling west of Erie, and a good way down to I-81 if you want to avoid the I-95 corridor traveling south beyond DC. We sometimes do I-81/US 15 then cut to I-95 near or south of DC.
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?
When I lived in Albany and I didn't feel like taking the Thruway home to Ohio, it served well as the distance to Erie, PA via I-86/NY 17 from Albany on I-88 vs Thruway was only 10 miles.
Hell, the time difference to Buffalo isn't too great. If you want to shunpike, it's faster than taking US 20 across the state. I'll probably take that route returning to RPI from spring break to check on the Binghamton construction. If you're going across the state, you'll end up saving money, even if you use a little more gas.
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?
Are they ever going to upgrade NY 17 between Exit 84 and Exit 87?
Are they ever going to upgrade NY 17 between Exit 84 and Exit 87?
Are they ever going to upgrade NY 17 between Exit 84 and Exit 87?
See my post in this thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16863.msg2107556#msg2107556.
Besides Woodbury Commons, all other I-86 conversion projects are indefinitely delayed.
(personal opinion expressed)
Here's one: I've only been on I-88 once or twice in my life. What purpose does it serve to motorists other than connecting Binghamton and Albany?
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?
They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?
They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.
OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?
In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?
Maybe because of the renumbering of NY state routes back in the 1920's?
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?
Maybe because of the renumbering of NY state routes back in the 1920's?
First off, the renumbering was 1930. 2nd, NY 417 didn't exist when 17 was upgraded. Some of the changes of alignment is likely, based on its location, land procurement for the right of way. Following it on 417 would bulldoze several downtowns or places near it.
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?
They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.
OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?
In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?
Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?
They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.
OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?
In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?
Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.
Wellsville once lobbied hard for an "I-386." This was a spur down to Wellsville to accommodate what I think was an ALCO plant, IIRC. Lots of meetings were had. I know someone at NYSDOT who ended up with a cardboard-but-compelling I-386 shield from that failed lobbying effort.
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?
They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.
OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?
In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?
Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.
Wellsville once lobbied hard for an "I-386." This was a spur down to Wellsville to accommodate what I think was an ALCO plant, IIRC. Lots of meetings were had. I know someone at NYSDOT who ended up with a cardboard-but-compelling I-386 shield from that failed lobbying effort.
If built, it would have been the New York equivalent of Illinois's I-180
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?
They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.
OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?
In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?
Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.
Wellsville once lobbied hard for an "I-386." This was a spur down to Wellsville to accommodate what I think was an ALCO plant, IIRC. Lots of meetings were had. I know someone at NYSDOT who ended up with a cardboard-but-compelling I-386 shield from that failed lobbying effort.
If built, it would have been the New York equivalent of Illinois's I-180
Everyone needs an I-180.
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?
They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.
OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?
In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?
Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.
Wellsville once lobbied hard for an "I-386." This was a spur down to Wellsville to accommodate what I think was an ALCO plant, IIRC. Lots of meetings were had. I know someone at NYSDOT who ended up with a cardboard-but-compelling I-386 shield from that failed lobbying effort.
If built, it would have been the New York equivalent of Illinois's I-180
Everyone needs an I-180.
Well, one could say we have one in the form of the Lake Ontario State Parkway and Robert Moses Parkway
U-206: I-180? Also, DUAAF.Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?
They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.
OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?
In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?
Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.
Wellsville once lobbied hard for an "I-386." This was a spur down to Wellsville to accommodate what I think was an ALCO plant, IIRC. Lots of meetings were had. I know someone at NYSDOT who ended up with a cardboard-but-compelling I-386 shield from that failed lobbying effort.
If built, it would have been the New York equivalent of Illinois's I-180
Everyone needs an I-180.
Everyone needs an I-180.
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?
They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.
OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?
In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?
Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.
Wellsville once lobbied hard for an "I-386." This was a spur down to Wellsville to accommodate what I think was an ALCO plant, IIRC. Lots of meetings were had. I know someone at NYSDOT who ended up with a cardboard-but-compelling I-386 shield from that failed lobbying effort.
If built, it would have been the New York equivalent of Illinois's I-180
Everyone needs an I-180.
Well, one could say we have one in the form of the Lake Ontario State Parkway and Robert Moses Parkway
Heh. The old, blocked-off lanes of the Robert Moses always makes me shake my head. What a waste.
Why didn't they build I-86 along NY-417?
They built it along NY 17. Most of it was built as NY 17, with most of the expressway long predating the designation of I-86. The section west of Jamestown was planned and built later with the plan for an Interstate designation. The original end of NY 17 was at I-90 Exit 60, which is why there's the stub running up the east side of the lake.
OK then, why didn't they build NY 17 along NY 417?
In other words, why did Route 17 get moved from where NY 417 is now up to where I-86 is now? Why does the freeway go through Angelica and Hornell but not Wellsville and Addison?
Population. It was thought that a freeway connection to Hornell would be more useful than a route through the middle of nowhere. Much of this route followed a rail line through a series of valleys. Bath and Hornell are the major centers of population in Steuben County outside of Corning and a direct expressway provided a connection between all 3. The only real population center along the old route is Wellsville. Had the effect of preventing another situation like that in Ithaca, where there is no expressway connection remotely close to the city and the only access is on steep, winding 2-lane roads.
Wellsville once lobbied hard for an "I-386." This was a spur down to Wellsville to accommodate what I think was an ALCO plant, IIRC. Lots of meetings were had. I know someone at NYSDOT who ended up with a cardboard-but-compelling I-386 shield from that failed lobbying effort.
If built, it would have been the New York equivalent of Illinois's I-180
Everyone needs an I-180.
Well, one could say we have one in the form of the Lake Ontario State Parkway and Robert Moses Parkway
Heh. The old, blocked-off lanes of the Robert Moses always makes me shake my head. What a waste.
I wonder if they'll do the same thing to the Lake Ontario State Parkway. Half of it is already closed during the winter.
Yeah, it's only from NY 18 to NY 98 that's closed. It's west of Hamlin Beach that traffic really drops off and gets to an AADT less than 2000. The section in Orleans County is very desolate.
Yeah, it's only from NY 18 to NY 98 that's closed. It's west of Hamlin Beach that traffic really drops off and gets to an AADT less than 2000. The section in Orleans County is very desolate.
It's in the middle of nowhere and there are zero attractions other than the state parks. All farmland and vineyards. NY 18 between the parkway and Olcott is a little over 1000. Other than spikes around Olcott and Wilson, it stays pretty low until it turns south near Youngstown. To give one an idea of how desolate it really is, NY 279 just west of where the parkway ends has an AADT slightly higher than NY 421.
Yeah, it's only from NY 18 to NY 98 that's closed. It's west of Hamlin Beach that traffic really drops off and gets to an AADT less than 2000. The section in Orleans County is very desolate.
It's in the middle of nowhere and there are zero attractions other than the state parks. All farmland and vineyards. NY 18 between the parkway and Olcott is a little over 1000. Other than spikes around Olcott and Wilson, it stays pretty low until it turns south near Youngstown. To give one an idea of how desolate it really is, NY 279 just west of where the parkway ends has an AADT slightly higher than NY 421.
Yeah, it's only from NY 18 to NY 98 that's closed. It's west of Hamlin Beach that traffic really drops off and gets to an AADT less than 2000. The section in Orleans County is very desolate.
It's in the middle of nowhere and there are zero attractions other than the state parks. All farmland and vineyards. NY 18 between the parkway and Olcott is a little over 1000. Other than spikes around Olcott and Wilson, it stays pretty low until it turns south near Youngstown. To give one an idea of how desolate it really is, NY 279 just west of where the parkway ends has an AADT slightly higher than NY 421.
I love the LOSP, especially west of Hamlin Beach. I drive as far as I can on that road all year round because it's very "centering" to me as a road geek and just in general. The only thing that I don't like about the road is the new signs they put up a couple of years ago. It was much more charming back in the button copy days.
What was the rationale behind constructing the LOSP? Projected population growth?
Yeah, it's only from NY 18 to NY 98 that's closed. It's west of Hamlin Beach that traffic really drops off and gets to an AADT less than 2000. The section in Orleans County is very desolate.
It's in the middle of nowhere and there are zero attractions other than the state parks. All farmland and vineyards. NY 18 between the parkway and Olcott is a little over 1000. Other than spikes around Olcott and Wilson, it stays pretty low until it turns south near Youngstown. To give one an idea of how desolate it really is, NY 279 just west of where the parkway ends has an AADT slightly higher than NY 421.
I love the LOSP, especially west of Hamlin Beach. I drive as far as I can on that road all year round because it's very "centering" to me as a road geek and just in general. The only thing that I don't like about the road is the new signs they put up a couple of years ago. It was much more charming back in the button copy days.
They got rid of the rest of the button copy? Darn. I loved the button copy.What was the rationale behind constructing the LOSP? Projected population growth?
Connection between the parks and to get people to the parks. Same as the original purpose of the other parkways.
I'm taking a little trip downstate tomorrow to get some White Castle in Nyack. Other than the Tappan Zee work, NY 17 and US 202/Bear Mountain Parkway, is there anything major that has happened in Region 8 in the past ~5 years that would be worth checking out?
Why not buy some local meat and produce and the Todd Hill rest stop and cook at home instead?I'm taking a little trip downstate tomorrow to get some White Castle in Nyack. Other than the Tappan Zee work, NY 17 and US 202/Bear Mountain Parkway, is there anything major that has happened in Region 8 in the past ~5 years that would be worth checking out?
Is it worth that much hassle to get White Castle?
Also, if you go down via the Taconic, grab the last existing vestige of the old exit numbering system at P7 in Putnam County. (Hortontown Hill Road)
Is it worth that much hassle to get White Castle?
For years, people have debated whether or not we should consider the northern end of I-787 to be in Troy or at Exit 9. Well, Region 1 replaced the WB reassurance shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7397593,-73.6850161,3a,21.1y,294.91h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sic7LvT34FatOkp5ub0STFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) within the last year. Noticed the Series C this morning. Does this settle the debate?
For years, people have debated whether or not we should consider the northern end of I-787 to be in Troy or at Exit 9. Well, Region 1 replaced the WB reassurance shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7397593,-73.6850161,3a,21.1y,294.91h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sic7LvT34FatOkp5ub0STFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) within the last year. Noticed the Series C this morning. Does this settle the debate?
For years, people have debated whether or not we should consider the northern end of I-787 to be in Troy or at Exit 9. Well, Region 1 replaced the WB reassurance shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7397593,-73.6850161,3a,21.1y,294.91h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sic7LvT34FatOkp5ub0STFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) within the last year. Noticed the Series C this morning. Does this settle the debate?
This too. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7397363,-73.6819869,3a,23.1y,280.68h,99.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5KTUr2pS_BAzv4lMyYNBtQ!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656)For years, people have debated whether or not we should consider the northern end of I-787 to be in Troy or at Exit 9. Well, Region 1 replaced the WB reassurance shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7397593,-73.6850161,3a,21.1y,294.91h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sic7LvT34FatOkp5ub0STFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) within the last year. Noticed the Series C this morning. Does this settle the debate?
This also helps. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7394874,-73.6823362,3a,15.9y,147.53h,77.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPQkvG5hRrhMoTcj8CEp8IQ!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
For years, people have debated whether or not we should consider the northern end of I-787 to be in Troy or at Exit 9. Well, Region 1 replaced the WB reassurance shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7397593,-73.6850161,3a,21.1y,294.91h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sic7LvT34FatOkp5ub0STFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) within the last year. Noticed the Series C this morning. Does this settle the debate?There was never a debate. It always ended in Troy.
3D-rendered imagery has just been released showing the Kamikaze Curve/Prospect Mountain project in a very recent state of near-completion.
3D-rendered imagery has just been released showing the Kamikaze Curve/Prospect Mountain project in a very recent state of near-completion.
Completion? They haven't even let Phase 2 yet! :sombrero: :spin:
3D-rendered imagery has just been released showing the Kamikaze Curve/Prospect Mountain project in a very recent state of near-completion.
Completion? They haven't even let Phase 2 yet! :sombrero: :spin:
I was thinking that. We'll be lucky to see the thing done by 2020.
Completion? They haven't even let Phase 2 yet! :sombrero: :spin:
Completion? They haven't even let Phase 2 yet! :sombrero: :spin:
The interchange has already been reconfigured. What's phase 2? The NY 7 interchange?
Completion? They haven't even let Phase 2 yet! :sombrero: :spin:
The interchange has already been reconfigured. What's phase 2? The NY 7 interchange?
That and braiding the ramps. It will effectively add 2 more bridges. Still a long way to go.
3D-rendered imagery has just been released showing the rebuilt I-81/NY 17 interchange in a very recent state of near-completion.
Completion? They haven't even let Phase 2 yet! :sombrero: :spin:
The interchange has already been reconfigured. What's phase 2? The NY 7 interchange?
That and braiding the ramps. It will effectively add 2 more bridges. Still a long way to go.
Oh, fine…3D-rendered imagery has just been released showing the rebuilt I-81/NY 17 interchange in a very recent state of near-completion.
Now, everybody go enjoy the pretty pictures. :pan:
I'm taking a little trip downstate tomorrow to get some White Castle in Nyack. Other than the Tappan Zee work, NY 17 and US 202/Bear Mountain Parkway, is there anything major that has happened in Region 8 in the past ~5 years that would be worth checking out?
Another fun fact about Prospect Mountain is that Phase 1 technically leaves the interchange in a less safe condition than it was to begin with. NYSDOT had to grapple with the fact that they had to somehow pay for both phases -- they couldn't just do Phase 1 and let it sit like that for very long. The letting for Phase 2 should be coming up here at the end of the month (March 31st (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=28199&p_is_digital=N); got a cool $4.5m? You too can bid on it!).
One thorn-in-the-side problem was a small memorial park along the river that really could have been replaced in a different location and would have actually reduced the costs had such a relocation been allowed. Unfortunately, the local opposition to that idea proved to strong for NYSDOT to overcome and probably added quite the few millions to the project to avoid affecting the park as much as possible.
Anyway, the project must go on.
Another fun fact about Prospect Mountain is that Phase 1 technically leaves the interchange in a less safe condition than it was to begin with. NYSDOT had to grapple with the fact that they had to somehow pay for both phases -- they couldn't just do Phase 1 and let it sit like that for very long. The letting for Phase 2 should be coming up here at the end of the month (March 31st (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=28199&p_is_digital=N); got a cool $4.5m? You too can bid on it!).
One thorn-in-the-side problem was a small memorial park along the river that really could have been replaced in a different location and would have actually reduced the costs had such a relocation been allowed. Unfortunately, the local opposition to that idea proved to strong for NYSDOT to overcome and probably added quite the few millions to the project to avoid affecting the park as much as possible.
Anyway, the project must go on.
It was quite obvious that Phase 2 won't be for a LONG time when Region 2 went and replaced the traffic lights there.Another fun fact about Prospect Mountain is that Phase 1 technically leaves the interchange in a less safe condition than it was to begin with. NYSDOT had to grapple with the fact that they had to somehow pay for both phases -- they couldn't just do Phase 1 and let it sit like that for very long. The letting for Phase 2 should be coming up here at the end of the month (March 31st (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=28199&p_is_digital=N); got a cool $4.5m? You too can bid on it!).
One thorn-in-the-side problem was a small memorial park along the river that really could have been replaced in a different location and would have actually reduced the costs had such a relocation been allowed. Unfortunately, the local opposition to that idea proved to strong for NYSDOT to overcome and probably added quite the few millions to the project to avoid affecting the park as much as possible.
Anyway, the project must go on.
The Utica North-South Arterial project is in sort of a same state in that the project was divided into two phases and with the completion of phase one there will now be two traffic lights along the Arterial instead of the original five. This could be argued that it is less safe than the original design in that the non-55 MPH stretch will now be reduced to 1/4 mile instead of the mile that it used to be. It was rare that vehicles slowed down in the original configuration, I doubt that motorists will slow down for this in between configuration of two traffic signals. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, Phase 2 of the arterial project is not even on the radar.
I've been waiting for someone to post that APL headed NB on I-81. Do the lanes really follow the arrows as signed? I seem to remember driving through there a few months ago after that new sign was put up and there was something funky about it that made me think it wasn't totally accurate (maybe another merge from the right?).
The funky thing is that exit 5 to US-11 is between that assembly and the ramps to I-88. So it's posted very prematurely.
I've been waiting for someone to post that APL headed NB on I-81. Do the lanes really follow the arrows as signed? I seem to remember driving through there a few months ago after that new sign was put up and there was something funky about it that made me think it wasn't totally accurate (maybe another merge from the right?).
The funky thing is that exit 5 to US-11 is between that assembly and the ramps to I-88. So it's posted very prematurely.
I've been waiting for someone to post that APL headed NB on I-81. Do the lanes really follow the arrows as signed? I seem to remember driving through there a few months ago after that new sign was put up and there was something funky about it that made me think it wasn't totally accurate (maybe another merge from the right?).
The funky thing is that exit 5 to US-11 is between that assembly and the ramps to I-88. So it's posted very prematurely.
Maybe that's what threw me off.
Still, I'm thinking of this lane setup, which doesn't seem to match the APL if it's still the same:
https://goo.gl/maps/rnZsHK6YFoJ2
I've been waiting for someone to post that APL headed NB on I-81. Do the lanes really follow the arrows as signed? I seem to remember driving through there a few months ago after that new sign was put up and there was something funky about it that made me think it wasn't totally accurate (maybe another merge from the right?).
The funky thing is that exit 5 to US-11 is between that assembly and the ramps to I-88. So it's posted very prematurely.
Maybe that's what threw me off.
Still, I'm thinking of this lane setup, which doesn't seem to match the APL if it's still the same:
https://goo.gl/maps/rnZsHK6YFoJ2
The sign is right. The second lane for I-88 is added at US 11.
What's the story behind the two NY-5 stubs in Syracuse? Will they ever be extended?I heard the full story on a recent road meet, but cannot remember the exact details of it. I think it was Chris from Minnesota that told me that to the west it would have went beyond Auburn being a bypass of it. To the east, I cannot remember if we discussed it or not, but I am sure it would have connected to I-81 somewhere. Perhaps with I-481 which would have made most sense to connect it with creating a beltway around the city.
I remember reading that it would have come out a couple miles south of I-481 (why there and not at I-481, I have no idea).
If they go ahead with tearing down the viaduct and going with the boulevard approach, I bet a lot of motorists are going to wish that missing connection of the "beltway" connecting 481 to the route 5 stub was in place.
That connection would go a long way to making the boulevard alternative more viable. I-81 would move onto I-481, I-481 would move onto I-81 from I-690 to I-481, I-281 would be added on the west side from I-81 to I-690 via the unbuilt connection, and NY 695 could just be removed as it would be replaced with I-281; NY 5 would remain where it is.I remember reading that it would have come out a couple miles south of I-481 (why there and not at I-481, I have no idea).
As a kid I had a map of the area (1978 or so) and I-481 was proposed to meet up with the eastern NY 5 stub. As others have mentioned, too much development in the way now. That's the first I've heard of the expressway meeting up with 81 south of the current 481 interchange, that would have been interesting.
If they go ahead with tearing down the viaduct and going with the boulevard approach, I bet a lot of motorists are going to wish that missing connection of the "beltway" connecting 481 to the route 5 stub was in place.
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that New York State will replace an underutilized two-mile stretch of the Robert Moses Parkway North in Niagara Falls with open space, scenic overlooks and recreational trails to make the waterfront more accessible to residents, tourists and visitors alike. The project marks the largest expansion of green space since the Niagara Reservation was designed in 1885, and will link the Niagara River Gorge and Falls into a single destination to allow easier access to the water’s edge.
The project will remove an underutilized two-mile segment of the parkway from Main Street to Findlay Drive. It will include a reconstruction of Whirlpool Street, which will be redesigned into a two-lane street to provide all north-south access to the section of the Niagara Gorge Corridor closest to the parkway.
The Robert Moses Parkway naming competition will accept online submissions until 5 p.m. on April 30, 2016. The winning name will be selected by a panel comprised of state representatives and members of the local community. The new name will be unveiled on a permanent sign during an official ribbon-cutting event when the project is complete. Suggestions can be submitted at http://go.ny.gov/Niagara.
Say goodbye to two miles of the Robert Moses Parkway:QuoteGovernor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that New York State will replace an underutilized two-mile stretch of the Robert Moses Parkway North in Niagara Falls with open space, scenic overlooks and recreational trails to make the waterfront more accessible to residents, tourists and visitors alike. The project marks the largest expansion of green space since the Niagara Reservation was designed in 1885, and will link the Niagara River Gorge and Falls into a single destination to allow easier access to the water’s edge.QuoteThe project will remove an underutilized two-mile segment of the parkway from Main Street to Findlay Drive. It will include a reconstruction of Whirlpool Street, which will be redesigned into a two-lane street to provide all north-south access to the section of the Niagara Gorge Corridor closest to the parkway.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-42-million-project-remove-two-mile-stretch-robert-moses-parkway-and
And they're even taking submissions for a new name:QuoteThe Robert Moses Parkway naming competition will accept online submissions until 5 p.m. on April 30, 2016. The winning name will be selected by a panel comprised of state representatives and members of the local community. The new name will be unveiled on a permanent sign during an official ribbon-cutting event when the project is complete. Suggestions can be submitted at http://go.ny.gov/Niagara.
The question is: what do they plan to do with the rest of it? Leave it as a "work zone" forever? Reconstruct what's currently there in a way that doesn't scream "we just plopped some jersey barriers on the road and called it done"? Rebuild as it was? Mix?Say goodbye to two miles of the Robert Moses Parkway:QuoteGovernor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that New York State will replace an underutilized two-mile stretch of the Robert Moses Parkway North in Niagara Falls with open space, scenic overlooks and recreational trails to make the waterfront more accessible to residents, tourists and visitors alike. The project marks the largest expansion of green space since the Niagara Reservation was designed in 1885, and will link the Niagara River Gorge and Falls into a single destination to allow easier access to the water’s edge.QuoteThe project will remove an underutilized two-mile segment of the parkway from Main Street to Findlay Drive. It will include a reconstruction of Whirlpool Street, which will be redesigned into a two-lane street to provide all north-south access to the section of the Niagara Gorge Corridor closest to the parkway.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-42-million-project-remove-two-mile-stretch-robert-moses-parkway-and
And they're even taking submissions for a new name:QuoteThe Robert Moses Parkway naming competition will accept online submissions until 5 p.m. on April 30, 2016. The winning name will be selected by a panel comprised of state representatives and members of the local community. The new name will be unveiled on a permanent sign during an official ribbon-cutting event when the project is complete. Suggestions can be submitted at http://go.ny.gov/Niagara.
We've known this was probably coming for a year or so. Not having to redeck/reconstruct the Whirlpool Bridge viaduct (which would need it) will almost pay for the project. Unlike many expressway removal plans, this one actually makes sense. Entire thing is prime parkland and it is completely redundant.
The question is: what do they plan to do with the rest of it? Leave it as a "work zone" forever? Reconstruct what's currently there in a way that doesn't scream "we just plopped some jersey barriers on the road and called it done"? Rebuild as it was? Mix?Say goodbye to two miles of the Robert Moses Parkway:QuoteGovernor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that New York State will replace an underutilized two-mile stretch of the Robert Moses Parkway North in Niagara Falls with open space, scenic overlooks and recreational trails to make the waterfront more accessible to residents, tourists and visitors alike. The project marks the largest expansion of green space since the Niagara Reservation was designed in 1885, and will link the Niagara River Gorge and Falls into a single destination to allow easier access to the water’s edge.QuoteThe project will remove an underutilized two-mile segment of the parkway from Main Street to Findlay Drive. It will include a reconstruction of Whirlpool Street, which will be redesigned into a two-lane street to provide all north-south access to the section of the Niagara Gorge Corridor closest to the parkway.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-42-million-project-remove-two-mile-stretch-robert-moses-parkway-and
And they're even taking submissions for a new name:QuoteThe Robert Moses Parkway naming competition will accept online submissions until 5 p.m. on April 30, 2016. The winning name will be selected by a panel comprised of state representatives and members of the local community. The new name will be unveiled on a permanent sign during an official ribbon-cutting event when the project is complete. Suggestions can be submitted at http://go.ny.gov/Niagara.
We've known this was probably coming for a year or so. Not having to redeck/reconstruct the Whirlpool Bridge viaduct (which would need it) will almost pay for the project. Unlike many expressway removal plans, this one actually makes sense. Entire thing is prime parkland and it is completely redundant.
One beef with this: it was awfully wasteful to reconstruct the part from Main St to the geological museum only to rip it out. If they weren't sure they were going to keep that section, they should have held off.
I wonder if the renaming is for the whole parkway or just a part of it. I thought it was already decided to rename it Niagara Scenic Parkway though?
Regarding early Syracuse proposals, hopefully this map clears some things up:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1708/25872268142_99e28c4ff0_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/25872268142/)
I found this map in an early 1970s (1971?) transportation plan for the Syracuse area. Nothing was planned west of Camillus (I believe the extension to Auburn was proposed in the 1950s but hasn't been seriously considered since 1970). The extension to I-81, as shown in the map, was indeed south of I-481, though it should be noted that mid-1960s proposals considered building I-481 to meet I-81 at this southern location instead of its existing location.
There were a number of possible plans considered for routing NY 5 between the east end of the freeway and downtown Syracuse. These included a one-way pair or limited-access arterial utilizing parts of W. Genessee St and/or Erie Blvd, a freeway routing along W. Genessee St or Erie Blvd, and a freeway running south towards Onondaga Blvd, then east towards downtown Syracuse. This last option prevailed through the mid '70s, and some of the routing can be seen on aerial imagery as a space between developments in Westvale between the end of the freeway and Onondaga Blvd. Near Onondaga Blvd, this freeway would have turned east, and would have been either a freeway or limited-access arterial paralleling either Grand Ave or Onondaga Blvd/Onondaga St east to either Geddes St or possibly as far as West St. Eventually, all options for extension or expansion were dropped.
If they go ahead with tearing down the viaduct and going with the boulevard approach, I bet a lot of motorists are going to wish that missing connection of the "beltway" connecting 481 to the route 5 stub was in place.
Of course, even if that's the selected alternative, AASHTO would still have to approve the decommissioning and route change, so there is hope.
Does anyone know what is going on in Region 2 with the Route 8 bridge over the Arterial. I noticed the dates have been pushed back to 2020-2022.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.WEPIDYNPAGEMULTI.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=205675
When this bridge is redone, the entire interchange should be altered. It is dangerous as it is right now. At one point, I heard discussion of a directional interchange here, but that does not seem practical, especially considering that the Arterial expressway ends shortly after this interchange. They also have the two railroad crossings with lights...
Agreed with above that the situation on the new Arterial with the light at Noyes St. will create a dangerous situation.
Alright, excuse the poor lighting and wiper blades. It was raining when the pictures were taken:
EB 1/2 mile advance
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1478/25796977961_e5b14d0775_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FiAfN6)
..snip
Now WB:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1695/25771143532_16d32d992b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FgiR7U)
Interesting that they changed the control city for 17 West to Corning, I believe it had been Elmira or Elmira/Owego. I wonder if that is because of I-99 going to (basically) Corning, or if the state feels Corning is a more important place as a tourist destination than Elmira, being that Elmira is larger.
I find it more odd that they spent all the trouble of making the signs with just I-86 but sticking an NJDOT NY 17 shield over them until the time came (as seen here: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/i-81/s.html ) but now they're just replacing all the signs showing both 86 and 17.
I find it more odd that they spent all the trouble of making the signs with just I-86 but sticking an NJDOT NY 17 shield over them until the time came (as seen here: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/i-81/s.html ) but now they're just replacing all the signs showing both 86 and 17.
While signage for I-86 doesn't start until US 220, the portion through Tioga County is basically awaiting approval and will get designated as soon as an application is submitted. Every reassurance shield in the area is placed on top of an I-86 shield and distance banners are blue. Actually, this is true through most of Region 9 except in Hale Eddy. I can confirm from being through there last week that WB signage starts at or just east of US 220 in Pennsylvania.
Now WB:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1695/25771143532_16d32d992b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FgiR7U)
Interesting that they changed the control city for 17 West to Corning, I believe it had been Elmira or Elmira/Owego. I wonder if that is because of I-99 going to (basically) Corning, or if the state feels Corning is a more important place as a tourist destination than Elmira, being that Elmira is larger.
I'm curious why the left lane needs an "EXIT ONLY" but the right lane doesn't. It's not like you can exit to the left from the right lane (at least not safely).
Time for a traffic nightmare: NY 85 closed between I-90 and US 20 this Saturday and Sunday (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/traveler-advisories/2016/2016-03-28), including Exit 4. Detour is through the state office park and Exit 3. After this, the entire road will be a super two for reconstruction through the end of the summer.
Hopefully traffic is just bad enough that they don't think NY 85 can be road-dieted.Time for a traffic nightmare: NY 85 closed between I-90 and US 20 this Saturday and Sunday (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/traveler-advisories/2016/2016-03-28), including Exit 4. Detour is through the state office park and Exit 3. After this, the entire road will be a super two for reconstruction through the end of the summer.
*shrug*
Yep, but it's for a very good cause -- finally getting rid of those "Rough Road" signs!
I use NY 85 regularly to get down to Bethlehem/Delmar. I'll just use I-787 to 9W to get to where I need to go. Time difference is actually probably minimal given that my usual route takes me through the Five Corners intersection (Kenwood & Delaware).
Uncovered on reddit, 1970I wish some of this could've been built. (Also, I love your subtitle about I-85's "extension" to Buffalo. Along the 219, I presume...)
(http://i.imgur.com/fLVrf4G.jpg)
Hopefully traffic is just bad enough that they don't think NY 85 can be road-dieted.Time for a traffic nightmare: NY 85 closed between I-90 and US 20 this Saturday and Sunday (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/traveler-advisories/2016/2016-03-28), including Exit 4. Detour is through the state office park and Exit 3. After this, the entire road will be a super two for reconstruction through the end of the summer.
*shrug*
Yep, but it's for a very good cause -- finally getting rid of those "Rough Road" signs!
I use NY 85 regularly to get down to Bethlehem/Delmar. I'll just use I-787 to 9W to get to where I need to go. Time difference is actually probably minimal given that my usual route takes me through the Five Corners intersection (Kenwood & Delaware).
Any thought of a road diet for NY 85 would be one of the dumbest things New York could do.
Any thought of a road diet for NY 85 would be one of the dumbest things New York could do.
*points at Delmar Bypass*
I dunno. That thing's pretty darned dumb. :D
I do think that, besides the obvious funding issues Region 1 had, one of the main reasons NY 85 was put off for so long was an underestimation of the traffic that uses it. So, that's a little worrisome.
I'm convinced they underestimate everything. The Northway needs 8 lanes and there isn't a way to sugar-coat it, but the denial continues.
I'm convinced they underestimate everything. The Northway needs 8 lanes and there isn't a way to sugar-coat it, but the denial continues.
Anytime widening the Northway is brought up, someone brings up the Twin Bridges. Besides the usual rhetoric (eh, you'll increase sprawl, eh, it's expensive and our other infrastructure's falling apart, etc.), it's having to replace those suckers that usually is the coffin nail in such conversations.
Uncovered on reddit, 1970I wish some of this could've been built. (Also, I love your subtitle about I-85's "extension" to Buffalo. Along the 219, I presume...)
(http://i.imgur.com/fLVrf4G.jpg)
IMO the big issue with the Northway isn't traffic counts (though they are higher than other upstate metro areas) so much as the fact that Capital District drivers seem to think that it's acceptable to merge onto a freeway at 40 mph.
Any thought of a road diet for NY 85 would be one of the dumbest things New York could do.I wouldn't be that optimistic. Given number of circles struck into 85... Did anyone try roundabout on the interstate? That is not at at-grade crossing, nor a traffic light - so roundabout instead of exit 4 should be a no-brainier!
I'm convinced they underestimate everything. The Northway needs 8 lanes and there isn't a way to sugar-coat it, but the denial continues.
Anytime widening the Northway is brought up, someone brings up the Twin Bridges. Besides the usual rhetoric (eh, you'll increase sprawl, eh, it's expensive and our other infrastructure's falling apart, etc.), it's having to replace those suckers that usually is the coffin nail in such conversations.
Is that too fast?
Is that too fast?
Unless ramp geometry makes it unsafe to merge at freeway speed (55+ MPH), it's too slow.
Is that too fast?
Unless ramp geometry makes it unsafe to merge at freeway speed (55+ MPH), it's too slow.
With geometry on some of the ramps, 55 at the beginning of the merge zone is pushing it around here. A lot of the ramps in Upstate New York have a curve at the end that many vehicles cannot take at full speed.
IMO the big issue with the Northway isn't traffic counts...
I looked on Google maps, is the Northway really 10 lanes in Latham?
I looked on Google maps, is the Northway really 10 lanes in Latham?
Where on Google did you see that? It's only ever six, plus auxiliary/merge lanes that might briefly make it ten.
Aside from the cloverleaf loop ramps at NY 5 and I-90, I can take the ending curve at 50 on all the Northway ramps in normal conditions, and there's still a long acceleration lane to accelerate the rest of the way in. The guys who merge on at 40 STAY at 40 until after they have already moved into the main travel lane.Is that too fast?
Unless ramp geometry makes it unsafe to merge at freeway speed (55+ MPH), it's too slow.
With geometry on some of the ramps, 55 at the beginning of the merge zone is pushing it around here. A lot of the ramps in Upstate New York have a curve at the end that many vehicles cannot take at full speed.
Aside from the cloverleaf loop ramps at NY 5 and I-90, I can take the ending curve at 50 on all the Northway ramps in normal conditions, and there's still a long acceleration lane to accelerate the rest of the way in. The guys who merge on at 40 STAY at 40 until after they have already moved into the main travel lane.Is that too fast?
Unless ramp geometry makes it unsafe to merge at freeway speed (55+ MPH), it's too slow.
With geometry on some of the ramps, 55 at the beginning of the merge zone is pushing it around here. A lot of the ramps in Upstate New York have a curve at the end that many vehicles cannot take at full speed.
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom. I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1556/25535242613_79359bf7bb_c.jpg)
Maybe these are county maintained as well?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1534/26115821076_2b2bb5ef01_c.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1611/25533084394_6c88489655_b.jpg)
Heck, they even wait to get to full speed at Thruway exit 24 going onto I-90 (though thankfully they're usually at 60 or so), even though the ramps can handle full Thruway speeds. They also slow down to 50 getting off I-90 at exit 24 despite the ramps being able to handle more and being a whole mile away from the toll booths. Capital District drivers also take a long time to accelerate from lights; they're basically driving like 90 year old men most of the time (except in downtown Albany, for some reason).Aside from the cloverleaf loop ramps at NY 5 and I-90, I can take the ending curve at 50 on all the Northway ramps in normal conditions, and there's still a long acceleration lane to accelerate the rest of the way in. The guys who merge on at 40 STAY at 40 until after they have already moved into the main travel lane.Is that too fast?
Unless ramp geometry makes it unsafe to merge at freeway speed (55+ MPH), it's too slow.
With geometry on some of the ramps, 55 at the beginning of the merge zone is pushing it around here. A lot of the ramps in Upstate New York have a curve at the end that many vehicles cannot take at full speed.
And they move into the travel lane as quickly as possible instead of using the acceleration lane to their fullest potential. Motorists on the eastern side of the state are notorious for that. A woman became very upset with me because she entered the Thruway at 35 and immediately moved to the travel lane, I passed her on the right in the acceleration lane because there was plenty of room and I wanted to be doing at least 55-60 before merging into traffic.
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom. I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.
[…]
Maybe these are county maintained as well?
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom. I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.
[…]
Maybe these are county maintained as well?
Would make sense, if they're on the CWE frontage roads, which are county roads.
It's 10 between Exits 6 and 7. 2 of those are on a C-D road.
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom. I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.
[…]
Maybe these are county maintained as well?
Would make sense, if they're on the CWE frontage roads, which are county roads.
That sign is actually on I-287.
Heck, they even wait to get to full speed at Thruway exit 24 going onto I-90 (though thankfully they're usually at 60 or so), even though the ramps can handle full Thruway speeds.Aside from the cloverleaf loop ramps at NY 5 and I-90, I can take the ending curve at 50 on all the Northway ramps in normal conditions, and there's still a long acceleration lane to accelerate the rest of the way in. The guys who merge on at 40 STAY at 40 until after they have already moved into the main travel lane.Is that too fast?
Unless ramp geometry makes it unsafe to merge at freeway speed (55+ MPH), it's too slow.
With geometry on some of the ramps, 55 at the beginning of the merge zone is pushing it around here. A lot of the ramps in Upstate New York have a curve at the end that many vehicles cannot take at full speed.
And they move into the travel lane as quickly as possible instead of using the acceleration lane to their fullest potential. Motorists on the eastern side of the state are notorious for that. A woman became very upset with me because she entered the Thruway at 35 and immediately moved to the travel lane, I passed her on the right in the acceleration lane because there was plenty of room and I wanted to be doing at least 55-60 before merging into traffic.
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom. I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.
[…]
Maybe these are county maintained as well?
Would make sense, if they're on the CWE frontage roads, which are county roads.
That sign is actually on I-287.
Yes, the first one is on I-287, but the others are on Westchester Avenue, which is Westchester CR 62. It's very conceivable that those are county-maintained.
I looked on Google maps, is the Northway really 10 lanes in Latham?
Where on Google did you see that? It's only ever six, plus auxiliary/merge lanes that might briefly make it ten.
It's 10 between Exits 6 and 7. 2 of those are on a C-D road.
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom. I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.
[…]
Maybe these are county maintained as well?
Would make sense, if they're on the CWE frontage roads, which are county roads.
That sign is actually on I-287.
Yes, the first one is on I-287, but the others are on Westchester Avenue, which is Westchester CR 62. It's very conceivable that those are county-maintained.
Hmm? They're all three on Westchester Ave:
https://goo.gl/maps/xFUW5opaexG2
https://goo.gl/maps/BCf99W1jVHu
https://goo.gl/maps/HjCyEnBWgsN2
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom. I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.
[…]
Maybe these are county maintained as well?
Would make sense, if they're on the CWE frontage roads, which are county roads.
That sign is actually on I-287.
Yes, the first one is on I-287, but the others are on Westchester Avenue, which is Westchester CR 62. It's very conceivable that those are county-maintained.
Hmm? They're all three on Westchester Ave:
https://goo.gl/maps/xFUW5opaexG2
https://goo.gl/maps/BCf99W1jVHu
https://goo.gl/maps/HjCyEnBWgsN2
I think the reasoning behind it is that Westchester Avenue is kind of the service road for I-287.
Right…which is a county road…so it makes sense that the signs are labeled by the county.
What I would consider to be a C-D road that's 10 lanes through, or at least very close to it, is at Exit 55 on the Thruway.I looked on Google maps, is the Northway really 10 lanes in Latham?
Where on Google did you see that? It's only ever six, plus auxiliary/merge lanes that might briefly make it ten.
It's 10 between Exits 6 and 7. 2 of those are on a C-D road.
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom. I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.
[…]
Maybe these are county maintained as well?
Would make sense, if they're on the CWE frontage roads, which are county roads.
That sign is actually on I-287.
Yes, the first one is on I-287, but the others are on Westchester Avenue, which is Westchester CR 62. It's very conceivable that those are county-maintained.
Hmm? They're all three on Westchester Ave:
https://goo.gl/maps/xFUW5opaexG2
https://goo.gl/maps/BCf99W1jVHu
https://goo.gl/maps/HjCyEnBWgsN2
Right…which is a county road…so it makes sense that the signs are labeled by the county.
Although Westchester Ave was part of NY 119 when I-287 was first built. I've always assumed those signs to be original to the highway's construction in 1961 but if they're county branded, maybe they aren't.
Right…which is a county road…so it makes sense that the signs are labeled by the county.
Although Westchester Ave was part of NY 119 when I-287 was first built. I've always assumed those signs to be original to the highway's construction in 1961 but if they're county branded, maybe they aren't.
Right…which is a county road…so it makes sense that the signs are labeled by the county.
Although Westchester Ave was part of NY 119 when I-287 was first built. I've always assumed those signs to be original to the highway's construction in 1961 but if they're county branded, maybe they aren't.
They still could be. Many NY routes are not on state-maintained roads. It's perfectly possible that Westchester Ave. was county-maintained even then, and just had NY 119 routed over it.
Oh, that time has come and gone. Wonder if the state would kick in funding.Right…which is a county road…so it makes sense that the signs are labeled by the county.
Although Westchester Ave was part of NY 119 when I-287 was first built. I've always assumed those signs to be original to the highway's construction in 1961 but if they're county branded, maybe they aren't.
It could be that they were installed by NYSDOT back when it was NY 119, and now the county is responsible for replacing them when the time comes.
I thought this was an interesting fact: The Voyager Golden Records contain this picture of what was at the time a modern highway in Ithaca, NY:
(http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/images/image103.gif)
Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4782683,-76.4993467,3a,55.4y,58.04h,79.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBVkH5q6nSPnNVreXFGrI0A!2e0) the same scene in Street View, and here's (http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/goldenrec.html) a list of everything on the records. The picture is in the Scenes From Earth section.
Technically the c/d roads at Thruway exit 55 are part of US 219.
I thought this was an interesting fact: The Voyager Golden Records contain this picture of what was at the time a modern highway in Ithaca, NY:
(http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/images/image103.gif)
Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4782683,-76.4993467,3a,55.4y,58.04h,79.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBVkH5q6nSPnNVreXFGrI0A!2e0) the same scene in Street View, and here's (http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/goldenrec.html) a list of everything on the records. The picture is in the Scenes From Earth section.
In a surprise announcement, NYSDOT, VTrans and New York governor Andrew Cuomo announced the construction of a new Interstate spur along the US 4 and NY 149 corridor between Interstate 87 in Bolton and US 4 east of Rutland earlier today. The route, to be designated Interstate 387, will be a four-lane limited access freeway running through Warren, Washington, and Rutland Counties. In his speech, Cuomo noted that the project will include a four-lane cable-stayed signature bridge across Lake George between Bolton Landing and Shelving Rock, a signature arch bridge across South Bay and twin two-lane tunnels under Cat Mountain and West Mountain. Intermediate exits between I-87 and the current west end of the freeway will be located at NY 9N, Washington CR 7, NY 22, and VT 4A. The grade crossing near US 7 will be eliminated and the freeway will be extended east to Mendon around the southeast side of Rutland with a new interchange at US 7.
If you look closely at this beauty, you see it says "County of Westchester" at the bottom. I'm thinking maybe that's why this has never been replaced b/c it's not NYS DOT maintained? I always wondered why these were never replaced.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1556/25535242613_79359bf7bb_c.jpg)
I'm not seeing it, sorry.
I only noticed the "County of Westchester on the Exit 9N-S sign. Just found it suspect the other signs haven't been replaced as well (Including the ones on the I-287 EB mainline in the area)
In a surprise announcement, NYSDOT, VTrans and New York governor Andrew Cuomo announced the construction of a new Interstate spur along the US 4 and NY 149 corridor between Interstate 87 in Bolton and US 4 east of Rutland earlier today. The route, to be designated Interstate 387, will be a four-lane limited access freeway running through Warren, Washington, and Rutland Counties. In his speech, Cuomo noted that the project will include a four-lane cable-stayed signature bridge across Lake George between Bolton Landing and Shelving Rock, a signature arch bridge across South Bay and twin two-lane tunnels under Cat Mountain and West Mountain. Intermediate exits between I-87 and the current west end of the freeway will be located at NY 9N, Washington CR 7, NY 22, and VT 4A. The grade crossing near US 7 will be eliminated and the freeway will be extended east to Mendon around the southeast side of Rutland with a new interchange at US 7.That is one helluva news release and yes, the Lake George bridge was a special touch.
I assume this is the version with no truck parking. Honestly, what's the point? NY wouldn't even be able to use federal funding because of Cuomo's "Taste NY" thing. Wasn't the reason for adding the rest areas in the first place to add truck facilities?
(personal opinion emphasized)
In a surprise announcement, NYSDOT, VTrans and New York governor Andrew Cuomo announced the construction of a new Interstate spur along the US 4 and NY 149 corridor between Interstate 87 in Bolton and US 4 east of Rutland earlier today. The route, to be designated Interstate 387, will be a four-lane limited access freeway running through Warren, Washington, and Rutland Counties. In his speech, Cuomo noted that the project will include a four-lane cable-stayed signature bridge across Lake George between Bolton Landing and Shelving Rock, a signature arch bridge across South Bay and twin two-lane tunnels under Cat Mountain and West Mountain. Intermediate exits between I-87 and the current west end of the freeway will be located at NY 9N, Washington CR 7, NY 22, and VT 4A. The grade crossing near US 7 will be eliminated and the freeway will be extended east to Mendon around the southeast side of Rutland with a new interchange at US 7.great minds think alike. I posted this beauty on another forum yesterday
ALBANY — As Erie County and its inner- and mid- ring suburbs grow, so does the need for improved transportation, according to local and state officials. Banking on TIGER grants, they believe that a revival of the 1971 Outer Belt plan is necessary. A bypass of Amherst, a cut across the East Side, and a Lancaster Relief Route were all proposed during the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s. The outer belt highway was proposed during this timeframe as well, but went into hiatus during the mid- 1980s and was ultimatly shelved from the region's long range planning document in 1993.
In a statement forwarded to The News, Rep. Chris Collins took a bullish approach to the plan, saying the area's transportation infrastructure has become overcrowded in recent years, and cited the frequent delays at Exit 51 in Cheektowaga.
"The state DOT informed me that the 90/33 interchange is nearing the end-of-life cycle, and that a replacement would cost an exorbitant amount of money. Their recommendation was that a reliever highway may in fact be necessary.
Part of the area beltway had been completed by 1975, including the Milestrip Expressway in Blasdell and the LaSalle Expressway in Niagara Falls, both of which were designed to join in the eastern suburbs. According to the statement, the proposed beltway would follow the initial proposed path from the 1971 regional plan, taking it through Orchard Park, Elma, Lancaster and Amherst, ultimatly joining with the LaSalle Expressway east of Niagara Falls.
Collins noted in his statement that he is aware of the potential issues with the routing of the route, but says that the eminent domain would be justifiable under the current circumstances.
"When you look at the routing, it's clear that it takes up a lot of land," Collins said. "The DOT has said that much of this is negotiable in their study of alternatives and that there may be alterations to cut down on costs."
The Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council, responsible for the area's transportation planning, has shifted towards public transportation and mass transit in the latest study. While the agency did not immediately responded for comment, it has been amenable to policy changes in the past.
I assume this is the version with no truck parking. Honestly, what's the point? NY wouldn't even be able to use federal funding because of Cuomo's "Taste NY" thing. Wasn't the reason for adding the rest areas in the first place to add truck facilities?
(personal opinion emphasized)
I assume this is the version with no truck parking. Honestly, what's the point? NY wouldn't even be able to use federal funding because of Cuomo's "Taste NY" thing. Wasn't the reason for adding the rest areas in the first place to add truck facilities?
(personal opinion emphasized)
The federal aid ineligibility threat has not been carried out yet, insofar as I know.
*knows something everyone else doesn't know about this whole mess but can't tell and boasts of his secret knowledge like a six-year-old* :P
I assume this is the version with no truck parking. Honestly, what's the point? NY wouldn't even be able to use federal funding because of Cuomo's "Taste NY" thing. Wasn't the reason for adding the rest areas in the first place to add truck facilities?
(personal opinion emphasized)
The federal aid ineligibility threat has not been carried out yet, insofar as I know.
*knows something everyone else doesn't know about this whole mess but can't tell and boasts of his secret knowledge like a six-year-old* :P
Oh? Is there another announcement coming?
I assume this is the version with no truck parking. Honestly, what's the point? NY wouldn't even be able to use federal funding because of Cuomo's "Taste NY" thing. Wasn't the reason for adding the rest areas in the first place to add truck facilities?
(personal opinion emphasized)
The federal aid ineligibility threat has not been carried out yet, insofar as I know.
*knows something everyone else doesn't know about this whole mess but can't tell and boasts of his secret knowledge like a six-year-old* :P
Oh? Is there another announcement coming?
Long Island also doesn't need these rest stops. There are nearly 60 exits on 495, a lot of them containing places to stop, and it's only 71 miles long. It only takes an hour and fifteen minutes max to reach Riverhead from NYC.
I assume this is the version with no truck parking. Honestly, what's the point? NY wouldn't even be able to use federal funding because of Cuomo's "Taste NY" thing. Wasn't the reason for adding the rest areas in the first place to add truck facilities?
(personal opinion emphasized)
The federal aid ineligibility threat has not been carried out yet, insofar as I know.
*knows something everyone else doesn't know about this whole mess but can't tell and boasts of his secret knowledge like a six-year-old* :P
Oh? Is there another announcement coming?
Long Island also doesn't need these rest stops. There are nearly 60 exits on 495, a lot of them containing places to stop, and it's only 71 miles long. It only takes an hour and fifteen minutes max to reach Riverhead from NYC.
Long Island has a grand total of zero truck stops and very few places for trucks to legally park. A run from Jersey to eastern Suffolk is barely doable on a single shift if traffic is good and you have to do a round trip. Let me give you an idea of timing: a round trip from Nassau to Montauk can be ~5 hours on a good day. It takes forever to travel across the Island, especially for a truck that is basically limited to one of two limited-access routes and a few N-S connectors between them. The original idea of a rest area was to provide a better truck parking location. And 1:15 is on a weekend or at night. Good luck doing that when a truck would have to deliver.
I assume this is the version with no truck parking. Honestly, what's the point? NY wouldn't even be able to use federal funding because of Cuomo's "Taste NY" thing. Wasn't the reason for adding the rest areas in the first place to add truck facilities?
(personal opinion emphasized)
The federal aid ineligibility threat has not been carried out yet, insofar as I know.
*knows something everyone else doesn't know about this whole mess but can't tell and boasts of his secret knowledge like a six-year-old* :P
Oh? Is there another announcement coming?
Long Island also doesn't need these rest stops. There are nearly 60 exits on 495, a lot of them containing places to stop, and it's only 71 miles long. It only takes an hour and fifteen minutes max to reach Riverhead from NYC.
Long Island has a grand total of zero truck stops and very few places for trucks to legally park. A run from Jersey to eastern Suffolk is barely doable on a single shift if traffic is good and you have to do a round trip. Let me give you an idea of timing: a round trip from Nassau to Montauk can be ~5 hours on a good day. It takes forever to travel across the Island, especially for a truck that is basically limited to one of two limited-access routes and a few N-S connectors between them. The original idea of a rest area was to provide a better truck parking location. And 1:15 is on a weekend or at night. Good luck doing that when a truck would have to deliver.
We actually do have one stop past exit 48, even though it is an eastbound sort of deal. And 495 is actually fine so long as it isn't rush hour.
On a different note, does anybody know when NY 5S was moved over to the old railroad bridge over Schoharie Creek? I drove through there last week and was quite surprised to be driving on the rail bridge. The trail was shifted to the former NY 5S bridge.
On a different note, does anybody know when NY 5S was moved over to the old railroad bridge over Schoharie Creek? I drove through there last week and was quite surprised to be driving on the rail bridge. The trail was shifted to the former NY 5S bridge.
Wasn't it as a result of the Thruway bridge collapse?
On a different note, does anybody know when NY 5S was moved over to the old railroad bridge over Schoharie Creek? I drove through there last week and was quite surprised to be driving on the rail bridge. The trail was shifted to the former NY 5S bridge.
Wasn't it as a result of the Thruway bridge collapse?
That was one of the times, yes, but in recent years 5S has been switched back and forth a few times. I think this most recent switch was done by early last fall. I seem to remember it being switched back over to the railroad bridge when I drove out that way to get on the Thruway at 28 headed west in September. Maybe it was later than that, though.
Were they alternating traffic now on the RR bridge? It was very annoying all summer when they were working on the RR bridge and had one lane alternating (with traffic lights) on the original automobile bridge (the one to the south/upstream) to keep half of the bridge dedicated for the bike trail.
Technically the c/d roads at Thruway exit 55 are part of US 219.
Technically the c/d roads at Thruway exit 55 are part of US 219.
So V, if the collector lanes at this point are indeed US 219, and the core lanes are I-90 or the Thruway, does this mean that the Thruway Authority ONLY is responsible for maintenance of the core? While the NYSDOT would be responsible for the collectors? I was wondering this and I'm sure you would know the answer as it did cross my mind when you posted that reply.
On a different note, does anybody know when NY 5S was moved over to the old railroad bridge over Schoharie Creek? I drove through there last week and was quite surprised to be driving on the rail bridge. The trail was shifted to the former NY 5S bridge.
Wasn't it as a result of the Thruway bridge collapse?
That was one of the times, yes, but in recent years 5S has been switched back and forth a few times. I think this most recent switch was done by early last fall. I seem to remember it being switched back over to the railroad bridge when I drove out that way to get on the Thruway at 28 headed west in September. Maybe it was later than that, though.
Were they alternating traffic now on the RR bridge? It was very annoying all summer when they were working on the RR bridge and had one lane alternating (with traffic lights) on the original automobile bridge (the one to the south/upstream) to keep half of the bridge dedicated for the bike trail.
^^ It's amazing, almost embarrassing, how poorly the Albany area is handling a few inches of snow today. This level of disruption is normally reserved for much more significant snowfalls or in places that are much less prepared to deal with snow.
^^ It's amazing, almost embarrassing, how poorly the Albany area is handling a few inches of snow today. This level of disruption is normally reserved for much more significant snowfalls or in places that are much less prepared to deal with snow.
A person can be smart; people are stupid.
I think a big part of the problem is that the various organizations responsible for salting/sanding/plowing really dropped the ball on the morning commute. It's like they thought that just because it was warm a few days ago that the snow wouldn't stick on the roads today. Well, it's been cold the last day or two, and yes, it stuck. Once the plows got out and surfaces were treated, the pavement quickly became just wet, even while the snow was still coming down. And of course drivers seemed to forget how to deal with snow, behaving in the dangerous combination of some being terrified and driving way too slow and some driving like it's sunny and 60 on dry roads.
I believe it's supposed to be numbered exit 4. It also includes an exit only lane NB between exits 4 and 5, which should help some of the congestion there (largely caused by people using the right lane as an exit only lane now, even though it's really a through lane).
I believe it's supposed to be numbered exit 4. It also includes an exit only lane NB between exits 4 and 5, which should help some of the congestion there (largely caused by people using the right lane as an exit only lane now, even though it's really a through lane).
It says in the article that they're going to be reconfiguring exit 4, not adding an exit 3.
It says they're reconfiguring exit 4... it does NOT say what NYSDOT plans to number the exits when done (which will be 4A/4B NB... yes, I asked).I believe it's supposed to be numbered exit 4. It also includes an exit only lane NB between exits 4 and 5, which should help some of the congestion there (largely caused by people using the right lane as an exit only lane now, even though it's really a through lane).
It says in the article that they're going to be reconfiguring exit 4, not adding an exit 3.
It says they're reconfiguring exit 4... it does NOT say what NYSDOT plans to number the exits when done (which will be 4A/4B NB... yes, I asked).I believe it's supposed to be numbered exit 4. It also includes an exit only lane NB between exits 4 and 5, which should help some of the congestion there (largely caused by people using the right lane as an exit only lane now, even though it's really a through lane).
It says in the article that they're going to be reconfiguring exit 4, not adding an exit 3.
I've passed by this place a million times, what is it's significance to the DOT?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7571549,-78.836929,201m/data=!3m1!1e3
Looks like a residency or subresidency. They're the ones who handle routine maintenance such as snow plowing or dealing with signs that are knocked over.
Given the vehicles in the lot, it could be vehicle maintenance too (like the one in Waterford).
On a different note, I was checking on the NY 85 construction yesterday and noticed that Region 1 installed an APL at the I-90 trumpet. I don't know when it happened, but I don't remember it from the last time I was out that way. First APL in Region 1.
NY 85 is 3 lanes through most of the construction zone. 2 EB, 1 WB. This was accomplished by closing an exit ramp heading EB.
The new state budget includes funding for Northway Exit 3 (http://blog.timesunion.com/business/state-budget-has-50m-for-new-exit-4-link-to-albany-airport/73781/?cmpid=fbsocialflow) (or whatever they're numbering the new ramps). If you're remotely familiar with the area, you will know that the project is much needed and long overdue.
I thought I knew most of the terms and acronyms by now, but I guess not. What does APL stand for?Arrow Per Lane.
There's some kind of fuel pump in the front and offices.Some NYSDOT facilities have gas, a few more diesel, and a lot more CNG.
Seriously, that area backs up every day. Sometimes the traffic getting off there backs up onto the Northway in the morning, and in the evening, it's the main cause of congestion until you get near NY 7. It also take a LONG time to get through all those lights, which is THE reason why no reasonable alternative routes to the Northway exist for my commute. Even when the Northway is a parking lot and you're constantly hitting a complete stop, it's STILL faster than taking Wolf Road through, and getting off at exit 4 if it's congested (especially NB) is a hopeless cause.The new state budget includes funding for Northway Exit 3 (http://blog.timesunion.com/business/state-budget-has-50m-for-new-exit-4-link-to-albany-airport/73781/?cmpid=fbsocialflow) (or whatever they're numbering the new ramps). If you're remotely familiar with the area, you will know that the project is much needed and long overdue.
I disagree with how needed this project is. It's been pushed off for years because people make do with going through the lights at the end of Wolf Road and Region 1 certainly has other issues that need addressing overall due to their unfortunate hyperfocus on Interstates in the early 2000s (i.e., non-Interstates have gone to pot condition-wise and they've been trying to dig themselves out from under that backlog...MAP-21 didn't do them any favors with the added emphasis on the NHS and they've been restricted in their efforts by their fund source mix).
In my opinion, without political pressure having been put upon NYSDOT, the project would have been pushed off even further given the other priorities Region 1 faces. Building new while letting everything else go kaput just isn't wise.
There's some kind of fuel pump in the front and offices.Some NYSDOT facilities have gas, a few more diesel, and a lot more CNG.Seriously, that area backs up every day. Sometimes the traffic getting off there backs up onto the Northway in the morning, and in the evening, it's the main cause of congestion until you get near NY 7. It also take a LONG time to get through all those lights, which is THE reason why no reasonable alternative routes to the Northway exist for my commute. Even when the Northway is a parking lot and you're constantly hitting a complete stop, it's STILL faster than taking Wolf Road through, and getting off at exit 4 if it's congested (especially NB) is a hopeless cause.The new state budget includes funding for Northway Exit 3 (http://blog.timesunion.com/business/state-budget-has-50m-for-new-exit-4-link-to-albany-airport/73781/?cmpid=fbsocialflow) (or whatever they're numbering the new ramps). If you're remotely familiar with the area, you will know that the project is much needed and long overdue.
I disagree with how needed this project is. It's been pushed off for years because people make do with going through the lights at the end of Wolf Road and Region 1 certainly has other issues that need addressing overall due to their unfortunate hyperfocus on Interstates in the early 2000s (i.e., non-Interstates have gone to pot condition-wise and they've been trying to dig themselves out from under that backlog...MAP-21 didn't do them any favors with the added emphasis on the NHS and they've been restricted in their efforts by their fund source mix).
In my opinion, without political pressure having been put upon NYSDOT, the project would have been pushed off even further given the other priorities Region 1 faces. Building new while letting everything else go kaput just isn't wise.
There's some kind of fuel pump in the front and offices.Some NYSDOT facilities have gas, a few more diesel, and a lot more CNG.Seriously, that area backs up every day. Sometimes the traffic getting off there backs up onto the Northway in the morning, and in the evening, it's the main cause of congestion until you get near NY 7. It also take a LONG time to get through all those lights, which is THE reason why no reasonable alternative routes to the Northway exist for my commute. Even when the Northway is a parking lot and you're constantly hitting a complete stop, it's STILL faster than taking Wolf Road through, and getting off at exit 4 if it's congested (especially NB) is a hopeless cause.The new state budget includes funding for Northway Exit 3 (http://blog.timesunion.com/business/state-budget-has-50m-for-new-exit-4-link-to-albany-airport/73781/?cmpid=fbsocialflow) (or whatever they're numbering the new ramps). If you're remotely familiar with the area, you will know that the project is much needed and long overdue.
I disagree with how needed this project is. It's been pushed off for years because people make do with going through the lights at the end of Wolf Road and Region 1 certainly has other issues that need addressing overall due to their unfortunate hyperfocus on Interstates in the early 2000s (i.e., non-Interstates have gone to pot condition-wise and they've been trying to dig themselves out from under that backlog...MAP-21 didn't do them any favors with the added emphasis on the NHS and they've been restricted in their efforts by their fund source mix).
In my opinion, without political pressure having been put upon NYSDOT, the project would have been pushed off even further given the other priorities Region 1 faces. Building new while letting everything else go kaput just isn't wise.
Congestion mitigation through building new infrastructure versus preserving old, which NYSDOT's stated policy is "preservation first." :D
The new infrastructure replaces old. They're not adding a new highway, just reconfiguring an existing interchange.There's some kind of fuel pump in the front and offices.Some NYSDOT facilities have gas, a few more diesel, and a lot more CNG.Seriously, that area backs up every day. Sometimes the traffic getting off there backs up onto the Northway in the morning, and in the evening, it's the main cause of congestion until you get near NY 7. It also take a LONG time to get through all those lights, which is THE reason why no reasonable alternative routes to the Northway exist for my commute. Even when the Northway is a parking lot and you're constantly hitting a complete stop, it's STILL faster than taking Wolf Road through, and getting off at exit 4 if it's congested (especially NB) is a hopeless cause.The new state budget includes funding for Northway Exit 3 (http://blog.timesunion.com/business/state-budget-has-50m-for-new-exit-4-link-to-albany-airport/73781/?cmpid=fbsocialflow) (or whatever they're numbering the new ramps). If you're remotely familiar with the area, you will know that the project is much needed and long overdue.
I disagree with how needed this project is. It's been pushed off for years because people make do with going through the lights at the end of Wolf Road and Region 1 certainly has other issues that need addressing overall due to their unfortunate hyperfocus on Interstates in the early 2000s (i.e., non-Interstates have gone to pot condition-wise and they've been trying to dig themselves out from under that backlog...MAP-21 didn't do them any favors with the added emphasis on the NHS and they've been restricted in their efforts by their fund source mix).
In my opinion, without political pressure having been put upon NYSDOT, the project would have been pushed off even further given the other priorities Region 1 faces. Building new while letting everything else go kaput just isn't wise.
Congestion mitigation through building new infrastructure versus preserving old, which NYSDOT's stated policy is "preservation first." :D
One could argue that the some of the expressways that were planned for Albany should've been constructed.
One could argue that the some of the expressways that were planned for Albany should've been constructed.I would argue, that DOT needs some semi-descent traffic engineers. But that is probably too much to ask.
Does anyone know what happened with county routes throughout the state in the last 1-2 years? Suddenly there was a HUGE uptick in signage (at least in the Southern Tier, all of which I travel regularly on back roads for work). Did some new funding come available to do these projects, or was there a mandate that counties needed to sign the highways better?
Does anyone know what happened with county routes throughout the state in the last 1-2 years? Suddenly there was a HUGE uptick in signage (at least in the Southern Tier, all of which I travel regularly on back roads for work). Did some new funding come available to do these projects, or was there a mandate that counties needed to sign the highways better?
No idea, it certainly hasn't made any difference down here. Nassau and Westchester counties are still completely unsigned.
Does anyone know what happened with county routes throughout the state in the last 1-2 years? Suddenly there was a HUGE uptick in signage (at least in the Southern Tier, all of which I travel regularly on back roads for work). Did some new funding come available to do these projects, or was there a mandate that counties needed to sign the highways better?
Does anyone know what happened with county routes throughout the state in the last 1-2 years? Suddenly there was a HUGE uptick in signage (at least in the Southern Tier, all of which I travel regularly on back roads for work). Did some new funding come available to do these projects, or was there a mandate that counties needed to sign the highways better?
No idea, it certainly hasn't made any difference down here. Nassau and Westchester counties are still completely unsigned.
I have noticed no change. Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Essex Counties were always well-signed. Warren started signing ~7 years ago and has been gradually improving. Most of Erie's remaining signs have actually come down pretty recently, with no counties in Western New York outside of the Southern Tier signing their highways. Schenectady County still only posts the numbers on blades, while markers are rare in the Finger Lakes as well.
A completed South Mall (at least on the east end) would have been nice to reduce traffic at the Patroon Island Bridge, especially if they had it continue to US 4 to run over current NY 43. If they still wanted to do it, it could be completed while removing a remarkably small amount of buildings.
Moving to the northern end of the region, what would be useful is I-92, or at least a portion of it. NY 149 and US 4 are miserable, even during the off-season (i.e. right now). Queues during the peak season can near 1 mile in length (yes, I kept track once) and the off-peak parts of the year have a steady stream of vehicles.
Oneida County has a bunch.
Does anyone know what happened with county routes throughout the state in the last 1-2 years? Suddenly there was a HUGE uptick in signage (at least in the Southern Tier, all of which I travel regularly on back roads for work). Did some new funding come available to do these projects, or was there a mandate that counties needed to sign the highways better?Shovel-ready projects for Federal stimulus funding?
Was there any centralized push at all to get more county routes signed? My understanding is that many counties over the past bunch of years have made the decision to put up signs independent of each other but for the same reason: often map data will have the numbers, and when someone's GPS tells them "turn right on county road 26", that's a problem if there's no sign for county road 26. I'm sure many counties decided it was easier to just put up signs than to continually fight with GPS manufacturers to remove the numbers from their data.
I would even hazard a guess that the counties which have not decided to put up signs are counties that for whatever reason have not experienced a particular problem with GPS devices calling out route numbers there are no signs for.
is there any evidence Nassau ever signed county routes? I haven't seen any in older photos of the county and there appears to be no surviving examples of any county route signs, so if they did they got rid of them really throughly
Chautauqua County has had excellent county route signage since I lived there in the mid 1980s. Their destination signs were always easy to spot because they would be supported with a diagonal cross bar from about 1/2 up the installation to the ground behind the sign. County route markers themselves were all over the place, but cardinal directions came later.
Oswego County started posting pentagon markers in the early 1980s, complete with cardinal directions right from the onset. Prior to that there were a very few black on white small squares on some of the county routes.
Jefferson County just started posting in the late 1990s. They still use what looks like Series A numerals from time to time.
To the best of my knowledge, Onondaga County has only ever posted CR 57 (even though it's actually CR 91). The latest generation of county route markers were hideous looking.
is there any evidence Nassau ever signed county routes? I haven't seen any in older photos of the county and there appears to be no surviving examples of any county route signs, so if they did they got rid of them really throughly
Suffolk is really hit or miss with county routes being signed. some like 97, 83, 11, 1, 2, 80, 10, 6, 104, 105, 19, 34, and 39 (the ones i know off the top of my head) are signed really well. Others like 92, 82 are signed really sporadically, same with 3 (its signed well in the town of Islip but the town of Huntington has a real lack of Route 3 signs). the county routes in the town of huntington in particular have a tendency to be signed badly, and a lot of them aren't signed at all.
is there any evidence Nassau ever signed county routes? I haven't seen any in older photos of the county and there appears to be no surviving examples of any county route signs, so if they did they got rid of them really throughly
Unfortunately, I travel through Nassau County a lot, and I haven't seen a single sign. In fact, the signs according to Wikipedia look different compared to the rest of the state's county routes.
Suffolk is really hit or miss with county routes being signed. some like 97, 83, 11, 1, 2, 80, 10, 6, 104, 105, 19, 34, and 39 (the ones i know off the top of my head) are signed really well. Others like 92, 82 are signed really sporadically, same with 3 (its signed well in the town of Islip but the town of Huntington has a real lack of Route 3 signs). the county routes in the town of huntington in particular have a tendency to be signed badly, and a lot of them aren't signed at all.
I'm not aware of a ton that aren't signed at all. There's CR 39A, which is multiplexed with NY 27 for its entire length, as well as CR 75 and CR 32. I'm also pretty sure that CR 40, CR 41, and CR 59 are unsigned, although I haven't clinched them, so I can't say for sure. Any others?
Suffolk is really hit or miss with county routes being signed. some like 97, 83, 11, 1, 2, 80, 10, 6, 104, 105, 19, 34, and 39 (the ones i know off the top of my head) are signed really well. Others like 92, 82 are signed really sporadically, same with 3 (its signed well in the town of Islip but the town of Huntington has a real lack of Route 3 signs). the county routes in the town of huntington in particular have a tendency to be signed badly, and a lot of them aren't signed at all.
I'm not aware of a ton that aren't signed at all. There's CR 39A, which is multiplexed with NY 27 for its entire length, as well as CR 75 and CR 32. I'm also pretty sure that CR 40, CR 41, and CR 59 are unsigned, although I haven't clinched them, so I can't say for sure. Any others?
County Route 11 is probably the best example of good signing in western Suffolk County. The whole route is signed pretty well. County Route 92 has gotten better with more signs than before.
As far as I know, Nassau has been very effective in keeping their CR numbers off of commercial maps by denying that they exist, although you can find them on the LHI from NYSDOT (or on my web site).
Suffolk CR 5 - Ruland Road in Melville is unsigned.
92 is still missing signs, the only ones that I know of are at its intersection with Pulaski Road (CR 11) otherwise theres no shields for it on the entire length.
Suffolk CR 5 - Ruland Road in Melville is unsigned.
92 is still missing signs, the only ones that I know of are at its intersection with Pulaski Road (CR 11) otherwise theres no shields for it on the entire length.
Suffolk CR 5 - Ruland Road in Melville is unsigned.
92 is still missing signs, the only ones that I know of are at its intersection with Pulaski Road (CR 11) otherwise theres no shields for it on the entire length.
Heading southbound from its northern terminus at NY-110 in Huntington Village there is a sign for CR 92.
Suffolk CR 5 - Ruland Road in Melville is unsigned.
92 is still missing signs, the only ones that I know of are at its intersection with Pulaski Road (CR 11) otherwise theres no shields for it on the entire length.
Heading southbound from its northern terminus at NY-110 in Huntington Village there is a sign for CR 92.
That must be very new, then. Last time I was through there, there no sign for CR 92 on NY 110, and no sign where you need to turn from High Street onto Oakwood Road (or vice versa) to stay on CR 92.
Suffolk CR 5 - Ruland Road in Melville is unsigned.
92 is still missing signs, the only ones that I know of are at its intersection with Pulaski Road (CR 11) otherwise theres no shields for it on the entire length.
Heading southbound from its northern terminus at NY-110 in Huntington Village there is a sign for CR 92.
That must be very new, then. Last time I was through there, there no sign for CR 92 on NY 110, and no sign where you need to turn from High Street onto Oakwood Road (or vice versa) to stay on CR 92.
It is. I only noticed it for the first time a week or two ago. There is also a sign at its southern terminus near NY 25, but it's been there for a long time.
Suffolk CR 5 - Ruland Road in Melville is unsigned.
92 is still missing signs, the only ones that I know of are at its intersection with Pulaski Road (CR 11) otherwise theres no shields for it on the entire length.
Heading southbound from its northern terminus at NY-110 in Huntington Village there is a sign for CR 92.
That must be very new, then. Last time I was through there, there no sign for CR 92 on NY 110, and no sign where you need to turn from High Street onto Oakwood Road (or vice versa) to stay on CR 92.
It is. I only noticed it for the first time a week or two ago. There is also a sign at its southern terminus near NY 25, but it's been there for a long time.
I'm assuming that you're talking about a sign on CR 92. I've never seen any signage for CR 92 on NY 25.
I-990's stub is odd. NB, it functions like any other stub, but SB, the "ramp" is actually what would be the through lanes; if it was ever built further, that would need to be ripped up. Why they didn't make them consistent is beyond me.
As far as the number of lanes, traffic does drop noticeably after the SUNY Buffalo exit, but the road is relatively lightly traveled and it doesn't need eight lanes (even six is a bit much along most of its length).
I-990's stub is odd. NB, it functions like any other stub, but SB, the "ramp" is actually what would be the through lanes; if it was ever built further, that would need to be ripped up. Why they didn't make them consistent is beyond me.
As far as the number of lanes, traffic does drop noticeably after the SUNY Buffalo exit, but the road is relatively lightly traveled and it doesn't need eight lanes (even six is a bit much along most of its length).
Traffic counts barely warrant 6 lanes to Exit 2. Exit 3 is so close that the extra lane was just extended. The 8 lane section is only there because the southernmost 2 interchanges are spaced so closely. I figure it will become much more used when the Sweet Home Road reconstruction gets underway and 2 lanes are closed.
Stubs are usually signed like an exit in NY, though the gore isn't as common (I could have sworn NY 204 had a gore sign before the stub was removed, though)
As for state route freeways being worse, it pays to remember that the Skyway is a 1950s bridge, and the other two mentioned are parkways, though the upstate regions often don't post exit numbers on the state route freeways (and I-790) for some reason.
I haven't driven much in NY, but with my experience, that state route freeways seem to be of much poorer quality than interstate routes. I know this is the case with the Buffalo Skyway, Robert Moses, and Lake Ontario State Pkwy.
I haven't driven much in NY, but with my experience, that state route freeways seem to be of much poorer quality than interstate routes. I know this is the case with the Buffalo Skyway, Robert Moses, and Lake Ontario State Pkwy.
That may be the case, but it's likely just coincidence. NY 390 and NY 590 have both had poorer quality sections than their Interstate counterparts, but that's probably more because traffic counts drop off as you approach the lake; the same is likely true for the farther reaches of NY 481 and NY 690.
Then again, remember that this also gives you a comparison between such roads as I-278 (horrible) and NY 27 (not honestly all that terrible). And NY 440's pretty good, isn't it (don't think I've ever taken it)?
I haven't driven much in NY, but with my experience, that state route freeways seem to be of much poorer quality than interstate routes. I know this is the case with the Buffalo Skyway, Robert Moses, and Lake Ontario State Pkwy.
That may be the case, but it's likely just coincidence. NY 390 and NY 590 have both had poorer quality sections than their Interstate counterparts, but that's probably more because traffic counts drop off as you approach the lake; the same is likely true for the farther reaches of NY 481 and NY 690.
Then again, remember that this also gives you a comparison between such roads as I-278 (horrible) and NY 27 (not honestly all that terrible). And NY 440's pretty good, isn't it (don't think I've ever taken it)?
NY 27 is honestly one of the higher quality routes, and NY 135 is also pretty nice as well. I-278 is abysmal, and I-87 south of I-95 is kind of bad though.
I haven't driven much in NY, but with my experience, that state route freeways seem to be of much poorer quality than interstate routes. I know this is the case with the Buffalo Skyway, Robert Moses, and Lake Ontario State Pkwy.
That may be the case, but it's likely just coincidence. NY 390 and NY 590 have both had poorer quality sections than their Interstate counterparts, but that's probably more because traffic counts drop off as you approach the lake; the same is likely true for the farther reaches of NY 481 and NY 690.
Then again, remember that this also gives you a comparison between such roads as I-278 (horrible) and NY 27 (not honestly all that terrible). And NY 440's pretty good, isn't it (don't think I've ever taken it)?
NY 27 is honestly one of the higher quality routes, and NY 135 is also pretty nice as well. I-278 is abysmal, and I-87 south of I-95 is kind of bad though.
Sunrise Highway (NY 27) is wonderful. The aforementioned BQE doesn't even deserve its Interstate designation and parts of the Van Wyck (I-678) and Cross Bronx (I-95) aren't much better. NY 17 has been Interstate-quality outside of a few sections since the expressway route was built, but I-81 in Syracuse is miserable. I-587 is a glorified four-lane boulevard that doesn't even have a true interchange.
The parkways are often built to lower standards either on purpose to make them feel more scenic (in the case of the Upstate parkways) or because they're quite old (downstate parkways minus Sprain Brook and reconstructed sections of the Taconic). Most of the downstate parkway system predates WWII and the Interstate system, with some of the worst Interstates (portions of I-278 and I-678) actually being converted parkways.
Upon digging into the highway history I notice a website circles back here to cl94 for a reference: http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-990_ny.html
Correction, the limited access part of Sunrise Highway is wonderful, the traffic light laden part in Nassau county is tedious and takes forever.
Correction, the limited access part of Sunrise Highway is wonderful, the traffic light laden part in Nassau county is tedious and takes forever.
When I talk about the Sunrise Highway, I mean the actual "highway" part of it. Other wise, I just use NY 27 when I am talking about the non-limited access portions.
Correction, the limited access part of Sunrise Highway is wonderful, the traffic light laden part in Nassau county is tedious and takes forever.
When I talk about the Sunrise Highway, I mean the actual "highway" part of it. Other wise, I just use NY 27 when I am talking about the non-limited access portions.
I think that's understood, although actually I believe the name Sunrise Highway is an older term for the whole route, and would have applied to the original non-freeway route before being upgraded.
Also note that the freeway portion does get a little rougher towards its eastern end, which like other routes I've mentioned would just be due to lower traffic demands.
Oddly enough NY 531's pavement is in great shape.I haven't driven much in NY, but with my experience, that state route freeways seem to be of much poorer quality than interstate routes. I know this is the case with the Buffalo Skyway, Robert Moses, and Lake Ontario State Pkwy.
That may be the case, but it's likely just coincidence. NY 390 and NY 590 have both had poorer quality sections than their Interstate counterparts, but that's probably more because traffic counts drop off as you approach the lake; the same is likely true for the farther reaches of NY 481 and NY 690.
Then again, remember that this also gives you a comparison between such roads as I-278 (horrible) and NY 27 (not honestly all that terrible). And NY 440's pretty good, isn't it (don't think I've ever taken it)?
Correction, the limited access part of Sunrise Highway is wonderful, the traffic light laden part in Nassau county is tedious and takes forever.
When I talk about the Sunrise Highway, I mean the actual "highway" part of it. Other wise, I just use NY 27 when I am talking about the non-limited access portions.
I think that's understood, although actually I believe the name Sunrise Highway is an older term for the whole route, and would have applied to the original non-freeway route before being upgraded.
Also note that the freeway portion does get a little rougher towards its eastern end, which like other routes I've mentioned would just be due to lower traffic demands.
I haven't driven much in NY, but with my experience, that state route freeways seem to be of much poorer quality than interstate routes. I know this is the case with the Buffalo Skyway, Robert Moses, and Lake Ontario State Pkwy.
That may be the case, but it's likely just coincidence. NY 390 and NY 590 have both had poorer quality sections than their Interstate counterparts, but that's probably more because traffic counts drop off as you approach the lake; the same is likely true for the farther reaches of NY 481 and NY 690.
Then again, remember that this also gives you a comparison between such roads as I-278 (horrible) and NY 27 (not honestly all that terrible). And NY 440's pretty good, isn't it (don't think I've ever taken it)?
People who live on the South Shore in Nassau County very much refer to it as Sunrise Highway. In fact, numbers are very rarely used among the locals for anything in Nassau except NY 106 and NY 107.
Two updates from my recent North Country expedition. Any ideas?
2) NY 456 is completely unsigned in both directions (county maintenance) and with no junction signage. Wikipedia suggests it was once signed. Not sure if it even exists as of 2016.
Two updates from my recent North Country expedition. Any ideas?
1) NY 314 EB is signed to END at US 9. WB is signed straight at the I-87 NB ramps. There are no traces of 314 signage east of there (county maintenance). Not sure how NY 314 is now defined as of 2016.
2) NY 456 is completely unsigned in both directions (county maintenance) and with no junction signage. Wikipedia suggests it was once signed. Not sure if it even exists as of 2016.
The most recent Official Description I can find online dates from 2012, which is much too old to account for any change. Similarly, the most recent publicly-available highway inventory is 2014, which includes both routes in full. Honestly, this makes me quite curious as well. Do any of our resident NYSDOT employees have access to the internal computer files or people who would know an answer?
People who live on the South Shore in Nassau County very much refer to it as Sunrise Highway. In fact, numbers are very rarely used among the locals for anything in Nassau except NY 106 and NY 107.
106 is called Newbridge Road mostly south of the downtown Hicksville split. 109 is just 109.
Also I noticed that on I-495 and NY 27 they got new small signs next to the overpasses that tell you the name of the street that goes over the highway.
On a completely different topic, while doing searches for the above, I found the NYSDOT traffic safety repository (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/), which includes some pretty interesting things. Most notably:Personally I favor doghouses over FYAs as FYAs have the capability of having a red arrow when straight is green, a situation I despise. Not sure about the aesthetic of the back-plates, either.
-NYSDOT officially encourages FYAs over doghouses for all PPLT situations, as well as FYAs at protected-only locations to allow for off-peak permissive operations. The flashing red arrow is allowed if studies indicate that an FYA would not work. Regions 1 and 4 in particular appear to be following this pretty closely.
-Backplates with 3" reflective stripe required for all new signal installations on approaches where the speed is at least 45 mph, encouraged for lower speeds. Retrofits on existing installations are encouraged if the wires can handle the loading.
-Reasons provided for switch away from climbing lane and auxiliary lane markings unique to New York
-A full list of how the 2009 MUTCD changed operations
Alright, so the 2014 Clinton County traffic data report has incorrect info. I figured something was up with the I-190 overlap, given how signs indicate that NY 324 enters I-190 at both Exit 15 and Exit 17.So signs FINALLY match what the log has said for years? That's good; the EB direction was technically impossible to follow due to a turn restriction on SB exit 17 (also means I wouldn't have to make an effort to clinch that stretch).
Alright, so the 2014 Clinton County traffic data report has incorrect info. I figured something was up with the I-190 overlap, given how signs indicate that NY 324 enters I-190 at both Exit 15 and Exit 17.So signs FINALLY match what the log has said for years? That's good; the EB direction was technically impossible to follow due to a turn restriction on SB exit 17 (also means I wouldn't have to make an effort to clinch that stretch).
Given how the signage is, I wouldn't be surprised if the route changes are real and the traffic data report more up to date than the touring route book (which is out of date and was never specific enough about routings for my liking anyways, so I never use it). I wouldn't use NY 456's continued reference on Northway guide signs as of Nov 15 as evidence of its continued existence; those signs are the ONLY surviving mention that NY 456 ever existed (perhaps NYSDOT was uncomfortable with a route number having the same name as a species on Torchwood?), and one can see the exit ramp signage for it literally disappear with the historical street view, and it's possible the signs are waiting to be replaced with ones that don't mention NY 456.
I checked the 2014 Traffic Data Report (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/NYSDOT_Traffic_Data_Report_2014.pdf) and NY 314 east of US 9, NY 22 north of US 11, NY 374 north of US 11, and the entirety of NY 456 are no longer listed. Neither is NY 12E southeast of Paddy Hill Road, and reference route 971H (Paddy Hill Road) no longer appears either, suggesting that NY 12E now officially follows the signs in the area (Main Office Traffic and Safety had mentioned something about a jurisdictional transfer in that area when I asked about it, in the two out of infinity questions I was able to get through before the guy left; there's also something going on with NY 324 at the I-190 overlap, and a new revision of the touring route log is in the works).
What I meant was that following NY 324 EB onto Grand Island Boulevard was impossible due to the turn restriction, and that following NY 324 EB would no longer be impossible if signed on I-190 as the Traffic Data Report has said for eons.
I submitted a GitHub issue when I saw Steve's post after I checked the Traffic Data Report. I mentioned the others in comments. So, I would expect that it will probably be reflected in TM soon.I checked the 2014 Traffic Data Report (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/NYSDOT_Traffic_Data_Report_2014.pdf) and NY 314 east of US 9, NY 22 north of US 11, NY 374 north of US 11, and the entirety of NY 456 are no longer listed. Neither is NY 12E southeast of Paddy Hill Road, and reference route 971H (Paddy Hill Road) no longer appears either, suggesting that NY 12E now officially follows the signs in the area (Main Office Traffic and Safety had mentioned something about a jurisdictional transfer in that area when I asked about it, in the two out of infinity questions I was able to get through before the guy left; there's also something going on with NY 324 at the I-190 overlap, and a new revision of the touring route log is in the works).
Sounds like TravelMapping needs to update a few things then.
Was there a trumpet interchange at NY 299 and US 9W?There was never anything there besides empty space and the intersection. I notice the clearing, maybe for directional ramps never built.
Was there a trumpet interchange at NY 299 and US 9W?There was never anything there besides empty space and the intersection. I notice the clearing, maybe for directional ramps never built.
I submitted a GitHub issue when I saw Steve's post after I checked the Traffic Data Report. I mentioned the others in comments. So, I would expect that it will probably be reflected in TM soon.I checked the 2014 Traffic Data Report (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/NYSDOT_Traffic_Data_Report_2014.pdf) and NY 314 east of US 9, NY 22 north of US 11, NY 374 north of US 11, and the entirety of NY 456 are no longer listed. Neither is NY 12E southeast of Paddy Hill Road, and reference route 971H (Paddy Hill Road) no longer appears either, suggesting that NY 12E now officially follows the signs in the area (Main Office Traffic and Safety had mentioned something about a jurisdictional transfer in that area when I asked about it, in the two out of infinity questions I was able to get through before the guy left; there's also something going on with NY 324 at the I-190 overlap, and a new revision of the touring route log is in the works).
Sounds like TravelMapping needs to update a few things then.
It's good to see the two big cases where the route definition and route signage don't match (aside from the I-495 weirdness, but that's only in the touring route book and functional class viewer; other logs match signage) get resolved.
I checked the 2014 Inventory Listings (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/highway-data-services/inventory-listing) for the relevant counties and found that all five route segments (12E, 22, 314, 374, 456) are still listed as touring routes. The segments that don't appear on the traffic data report are shown as county maintained, but it wouldn't be the first time we had county maintained touring routes that were signed and included in TM (3A, 151, 155 amongst others).
The qualification "signed" is not met in these cases, though.
I'm debating whether I should drive the Clinton CR at the north end of 374 to truly consider the route clinched. I might make it an exit point coming back from Toronto (assuming I go), depending on my other route choices.I checked the 2014 Inventory Listings (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/highway-data-services/inventory-listing) for the relevant counties and found that all five route segments (12E, 22, 314, 374, 456) are still listed as touring routes. The segments that don't appear on the traffic data report are shown as county maintained, but it wouldn't be the first time we had county maintained touring routes that were signed and included in TM (3A, 151, 155 amongst others).
The qualification "signed" is not met in these cases, though. 22 and 374 are both explicitly signed in the field as ending at US 11. 12E is likewise explicitly signed as ending at 12F, not continuing into Watertown. And while 456 was signed only a few years ago (per GMSV), Steve reports that now it is not, which certainly implies some deliberate effort to remove the route.
QuoteThe qualification "signed" is not met in these cases, though.
Tim held hard and fast to this rule when it was CHM, but the reality is somewhat looser than that. If you have some routes that are signed in some segments but not in others, they tended to be kept for continuity. I was also successful in including a couple unsigned, but major, Minnesota routes in CHM.
The discrepancies between NYSDOT's traffic log reports and their inventory reports don't help any.
Was there a trumpet interchange at NY 299 and US 9W?There was never anything there besides empty space and the intersection. I notice the clearing, maybe for directional ramps never built.
I'm pretty sure the original plan was to have the expressway merge into current US 9W further north. The clearing on the north side of NY 32 predates expressway construction by at least 30 years.
Was there a trumpet interchange at NY 299 and US 9W?There was never anything there besides empty space and the intersection. I notice the clearing, maybe for directional ramps never built.
I'm pretty sure the original plan was to have the expressway merge into current US 9W further north. The clearing on the north side of NY 32 predates expressway construction by at least 30 years.
We're actually talking about two different spots now. The US 9W/NY 299 intersection in Highland was always a T intersection. The 9W/NY 32 intersection in Kingston was originally supposed to be a diamond interchange, as that portion of 9W is the arterial coming from the Rondout waterfront. The original plan was to have it go up up to NY 199 and end there. However, there are some environmentally sensitive lakes along the path and I do not believe it ever got past the planning stages.
Duh. I completely misread that. Yeah, it's graded for a trumpet, but one was never built.
Duh. I completely misread that. Yeah, it's graded for a trumpet, but one was never built.
Interesting, I've lived around here all my life and I've never noticed that until now. Just checked the aerial imagery.
This concrete structure was part of some viaduct that was connected to the Rochester Subway, which ran from 1927 to 1956. The subway structure crossing the Genesee River is still there. I was there in December 2014.Are we playing Jeopardy or something?
This concrete structure was part of some viaduct that was connected to the Rochester Subway, which ran from 1927 to 1956. The subway structure crossing the Genesee River is still there. I was there in December 2014.I think you're talking about the Broad St Bridge over the Genesee River...
US-9W also used to have an interchange further south with the north end of NY-303 in Congers. It was converted to a conventional intersection by the early 90s or so.
A foolish desire to downgrade the highway system. If anything, they should've just built a two-way north to south connecting ramp between US 9W and NY 303, and added some ramps to NY 304.US-9W also used to have an interchange further south with the north end of NY-303 in Congers. It was converted to a conventional intersection by the early 90s or so.
It did? Why did they get rid of it?
US-9W also used to have an interchange further south with the north end of NY-303 in Congers. It was converted to a conventional intersection by the early 90s or so.
It did? Why did they get rid of it?
The other benefit of conversion was facilitating the development to the west side of the intersection as a conventional 4-leg. More new structures and ramps would have had to be built to accommodate it otherwise. I imagine the PIP took away much of the traffic that was originally on 9W and led to the interchange here.US-9W also used to have an interchange further south with the north end of NY-303 in Congers. It was converted to a conventional intersection by the early 90s or so.
It did? Why did they get rid of it?
Despite what D-Day claimed, it was likely due to old age. The old interchange dated at least back to the 1930s so it's quite likely the overpass (which carried the US 9 mainline) was in bad enough condition to where NYSDOT figured it was more cost-effective to remove the bridge and convert the junction into an intersection. A side benefit of such is that it allowed movements between US 9 South and NY 303 South. Looking at 2012 traffic volumes, nothing stands out traffic-wise suggesting an interchange is needed (again, despite D-Day's claims).
The other benefit of conversion was facilitating the development to the west side of the intersection as a conventional 4-leg. More new structures and ramps would have had to be built to accommodate it otherwise. I imagine the PIP took away much of the traffic that was originally on 9W and led to the interchange here.Keep in mind though, that the Palisades is for Passenger Cars Only, whereas US 9W isn't. I can't imagine the Parkway serving as anything else but temporary relief, especially after the cancellation of the Pearl River-Haverstraw Freeway.
The other benefit of conversion was facilitating the development to the west side of the intersection as a conventional 4-leg. More new structures and ramps would have had to be built to accommodate it otherwise. I imagine the PIP took away much of the traffic that was originally on 9W and led to the interchange here.Keep in mind though, that the Palisades is for Passenger Cars Only, whereas US 9W isn't. I can't imagine the Parkway serving as anything else but temporary relief, especially after the cancellation of the Pearl River-Haverstraw Freeway.
On another topic in the same part of Rockland County, has anyone ever considered the Hook Mountain Tunnel as a train watching site?
I imagine most long-haul trucks take the Thruway, which also probably takes much of the traffic that used to take US 9W.The other benefit of conversion was facilitating the development to the west side of the intersection as a conventional 4-leg. More new structures and ramps would have had to be built to accommodate it otherwise. I imagine the PIP took away much of the traffic that was originally on 9W and led to the interchange here.Keep in mind though, that the Palisades is for Passenger Cars Only, whereas US 9W isn't. I can't imagine the Parkway serving as anything else but temporary relief, especially after the cancellation of the Pearl River-Haverstraw Freeway.
On another topic in the same part of Rockland County, has anyone ever considered the Hook Mountain Tunnel as a train watching site?
How many trucks are using 9W anyway, though.The other benefit of conversion was facilitating the development to the west side of the intersection as a conventional 4-leg. More new structures and ramps would have had to be built to accommodate it otherwise. I imagine the PIP took away much of the traffic that was originally on 9W and led to the interchange here.Keep in mind though, that the Palisades is for Passenger Cars Only, whereas US 9W isn't. I can't imagine the Parkway serving as anything else but temporary relief, especially after the cancellation of the Pearl River-Haverstraw Freeway.
On another topic in the same part of Rockland County, has anyone ever considered the Hook Mountain Tunnel as a train watching site?
Anybody who has ever driven on 9W would understand why there so few trucks. The road isn't remotely truck-friendly.Very true. Although places like Haverstraw, West Haverstraw, and Stony Point still need local deliveries.
This concrete structure was part of some viaduct that was connected to the Rochester Subway, which ran from 1927 to 1956. The subway structure crossing the Genesee River is still there. I was there in December 2014.I think you're talking about the Broad St Bridge over the Genesee River...
D263211 - an R5 overhead sign replacement contract - link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263211
Heads up! An old button copy sign about to be discarded: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2526253,-79.0356007,3a,15y,99.91h,88.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEINk3u-OsqHHH2kE0R9ZmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It's old and will be missed. :no:
D263211 - an R5 overhead sign replacement contract - link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263211
Heads up! An old button copy sign about to be discarded: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2526253,-79.0356007,3a,15y,99.91h,88.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEINk3u-OsqHHH2kE0R9ZmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It's old and will be missed. :no:
^^ are the signs on the Thruway near Utica NYSDOT ones? A few do indeed have button copy.
I believe cl94 is referring specifically to Region 5 and the project area referenced by the post. ;-)
^^ are the signs on the Thruway near Utica NYSDOT ones? A few do indeed have button copy.
I believe cl94 is referring specifically to Region 5 and the project area referenced by the post. ;-)
^^ are the signs on the Thruway near Utica NYSDOT ones? A few do indeed have button copy.
I believe cl94 is referring specifically to Region 5 and the project area referenced by the post. ;-)
Correct. I'm referring to the button copy signs under R5 maintenance. One of the 3 is being removed, plus there's one under SUNY jurisdiction. I-990 ramp to I-290 WB and Walden Avenue EB at I-90, plus one in miserable shape on the SUNY Buffalo north campus. Get your pics while you can. I think there are actually more NYSTA button copy signs in R5 now (including the non-reflective one that likely dates from just after the switch to green).
^^ are the signs on the Thruway near Utica NYSDOT ones? A few do indeed have button copy.
^^ are the signs on the Thruway near Utica NYSDOT ones? A few do indeed have button copy.
I believe cl94 is referring specifically to Region 5 and the project area referenced by the post. ;-)
Correct. I'm referring to the button copy signs under R5 maintenance. One of the 3 is being removed, plus there's one under SUNY jurisdiction. I-990 ramp to I-290 WB and Walden Avenue EB at I-90, plus one in miserable shape on the SUNY Buffalo north campus. Get your pics while you can. I think there are actually more NYSTA button copy signs in R5 now (including the non-reflective one that likely dates from just after the switch to green).
What NYSTA sign is that old?
^^ are the signs on the Thruway near Utica NYSDOT ones? A few do indeed have button copy.
I believe cl94 is referring specifically to Region 5 and the project area referenced by the post. ;-)
Correct. I'm referring to the button copy signs under R5 maintenance. One of the 3 is being removed, plus there's one under SUNY jurisdiction. I-990 ramp to I-290 WB and Walden Avenue EB at I-90, plus one in miserable shape on the SUNY Buffalo north campus. Get your pics while you can. I think there are actually more NYSTA button copy signs in R5 now (including the non-reflective one that likely dates from just after the switch to green).
What NYSTA sign is that old?
This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9501533,-78.7624865,3a,42y,259.02h,92.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si8EALwHoGu1QxgeMVwQKPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). It survived a massive sign replacement program that replaced just about every other sign in the area. It's in crappy shape as well. Was there as of mid-March.
^^ are the signs on the Thruway near Utica NYSDOT ones? A few do indeed have button copy.
I believe cl94 is referring specifically to Region 5 and the project area referenced by the post. ;-)
Correct. I'm referring to the button copy signs under R5 maintenance. One of the 3 is being removed, plus there's one under SUNY jurisdiction. I-990 ramp to I-290 WB and Walden Avenue EB at I-90, plus one in miserable shape on the SUNY Buffalo north campus. Get your pics while you can. I think there are actually more NYSTA button copy signs in R5 now (including the non-reflective one that likely dates from just after the switch to green).
What NYSTA sign is that old?
This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9501533,-78.7624865,3a,42y,259.02h,92.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si8EALwHoGu1QxgeMVwQKPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). It survived a massive sign replacement program that replaced just about every other sign in the area. It's in crappy shape as well. Was there as of mid-March.
Okay, this is a new one. I was goofing around in Historic Aerials (http://a.historicaerials.com/?SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&VERSION=1.1.1&LAYERS=1966&STYLES=&FORMAT=image%2Fjpeg&TRANSPARENT=false&HEIGHT=256&WIDTH=256&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&BBOX=-78.826904296875,42.742978093466434,-78.8214111328125,42.74701217318067), and I noticed that in 1966 there was a bridge here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7450025,-78.8249757,3a,75y,176.98h,78.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUbTCQVZWjzHja3BA_Lq98g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), but now there isn't. Considering the fact that I have driven over this grade crossing hundreds, if not thousands of times, I am very surprised that this was the case. Why was it removed?
Okay, this is a new one. I was goofing around in Historic Aerials (http://a.historicaerials.com/?SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&VERSION=1.1.1&LAYERS=1966&STYLES=&FORMAT=image%2Fjpeg&TRANSPARENT=false&HEIGHT=256&WIDTH=256&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&BBOX=-78.826904296875,42.742978093466434,-78.8214111328125,42.74701217318067), and I noticed that in 1966 there was a bridge here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7450025,-78.8249757,3a,75y,176.98h,78.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUbTCQVZWjzHja3BA_Lq98g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), but now there isn't. Considering the fact that I have driven over this grade crossing hundreds, if not thousands of times, I am very surprised that this was the case. Why was it removed?
R5 took out a bunch of grade separations between the late 70s and early 90s. Two very notable ones were over the since-removed spur line serving the quarry east of the airport on NY 33 and NY 78 in Cheektowaga. My guess is that the bridges needed to be replaced and rail traffic did not warrant keeping a grade separation. Around the same time, R5 filled in a bunch of overpasses in Cheektowaga and Depew. There are a couple on Walden Avenue. Most evidence of what was along NY 33 was removed when it was reconstructed.
Okay, this is a new one. I was goofing around in Historic Aerials (http://a.historicaerials.com/?SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&VERSION=1.1.1&LAYERS=1966&STYLES=&FORMAT=image%2Fjpeg&TRANSPARENT=false&HEIGHT=256&WIDTH=256&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&BBOX=-78.826904296875,42.742978093466434,-78.8214111328125,42.74701217318067), and I noticed that in 1966 there was a bridge here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7450025,-78.8249757,3a,75y,176.98h,78.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUbTCQVZWjzHja3BA_Lq98g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), but now there isn't. Considering the fact that I have driven over this grade crossing hundreds, if not thousands of times, I am very surprised that this was the case. Why was it removed?
R5 took out a bunch of grade separations between the late 70s and early 90s. Two very notable ones were over the since-removed spur line serving the quarry east of the airport on NY 33 and NY 78 in Cheektowaga. My guess is that the bridges needed to be replaced and rail traffic did not warrant keeping a grade separation. Around the same time, R5 filled in a bunch of overpasses in Cheektowaga and Depew. There are a couple on Walden Avenue. Most evidence of what was along NY 33 was removed when it was reconstructed.
Now that you mention it, I do vaguely remember a grade crossing on Transit and another on Genesee St. that's long gone, but I can't think of when it was removed.
Another thing I noticed on the aerial was that a similar bridge existed on Ridge Rd in Lackawanna but it was filled under like you described. I always wondered why the road went up a hill for no reason.
Actually I think Maple Rd has one as well. Interesting.
As for the original one, there's not as much traffic on the ex-Erie Buffalo & Southwestern Railroad that still crosses at 62. It serves very little purpose to have a bridge over underused tracks. Now that said, there are still bridges over US 62 for the B&SW toward Gowanda.
Found in the Buffalo NewsInteresting that the Kensington was to be routed down Fillmore rather than Humboldt. Apparently it was easier to get the elms from Humboldt removed than to raze a bunch of homes along Fillmore.
According to the article, the Kensington Expressway was also built to evacuate people in the event of a [nuclear] attack, where over 230k people would die without it.
]
The text only BGSes on NY 252 at the NY 15 interchange in Rochester are being replaced. Sad to see the old signs go.
I don't know where to post that article, it almost go into fictionnal highways territory. Some folks dream of a super-bridge from NJ who span the Hudson river and Manhattan.
http://tollroadsnews.com/news/daily-news-brief-may-24-2016#1
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/05/could_this_futuristic_bridge_across_the_hudson_solve_njs_transit_woes.html
I don't know where to post that article, it almost go into fictionnal highways territory. Some folks dream of a super-bridge from NJ who span the Hudson river and Manhattan.
http://tollroadsnews.com/news/daily-news-brief-may-24-2016#1
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/05/could_this_futuristic_bridge_across_the_hudson_solve_njs_transit_woes.html
What's needed is CAR access from NJ to Long Island. Truck volume is relatively low, and transit volume is also low.I don't know where to post that article, it almost go into fictionnal highways territory. Some folks dream of a super-bridge from NJ who span the Hudson river and Manhattan.
http://tollroadsnews.com/news/daily-news-brief-may-24-2016#1
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/05/could_this_futuristic_bridge_across_the_hudson_solve_njs_transit_woes.html
Just because this wild proposal originated from outside this forum doesn't mean discussion belongs in the factual portions of the board, in my opinion.
No one's going to go for an elevated rail across Manhattan. They took all the Els down for a reason. Even if they could get approvals, which they couldn't, where would the terminal go for all the passengers to get down again and transfer to their subways or buses?
What's needed is CAR access from NJ to Long Island. Truck volume is relatively low, and transit volume is also low.
The Cross-Harbor Tunnel, while expensive, would be an excellent solution- IF intermodal facilities are built in Nassau and/or Suffolk. That would provide an actual replacement for the trucks that must go through the City. I know how backed up that ramp from the Clearview gets, hence why I always take the Cross Island to the Grand Central/Northern State when going out that way. Of course, true intermodal facilities that are able to accept piggyback operation must be built actually on the Island, with the current plan putting a facility in Maspeth.
What's needed is CAR access from NJ to Long Island. Truck volume is relatively low, and transit volume is also low.
It looks like Reg 2 removed that overhead sign project from the list. I couldn't find it, at least. Perhaps new signs should be part of a larger project to renumber 49 to I790?
It looks like Reg 2 removed that overhead sign project from the list. I couldn't find it, at least. Perhaps new signs should be part of a larger project to renumber 49 to I790?
From what I've heard, FHWA won't approve a move unless the grade crossing gets eliminated and it can go all the way to downtown Rome.
It looks like Reg 2 removed that overhead sign project from the list. I couldn't find it, at least. Perhaps new signs should be part of a larger project to renumber 49 to I790?
It looks like Reg 2 removed that overhead sign project from the list. I couldn't find it, at least. Perhaps new signs should be part of a larger project to renumber 49 to I790?
What overhead sign project? There's one currently scheduled for letting later this year. Did a project appear on a list somewhere recently?
What's needed is another way to get off and on Long Island. Every way almost always backs up.
...especially with the massive opposition that existed for the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.
...especially with the massive opposition that existed for the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.
Not enough to kill it, apparently, since it already exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Manhattan_Expressway
...especially with the massive opposition that existed for the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.
Not enough to kill it, apparently, since it already exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Manhattan_Expressway
Yeah, I mixed my names up. I forgot what they were going to call I-495 across 34th Street.
...especially with the massive opposition that existed for the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.
Not enough to kill it, apparently, since it already exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Manhattan_Expressway
Yeah, I mixed my names up. I forgot what they were going to call I-495 across 34th Street.
The Robert Moses Parkway is no more. Say hello to the Niagara Scenic Parkway (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-more-17-million-funding-restore-and-enhance-historic-niagara-falls).
The Robert Moses Parkway is no more. Say hello to the Niagara Scenic Parkway (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-more-17-million-funding-restore-and-enhance-historic-niagara-falls).
To be fair, he already has a Causeway on Long Island/Fire Island.
Any text route button copy signs left in upstate?
Any text route button copy signs left in upstate?
Any text route button copy signs left in upstate?
Yes, but they could've at least made it part of the Lake Ontario State Parkway.The Robert Moses Parkway is no more. Say hello to the Niagara Scenic Parkway (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-more-17-million-funding-restore-and-enhance-historic-niagara-falls).
To be fair, he already has a Causeway on Long Island/Fire Island.
Yes, but they could've at least made it part of the Lake Ontario State Parkway.The Robert Moses Parkway is no more. Say hello to the Niagara Scenic Parkway (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-more-17-million-funding-restore-and-enhance-historic-niagara-falls).
To be fair, he already has a Causeway on Long Island/Fire Island.
It's not going to ever happen, short of democracy being thrown out of the country in favor of an absolutist monarchy.Well, either that or a sudden public acceptance of the benefit of road improvements, instead of the myth of them being a blight upon communities, the cause of all urban decay, dragging down property values, only benefitting the auto industry, big oil, big banks, and all that other nonsense that has been prevalent since the 1960's.
That would be quite a gap.Not if the gap is filled in, like originally intended.
Not if the gap is filled in, like originally intended.That would be quite a gap.To be fair, he already has a Causeway on Long Island/Fire Island.Yes, but they could've at least made it part of the Lake Ontario State Parkway.
Any text route button copy signs left in upstate?
I grabbed this picture in 2013. I don't know if these survive.
(http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20130515/ny69westny5awest.jpg)
Next Weekend Wassaic Branch Substitute Busing June 10-12Anyone have any info on this grade crossing? Is this a repair job, or an elimination?
Next weekend substitute bus service will be provided between Southeast and Wassaic for select trains on Friday evening, June 10, and all trains on Saturday and Sunday June 11 & 12 to accommodate reconstruction work for the Towners Crossing on Route 164.
That project is essentially dead. Heck, there's talk of reducing the portion in Orleans County down to two lanes because it's in bad shape but the AADT is too low to justify spending limited dollars fixing it.That would be quite a gap.Not if the gap is filled in, like originally intended.
On a different topic, I overheard that Region 6 has a FYA now. Where is it? I'm driving through tomorrow and will detour to take a look.What's region 6? They're popping up around Rochester - so stupid. If people aren't intelligent enough to yield on a green light, are they really expected to learn a completely new signal?
I saw one of the new state welcome signs for surface streets today. It's just a green sign with the "New York State of Opportunity" logo on it. NY 43 at the Massachusetts border. Didn't have my camera, unfortunately.
NY 74 at Vermont has one too (brown and white for the Adirondacks). Looks like Region 1 went out and replaced a bunch.
No picture of this one either... I'm really kicking myself, because I even had my camera because I suspected they had replaced the sign, but it slipped my mind when I was there! I can only hope that NY 185 and US 4 have also been replaced (NY 185 was still the old style as of April/May), because the HPMS survey is now my only chance of getting pictures any time soon.
I got a picture of the new-style sign on NY 2 at Petersburgh Pass. I'll upload it later tonight.
I got a picture of the new-style sign on NY 2 at Petersburgh Pass. I'll upload it later tonight.
Sorry about the poor image quality. If you're familiar with where this sign is located, you will know that a) there is no place to safely stop and leave a vehicle to take a picture and b) you get about 3 seconds to take it if going remotely close to the speed limit. As it is on a blind curve, I was not about to slow to a crawl to take a picture.
I miss having the state seal on the signs, but these signs are a lot sharper than the cluttered blue signs NYSDOT and NYSTA have been putting up recently on limited-access highways.
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7316/27171991733_29093e8d72_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Hp6yu6)New-style New York state line sign, NY 2, Petersburgh Pass (https://flic.kr/p/Hp6yu6) by cl94 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/48110267@N04/), on Flickr
Will they be replacing the old ones at every state line entrance?
Alright, another child death along a NYSDOT road: http://wnyt.com/news/road-safety-cohoes-dot-mayor/4174410/?cat=300 . At first glance, it would appear to be similar to the NY 198 mess. However, knowing New York, something should actually be done here, but nothing will be. NY 198 was a limited-access highway where a freak accident prompted immediate reactions from the wealthy neighborhood and state politicians. NY 787 is a surface road and nobody pays attention.
NY 787 has a pedestrian death every couple of years, typically children travelling to or from school. Cohoes has no school buses, so everyone living on the island has to walk across NY 787 to get to school. I disagree that the entire thing should be ripped out, but something needs to be done here, if only a pedestrian bridge is built. But, Cohoes is a poor community and there aren't a bunch of rich people begging to have the thing removed (or have anything done), so I wouldn't be shocked if everything remains exactly as it is today. Pedestrian volumes through there are certainly not low and people fly through.
Must have been misremembering. Just saw a photo someone took including it for the rail inventory (there's a crossing right on top of it) and it is indeed brown and gold. First forgetting to take a picture, then having the color wrong... I must have been REALLY out of it that day!NY 74 at Vermont has one too (brown and white for the Adirondacks). Looks like Region 1 went out and replaced a bunch.
No picture of this one either... I'm really kicking myself, because I even had my camera because I suspected they had replaced the sign, but it slipped my mind when I was there! I can only hope that NY 185 and US 4 have also been replaced (NY 185 was still the old style as of April/May), because the HPMS survey is now my only chance of getting pictures any time soon.
Brown and white? That's new.
As far as brown and white, that is the new color scheme for the Catskills, reference markers and all. Every RM I saw inside the park in R1 was replaced with brown and white, similar to the brown and gold ones in the Adirondacks with one major difference- the top row (route number) is larger. I don't know if that's a one-off or the new standard. R1 and R8 have replaced most of the old signs in the park, so the vast majority of signs are now white on brown and mixed-case with a ]"Catskill Park" banner above every sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9781373,-74.0847942,3a,19.4y,171.14h,85.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6icIYOyv-A-xXlwAteiSvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Spot replacements have been going on for a few years, but the brown and gold is virtually gone other than town-installed signs and Adopt-A-Highway company names.Are you saying the RMs are heading back toward the older standard? Callough callay!
As far as brown and white, that is the new color scheme for the Catskills, reference markers and all. Every RM I saw inside the park in R1 was replaced with brown and white, similar to the brown and gold ones in the Adirondacks with one major difference- the top row (route number) is larger. I don't know if that's a one-off or the new standard. R1 and R8 have replaced most of the old signs in the park, so the vast majority of signs are now white on brown and mixed-case with a ]"Catskill Park" banner above every sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9781373,-74.0847942,3a,19.4y,171.14h,85.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6icIYOyv-A-xXlwAteiSvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Spot replacements have been going on for a few years, but the brown and gold is virtually gone other than town-installed signs and Adopt-A-Highway company names.Are you saying the RMs are heading back toward the older standard? Callough callay!
Will they be replacing the old ones at every state line entrance?
Eventually. The one that was there was button copy and in miserable shape, so it was overdue for replacement. Two of the other ones that were replaced (NY 43 and (I think) NY 7) were button copy as well. NY 74 wasn't, but was certainly old enough to be button copy and in as bad shape, hence why it was replaced. If NY 67 and 313 haven't been replaced yet, I have a hunch they will be by the end of the summer, as they are also button copy. It is worth noting that most of R1's state line signage dated from no later than19951994, as almost all had Mario Cuomo's name covered, so they are certainly due for replacement.
Edit: election was 1994, so that is the latest Cuomo signs would have been installed. May have been earlier depending on when R1 stopped using button copy.
Will they be replacing the old ones at every state line entrance?
Eventually. The one that was there was button copy and in miserable shape, so it was overdue for replacement. Two of the other ones that were replaced (NY 43 and (I think) NY 7) were button copy as well. NY 74 wasn't, but was certainly old enough to be button copy and in as bad shape, hence why it was replaced. If NY 67 and 313 haven't been replaced yet, I have a hunch they will be by the end of the summer, as they are also button copy. It is worth noting that most of R1's state line signage dated from no later than19951994, as almost all had Mario Cuomo's name covered, so they are certainly due for replacement.
Edit: election was 1994, so that is the latest Cuomo signs would have been installed. May have been earlier depending on when R1 stopped using button copy.
NY 67's welcome sign has been replaced with the new style "New York State of Opportunity" welcome sign, as I've referenced over the Northeast Roads group on Facebook. I've also interpreted from others that it's not a statewide mandate, perhaps it's the blue welcome signs seen on the Interstates that are supposed to be used instead.
Something new from NYSDOT (at least in R2). First time I've seen one of these.There's one on in Region 4 for the I-490 bridge replacement over Marsh Road.
(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/built-to-lead.jpg)
Normally, I wouldn't post a mill and fill contract. Except the wording of this contract is a bit...um...intriguing. Also contained within are a bunch of safety upgrades (replacement of W-shape median rail with sturdier box beam rail).
NY 17 from NY 30 to Delaware/Sullivan line (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=12551&p_is_digital=Y). Note how the contract refers to the section as "Future I-86".
The plans do call for I-86 to extend all the way to I-87. Aside from the section from exits 84-87, isn't the entire road already up to Interstate standards?
There's one on in Region 4 for the I-490 bridge replacement over Marsh Road.
Something new from NYSDOT (at least in R2). First time I've seen one of these.There's one on in Region 4 for the I-490 bridge replacement over Marsh Road.
(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/built-to-lead.jpg)
There's one on in Region 4 for the I-490 bridge replacement over Marsh Road.
Can confirm the existence of at least one in Region 11 as well (LIE at GCP). Must be a statewide thing.
Funky color they got on those. That's... not an MUTCD standard shade, is it?
There's one on in Region 4 for the I-490 bridge replacement over Marsh Road.
Can confirm the existence of at least one in Region 11 as well (LIE at GCP). Must be a statewide thing.
Funky color they got on those. That's... not an MUTCD standard shade, is it?
Apparently Governor Cuomo requested that the regions put these up for major projects. The Utica North-South Arterial project is about 3/4 completed at this time, so the sign is a little late in the game. Must be part of the branding push to show that New York State is a state of opportunity and ready to lead.
Something new from NYSDOT (at least in R2). First time I've seen one of these.
(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/built-to-lead.jpg)
I came across the aerial photo of the New York State Fairgrounds near Syracuse. The photo was taken in 1968 and clearly shows that the parking and roadway configurations, what is now Interstate 690, was much different than it is today. Thought some folks might be interested.I remember the split around the fairgrounds at a very young age. I believe that the eastbound lanes were moved next to the westbound lanes around 1973-75 in preparation for what is now NY 695's interchange with I-690. The old eastbound lanes can be seen on current Google car photos (on bridge from NY 695 to I-690 west).
(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/PICT0022.JPG)
(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/PICT0024.JPG)
I suppose we don't need to list all of them, but this one is probably in a different region (not that I know the NYSDOT region numbering scheme or the region boundaries), so I'll mention it. One of these "Built to Lead" signs popped up very recently on NY 30 in Vail Mills.R1, rest area between exits 12 and 11 on I-90 free portion.
There's a pair on I-390 on either side of the upcoming reconstruction in Steuben County, a pair on NY 400 at the NT, and a pair on I-81 at NY 80. Over the past month, they have appeared everywhere.Not really everywhere. Washington ave. ext. doesn't have those. Probably because it is current;y scheduled to be completed in several weeks, maybe because it is taking twice longer than planned.. Or possibly because project is slowly turning clusterf..k...
I came across the aerial photo of the New York State Fairgrounds near Syracuse. The photo was taken in 1968 and clearly shows that the parking and roadway configurations, what is now Interstate 690, was much different than it is today. Thought some folks might be interested.
(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/PICT0022.JPG)
(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/PICT0024.JPG)
Back to the Great Lakes Watershed signs...I saw a Entering Lake Erie Watershed sign, not on a freeway, but on US 20 headed westbound in I believe near Alexander NY (south of Batavia)...but there didn't appear to be a corresponding Lake Ontario Watershed sign in the opposite direction. East of there, everything drains either into Lake Ontario directly, or into the Genesee River...
Surprised Gov. Cuomo has not taken a page from his father (and many other pols) and include his name on the signs.
Since we talk about the 86 construction, something that came to mind and research is coming up with blanks on: Why are exits 22, 88, 91, 95 and 117 missing? There should be answers in state documents but I'm not exactly close to Albany.
Since we talk about the 86 construction, something that came to mind and research is coming up with blanks on: Why are exits 22, 88, 91, 95 and 117 missing? There should be answers in state documents but I'm not exactly close to Albany.
22 is reserved for the US 219 expressway.
Back to the Great Lakes Watershed signs...I saw a Entering Lake Erie Watershed sign, not on a freeway, but on US 20 headed westbound in I believe near Alexander NY (south of Batavia)...but there didn't appear to be a corresponding Lake Ontario Watershed sign in the opposite direction. East of there, everything drains either into Lake Ontario directly, or into the Genesee River...
Lake Erie watershed appears to be mostly signed. I do not recall seeing a sign on NY 60 south of Fredonia. Other than on the Thruway, I have seen no Lake Ontario signs and nothing for anything else
I suppose we don't need to list all of them, but this one is probably in a different region (not that I know the NYSDOT region numbering scheme or the region boundaries), so I'll mention it. One of these "Built to Lead" signs popped up very recently on NY 30 in Vail Mills.
I suppose we don't need to list all of them, but this one is probably in a different region (not that I know the NYSDOT region numbering scheme or the region boundaries), so I'll mention it. One of these "Built to Lead" signs popped up very recently on NY 30 in Vail Mills.
I've seen these signs on I-86 and I-88 recently as well, both for major projects and not quite as major projects.
Also missing are 3 (well, formerly, as NY's numbers are a continuation of PA's and PA exit 3 was exit 2 before the switch to mile-based numbers), 5, and 55 (reserved for an extension of Clemons Center Parkway).
117 was an exit for Tarbell Road. Not sure when it was removed, but Historic Aerials has it disappearing sometime in the 90s or 2000s. I just assumed it was open in 1999 when I did my April Fools Day prank (yes, the NY 17 exit list took a VERY large chunk of the time spend on that).
http://www.nysroads.com/1999/ny17list.php
Also missing are 3 (well, formerly, as NY's numbers are a continuation of PA's and PA exit 3 was exit 2 before the switch to mile-based numbers), 5, and 55 (reserved for an extension of Clemons Center Parkway).
117 was an exit for Tarbell Road. Not sure when it was removed, but Historic Aerials has it disappearing sometime in the 90s or 2000s. I just assumed it was open in 1999 when I did my April Fools Day prank (yes, the NY 17 exit list took a VERY large chunk of the time spend on that).
http://www.nysroads.com/1999/ny17list.php
Now I see why I missed it on HA [117], that's a ramp hard to catch from above.
55 makes sense as well and I see where it would be.
Still leaves 88, 91 and 95. 88 is especially weird because there is an 87A.
Also missing are 3 (well, formerly, as NY's numbers are a continuation of PA's and PA exit 3 was exit 2 before the switch to mile-based numbers), 5, and 55 (reserved for an extension of Clemons Center Parkway).
117 was an exit for Tarbell Road. Not sure when it was removed, but Historic Aerials has it disappearing sometime in the 90s or 2000s. I just assumed it was open in 1999 when I did my April Fools Day prank (yes, the NY 17 exit list took a VERY large chunk of the time spend on that).
http://www.nysroads.com/1999/ny17list.php
Now I see why I missed it on HA [117], that's a ramp hard to catch from above.
55 makes sense as well and I see where it would be.
Still leaves 88, 91 and 95. 88 is especially weird because there is an 87A.
You're forgetting 118A. NY 17M at its western terminus. Removed around the same time as 117. EB exit, WB entrance.
I've gone through numerous aerials and topos and can't find answers for 88, 91 or 95.
On a different topic, I found some pictures of the infamous I-87 grade crossing just south of the Twin Bridges. This page has them (http://gino.cdfw.net/_railpage/TandS/northway.html). Similar to the NY 49 and US 4 expressway grade crossings, it has signals and crossbucks, but no gates.
Back to the signs: there's at least one at the circle stack for the South Mall bridge rehab.
I noticed new "ENTERING Lake Ontario Watershed" sign on I-90 (NYS Thruway) WB just east of the NY Route 26 overpass in Oneida County, Town of Westmoreland. The sign is identical to the sign EB out by Batavia (FHWA fonts and all that) but the supports are not nearly as sturdy.
There was no watershed sign in the EB sign at that location as far as I could see.
This might be a trivial question, but I've always wondered, why is New Armour Road in Orchard Park built like a bypass?Because those on the existing Armor-Duells Crs Rd didn't want all the traffic headed to NY 240 (many skiers) or Chestnut Ridge Park.
No pics, but I-86 was signed from exit 67 west to the Broome County line over the past week. This corresponds with new To 86 signs being mounted throughout the Binghamton area. The majority of on-ramps have a supplemental TO banner temporarily mounted to the I-86 shields. However, the new I-86 assemblies posted on the highway in Vestal do not have this. They are on signposts above NY-17 shields.
No pics, but I-86 was signed from exit 67 west to the Broome County line over the past week. This corresponds with new To 86 signs being mounted throughout the Binghamton area. The majority of on-ramps have a supplemental TO banner temporarily mounted to the I-86 shields. However, the new I-86 assemblies posted on the highway in Vestal do not have this. They are on signposts above NY-17 shields.
So they removed the NY 17 shields that were covering them. They've been up for years under NY 17 shields throughout the entirety of Region 9 minus the immediate Hale Eddy area and around Prospect Mountain.
I noticed new "ENTERING Lake Ontario Watershed" sign on I-90 (NYS Thruway) WB just east of the NY Route 26 overpass in Oneida County, Town of Westmoreland. The sign is identical to the sign EB out by Batavia (FHWA fonts and all that) but the supports are not nearly as sturdy.And a very similar "Lake Erie watershed" is further down the WB road.
There was no watershed sign in the EB sign at that location as far as I could see.
While it's been some time since I've drove around in circles in Malta, NY until I puked (seriously, there's more roundabouts than traffic lights in that town), I drove around the Luther Forest area of Malta (over where Global Foundries is located) after my walk this evening. Previously unbeknownst to me are four new Saratoga County routes that have been recently posted (not on the NYSDOT logs yet). They are...
CR 72 is Hundred Acre Woods Way
CR 73 is Rocket Drive
CR 77 is Stone Break Road / Stone Break Extension
CR 78 is Luther Forest Boulevard
While it's been some time since I've drove around in circles in Malta, NY until I puked (seriously, there's more roundabouts than traffic lights in that town), I drove around the Luther Forest area of Malta (over where Global Foundries is located) after my walk this evening. Previously unbeknownst to me are four new Saratoga County routes that have been recently posted (not on the NYSDOT logs yet). They are...
CR 72 is Hundred Acre Woods Way
CR 73 is Rocket Drive
CR 77 is Stone Break Road / Stone Break Extension
CR 78 is Luther Forest Boulevard
Didn't know those were county routes. I was up that way a couple months ago and they were certainly not posted. Also didn't realize that Saratoga County left room in their numbering scheme for extra routes given the presence of the scattered 100-series routes.
I think that Saratoga County has unused county route numbers reserved throughout the county. There's certainly quite a few unused numbers between 1-100.
Although the new bridge is getting more lanes than the existing bridge, is there room to add additional lanes to the bridge's approaches?
Although the new bridge is getting more lanes than the existing bridge, is there room to add additional lanes to the bridge's approaches?Right now you have quite a bit of merge heading westbound. That'll be cleared up. Eastbound you get the lane added from the surface streets, and it carries through to the LIE. There will be a lot better lane balance.
Although the new bridge is getting more lanes than the existing bridge, is there room to add additional lanes to the bridge's approaches?Right now you have quite a bit of merge heading westbound. That'll be cleared up. Eastbound you get the lane added from the surface streets, and it carries through to the LIE. There will be a lot better lane balance.
Cor, I don't remember, I only designed the damn thing. :-D One of the directions has a 2-lane through route and 3-lane C-D road but I could swear that was eastbound - which is the bridge that is being built now and will open right away. The future westbound bridge, not part of the current contract (they are going to wait to see how traffic does and then see if they can fund it), will be the 4 laner.Although the new bridge is getting more lanes than the existing bridge, is there room to add additional lanes to the bridge's approaches?Right now you have quite a bit of merge heading westbound. That'll be cleared up. Eastbound you get the lane added from the surface streets, and it carries through to the LIE. There will be a lot better lane balance.
Isn't it going to be 5 WB and 4 EB? That changes the 3 -> 1 merge from the LIE to a weave, which, while tighter than it could be, will do wonders for preventing the 24/7 backup on the WB side of the bridge.
More state line signage being placed -
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-notices
D263278, D263279, D263280, and D263281 in each supplemental information link has the updated state line sign (white on blue) with I (heart) NY app information, and what looks to be a new independent sign for NY Parks, stating "New York Outdoor Recreation" (in all caps)
Also, "New York" in mixed case Raavi Bold.
NYSTA added another one of those things these south of Exit 23. Again, I don't know why.
NYSTA added another one of those things these south of Exit 23. Again, I don't know why.
I've been on the Thruway a lot in the last few weeks, and each time there seems to be a new collection of these things popping up. I don't think the ones in the Syracuse area were there a few weeks ago, and were this week.
Yeah every time o get on the Thruway now around Buffalo they're all over the place. There are smaller versions of signs that don't really tell drivers much and act almost as billboards for the governor's pet projects like the wine country stuff and TasteNY™...
I've seen a bunch of blue signs advertizing I love NY app. No information at all.Yeah every time o get on the Thruway now around Buffalo they're all over the place. There are smaller versions of signs that don't really tell drivers much and act almost as billboards for the governor's pet projects like the wine country stuff and TasteNY™...
I completely agree that these are nothing more than legislated billboards mounted close to the road. Frivolous waste.
Whatever happened to...I'd love it if the governor's name was still on it. It'd be even better with button copy.
Welcome to
NEW YORK
The Empire State
Not "jazzy" enough? Boring?
It would look good on a blue sign.
Leave the apps and websites for the rest areas and service areas. The old welcome signs have to be better than this.
IMO if the Thruway is signing all this stuff they can sign county line signs. Seriously. They're proving themselves to be hypocrites with every single one of these signs they erect. Does I <3 NY use county names? Because it would be really ironic if they did.problem is that county lines may be somewhat useful. Sign needs to be completely useless to get admitted to Thruway mainline.
IMO if the Thruway is signing all this stuff they can sign county line signs. Seriously. They're proving themselves to be hypocrites with every single one of these signs they erect. Does I <3 NY use county names? Because it would be really ironic if they did.problem is that county lines may be somewhat useful. Sign needs to be completely useless to get admitted to Thruway mainline.
Every watershed, every Erie canal crossing...IMO if the Thruway is signing all this stuff they can sign county line signs. Seriously. They're proving themselves to be hypocrites with every single one of these signs they erect. Does I <3 NY use county names? Because it would be really ironic if they did.problem is that county lines may be somewhat useful. Sign needs to be completely useless to get admitted to Thruway mainline.
Let's see, every state line, every airport, every major city...
Funny, that looks more like a "Path Through History" sign with the app ad on the bottom to me. They have these at any sites where they have something historic.I've seen a bunch of blue signs advertizing I love NY app. No information at all.Yeah every time o get on the Thruway now around Buffalo they're all over the place. There are smaller versions of signs that don't really tell drivers much and act almost as billboards for the governor's pet projects like the wine country stuff and TasteNY™...
I completely agree that these are nothing more than legislated billboards mounted close to the road. Frivolous waste.
SOmething like this:
(http://tbrnewsmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/pjsigns2_petroski_071516w-300x200.jpg)
That one is at the state line. The one on the LIE west of Riverhead that I saw an hour ago isn't. Region 10 is also signing the Peconic River, LI Sound, and "South Shore" watersheds along the LIE.Partial inventory of Ugly Blue Signs on Thruway:
Update: at least 4 more before exit 25.
Thruway version. It looks very faded even though the sign is brand new.Are these the signs that seem to be popping up like dandelions all along the Thruway or are they more like welcome signs that would be at state lines? If they are like this, then I could see one on each side of one of the cities the Thruway passes (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Albany, Kingston, Newburgh, and each side of the Tappan Zee).
(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/thruway-experience.jpg)
WHO puts them up? Where are the plans? It seems like whenever we hear about signs going up there are at least plans publicly available, contracts, etc...Well, some changes seem to fly under the radar. For example, certain arterial in Albany had speed limit lowered from 45 to 30 this Friday - and I don't think there was any word of that until news were published Thursday evening.
Update: at least 4 more before exit 25.
I mentioned the ones EB approaching 25, but noticed later that there's also a complete set WB approaching 25.
Well, some changes seem to fly under the radar. For example, certain arterial in Albany had speed limit lowered from 45 to 30 this Friday - and I don't think there was any word of that until news were published Thursday evening.That one surprised me. Normally there's warning as the press will report on when the municipality goes to NYSDOT for a speed study. There was no news on anything until the change happened, making me wonder if such a study was ever done (plus is an obvious arterial, not much city-style development, and they seem to think that going 30 through the expanse of nothing near the state office campus won't be painful... how was this approved?).
I'm planning on going to Toronto next year and so I'm gonna check out some things on the way there. Notably, the US 219 construction project. Was that project killed, just like I-86, or is it on life support? I'll see whatever they've done in 2017, and check out I-86 (between exits 14 and 21).
Also, I'll see the overkill welcome signage, since I'll use the Thruway between exits 55 and 53.
At least the Thruway signs are noticeably different from the welcome signs, so it's not as bad as I feared. I guess we can now say that the majority of the "WTF?" factor is in Regions 10 and 11. As for the JFK Expressway, that's because of the airport.
Yikes on how it's faded though. The shields on the mile markers on I-87 in Warren County are faded too. I wonder if a few batches of blue paint were defective?Well, some changes seem to fly under the radar. For example, certain arterial in Albany had speed limit lowered from 45 to 30 this Friday - and I don't think there was any word of that until news were published Thursday evening.That one surprised me. Normally there's warning as the press will report on when the municipality goes to NYSDOT for a speed study. There was no news on anything until the change happened, making me wonder if such a study was ever done (plus is an obvious arterial, not much city-style development, and they seem to think that going 30 through the expanse of nothing near the state office campus won't be painful... how was this approved?).
I'm planning on going to Toronto next year and so I'm gonna check out some things on the way there. Notably, the US 219 construction project. Was that project killed, just like I-86, or is it on life support? I'll see whatever they've done in 2017, and check out I-86 (between exits 14 and 21).
Also, I'll see the overkill welcome signage, since I'll use the Thruway between exits 55 and 53.
It's basically on hiatus/life support, certainly not dead though. Every few months a story pops up in the news about how they (interest groups) are looking to see if Cuomo will put in funding in the budget, but it doesn't happen. I can't think of when it will be built, but it needs to be.
Edit: a little research shows that a study was reportedly approved by NYSDOT last month... anyone here can verify that? Interesting if true.
Yeah every time o get on the Thruway now around Buffalo they're all over the place. There are smaller versions of signs that don't really tell drivers much and act almost as billboards for the governor's pet projects like the wine country stuff and TasteNY™...
I'm planning on going to Toronto next year and so I'm gonna check out some things on the way there. Notably, the US 219 construction project. Was that project killed, just like I-86, or is it on life support? I'll see whatever they've done in 2017, and check out I-86 (between exits 14 and 21).
Also, I'll see the overkill welcome signage, since I'll use the Thruway between exits 55 and 53.
It's basically on hiatus/life support, certainly not dead though. Every few months a story pops up in the news about how they (interest groups) are looking to see if Cuomo will put in funding in the budget, but it doesn't happen. I can't think of when it will be built, but it needs to be.
Edit: a little research shows that a study was reportedly approved by NYSDOT last month... anyone here can verify that? Interesting if true.
It'd be nice if they could get it built to Ellicottville (my family usually goes skiing at Holiday Valley for Family Day/President's Day weekend) :)
Have noticed that the recent I <3 NY television ads have started mentioning the app. They also show a scene of one of these blue signs next to a roadway that I'm pretty sure is fake.
\ installation.Honestly speaking, they don't look actually faded to me, more like designed or fabricated with a strange background. I actually thought that was intentional.
The first of the series of signs is the only faded one and it's faded in both directions just east of Exit 34A. There are sign post mounts between exits 31 and 32, I'll take a look to see of those signs are faded as well once they're installed. The other signs in the series are the normal services blue color.
NY 198 is a state highway that was ordered to 30 by Cuomo in the immediate aftermath of an event that proved to be an excellent means for those who never wanted the freeway in the first place to steamroll over all opposition. Washington Ave is not on the state highway system (just a city arterial), and I'm not aware of any specific issue with it; it would appear to simply be a victim of the dislike many Capital District municipalities (as well as the local MPO) have for automobiles.That one surprised me. Normally there's warning as the press will report on when the municipality goes to NYSDOT for a speed study. There was no news on anything until the change happened, making me wonder if such a study was ever done (plus is an obvious arterial, not much city-style development, and they seem to think that going 30 through the expanse of nothing near the state office campus won't be painful... how was this approved?).
Sounds like NY 198.
NY 198 is a state highway that was ordered to 30 by Cuomo in the immediate aftermath of an event that proved to be an excellent means for those who never wanted the freeway in the first place to steamroll over all opposition. Washington Ave is not on the state highway system (just a city arterial), and I'm not aware of any specific issue with it; it would appear to simply be a victim of the dislike many Capital District municipalities (as well as the local MPO) have for automobiles.That one surprised me. Normally there's warning as the press will report on when the municipality goes to NYSDOT for a speed study. There was no news on anything until the change happened, making me wonder if such a study was ever done (plus is an obvious arterial, not much city-style development, and they seem to think that going 30 through the expanse of nothing near the state office campus won't be painful... how was this approved?).
Sounds like NY 198.
if theyre in college, they should be smart enough to know how to cross a street without getting killed.
Washington Ave is not on the state highway system (just a city arterial), and I'm not aware of any specific issue with it; it would appear to simply be a victim of the dislike many Capital District municipalities (as well as the local MPO) have for automobiles.
if theyre in college, they should be smart enough to know how to cross a street without getting killed.Come on, even if Monday to 5 PM Friday they are students, Friday night to Sunday they are primarily party-goers...
Most of the 55 stretch is still intact (it drops to 45 a little earlier EB now)
if theyre in college, they should be smart enough to know how to cross a street without getting killed.
With how people drive on that stretch, I agree with the lowering. It was lowered east of Exit 2. Quite a few people running red lights and making rolling rights on red. I would have lowered it to 35, but 45 is too high for the stretch. Most of the 55 stretch is still intact (it drops to 45 a little earlier EB now)Washington Ave is not on the state highway system (just a city arterial), and I'm not aware of any specific issue with it; it would appear to simply be a victim of the dislike many Capital District municipalities (as well as the local MPO) have for automobiles.
After living in Erie County, I call BS. Roads through farmland out there are 35-40. Good luck finding 55 for much on the surface. How much of US 9 is 55, even in pretty developed areas? Other than Grooms Rd-NY 146, Malta and Saratoga Springs, virtually everything from Latham to South Glens Falls is 55.
This one was up on Tuesday afternoon, on I-84 West, town of Southeast, Putnam County:
(http://i.imgur.com/0SiX0FZ.jpg)
how strict is the speed limit enforced tho? traffic is probably going the exact speed of the previous limit.Constant police presence is advertised.
if theyre in college, they should be smart enough to know how to cross a street without getting killed.
With how people drive on that stretch, I agree with the lowering. It was lowered east of Exit 2. Quite a few people running red lights and making rolling rights on red. I would have lowered it to 35, but 45 is too high for the stretch. Most of the 55 stretch is still intact (it drops to 45 a little earlier EB now)Washington Ave is not on the state highway system (just a city arterial), and I'm not aware of any specific issue with it; it would appear to simply be a victim of the dislike many Capital District municipalities (as well as the local MPO) have for automobiles.
After living in Erie County, I call BS. Roads through farmland out there are 35-40. Good luck finding 55 for much on the surface. How much of US 9 is 55, even in pretty developed areas? Other than Grooms Rd-NY 146, Malta and Saratoga Springs, virtually everything from Latham to South Glens Falls is 55.
Many of the narrow farm roads in Clarence/Akron are probably 35/40, even though I stupidly thought that if a speed limit wasn't marked on such a road it just defaults to the state speed limit of 55. Or maybe it still does?
how strict is the speed limit enforced tho? traffic is probably going the exact speed of the previous limit.Constant police presence is advertised.
Given that city of Albany is deep in red, I expect quite a few speeding tickets (later reduced to non-moving violations payable to the city) will be issued. Then there will be plenty of complains that city spending on officer overtime is out of control. Business as usual.
Let's put it this way: if the director of CDTC had his way, Wolf Road would have the speed limit reduced to 25, and a road diet would be done through the entire corridor, including around Colonie Center. Many of the municipalities were horrified that people got tickets for jaywalking on Central Avenue recently. The differences between Region 1 and CDTC are like night and day (personal opinion emphasized).Washington Ave is not on the state highway system (just a city arterial), and I'm not aware of any specific issue with it; it would appear to simply be a victim of the dislike many Capital District municipalities (as well as the local MPO) have for automobiles.
After living in Erie County, I call BS. Roads through farmland out there are 35-40. Good luck finding 55 for much on the surface. How much of US 9 is 55, even in pretty developed areas? Other than Grooms Rd-NY 146, Malta and Saratoga Springs, virtually everything from Latham to South Glens Falls is 55.
I've never been a fan of the "let's make it 30 because it's in a city and we don't want to teach pedestrians how to use a crosswalk" argument. IMO it's absurd that the stretch of road I linked to and Lark Street will have the same speed limit despite being very different in terms of roadway character. It just teaches people that speed limits are about politicians scoring political points and not about safety.
In any case, driving along this stretch (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6823821,-73.8076351,3a,75y,308.62h,86.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZ7AwxEi0GITL3xJB_QvazQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DZ7AwxEi0GITL3xJB_QvazQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D358.68066%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656) will feel painful.
I've never been a fan of the "let's make it 30 because it's in a city and we don't want to teach pedestrians how to use a crosswalk" argument. IMO it's absurd that the stretch of road I linked to and Lark Street will have the same speed limit despite being very different in terms of roadway character. It just teaches people that speed limits are about politicians scoring political points and not about safety.
NYSDOT just released a new batch of plans and this one is HUUUUUUUUUUGE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXRaboSo70A). Region 5 will be installing their first FYA at the intersection of NY 78 and Tonawanda Creek Rd in Amherst. It will be a 3-section permissive-only. Plans are here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=12961&p_is_digital=Y).
NYSDOT just released a new batch of plans and this one is HUUUUUUUUUUGE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXRaboSo70A). Region 5 will be installing their first FYA at the intersection of NY 78 and Tonawanda Creek Rd in Amherst. It will be a 3-section permissive-only. Plans are here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=12961&p_is_digital=Y).
NYSDOT just released a new batch of plans and this one is HUUUUUUUUUUGE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXRaboSo70A). Region 5 will be installing their first FYA at the intersection of NY 78 and Tonawanda Creek Rd in Amherst. It will be a 3-section permissive-only. Plans are here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=12961&p_is_digital=Y).
Appropriately linked video. I'll have to check that junction out soon, pretty sure I haven't seen an FYA in person yet.
Edit: IIRC that's an unsignalized intersection that definitely needs a signal.
That one is at the state line. The one on the LIE west of Riverhead that I saw an hour ago isn't. Region 10 is also signing the Peconic River, LI Sound, and "South Shore" watersheds along the LIE.I saw those types of signs when I was up north in June. The closest the LIE comes to the South Shore is in places like Medford. Granted, there are protected areas near the headwaters of the Connetquot River near Exit 58, and the Carmans River crosses under the LIE between Exits 67 and 68. In any case, it's obvious the whole idea is to push tourism in the state. Now if they could only build and rebuild the roads so that they could handle all those tourists, that'd be a really decent favor.
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.
The signs went up a month or two ago. Money grab.
What's next? "This interchange sponsored by State Farm"?HELP truck sponsored by State Farm? Oh, wait..
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.
That's depressing. Wait until all bridges are sponsored by Pepsi.
I am thinking that I can live with a Geico sign at the rest area if some of the cost of its maintenance is paid for by Geico instead of my tax dollars.I think that exact thought helped me to switch away from Geico last year - after dealing with them for 10+ years... 20% bill hike with no apparent reason was another factor... I mean, now the reason is fairly apparent..
I am thinking that I can live with a Geico sign at the rest area if some of the cost of its maintenance is paid for by Geico instead of my tax dollars.I think that exact thought helped me to switch away from Geico last year - after dealing with them for 10+ years... 20% bill hike with no apparent reason was another factor... I mean, now the reason is fairly apparent..
I am thinking that I can live with a Geico sign at the rest area if some of the cost of its maintenance is paid for by Geico instead of my tax dollars.I think that exact thought helped me to switch away from Geico last year - after dealing with them for 10+ years... 20% bill hike with no apparent reason was another factor... I mean, now the reason is fairly apparent..
For a company that does a massive amount of advertising like Geico, the cost of a rest area "sponsorship" must be a drop in the bucket.
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.
That's depressing. Wait until all bridges are sponsored by Pepsi.
Twin Spans will be Left Twix vs Right Twix... (Up for debate on if the L/R branding changes based on travel direction)
HELP truck sponsored by State Farm? Oh, wait..Were there even HELP trucks before State Farm started operating them? My impression was they were a service State Farm decided to do and got NYSDOT to put signs on the roads for.
I am thinking that I can live with a Geico sign at the rest area if some of the cost of its maintenance is paid for by Geico instead of my tax dollars.I think that exact thought helped me to switch away from Geico last year - after dealing with them for 10+ years... 20% bill hike with no apparent reason was another factor... I mean, now the reason is fairly apparent..
For a company that does a massive amount of advertising like Geico, the cost of a rest area "sponsorship" must be a drop in the bucket.
HELP truck sponsored by State Farm? Oh, wait..Were there even HELP trucks before State Farm started operating them? My impression was they were a service State Farm decided to do and got NYSDOT to put signs on the roads for.
What's next? "This interchange sponsored by State Farm"?
From around 2010-ish, of the 4 biggest personal auto insurers (State Farm, Allstate, GEICO, Progressive - in that order), GEICO outspent the other 3 combined in ads. Insane given how much especially Progressive spends, and amazing they spend so much to be 3rd and 4th.
Harley-Davidson sales event sponsored by County General Hospital Emergency Department :ded:What's next? "This interchange sponsored by State Farm"?
Or "sponsored by County General Hospital Emergency Department"
HELP truck sponsored by State Farm? Oh, wait..Were there even HELP trucks before State Farm started operating them? My impression was they were a service State Farm decided to do and got NYSDOT to put signs on the roads for.
Thruway version. It looks very faded even though the sign is brand new.
(http://upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/thruway-experience.jpg)
The ones NB heading into 23 are also all interleaved with other signs in a stretch that probably had too many signs in too short a distance already.
4 sets on thruway near Utica - before and after, east and westbound. Actually some of those were in progress around 11 AM today.
Someone must feel those are really high priority to have crews doing installation on weekend... I wonder who foots the bill - state or NYSTA?
Installation before exit 25 eastbound is real nice with ugly blue squeezed between bunch of real signs. Almost qualifies for a salad - especially nice with that "lane ends in 1 mile" clusterfuck.
I wonder if engineering got to sign those off, or nobody cares anyway?
4 sets on thruway near Utica - before and after, east and westbound. Actually some of those were in progress around 11 AM today.
Someone must feel those are really high priority to have crews doing installation on weekend... I wonder who foots the bill - state or NYSTA?
Installation before exit 25 eastbound is real nice with ugly blue squeezed between bunch of real signs. Almost qualifies for a salad - especially nice with that "lane ends in 1 mile" clusterfuck.
I wonder if engineering got to sign those off, or nobody cares anyway?
Apparently Cuomo wanted the signs up yesterday so whoever is paying for these signs authorized overtime, whatever, to get them up as soon as possible. I know the bigger of the signs are $2500 in materials.
PennDOT is even worse with this. There's so many dumb safety corridor signs that aren't even enforced that sometimes, the useful signs gets stolen and is never put back up. This has happened on their INTERSTATES.4 sets on thruway near Utica - before and after, east and westbound. Actually some of those were in progress around 11 AM today.
Someone must feel those are really high priority to have crews doing installation on weekend... I wonder who foots the bill - state or NYSTA?
Installation before exit 25 eastbound is real nice with ugly blue squeezed between bunch of real signs. Almost qualifies for a salad - especially nice with that "lane ends in 1 mile" clusterfuck.
I wonder if engineering got to sign those off, or nobody cares anyway?
Apparently Cuomo wanted the signs up yesterday so whoever is paying for these signs authorized overtime, whatever, to get them up as soon as possible. I know the bigger of the signs are $2500 in materials.
Yet they can't put up county line signs? Flipping ridiculous.
4 sets on thruway near Utica - before and after, east and westbound. Actually some of those were in progress around 11 AM today.
Someone must feel those are really high priority to have crews doing installation on weekend... I wonder who foots the bill - state or NYSTA?
Installation before exit 25 eastbound is real nice with ugly blue squeezed between bunch of real signs. Almost qualifies for a salad - especially nice with that "lane ends in 1 mile" clusterfuck.
I wonder if engineering got to sign those off, or nobody cares anyway?
Apparently Cuomo wanted the signs up yesterday so whoever is paying for these signs authorized overtime, whatever, to get them up as soon as possible. I know the bigger of the signs are $2500 in materials.
Yet they can't put up county line signs? Flipping ridiculous.
Wasn't FHWA complaining about the welcome signs a while ago? If anything, these are worse. You'd think they'd be threatening to revoke NY's highway money (or have done so already).
Standard:
32 Except for signs that are intended to be viewed only by pedestrians, bicyclists stopped out of the flow of traffic, or occupants of parked vehicles, Internet and e-mail addresses, including domain names and uniform resource locators (URL), shall not be displayed on any community wayfinding guide sign or sign assembly.
Wasn't FHWA complaining about the welcome signs a while ago? If anything, these are worse. You'd think they'd be threatening to revoke NY's highway money (or have done so already).At least thruway is not getting federal funds, as far as I remember. toll bridge across Hudson - probably the same.
Wasn't FHWA complaining about the welcome signs a while ago? If anything, these are worse. You'd think they'd be threatening to revoke NY's highway money (or have done so already).At least thruway is not getting federal funds, as far as I remember. toll bridge across Hudson - probably the same.
In fact, I don't see I-84, 86 and 81 mentioned here. I also believe there was nothing on Northway (yet?). Maybe this is sort of working around MUTCD scope?
I thought FHWA issued an update - perhaps unofficial - relaxing the mandate about URLs and phone numbers, given how connected everyone is and the ability for passengers to visit sites.Wasn't FHWA complaining about the welcome signs a while ago? If anything, these are worse. You'd think they'd be threatening to revoke NY's highway money (or have done so already).
I was thinking that. I might send the head office an email quoting the section of the MUTCD banning URLs and their explanation. Per Section 2D.50 (community wayfinding signs):QuoteStandard:
32 Except for signs that are intended to be viewed only by pedestrians, bicyclists stopped out of the flow of traffic, or occupants of parked vehicles, Internet and e-mail addresses, including domain names and uniform resource locators (URL), shall not be displayed on any community wayfinding guide sign or sign assembly.
I thought FHWA issued an update - perhaps unofficial - relaxing the mandate about URLs and phone numbers, given how connected everyone is and the ability for passengers to visit sites.Wasn't FHWA complaining about the welcome signs a while ago? If anything, these are worse. You'd think they'd be threatening to revoke NY's highway money (or have done so already).
I was thinking that. I might send the head office an email quoting the section of the MUTCD banning URLs and their explanation. Per Section 2D.50 (community wayfinding signs):QuoteStandard:
32 Except for signs that are intended to be viewed only by pedestrians, bicyclists stopped out of the flow of traffic, or occupants of parked vehicles, Internet and e-mail addresses, including domain names and uniform resource locators (URL), shall not be displayed on any community wayfinding guide sign or sign assembly.
4 sets on thruway near Utica - before and after, east and westbound. Actually some of those were in progress around 11 AM today.
Someone must feel those are really high priority to have crews doing installation on weekend... I wonder who foots the bill - state or NYSTA?
Installation before exit 25 eastbound is real nice with ugly blue squeezed between bunch of real signs. Almost qualifies for a salad - especially nice with that "lane ends in 1 mile" clusterfuck.
I wonder if engineering got to sign those off, or nobody cares anyway?
Apparently Cuomo wanted the signs up yesterday so whoever is paying for these signs authorized overtime, whatever, to get them up as soon as possible. I know the bigger of the signs are $2500 in materials.
Yet they can't put up county line signs? Flipping ridiculous.
HELP truck sponsored by State Farm? Oh, wait..Were there even HELP trucks before State Farm started operating them? My impression was they were a service State Farm decided to do and got NYSDOT to put signs on the roads for.
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.So are the toll booths on the Suncoast Parkway. This sort of thing doesn't just happen in New York.
Welcome to New York--signs every 1000 feet. :-/
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.
Interesting thing I notice today: all the rest areas and parking areas on the Northway now say they're sponsored by Geico.
The state line and Preble rest areas on I-81 N now feature stand-alone signs indicating Geico's Sponsorship. At least at Preble, I saw no reference to Geico at the area itself.
Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?
Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?The "Text Stop" thing is an attempt to get drivers to pull over rather than text and drive. I saw that at the Brewster and Bedford rest areas on I-684 in June, and for the past few years I've heard of Region 10 using the old pay phone stops in the interchanges along the Southern State/Heckscher State Parkway for text stops.
Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?The "Text Stop" thing is an attempt to get drivers to pull over rather than text and drive. I saw that at the Brewster and Bedford rest areas on I-684 in June, and for the past few years I've heard of Region 10 using the old pay phone stops in the interchanges along the Southern State/Heckscher State Parkway for text stops.
Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?The "Text Stop" thing is an attempt to get drivers to pull over rather than text and drive. I saw that at the Brewster and Bedford rest areas on I-684 in June, and for the past few years I've heard of Region 10 using the old pay phone stops in the interchanges along the Southern State/Heckscher State Parkway for text stops.
Unless you post it literally every 2000 feet with different companies, then I think that's a problem. I keep seeing them so often and it's always a different company that they don't make sense anymore.Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?
What is wrong with "Adopt-A-Highway"? I thought it was supposed to allow companies or groups to clean up litter a few times a years from whatever road is "adopted" by that respective group.
So why not call it "Rest Area", or as the PTC likes to say "Emergency Stopping Area"?Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?The "Text Stop" thing is an attempt to get drivers to pull over rather than text and drive. I saw that at the Brewster and Bedford rest areas on I-684 in June, and for the past few years I've heard of Region 10 using the old pay phone stops in the interchanges along the Southern State/Heckscher State Parkway for text stops.
Almost every limited-access highway rest and parking area in the state has been rebranded as a "text stop". A couple "parking areas" still exist on I-87 north of Queensbury, but that's about it. Surface roads have not been rebranded.
Unless you post it literally every 2000 feet with different companies, then I think that's a problem. I keep seeing them so often and it's always a different company that they don't make sense anymore.Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?
What is wrong with "Adopt-A-Highway"? I thought it was supposed to allow companies or groups to clean up litter a few times a years from whatever road is "adopted" by that respective group.
I want to know why creating the rest area requires closing the parking area on the other side. Or why residents care about trucks parking at a HIGHWAY rest area that isn't connected to the local streets at all, or why NY banned trucks at the rest area rather than tell the NIMBYS to shut up.Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?The "Text Stop" thing is an attempt to get drivers to pull over rather than text and drive. I saw that at the Brewster and Bedford rest areas on I-684 in June, and for the past few years I've heard of Region 10 using the old pay phone stops in the interchanges along the Southern State/Heckscher State Parkway for text stops.
I dont recall very many of those on the Southern State, the only one I know of is Eastbound at the Route 110 exit. Northern State has a bunch of old pay phone stops, they arent marked as a place to pull over and text but theyre a handy spot to do that. I wish they kept open the text stop on the LIE westbound by Exit 53 but that was Governor Cuomo's big idea to close both sides and make it impossible to find parking for trucks. My friend is a truck driver and he says he HATES coming down to Long Island for deliveries.
I wouldn't call it "free" advertising... remember, they're picking up the trash along the road.
Also: rest areas/parking areas still exist in NY. They just have the "text stop" banner added to the signs, so I wouldn't call it a rebranding. Even the Geico signs say "rest area" or "parking area", not "text stop".I want to know why creating the rest area requires closing the parking area on the other side. Or why residents care about trucks parking at a HIGHWAY rest area that isn't connected to the local streets at all, or why NY banned trucks at the rest area rather than tell the NIMBYS to shut up.Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?The "Text Stop" thing is an attempt to get drivers to pull over rather than text and drive. I saw that at the Brewster and Bedford rest areas on I-684 in June, and for the past few years I've heard of Region 10 using the old pay phone stops in the interchanges along the Southern State/Heckscher State Parkway for text stops.
I dont recall very many of those on the Southern State, the only one I know of is Eastbound at the Route 110 exit. Northern State has a bunch of old pay phone stops, they arent marked as a place to pull over and text but theyre a handy spot to do that. I wish they kept open the text stop on the LIE westbound by Exit 53 but that was Governor Cuomo's big idea to close both sides and make it impossible to find parking for trucks. My friend is a truck driver and he says he HATES coming down to Long Island for deliveries.
Another set of Cuomo signs was put up on the west side of the Mid-Hudson Bridge in both directions. Again, a bridge mainly used by locals.
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
I dont recall very many of those on the Southern State, the only one I know of is Eastbound at the Route 110 exit.I'm pretty sure they have them at places like Exit 41 N-S (Suffolk CR 57) and Exit 42 (Suffolk CR 13). I don't remember if they've been transformed into text stop areas or not, but I still remember talk of converting them into those places.
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.
No, it's because the signals control the crosswalk. The cross street is one way EB and Buffalo doesn't like installing pedestrian heads.
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.
No, it's because the signals control the crosswalk. The cross street is one way EB and Buffalo doesn't like installing pedestrian heads.
Those signal heads are from the 80s though, no?
There's no way those signals are for the crosswalk. They're far too high and close to the sidewalk to be visible.Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.
No, it's because the signals control the crosswalk. The cross street is one way EB and Buffalo doesn't like installing pedestrian heads.
There's no way those signals are for the crosswalk. They're far too high and close to the sidewalk to be visible.Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.
No, it's because the signals control the crosswalk. The cross street is one way EB and Buffalo doesn't like installing pedestrian heads.
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.
No, it's because the signals control the crosswalk. The cross street is one way EB and Buffalo doesn't like installing pedestrian heads.
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.
No, it's because the signals control the crosswalk. The cross street is one way EB and Buffalo doesn't like installing pedestrian heads.
Apparently there are pedestrian walk heads on nearby Seneca and Michigan, or Oak and Swan intersections.. Moreover, looks like there is just one signalized intersection without pedestrian heads within a block or two off stadium...
Here is something I noticed for the first time yesterday: at the intersection of Seneca and Oak in Buffalo, there are signal heads on the side facing the stadium where Seneca St used to run. The problem is that the stadium blocks the ROW, so no cars can go through. I wonder why it's still there almost 30 years later?Because nobody took responsibility for a change. As vdeane mentioned, many people at NYSDOT are eager to keep things as-is, no matter what. My interpretation is that there are no traffic engineers capable of designing something different, and being willing to stand behind their design. Other than roundabouts, of course, those are accepted no matter what.
There is a good example of that on Washington ave ext reconstruction, and there will be an excellent example of that once Rt 7 - 787 interchange is rebuilt.
No, it's because the signals control the crosswalk. The cross street is one way EB and Buffalo doesn't like installing pedestrian heads.
Apparently there are pedestrian walk heads on nearby Seneca and Michigan, or Oak and Swan intersections.. Moreover, looks like there is just one signalized intersection without pedestrian heads within a block or two off stadium...
Several nearby signals have pedestrian heads, but many do not for all crosswalks. Generally, Buffalo only installed pedestrian heads downtown until recently. Go a few blocks east and almost no pedestrian heads can be found. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the light in question only turns red if the button is pressed.
Those PTC's Emergency Stopping Areas are not intended to be treated like rest or service areas. Parking in the former is extremely limited is supposed to be on a very short-term basis.So why not call it "Rest Area", or as the PTC likes to say "Emergency Stopping Area"?Hmm, what's dumber, this "Text Stop" thing or "Adopt-A-Highway"...?The "Text Stop" thing is an attempt to get drivers to pull over rather than text and drive. I saw that at the Brewster and Bedford rest areas on I-684 in June, and for the past few years I've heard of Region 10 using the old pay phone stops in the interchanges along the Southern State/Heckscher State Parkway for text stops.
Almost every limited-access highway rest and parking area in the state has been rebranded as a "text stop". A couple "parking areas" still exist on I-87 north of Queensbury, but that's about it. Surface roads have not been rebranded.
I once saw someone literally have a picnic out there at one of those PA Tpke emergancy stopping areas. And quite a few trucks use them as a space to take a nap.Prior to a decade(?) ago, PTC's Emergency Stoppings/Pull-Offs were indeed used as small rest or picnic areas (there used to be a concrete picnic table or two) since its inception; but were changed to the current configuration (a glorified breakdown shoulder) due to (guess on my part) safety reasons.
At the urging of the NTSB, PTC changed the designation of the majority of their 'informal' rest and picnic pulloff areas to Emergency Stopping Only after a serious accident in 1998 where a Greyhound bus driver fell asleep, drifted off the road and crashed into two tractor trailers parked in one of these areas. Other toll roads, including the MassPike, took heed of the NTSB recommendations and followed suit with their pulloff areas.I once saw someone literally have a picnic out there at one of those PA Tpke emergancy stopping areas. And quite a few trucks use them as a space to take a nap.Prior to a decade(?) ago, PTC's Emergency Stoppings/Pull-Offs were indeed used as small rest or picnic areas (there used to be a concrete picnic table or two) since its inception; but were changed to the current configuration (a glorified breakdown shoulder) due to (guess on my part) safety reasons.
As mentioned earlier, the EB Cuomo signs near Exit 25 on the Thruway have been taken down. As of last night, they were not back up.
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers. I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread. Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.
(personal opinion emphasized)
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers. I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread. Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.I agree these signs (and the silly "I Love NY" median treatments) are a colossal waste of resources. However, which budget is the money for the NY Tourism signs coming from, DOT, Thruway, or the State Tourism Office? And is the money for these signs earmarked for that purpose by the Legislature, or is the expenditure based on a Legislative mandate? When it comes to cheezy feel good signing that serves no real purpose, remember that Warrant 14 (the political warrant) trumps (pardon the pun) all else.
(personal opinion emphasized)
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers. I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread. Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I've been thinking the same thing
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers. I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread. Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I've been thinking the same thing
Perhaps someone should make the FHWA aware of this thread. Maybe two people.
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers. I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread. Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I-278 East in Staten Island, coming off of the Goethals Bridge from Elizabeth, NJ...
(http://i.imgur.com/fbkLOno.jpg)
(Picture taken September 7, 2016)
I also have a problem with them being posted in the middle of the damn state...
I also have a problem with them being posted in the middle of the damn state...
That too, as well.
Well... some people traveling from Syracuse may be those who have flown to SYR, got a rental car and heading somewhere else. While those are likely a small minority, still the point is that could be the first time someone sees those signs! And I assume it can take less than 2 hours to rent a car at the airport and get on a highway.I also have a problem with them being posted in the middle of the damn state...
That too, as well.
My favorite for this are the ones on the Thruway in Syracuse. No matter where you came from, you've already been in New York for 2 hours. With the ones on the SB Thruway in Albany, somebody passing them would have been in New York for at least 3-4 hours. At that point, a good portion of travelers are getting off at the Berkshire Spur and going straight to MA.
$25 million of my tax dollars could have been spent better.
$25 million of my tax dollars could have been spent better.
Good heavens. What tax bracket are you in? ;-)
Well... some people traveling from Syracuse may be those who have flown to SYR, got a rental car and heading somewhere else. While those are likely a small minority, still the point is that could be the first time someone sees those signs! And I assume it can take less than 2 hours to rent a car at the airport and get on a highway.I also have a problem with them being posted in the middle of the damn state...
That too, as well.
My favorite for this are the ones on the Thruway in Syracuse. No matter where you came from, you've already been in New York for 2 hours. With the ones on the SB Thruway in Albany, somebody passing them would have been in New York for at least 3-4 hours. At that point, a good portion of travelers are getting off at the Berkshire Spur and going straight to MA.but putting an extra set of signs over there is a must!sorry, I mean we can make sure rental agencies give out those leaflets...
I have no problem promoting NY tourism, including to NY residents. I assume that's why they're all over the place. I'm no marketing or advertising expert, but I just don't think these signs will accomplish that in any significant way, at borders or anywhere else.I have no problem with promoting NY tourism either. However, I have a huge problem giving PRIVATE businesses highway signs at the taxpayer's expense. It's nothing more than government sponsored advertising.
I am thinking that I can live with a Geico sign at the rest area if some of the cost of its maintenance is paid for by Geico instead of my tax dollars.I respectfully disagree. The public is already increasingly subjected to private advertising messages, we DO NOT need even more of them at PUBLIC facilities that the government is supposed to be responsible for providing and maintaining. And of course Geico then will claim they lose money on the deal (which the probably do anyway) so they then can write the costs off on their taxes. Who ultimately ends up paying for the 'private' sponsorship then?
I am thinking that I can live with a Geico sign at the rest area if some of the cost of its maintenance is paid for by Geico instead of my tax dollars.I respectfully disagree. The public is already increasingly subjected to private advertising messages, we DO NOT need even more of them at PUBLIC facilities that the government is supposed to be responsible for providing and maintaining. And of course Geico then will claim they lose money on the deal (which the probably do anyway) so they then can write the costs off on their taxes. Who ultimately ends up paying for the 'private' sponsorship then?
And, with all due respect to your views on this matter, it is truly unfortunate that so many people in today's society are willing to accept the intrusion of even more advertising hawking products and services, the majority of which we DON'T need, into our lives. Too bad that George Orwell got it wrong in 1984 - It's not excessive government intrusion into every aspect of our lives that's become the problem, it's excessive intrusion into every aspect of our lives by the marketing executives we should be concerned about. Sadly, we are continually losing that battle.
It's because of how advertising got to us. It worked at first, but at some point, people began to become reserved, accept that advertising is everywhere, and ignore each and every ad. That's why software such as adblockers exist.I am thinking that I can live with a Geico sign at the rest area if some of the cost of its maintenance is paid for by Geico instead of my tax dollars.I respectfully disagree. The public is already increasingly subjected to private advertising messages, we DO NOT need even more of them at PUBLIC facilities that the government is supposed to be responsible for providing and maintaining. And of course Geico then will claim they lose money on the deal (which the probably do anyway) so they then can write the costs off on their taxes. Who ultimately ends up paying for the 'private' sponsorship then?
And, with all due respect to your views on this matter, it is truly unfortunate that so many people in today's society are willing to accept the intrusion of even more advertising hawking products and services, the majority of which we DON'T need, into our lives. Too bad that George Orwell got it wrong in 1984 - It's not excessive government intrusion into every aspect of our lives that's become the problem, it's excessive intrusion into every aspect of our lives by the marketing executives we should be concerned about. Sadly, we are continually losing that battle.
There are a new set of tourism signs on the southbound Thruway between exits 21B and 21. The weirdest spot for these yet, and put up within the last week. They are posted almost right on top of each other. How many more of these installations are really needed? It's starting to become a joke.It was a joke 2 weeks ago. By now it evolved to farce.
its past Exit 40W, its right by the onramp from NY 25 West, just before the curve at the Old Westbury Village line. Unless they moved it AGAIN
That set used to be by Route 135
There are a new set of tourism signs on the southbound Thruway between exits 21B and 21. The weirdest spot for these yet, and put up within the last week. They are posted almost right on top of each other. How many more of these installations are really needed? It's starting to become a joke.It was a joke 2 weeks ago. By now it evolved to farce.
I bet this is for those coming from Masspike. Or is there another set at state border?There are a new set of tourism signs on the southbound Thruway between exits 21B and 21. The weirdest spot for these yet, and put up within the last week. They are posted almost right on top of each other. How many more of these installations are really needed? It's starting to become a joke.It was a joke 2 weeks ago. By now it evolved to farce.
They put them THERE? There's another set 20 miles north of there.
I bet this is for those coming from Masspike. Or is there another set at state border?There are a new set of tourism signs on the southbound Thruway between exits 21B and 21. The weirdest spot for these yet, and put up within the last week. They are posted almost right on top of each other. How many more of these installations are really needed? It's starting to become a joke.It was a joke 2 weeks ago. By now it evolved to farce.
They put them THERE? There's another set 20 miles north of there.
I can understand the LIE ones between exits 39 and 40. It's really the only major gap between exits until near Riverhead.Personally, I'd rather see them spend the money on reviving the Wantagh State Parkway extension to the LIE.
I can understand the LIE ones between exits 39 and 40. It's really the only major gap between exits until near Riverhead.Personally, I'd rather see them spend the money on reviving the Wantagh State Parkway extension to the LIE.
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers. I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread. Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.vdeane, Are you involved with the Tupper Lake - Lake Placid rail to trail conversion? The money spent on the signs could easily have covered this cost.
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers. I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread. Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.vdeane, Are you involved with the Tupper Lake - Lake Placid rail to trail conversion? The money spent on the signs could easily have covered this cost.
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers. I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread. Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.vdeane, Are you involved with the Tupper Lake - Lake Placid rail to trail conversion? The money spent on the signs could easily have covered this cost.
Don't get me started on how much of a waste that is. A trail nobody would use, while they could try and restart rail service.
Don't get me started on how much of a waste that is. A trail nobody would use, while they could try and restart rail service.Let me guess; A trail that would better serve the Adirondack Scenic Railroad.
A trail nobody would use
Quote from: cl94A trail nobody would use
What's your rationale for claiming this?
I'm not gonna go near that one with a ten foot pole, other than to note that the proposed conversion actually ENDS some Adirondack Scenic Railroad service between Saranac Lake and Lake Placid (I think I read that this is their most profitable line) and put the brand new rail bikes company out of business.
For the amount of money they've been spending on this, they could probably have converted the state to mileage-based exit numbers. I hope someone at FHWA is reading this thread. Should make life interesting the next time the state claims it has no money for a conversion.vdeane, Are you involved with the Tupper Lake - Lake Placid rail to trail conversion? The money spent on the signs could easily have covered this cost.
Don't get me started on how much of a waste that is. A trail nobody would use, while they could try and restart rail service.
I also think it's hilarious that someone is so enamored with those "New York Experience" signs we've been talking about so much that the television ad about it mostly just shows a series of those signs! A quick search for a video link came up empty. Maybe someone else would have more luck tracking it down.
I noticed new plans online for a signing project in NYSDOT Region 9. It's project D263275. I've sent an email to R9 about the small errors in the first two shown below.
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-1.png)
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-2.png)
Not to mention that the major guide sign has smaller lettering than the supplemental guide sign does.I noticed new plans online for a signing project in NYSDOT Region 9. It's project D263275. I've sent an email to R9 about the small errors in the first two shown below.
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-1.png)
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-2.png)
Let's see exit tab should be shifted over to align with the inside of the rounded corner on the main panel; "mile" and "exit" should be in small caps; the NY 7 shield is probably too smalland I assume it's a given that the second sign isn't in the right colors. What else?
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."
I believe that's how they're referring to the community colleges now.
iPhone
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."
I believe that's how they're referring to the community colleges now.
iPhone
Some of them. Adirondack Community College became "SUNY Adirondack", for example. I think the ones being referred to as "SUNY X" have dorms, while the "community colleges" do not.
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."
I believe that's how they're referring to the community colleges now.
iPhone
Some of them. Adirondack Community College became "SUNY Adirondack", for example. I think the ones being referred to as "SUNY X" have dorms, while the "community colleges" do not.
SUNY Orange has no dorms.
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."
I believe that's how they're referring to the community colleges now.
iPhone
Some of them. Adirondack Community College became "SUNY Adirondack", for example. I think the ones being referred to as "SUNY X" have dorms, while the "community colleges" do not.
SUNY Orange has no dorms.
Then I have no clue. Adirondack and Sullivan changed their names when they got dorms.
On a trip to the Finger Lakes this weekend, I saw a set of the "New York State Experience" signs on the Thruway between Exits 39 and 40...and another set between 41 and 42. Both directions.That's definitely new. They weren't there Labor Day. I can see the method to the madness on the ones entering/exiting a metro area... but these new ones make no sense at all! I suspect they're just doing it to ruin my Thruway experience.
...really?
On a trip to the Finger Lakes this weekend, I saw a set of the "New York State Experience" signs on the Thruway between Exits 39 and 40...and another set between 41 and 42. Both directions.That's definitely new. They weren't there Labor Day. I can see the method to the madness on the ones entering/exiting a metro area... but these new ones make no sense at all! I suspect they're just doing it to ruin my Thruway experience.
...really?
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."
I believe that's how they're referring to the community colleges now.
iPhone
Some of them. Adirondack Community College became "SUNY Adirondack", for example. I think the ones being referred to as "SUNY X" have dorms, while the "community colleges" do not.
SUNY Orange has no dorms.
Then I have no clue. Adirondack and Sullivan changed their names when they got dorms.
I gave up a long time ago and just call them their CC name. I'm sure they had some rhyme or reason for the changes, but it's not like they are 4-year schools.
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."
I believe that's how they're referring to the community colleges now.
iPhone
Some of them. Adirondack Community College became "SUNY Adirondack", for example. I think the ones being referred to as "SUNY X" have dorms, while the "community colleges" do not.
SUNY Orange has no dorms.
Then I have no clue. Adirondack and Sullivan changed their names when they got dorms.
I gave up a long time ago and just call them their CC name. I'm sure they had some rhyme or reason for the changes, but it's not like they are 4-year schools.
Glancing at the list on SUNY's web site, it doesn't look as though they officially refer to any of them in this way (even the 4-year colleges that have traditionally been known as "SUNY Brockport", for example). So perhaps this is just some convention NYSDOT has adopted for its signing practices, though possibly at the request of SUNY to emphasize the schools' affiliation with the state university.
iPhone
That I-88 exit 12 sign is a direct replacement of the ugly one that's been there for about 15 years. Hopefully they take your suggestion seriously, because some bad signs have been going up lately in Region 9. They just posted some horrendous new ones on US-11 in Binghamton at NY-7, including a lovely NY-11 shield.
That I-88 exit 12 sign is a direct replacement of the ugly one that's been there for about 15 years. Hopefully they take your suggestion seriously, because some bad signs have been going up lately in Region 9. They just posted some horrendous new ones on US-11 in Binghamton at NY-7, including a lovely NY-11 shield.
Heard back from R9 and they have already made the corrections I suggested. Apparently all plans get run by Traffic and Safety now for accuracy and adherence to the Federal MUTCD. This is the first time I've heard about that extra layer of checking.
That I-88 exit 12 sign is a direct replacement of the ugly one that's been there for about 15 years. Hopefully they take your suggestion seriously, because some bad signs have been going up lately in Region 9. They just posted some horrendous new ones on US-11 in Binghamton at NY-7, including a lovely NY-11 shield.
Heard back from R9 and they have already made the corrections I suggested. Apparently all plans get run by Traffic and Safety now for accuracy and adherence to the Federal MUTCD. This is the first time I've heard about that extra layer of checking.
They get the Callicoon one as well?
Region 8 is in the middle of installing exit numbers for the Taconic in Westchester. Gore signs are up and covered, some tabs have been installed NB. As noted when the plans came out, numbers are mile-based.
I hope Region 8 abandons that awful practice of putting the street names in those little boxes, it makes it harder to read.
I hope Region 8 abandons that awful practice of putting the street names in those little boxes, it makes it harder to read.
Adirondack, Canton, Sullivan and Ulster definitely do.
No, refer to themselves as SUNY XAdirondack, Canton, Sullivan and Ulster definitely do.
Do what, have dorms?
iPhone
Happily Region-10 on Long Island never used that practice and has been posting street names in mixed-case lettering (along with place names) going all the way back to the early 1960's on the Long Island Expwy.
No, refer to themselves as SUNY XAdirondack, Canton, Sullivan and Ulster definitely do.
Do what, have dorms?
iPhone
SM-G920V
No, refer to themselves as SUNY XAdirondack, Canton, Sullivan and Ulster definitely do.
Do what, have dorms?
iPhone
SM-G920V
Oh, OK. I was saying that SUNY itself doesn't refer to them as such in its list of campuses. I didn't go so far as to check individual schools' web sites. (And Canton is not a community college anyway, right?)
Happily Region-10 on Long Island never used that practice and has been posting street names in mixed-case lettering (along with place names) going all the way back to the early 1960's on the Long Island Expwy.
R10 has their own quirks, such as the wierd way they numbered the parkway exits, and the lack of mile markers.
Side note, that's the first I've ever heard of a "SUNY Sullivan."
I believe that's how they're referring to the community colleges now.
iPhone
Some of them. Adirondack Community College became "SUNY Adirondack", for example. I think the ones being referred to as "SUNY X" have dorms, while the "community colleges" do not.
SUNY Orange has no dorms.
Then I have no clue. Adirondack and Sullivan changed their names when they got dorms.
Happily Region-10 on Long Island never used that practice and has been posting street names in mixed-case lettering (along with place names) going all the way back to the early 1960's on the Long Island Expwy.
Suffolk CCC seems to remain that except for their website address and social media tags (SUNY Suffolk). No dorms on any of their three campuses and probably never gonna happen.
Odd move since it seems in recent years, the SUNY university centers de-emphasized the SUNY (Stony Brook and Buffalo most drastic)
I noticed new plans online for a signing project in NYSDOT Region 9. It's project D263275. I've sent an email to R9 about the small errors in the first two shown below. The third is going to be quite the post-interchange destination mileage sign!
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-1.png)
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-2.png)
(http://www.upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/d263275-3.png)
I can't help but wonder how people navigate there. On the way to my hotel from the Long Island meet, I got lost after overshooting my turn and finding nowhere to turn around (which is one reason why one shouldn't check in to their hotel at night while relying on their memory of street view images in the day to find the unmarked road the hotel is on). I eventually found myself in Syosset and tried to get directions from not one but two gas stations. Nobody knew what NY 25 was so I gave them Jericho Turnpike. Nobody knew what that was either, so I had no way whatsoever of relaying where I needed to go. Somehow, they couldn't even point to where I was on a map or tell me what street I was on, so even my atlas was of no help (I only figured out where I was after the fact). For a while I was sincerely scared that I would have to sleep in the car in an unknown part of Nassau County; that incident is probably THE reason why I ultimately decided to upgrade to a smartphone (and thank God I did, because I had a similar issue with the Tuxedo meet because Nyack doesn't post street signs).Happily Region-10 on Long Island never used that practice and has been posting street names in mixed-case lettering (along with place names) going all the way back to the early 1960's on the Long Island Expwy.
Unless it's a state route, in which case they don't post the street name at all. You don't want to know how many Long Islanders don't know that Jericho Turnpike is NY 25 and Sunrise Highway is NY 27.
I can't help but wonder how people navigate there. On the way to my hotel from the Long Island meet, I got lost after overshooting my turn and finding nowhere to turn around (which is one reason why one shouldn't check in to their hotel at night while relying on their memory of street view images in the day to find the unmarked road the hotel is on). I eventually found myself in Syosset and tried to get directions from not one but two gas stations. Nobody knew what NY 25 was so I gave them Jericho Turnpike. Nobody knew what that was either, so I had no way whatsoever of relaying where I needed to go. Somehow, they couldn't even point to where I was on a map or tell me what street I was on, so even my atlas was of no help (I only figured out where I was after the fact). For a while I was sincerely scared that I would have to sleep in the car in an unknown part of Nassau County; that incident is probably THE reason why I ultimately decided to upgrade to a smartphone (and thank God I did, because I had a similar issue with the Tuxedo meet because Nyack doesn't post street signs).Happily Region-10 on Long Island never used that practice and has been posting street names in mixed-case lettering (along with place names) going all the way back to the early 1960's on the Long Island Expwy.
Unless it's a state route, in which case they don't post the street name at all. You don't want to know how many Long Islanders don't know that Jericho Turnpike is NY 25 and Sunrise Highway is NY 27.
I can't help but wonder how people navigate there. On the way to my hotel from the Long Island meet, I got lost after overshooting my turn and finding nowhere to turn around (which is one reason why one shouldn't check in to their hotel at night while relying on their memory of street view images in the day to find the unmarked road the hotel is on). I eventually found myself in Syosset and tried to get directions from not one but two gas stations. Nobody knew what NY 25 was so I gave them Jericho Turnpike. Nobody knew what that was either, so I had no way whatsoever of relaying where I needed to go. Somehow, they couldn't even point to where I was on a map or tell me what street I was on, so even my atlas was of no help (I only figured out where I was after the fact). For a while I was sincerely scared that I would have to sleep in the car in an unknown part of Nassau County; that incident is probably THE reason why I ultimately decided to upgrade to a smartphone (and thank God I did, because I had a similar issue with the Tuxedo meet because Nyack doesn't post street signs).Happily Region-10 on Long Island never used that practice and has been posting street names in mixed-case lettering (along with place names) going all the way back to the early 1960's on the Long Island Expwy.
Unless it's a state route, in which case they don't post the street name at all. You don't want to know how many Long Islanders don't know that Jericho Turnpike is NY 25 and Sunrise Highway is NY 27.
Yikes, that doesn't sound good. In Nassau County, people generally navigate using street names. I'm surprised that they didn't know what Jericho Turnpike was. Maybe they were new to the area. The exception to this is NY 106 and NY 107, which are known by their numbers and most people don't know their names. In Suffolk County, route numbers are used, and as you probably noticed during the meet, county routes are signed. Generally, you can tell which county someone is from by whether they talk about Northern Boulevard or NY 25A.
I can't help but wonder how people navigate there. On the way to my hotel from the Long Island meet, I got lost after overshooting my turn and finding nowhere to turn around (which is one reason why one shouldn't check in to their hotel at night while relying on their memory of street view images in the day to find the unmarked road the hotel is on). I eventually found myself in Syosset and tried to get directions from not one but two gas stations. Nobody knew what NY 25 was so I gave them Jericho Turnpike. Nobody knew what that was either, so I had no way whatsoever of relaying where I needed to go. Somehow, they couldn't even point to where I was on a map or tell me what street I was on, so even my atlas was of no help (I only figured out where I was after the fact). For a while I was sincerely scared that I would have to sleep in the car in an unknown part of Nassau County; that incident is probably THE reason why I ultimately decided to upgrade to a smartphone (and thank God I did, because I had a similar issue with the Tuxedo meet because Nyack doesn't post street signs).Happily Region-10 on Long Island never used that practice and has been posting street names in mixed-case lettering (along with place names) going all the way back to the early 1960's on the Long Island Expwy.
Unless it's a state route, in which case they don't post the street name at all. You don't want to know how many Long Islanders don't know that Jericho Turnpike is NY 25 and Sunrise Highway is NY 27.
Yikes, that doesn't sound good. In Nassau County, people generally navigate using street names. I'm surprised that they didn't know what Jericho Turnpike was. Maybe they were new to the area. The exception to this is NY 106 and NY 107, which are known by their numbers and most people don't know their names. In Suffolk County, route numbers are used, and as you probably noticed during the meet, county routes are signed. Generally, you can tell which county someone is from by whether they talk about Northern Boulevard or NY 25A.
Of course, NY 25A isn't Northern Boulevard in Suffolk, so that helps.
It is in Queens though. Generally if Im headed anywhere east of Great Neck its 25A, west of there Northern Blvd.
Vdeane, just curious since I live a few towns away from Syosset. What hotel were you looking for and where did you end up lost? Even in this era of smart-phones, GPS, etc. a good road map or county street-map is still very valuable. Being old school I still mostly use that stuff.I was heading to the Meadowbrook Motor Lodge, near where NY 106/107 cross NY 25. Since I came from the LIE, the plan was to head up NY 106 and turn right onto Old Jericho Turnpike (which has the sign completely covered by trees); unfortunately, the street looks like a private driveway at night, which I wasn't prepared for (I normally look at street view to see what things like this look like, but that wasn't enough as I did not expect it to be dark out when I headed to the hotel), so I went past it. After a while, I felt like I had gone the wrong way, and with nowhere to pull over or turn around, started looking for a major road that I could take back to NY 25. I turned onto what I now know is Muttontown Eastwoods Road (wasn't looking much at street names, as I assumed I was still close to the hotel and not more than halfway to NY 25A), and was trying to ask for directions from the gas station at the five way intersection with Split Rock Road. Now, had I been in a clear state of mind, this would have been fine, but by that point I was having a panic attack. Granted, it did not help that this was the first time in my life in Nassau County, so my knowledge of the area is what I remembered from maps, and I tend to ignore local roads unless there's a destination on them.
Let's see…exit tab should be shifted over to align with the inside of the rounded corner on the main panel; "mile" and "exit" should be in small caps; the NY 7 shield is probably too small–and I assume it's a given that the second sign isn't in the right colors. What else?
Let's see…exit tab should be shifted over to align with the inside of the rounded corner on the main panel; "mile" and "exit" should be in small caps; the NY 7 shield is probably too small–and I assume it's a given that the second sign isn't in the right colors. What else?
I don't think New York generally aligns the tab to the inside of the corner anymore. I believe the standard practice is now flush to the right, at least judging by replacements downstate and in the city.
Let's see…exit tab should be shifted over to align with the inside of the rounded corner on the main panel; "mile" and "exit" should be in small caps; the NY 7 shield is probably too small–and I assume it's a given that the second sign isn't in the right colors. What else?
I don't think New York generally aligns the tab to the inside of the corner anymore. I believe the standard practice is now flush to the right, at least judging by replacements downstate and in the city.
The NYSDOT supplement to the MUTCD specifies that the exit number plaque should follow the same design as outlined in the Federal MUTCD, except that the bottom border should be removed and the plaque should be aligned to the inner radius of the guidance panel.
Of course, NY 25A isn't Northern Boulevard in Suffolk, so that helps.And NY 25 isn't Jericho Turnpike east of the NY 25-25A multiplex... although Smithtown Toyota doesn't realize that.
From the Governor's Office: MTA bridges and tunnels to go completely cashless (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st)
From the Governor's Office: MTA bridges and tunnels to go completely cashless (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st)
I wonder how long it will take for this to happen Upstate. 10 years+?
From the Governor's Office: MTA bridges and tunnels to go completely cashless (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st)
I wonder how long it will take for this to happen Upstate. 10 years+?
Your optimism is boundless.
From the Governor's Office: MTA bridges and tunnels to go completely cashless (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st)
I wonder how long it will take for this to happen Upstate. 10 years+?
Never; MTA doesn't have any bridges or tunnels upstate. :-DFrom the Governor's Office: MTA bridges and tunnels to go completely cashless (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st)I wonder how long it will take for this to happen Upstate. 10 years+?
Especially since I was reading a couple of days ago that the Thruway's planned conversion of the Harriman barrier to AET has been put on hold indefinitely (it was in an article about exit 131). No idea if that affects Yonkers and New Rochelle or not.From the Governor's Office: MTA bridges and tunnels to go completely cashless (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st)
I wonder how long it will take for this to happen Upstate. 10 years+?
Your optimism is boundless.
I was thinking the same thing. 10 for the barrier tolls is optimistic.
The New York Thruway should consider adding eight to 10 fully automated interchanges in Upstate New York exclusive to E-ZPass customers, per state Senator Joseph Griffo in a letter he sent to Thruway officials. The estimated cost is $64 million.I, for one, absolutely oppose the type of "locals only, please" exits. Overall I would prefer to see some automatic teller technology. Why that is a problem here - vending machines are equally, if not more complex today anyway?
http://www.newyorkupstate.com/nys-thruway/2016/10/ny_thruway_should_explore_faster_automated_exits_for_upstate_state_senator_says.html (http://www.newyorkupstate.com/nys-thruway/2016/10/ny_thruway_should_explore_faster_automated_exits_for_upstate_state_senator_says.html)
The New York Thruway should consider adding eight to 10 fully automated interchanges in Upstate New York exclusive to E-ZPass customers, per state Senator Joseph Griffo in a letter he sent to Thruway officials. The estimated cost is $64 million.I, for one, absolutely oppose the type of "locals only, please" exits. Overall I would prefer to see some automatic teller technology. Why that is a problem here - vending machines are equally, if not more complex today anyway?
http://www.newyorkupstate.com/nys-thruway/2016/10/ny_thruway_should_explore_faster_automated_exits_for_upstate_state_senator_says.html (http://www.newyorkupstate.com/nys-thruway/2016/10/ny_thruway_should_explore_faster_automated_exits_for_upstate_state_senator_says.html)
Now the question if Thruway needs more exits is interesting. Between being primarily long-haul road and commuter road - I can see that to be a conflict lasting forever .
The New York Thruway should consider adding eight to 10 fully automated interchanges in Upstate New York exclusive to E-ZPass customers, per state Senator Joseph Griffo in a letter he sent to Thruway officials. The estimated cost is $64 million.
http://www.newyorkupstate.com/nys-thruway/2016/10/ny_thruway_should_explore_faster_automated_exits_for_upstate_state_senator_says.html (http://www.newyorkupstate.com/nys-thruway/2016/10/ny_thruway_should_explore_faster_automated_exits_for_upstate_state_senator_says.html)
There are a lot of places where it would be good to have an exit. 85 in Albany comes to mind. Somewhere on the other side of Hudson to make bridge at exit 21A more meaningful..
Building another Thruway interchange between Canastota (34) and Collamer (34A - I-481) would provide more direct access to Chittenango, Manlius, etc. and possibly help relieve upcoming congestion on I-481 if the I-81 Syracuse project goes with the boulevard.
Building an interchange between Utica (31) and Westmoreland (32) at CR 840 or along the NY 49 straddle roadway would help relieve congestion at the Breezewood-style connection from Exit 31 to I-790.
The Waterloo Outlets could be a place for some E-ZPass-only ramps.For eastbound lanes only?
The Waterloo Outlets could be a place for some E-ZPass-only ramps.For eastbound lanes only?
The Waterloo Outlets could be a place for some E-ZPass-only ramps.For eastbound lanes only?
Don't know. Maybe eastbound off/westbound on only? A fair amount of Rochester traffic goes there; not so sure about Syracuse.
I'm thinking kalvado meant eastbound off/eastbound on to avoid the need for an overpass and make such an interchange a lot less expensive.Besides, there is a rest area on the other side of Thruway - until exit is through the area, there will be traffic interference.
15B at the crossing of the Thruway, where 17, 17A & CR 106 meet has always been my top choice for an exit like this. It would reduce traffic through Sloatsburg and Tuxedo on 17 to get to the Faire on 17A and direct access to Harriman State Park
15B at the crossing of the Thruway, where 17, 17A & CR 106 meet has always been my top choice for an exit like this. It would reduce traffic through Sloatsburg and Tuxedo on 17 to get to the Faire on 17A and direct access to Harriman State Park
If you don't mind making it slightly easier to shunpike around the Harriman toll it would be easy enough to build this as a free interchange, since it's outside of the ticket system. If you want to add a couple of ramp tolls to prevent that, there is no reason they couldn't do bill by plate for non-EZpass customers.
Still, any proposal to build an interchange at this location will face NIMBY opposition. The locals in the area like being relatively isolated despite relatively close to the city and would prefer to keep it that way.
I'm thinking kalvado meant eastbound off/eastbound on to avoid the need for an overpass and make such an interchange a lot less expensive.Besides, there is a rest area on the other side of Thruway - until exit is through the area, there will be traffic interference.
Talking things absolutely crazy, I can suggest a pedestrian walkway to outlets from the rest area...
There are a bunch of places that should get exits. East of 49 is another big one.
There are a bunch of places that should get exits. East of 49 is another big one.
I thought somebody said that wasn't in the long-range plans.
There are a bunch of places that should get exits. East of 49 is another big one.
I thought somebody said that wasn't in the long-range plans.
That was me. None of these are in the long-range plans.
You're not going to get it for passenger cars in Rockland County. You might have a chance on the east side of the river.15B at the crossing of the Thruway, where 17, 17A & CR 106 meet has always been my top choice for an exit like this. It would reduce traffic through Sloatsburg and Tuxedo on 17 to get to the Faire on 17A and direct access to Harriman State Park
If you don't mind making it slightly easier to shunpike around the Harriman toll it would be easy enough to build this as a free interchange, since it's outside of the ticket system. If you want to add a couple of ramp tolls to prevent that, there is no reason they couldn't do bill by plate for non-EZpass customers.
Still, any proposal to build an interchange at this location will face NIMBY opposition. The locals in the area like being relatively isolated despite relatively close to the city and would prefer to keep it that way.
My preference would be if ORT exists that everything south of 16 is taken in tolls. Would be nice to generate some toll revenue.
You're not going to get it for passenger cars in Rockland County. You might have a chance on the east side of the river.15B at the crossing of the Thruway, where 17, 17A & CR 106 meet has always been my top choice for an exit like this. It would reduce traffic through Sloatsburg and Tuxedo on 17 to get to the Faire on 17A and direct access to Harriman State Park
If you don't mind making it slightly easier to shunpike around the Harriman toll it would be easy enough to build this as a free interchange, since it's outside of the ticket system. If you want to add a couple of ramp tolls to prevent that, there is no reason they couldn't do bill by plate for non-EZpass customers.
Still, any proposal to build an interchange at this location will face NIMBY opposition. The locals in the area like being relatively isolated despite relatively close to the city and would prefer to keep it that way.
My preference would be if ORT exists that everything south of 16 is taken in tolls. Would be nice to generate some toll revenue.
Erie County:
Between exits 57a/b @ Lakeview Road (diamond preferred)
Between exits 57a and 56 (Southwestern Blvd or Big Tree)
On I-190 at Van Rensselaer St
I-290 at Maple, Parker???
Split diamond between Cayuga and Wehrle
Interchange at Gunnville Road
Interchange at Ransom Road
This location was actually proposed as part of bid for a casino in the area. It faced stiff NIMBY opposition who like how the area is a little inaccessible from the Thruway, keeping a more rural character than is common in much of the rest of the area.You're not going to get it for passenger cars in Rockland County. You might have a chance on the east side of the river.15B at the crossing of the Thruway, where 17, 17A & CR 106 meet has always been my top choice for an exit like this. It would reduce traffic through Sloatsburg and Tuxedo on 17 to get to the Faire on 17A and direct access to Harriman State Park
If you don't mind making it slightly easier to shunpike around the Harriman toll it would be easy enough to build this as a free interchange, since it's outside of the ticket system. If you want to add a couple of ramp tolls to prevent that, there is no reason they couldn't do bill by plate for non-EZpass customers.
Still, any proposal to build an interchange at this location will face NIMBY opposition. The locals in the area like being relatively isolated despite relatively close to the city and would prefer to keep it that way.
My preference would be if ORT exists that everything south of 16 is taken in tolls. Would be nice to generate some toll revenue.
Please, on the east side, locals use the parkways as it is. Opposition would be minimal.
This location was actually proposed as part of bid for a casino in the area. It faced stiff NIMBY opposition who like how the area is a little inaccessible from the Thruway, keeping a more rural character than is common in much of the rest of the area.
My issue is that unless you want to drive up 17, it's nearly impossible to get into Harriman without 15A. Harriman State Park is a large park, some kind of access.
My issue is that unless you want to drive up 17, it's nearly impossible to get into Harriman without 15A. Harriman State Park is a large park, some kind of access.
There is. Come in from the Palisades Parkway or head up Seven Lakes Drive. Not like the terrain is great for building an exit in that area. Only place to put it is CR 106 and the Thruway ROW is surrounded by protected land on the east and the Ramapo River on the west side, which is a source of drinking water for Rockland and North Jersey.
My issue is that unless you want to drive up 17, it's nearly impossible to get into Harriman without 15A. Harriman State Park is a large park, some kind of access.
There is. Come in from the Palisades Parkway or head up Seven Lakes Drive. Not like the terrain is great for building an exit in that area. Only place to put it is CR 106 and the Thruway ROW is surrounded by protected land on the east and the Ramapo River on the west side, which is a source of drinking water for Rockland and North Jersey.
That's great, but what about drivers coming in from the north. 15A works going northbound, but there are drivers to the south. We're going to make them get off at 16 and then drive for a long distance down to Arden Valley Road then deep into the park onto 7LD? An exit at 17A/106 would be nicer for traffic on 17A and into Harriman from the north.
Just passed through a work zone with VMS reading
SPEEDING NOT TOLERATED / RADAR IS RUNNING / SPEEDING TICKETS IN MAIL (last one wasn't there yesterday, BTW)
While I understand folks frustrated by working in a closed lane on arterial during commute, my radar detector didn't pick up anything..
But the real question: can speeding tickets be issued by mail in NYS? Or this is just a low-level initiative to actually slow people down?
Pretty sure speed cameras are only legal in NY in school zones in NYC.
Question: I know why NY-33 terminates the way it does in downtown Buffalo. But why does the expressway end the way it does in Cheektowaga? Were there plans for expansion? It makes an awkward curve.
- NYSDOT put a staffed gift shop/snack bar in the I-81 welcome center at Mile 2. I wonder how long it will be until the Feds remind them that new facilities of the sort are illegal on the Interstate system.given the way this tourism promotion is handled, I wonder if NYSDOT was actually informed about new development...
Why would a snack bar at a Welcome Center be illegal on the Interstate System?
Thanks cl94. Okay, I read the section. And I think it's ridiculous. I for one (in the course of my travels throughout the Northeast) hate having to leave the Interstate and hunt for a fast-food restaurant or convenience store and then work my way back onto the Interstate. It's so much better with service areas on the highway itself. I'm glad I can at least buy a candy bar or a soda from a rest-area machine that's not illegal. Sheesh!
And BTW how is Connecticut allowed to continue having service areas on I-95 when that road no longer has tolls? I guess they're grandfathered?
All NYSDOT documentation has NY 33 ending at NY 5, but we don't always remove reference markers if a route is relinquished.
I really don't understand what the objective here is with all of this.
I really don't understand what the objective here is with all of this.
It will be obvious two years from now, when Cuomo will be running non-stop re-election ads claiming that his "promotion of tourism" is creating a new golden era of prosperity for the state :rolleyes:.
So the objective of all this government spending is not any government purpose, but the re-election of King Andy.
I fully expect him to get a cabinet position in a Clinton administration. Next attorney general?If Bharara doesn't file charges first..
I fully expect him to get a cabinet position in a Clinton administration. Next attorney general?
- NYSDOT put a staffed gift shop/snack bar in the I-81 welcome center at Mile 2. I wonder how long it will be until the Feds remind them that new facilities of the sort are illegal on the Interstate system.given the way this tourism promotion is handled, I wonder if NYSDOT was actually informed about new development...
From the Governor's Office: MTA bridges and tunnels to go completely cashless (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st)So now I'll have to spend more money to use them without an E-Z Pass, and a lot of people will be thrown out of work. Great job, Governor Cuomo. Maybe in your next move, you can close down the Long Island Expressway and force everyone to crowd up some of the local roads.
Maybe in your next move, you can close down the Long Island Expressway and force everyone to crowd up some of the local roads.Please, don't give him any ideas.
:pan:
D263319 - heads up - it looks like the all text button copy on NY 5 at NY 30 is about to be replaced. https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263319 :-(
Region 5 is adding turn lanes and replacing signals on Walden Avenue and they're putting in the region's first PPLT FYAs on Galleria Drive (plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=13565&p_is_digital=Y)). Of course, in typical R5 fashion, there's something wrong here: side street doesn't get 2 signal heads with balls.
On a different topic, I found some more old Washington County CR "shields" today. CRs 61/64 in Shushan. Don't have a pic because they caught me by surprise, but we do have GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0902011,-73.3422848,3a,49y,135.49h,83.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOMMw_Lc1k-4Z5uQhEMfrow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). There's another one at the bridge over the Batten Kill (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0911495,-73.3450977,3a,62.3y,115.55h,79.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6Q1FI9FGFiFrdKmT7bTdfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Oh, and if you want a real treat, this is nearby (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.09369,-73.3433545,3a,46.5y,259.3h,86.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7cbZiP6R9zKqKqNS_S2RCg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
a lot of people will be thrown out of work. Great job, Governor Cuomo.
D263319 - heads up - it looks like the all text button copy on NY 5 at NY 30 is about to be replaced. https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263319 :-(Why does NYSDOT keep mentioning the TO routes before the route one is on or possibly turn on?
D263319 - heads up - it looks like the all text button copy on NY 5 at NY 30 is about to be replaced. https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263319 :-(Why does NYSDOT keep mentioning the TO routes before the route one is on or possibly turn on?
Examples: TO TO TO EAST
90 NYT 5S 30
TO TO EAST EAST
90 NYT 790 5
Is it because the Thruway is that important a destination point?
Wait, what? What did that sign ever say? I've never seen a railroad diamond before.On a different topic, I found some more old Washington County CR "shields" today. CRs 61/64 in Shushan. Don't have a pic because they caught me by surprise, but we do have GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0902011,-73.3422848,3a,49y,135.49h,83.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOMMw_Lc1k-4Z5uQhEMfrow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). There's another one at the bridge over the Batten Kill (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0911495,-73.3450977,3a,62.3y,115.55h,79.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6Q1FI9FGFiFrdKmT7bTdfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Oh, and if you want a real treat, this is nearby (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.09369,-73.3433545,3a,46.5y,259.3h,86.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7cbZiP6R9zKqKqNS_S2RCg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
A really old precedent to the crossbucks. Really old. Given the size of Shushan, I can understand how its survived.
Regardless, we're halfway through fall and still no sign of the Taconic Stage 2 signage, due Fall 2016.
Wait, what? What did that sign ever say? I've never seen a railroad diamond before.On a different topic, I found some more old Washington County CR "shields" today. CRs 61/64 in Shushan. Don't have a pic because they caught me by surprise, but we do have GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0902011,-73.3422848,3a,49y,135.49h,83.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOMMw_Lc1k-4Z5uQhEMfrow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). There's another one at the bridge over the Batten Kill (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0911495,-73.3450977,3a,62.3y,115.55h,79.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6Q1FI9FGFiFrdKmT7bTdfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Oh, and if you want a real treat, this is nearby (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.09369,-73.3433545,3a,46.5y,259.3h,86.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7cbZiP6R9zKqKqNS_S2RCg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
A really old precedent to the crossbucks. Really old. Given the size of Shushan, I can understand how its survived.
Regardless, we're halfway through fall and still no sign of the Taconic Stage 2 signage, due Fall 2016.
If that person's been there for 20 years, then maybe better signs will start appearing sometime in the next 10. Unless that person is the type to never retire... or trains his/her replacement to do the same thing.
Looking at how Region 2 uses the TO banner, it does seem like they don't know what a freeway is. It's like they don't understand the concept of exit ramps. Figures... they have fewer freeway miles than any other NYSDOT region, and ALL their freeways have something substandard about them.
Region 2 is like the bastard stepchild region. Honestly, it should probably just be split up between 1, 3 and 7. Save money and it might help their abysmal signage and striping practices. Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees something a bit wrong with stuff like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1166664,-75.2139082,220m/data=!3m1!1e3).
Holy shit, you're right! What a time to regret my sarcasm! :wow:Maybe in your next move, you can close down the Long Island Expressway and force everyone to crowd up some of the local roads.Please, don't give him any ideas.
:pan:
Wonder if his subordinates read this board for more project ideas to complete before reelection. If so:Holy shit, you're right! What a time to regret my sarcasm! :wow:Maybe in your next move, you can close down the Long Island Expressway and force everyone to crowd up some of the local roads.Please, don't give him any ideas.
:pan:
Wonder if his subordinates read this board for more project ideas to complete before reelection. If so:Holy shit, you're right! What a time to regret my sarcasm! :wow:Maybe in your next move, you can close down the Long Island Expressway and force everyone to crowd up some of the local roads.Please, don't give him any ideas.
:pan:
I-88 extension to "Alt 7" north of Albany
I-92 from 87/Glens Falls to US 4/VT border
ALL of I-86
Show me anything that says the Tappan Zee replacement isn't useful.Wonder if his subordinates read this board for more project ideas to complete before reelection. If so:Holy shit, you're right! What a time to regret my sarcasm! :wow:Maybe in your next move, you can close down the Long Island Expressway and force everyone to crowd up some of the local roads.Please, don't give him any ideas.
:pan:
I-88 extension to "Alt 7" north of Albany
I-92 from 87/Glens Falls to US 4/VT border
ALL of I-86
You expect him to spend money on a useful transportation project? When pigs fly.
Show me anything that says the Tappan Zee replacement isn't useful.Okay, I think we can each cut him some slack for that.
Show me anything that says the Tappan Zee replacement isn't useful.Okay, I think we can each cut him some slack for that.
Show me anything that says the Tappan Zee replacement isn't useful.Okay, I think we can each cut him some slack for that.
That's the only one and it was in the pipeline before he was elected
Show me anything that says the Tappan Zee replacement isn't useful.Okay, I think we can each cut him some slack for that.
That's the only one and it was in the pipeline before he was elected
My impression was Tappan Zee was a must-build project, to get a replacement before bridge would be closed for structural problems or collapse..
On a similar note - I still wonder what happened to Lake Champlain bridge that caused so drastic actions...
Very generic statement. And no more details, no pictures, somewhat passing inspection few months before and rehabilitation project underway.Show me anything that says the Tappan Zee replacement isn't useful.Okay, I think we can each cut him some slack for that.
That's the only one and it was in the pipeline before he was elected
My impression was Tappan Zee was a must-build project, to get a replacement before bridge would be closed for structural problems or collapse..
On a similar note - I still wonder what happened to Lake Champlain bridge that caused so drastic actions...
Failed inspection. The piers were not structurally sound.
Very generic statement. And no more details, no pictures, somewhat passing inspection few months before and rehabilitation project underway.On a similar note - I still wonder what happened to Lake Champlain bridge that caused so drastic actions...
Failed inspection. The piers were not structurally sound.
My impression they found something really scary; so scary they didn't even wanted to show...
and my bigger point - imagine something similar to happen to Tappan Zee....
Were you the one who at least did the screaming to correct them?D263319 - heads up - it looks like the all text button copy on NY 5 at NY 30 is about to be replaced. https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263319 :-(Why does NYSDOT keep mentioning the TO routes before the route one is on or possibly turn on?
Examples: TO TO TO EAST
90 NYT 5S 30
TO TO EAST EAST
90 NYT 790 5
Is it because the Thruway is that important a destination point?
It's only Region 2 that does that. The other NYSDOT Regions follow the convention as laid out by the rest of the country by R2 just doesn't get freeway signing in general. If you look close you'll notice cardinal directions are in Series D instead of Series E(m) or Series E on the plans.
I've been complaining to R2 about how to order route markers on a sign for 20 years. They didn't start doing this until 1995 or so, so there's someone that got hired around then that just doesn't get it. Hopefully the practice won't perpetuate on.
You'll notice overhead panels on the North-South Arterial are EAST 790 - To 90 - To Thruway - EAST 5 - NORTH 8 - NORTH 12. It took a LOT of kicking and screaming to get them to put the 790 shield first.
Were you the one who at least did the screaming to correct them?D263319 - heads up - it looks like the all text button copy on NY 5 at NY 30 is about to be replaced. https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263319 :-(Why does NYSDOT keep mentioning the TO routes before the route one is on or possibly turn on?
Examples: TO TO TO EAST
90 NYT 5S 30
TO TO EAST EAST
90 NYT 790 5
Is it because the Thruway is that important a destination point?
It's only Region 2 that does that. The other NYSDOT Regions follow the convention as laid out by the rest of the country by R2 just doesn't get freeway signing in general. If you look close you'll notice cardinal directions are in Series D instead of Series E(m) or Series E on the plans.
I've been complaining to R2 about how to order route markers on a sign for 20 years. They didn't start doing this until 1995 or so, so there's someone that got hired around then that just doesn't get it. Hopefully the practice won't perpetuate on.
You'll notice overhead panels on the North-South Arterial are EAST 790 - To 90 - To Thruway - EAST 5 - NORTH 8 - NORTH 12. It took a LOT of kicking and screaming to get them to put the 790 shield first.
You have said many times that R2 isn't very good at freeway signage, unlike R3, in which you said has been good. Maybe R3 should take this over.
D263319 - heads up - it looks like the all text button copy on NY 5 at NY 30 is about to be replaced. https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263319 :-(
That's too bad. There's nothing wrong with the existing signs. I don't see the point. Now, if we were getting our very own set of "New York Experience" blue signs in Amsterdam, that would be exciting.
D263319 - heads up - it looks like the all text button copy on NY 5 at NY 30 is about to be replaced. https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263319 :-(
That's too bad. There's nothing wrong with the existing signs. I don't see the point. Now, if we were getting our very own set of "New York Experience" blue signs in Amsterdam, that would be exciting.
I'll correct myself here. Coming home tonight in the rain, the old signs (for example, the ones on New York 30 North shown below) were nearly impossible to see compared to new signs. "Downtown" was crystal clear. The other two panels were barely readable. As much as I hate to see them go, I have to admit it's time.
(http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20130327/downtown.jpg)
The only BGSs that have seen any change are the ones on I-190.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263288 - check out the plans - book 2 - page 108 (overall page 235) and you'll see a 3-di 684 in a 2-di shield among other interesting things
Lots of stuff on the construction opportunities list today. It's a sad day for classic concrete as two of them involve resurfacing.That section of the Lake Ontario State Parkway already has an asphalt surface. The concrete is only west of Hamlin Beach State Park, mostly in Orleans County (and some of it may have already been resurfaced).
D263239 Lake Ontario State Parkway for this one: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263239
and
D263288 I-684 for this one: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263288
I am really going to miss the bad-um....bad-um.....bad-um.....bad-um.....bad-um of the concrete. :-(
Also, still no sign of Taconic plans...
We know of those. I'm referring to Phase II, which does everything north of future exit 20 (in Westchester)
Yeah, and finish the damn Bear Mountain State Parkway gap while you're at it too.
Wonder if his subordinates read this board for more project ideas to complete before reelection. If so:
I-88 extension to "Alt 7" north of Albany
I-92 from 87/Glens Falls to US 4/VT border
ALL of I-86
Original concrete on I-684. I'll miss the button copy...anybody know when they were installed?Depending on section; I-684 was built between 1968 and 1974 along with its original button-copy signs
Original concrete on I-684. I'll miss the button copy...anybody know when they were installed?Depending on section; I-684 was built between 1968 and 1974 along with its original button-copy signs
The only original button-copy BGS' near/along I-684 I'm aware of that are still around are the approach signage from I-287 eastbound.Original concrete on I-684. I'll miss the button copy...anybody know when they were installed?Depending on section; I-684 was built between 1968 and 1974 along with its original button-copy signs
I don't think there's any original button copy along I-684 but second generation button copy. I could be wrong, but original button copy from the building of the highway would be darker green, centered exit tabs and all-text route number designations (except for Interstates).
That concrete was rough in places the last time I was over it. New York's original concrete (still a bunch on the parkways) is not wearing particularly well and probably should have been diamond ground a long time ago.
The only original button-copy BGS' near/along I-684 I'm aware of that are still around are the approach signage from I-287 eastbound.Original concrete on I-684. I'll miss the button copy...anybody know when they were installed?Depending on section; I-684 was built between 1968 and 1974 along with its original button-copy signs
I don't think there's any original button copy along I-684 but second generation button copy. I could be wrong, but original button copy from the building of the highway would be darker green, centered exit tabs and all-text route number designations (except for Interstates).
Advance (1/2 mile) BGS along I-287 East (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0298646,-73.740836,3a,75y,111.95h,84.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sConISsc3q5tewgwrwQduMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Exit BGS itself off I-287 East (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.028221,-73.7366671,3a,75y,112.88h,79.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOBFnASoU0d6yGWseznKQzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Split-ramp signage after exiting I-287 East (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0262201,-73.7337135,3a,75y,135.43h,84.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sypOZ3yhofW-BmOdT0UeT0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
A HAWK pedestrian crossing popped up at NY 324 and Logan Ave. in Tonawanda (between Ted's and Anderson's). I don't remember seeing it two weeks ago. Lots of honking horns as drivers try to figure out what to do during the flashing red phase.
A HAWK pedestrian crossing popped up at NY 324 and Logan Ave. in Tonawanda (between Ted's and Anderson's). I don't remember seeing it two weeks ago. Lots of honking horns as drivers try to figure out what to do during the flashing red phase.
It went in over the summer. That one is a bitch.
I assume we're talking about what the MUTCD calls Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. (Chapter 4F) I've never seen one except in the Manual. Their stated purpose is: to facilitate pedestrian crossings at a location that does not meet traffic signal warrants. They seem like a dopey idea to me. If I was not familiar with them from the Manual, and I saw one of these things I would have no clue what to make of it and I'm sure many drivers will react that way.The easiest way would have been to have a green light that turns yellow, then red, then the red starts flashing before returning to steady green.
How many decades will we have to wait for the rest of the state to get mileage-based exits as well (excluding Interstate 99/US 15 and Interstate 781)?Theoretically, I-890/NY 890 has mile-based exit numbers, but that may not hold with the renumbering at exit 4 (if done right, Erie Blvd and GE should be 4A both directions, and NY 5 should be 4B).
Why didn't they give a number to that exit just south of the Thruway?
Mileage exit numbers:
When I-390 opened between Avoca and Wayland in 1975, for just a few weeks Cohocton was exit 10 and Wayland was exit 16. Avoca is exit 1 either way, of course. The Dansville exits were never numbered in the 20s.
Maybe this is because 390 was the first Interstate in Region 6, and there may have been some confusion in the Hornell office.
The much-awaited Taconic State Parkway Stage 2 sign plans are out - D263236
Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263236
About time. Nice to see that they're extending the numbering up to NY 295. This will be the first significant length of mile-based numbering in the state.
About time. Nice to see that they're extending the numbering up to NY 295. This will be the first significant length of mile-based numbering in the state.
How about the Belt Parkway/Cross Island Parkway combination? Also I-99, if you count that as significant.
Why didn't they give a number to that exit just south of the Thruway?
I'm assuming that has to do with Region 8 not considering the parkway to start until just south of that exit to allow trucks between there and the Thruway. Per state law, trucks are banned on all parkways excluding south of Sunrise Highway.
Why didn't they give a number to that exit just south of the Thruway?How many decades will we have to wait for the rest of the state to get mileage-based exits as well (excluding Interstate 99/US 15 and Interstate 781)?Theoretically, I-890/NY 890 has mile-based exit numbers, but that may not hold with the renumbering at exit 4 (if done right, Erie Blvd and GE should be 4A both directions, and NY 5 should be 4B).
As for everything else... I'm not expecting anything any time in the foreseeable future.
The NYSMUTCD around 1974 called for milepost exit numbering for all newly constructed freeways. That's why that happened with I-390 and also why I-88 had blank exit number panels for a long while, until they decided to switch back to sequential a few years later. The reasoning for switching back was because they didn't want to have to renumber the interchanges when the U.S. switch to metric.Looks like NY resistance to renumbering was big even then. Of course, that reasoning is pretty stupid in hindsight, given that the metric conversion died and now that the MUTCD mandates mile-based numbers.
About time. Nice to see that they're extending the numbering up to NY 295. This will be the first significant length of mile-based numbering in the state.
Why didn't they give a number to that exit just south of the Thruway?How many decades will we have to wait for the rest of the state to get mileage-based exits as well (excluding Interstate 99/US 15 and Interstate 781)?Theoretically, I-890/NY 890 has mile-based exit numbers, but that may not hold with the renumbering at exit 4 (if done right, Erie Blvd and GE should be 4A both directions, and NY 5 should be 4B).
As for everything else... I'm not expecting anything any time in the foreseeable future.
One could argue, that Northway up to Mohawk works pretty much mileage-based if you put milepost 0 at Western ave. Otherwise we could get a somewhat unique exit -1, as current exit 1E northbound occurs before milepost 0
^ There's precedent to leaving 3-digit Interstate routes as sequential even if the 1/2-digit routes were converted. Virginia is an example of this. The Hampton Roads I-x64's, I-581, and I-395 all remained sequential when Virginia converted. Probably due to their wider interchange spacing, I-295 and I-495 were lumped with the 2di's and converted to mile-based numbering.I concur with Froggie. There really is no need to have all the I-x90's (except for I-390) change their exit numbers. Many of the I-x90's have exits closely spaced where there would be A-B-C-D exits instead of "integer" exit numbers. Same goes for I-787 in Albany as well as I-287 (Cross Westchester). I believe I-684 should have milepost-based exit numbers. I also believe I-390 should be re-numbered as I-99--but that is a different thread.
Not a good idea to eliminate a shoulder. It impedes emergency vehicle response. Also, I believe Interstate highways are required to have continuous shoulders, though you wouldn't know it to drive some of the older highways in the NYC area that were designated as Interstates.Okay, so what about replacing the Oyster Bay Branch bridge with longer beams that only require pylons for the divider, and shifting the westbound service road slightly further up? Even if they don't connect the acceleration lane from the Northern State with the deceleration lane for Exit 37, they shouldn't squeeze all those drivers from the parkway into that one short acceleration lane.
New Roundabout proposed in Downtown Utica.
http://www.uticaod.com/news/20161118/roundabout-proposed-for-downtown-utica
I think this is a good project, but it's a shame that there doesn't seem to be anything in the near future about finishing the Arterial and removing the two remaining lights.
Get back to me with the cost of replacing a railroad bridge.Not a good idea to eliminate a shoulder. It impedes emergency vehicle response. Also, I believe Interstate highways are required to have continuous shoulders, though you wouldn't know it to drive some of the older highways in the NYC area that were designated as Interstates.Okay, so what about replacing the Oyster Bay Branch bridge with longer beams that only require pylons for the divider, and shifting the westbound service road slightly further up? Even if they don't connect the acceleration lane from the Northern State with the deceleration lane for Exit 37, they shouldn't squeeze all those drivers from the parkway into that one short acceleration lane.
Get back to me with the cost of replacing a railroad bridge.Not a good idea to eliminate a shoulder. It impedes emergency vehicle response. Also, I believe Interstate highways are required to have continuous shoulders, though you wouldn't know it to drive some of the older highways in the NYC area that were designated as Interstates.Okay, so what about replacing the Oyster Bay Branch bridge with longer beams that only require pylons for the divider, and shifting the westbound service road slightly further up? Even if they don't connect the acceleration lane from the Northern State with the deceleration lane for Exit 37, they shouldn't squeeze all those drivers from the parkway into that one short acceleration lane.
Cl94, I'm not positive, but I think continuous shoulders were a requirement on new Interstate highways from the beginning of the program in 1956. Patterned after the then new existing toll-roads of the 1950's. Agreed, many Interstates in the NYC area don't have them, but I think those were designed and/or built before the Interstate specs became the standard, and were grandfathered in.
Talking about long bridges.. The new Tappan Zee - is it designed as full-shouldered?Cl94, I'm not positive, but I think continuous shoulders were a requirement on new Interstate highways from the beginning of the program in 1956. Patterned after the then new existing toll-roads of the 1950's. Agreed, many Interstates in the NYC area don't have them, but I think those were designed and/or built before the Interstate specs became the standard, and were grandfathered in.
NYSDOT and NYSTA didn't start using continuous shoulders over bridges until at least the late 70s. You'd be hard-pressed to find a bridge that isn't relatively new in this state that has full shoulders. Other states are similar.
That being said, there is still an exemption for long bridges and tunnels due to cost.
Talking about long bridges.. The new Tappan Zee - is it designed as full-shouldered?Cl94, I'm not positive, but I think continuous shoulders were a requirement on new Interstate highways from the beginning of the program in 1956. Patterned after the then new existing toll-roads of the 1950's. Agreed, many Interstates in the NYC area don't have them, but I think those were designed and/or built before the Interstate specs became the standard, and were grandfathered in.
NYSDOT and NYSTA didn't start using continuous shoulders over bridges until at least the late 70s. You'd be hard-pressed to find a bridge that isn't relatively new in this state that has full shoulders. Other states are similar.
That being said, there is still an exemption for long bridges and tunnels due to cost.
Cl94, I'm not positive, but I think continuous shoulders were a requirement on new Interstate highways from the beginning of the program in 1956. Patterned after the then new existing toll-roads of the 1950's. Agreed, many Interstates in the NYC area don't have them, but I think those were designed and/or built before the Interstate specs became the standard, and were grandfathered in.
Speaking of shoulders, I wonder what I-90 between Exit 53 and 54 looked like before it was reconstructed. I don't remember at all.As far as I can remember, it pretty much looked like the rest of the 6 lane Buffalo stretch.
On a different topic, this one is for the boxed-street-name nostalgists: NYSDOT's just-advertised signing contract for the Taconic State Parkway (D263236 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263236)) has street names in boxes, but in mixed-case to comply with the 2009 MUTCD. Sign panel detail sheets alone run to over 300 pages. The treatment of boxed street names differs from that in D263288 (also currently under advertisement), which is in the classic style with all-uppercase Series D.
Boxed street names? Are you thinking of the street blades for the at-grade intersections by chance?
On a different topic, this one is for the boxed-street-name nostalgists: NYSDOT's just-advertised signing contract for the Taconic State Parkway (D263236 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263236)) has street names in boxes, but in mixed-case to comply with the 2009 MUTCD. Sign panel detail sheets alone run to over 300 pages. The treatment of boxed street names differs from that in D263288 (also currently under advertisement), which is in the classic style with all-uppercase Series D.
Boxed street names? Are you thinking of the street blades for the at-grade intersections by chance?
Boxed street names? Are you thinking of the street blades for the at-grade intersections by chance?
Nope. There are plenty of those in this contract, but there are also dozens of large sign panels with route shields, distance expressions, and street names in boxes.
The I-684 sign project that was just put out to bid had all CAPS/Boxed street names on the guide signs, but I exchanged email with R8 and they are changing the plans to comply with the MUTCD. I'd imagine they'd do the same with the Taconic project.
The I-684 sign project that was just put out to bid had all CAPS/Boxed street names on the guide signs, but I exchanged email with R8 and they are changing the plans to comply with the MUTCD. I'd imagine they'd do the same with the Taconic project.
Since when does I-684 even have that many street name on it? Hardscrabble Road (CR 138), and I think that's it, unless I'm overlooking something...
I have examined the construction plans and, yes, all of the large sign panels are shown with unboxed street names. But the signface layouts (in the Supplemental Information downloadable ZIP) include sign panel details for about 21 large panel signs with boxed street names.Ah. I wasn't looking in the ZIP file, just the couple hundred page PDF of the plans.
The I-684 sign project that was just put out to bid had all CAPS/Boxed street names on the guide signs, but I exchanged email with R8 and they are changing the plans to comply with the MUTCD. I'd imagine they'd do the same with the Taconic project.
Since when does I-684 even have that many street name on it? Hardscrabble Road (CR 138), and I think that's it, unless I'm overlooking something...
You're right, it was the Hardscrabble Road plans.
The I-684 sign project that was just put out to bid had all CAPS/Boxed street names on the guide signs, but I exchanged email with R8 and they are changing the plans to comply with the MUTCD. I'd imagine they'd do the same with the Taconic project.
The I-684 sign project that was just put out to bid had all CAPS/Boxed street names on the guide signs, but I exchanged email with R8 and they are changing the plans to comply with the MUTCD. I'd imagine they'd do the same with the Taconic project.
Do you know if they are planning to release the revised plans as an amendment before the letting date?
This pic is of a beacon on the pole of a fire signal at the intersection of NY 112 and Gladiola Street in North Patchogue:They have these in the Rochester area as well and have seen them in operation. They come on when the firehouse preempts the signal when they get a call.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Fire_Light_@_NY_112-Gladiola_Street_Signal_(cropped).jpg
Do any other states do this? Because I was discussing it with some FDOT officials a long time ago, and they had no idea what I was talking about.
This pic is of a beacon on the pole of a fire signal at the intersection of NY 112 and Gladiola Street in North Patchogue:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Fire_Light_@_NY_112-Gladiola_Street_Signal_(cropped).jpg
Do any other states do this? Because I was discussing it with some FDOT officials a long time ago, and they had no idea what I was talking about.
in some places there is a white light on the horizontal mast-arm.
NY 63 in Dansville. Anyone else notice the little issue here?
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5532/31260867625_b447c0c2c6_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/PCq7Qi)
I would assume it's so the push buttons can be closer to the sidewalk; too far would not be ADA compliant.There had to be a better solution in this situation. Why not locate the signal pole against the sidewalk, or close enough to use a PB extender? Why can't one of the poles have both sets of walk signals on it, and the other one can just be a stub conduit end?
Except as provided in Paragraph 8, where two pedestrian pushbuttons are provided on the same corner of a signalized location, the pushbuttons should be separated by a distance of at least 10 feet.
The BQE is a strange animal. While the public inventory states that everything is maintained by NYSDOT, I know NYCDOT has a decent amount of influence, more so than other Interstates in the city.I was able to find region 11 projects in Queens. It appears that they do construct and repave the road (such as the Kosciuszko Bridge replacement, and the rehab of a bridge over 47th Street). I'm assuming that NYCDOT advises and oversees the construction, but NYSDOT does the actual construction.
Would one of the NYSDOT employees on here be able to get into the intranet and actually see who is in charge of the BQE to settle this once and for all?
I was able to find region 11 projects in Queens. It appears that they do construct and repave the road (such as the Kosciuszko Bridge replacement, and the rehab of a bridge over 47th Street). I'm assuming that NYCDOT advises and oversees the construction, but NYSDOT does the actual construction.
Is there anything that can be done to improve the BQE in safety or design terms? Or is the BQE stuck the way it is for the rest of eternity?Better shot at the viaduct sections. The depressed roadway is constrained, and so far NY hasn't thought outside the box in terms of digging under the service roads to add shoulders or even lanes. The K-bridge is of course going to be 9 lanes and thus much better than current in all facets, and the southern viaduct leading up to it can have shoulders added with cantilevers off the existing structure (or future replacement thereof). Not as familiar north of the LIE interchange but I know it returns to some depressed sections again, so what you can do is limited.
Alps, interesting you should mention about thinking outside the box and digging under the service road. NYC did exactly that back in 1963 when they widened the Grand Central Parkway between Main St. and 168th St. However that was a somewhat easier project as there was an embankment with trees separating the Parkway and the adjacent service roads. Unlike the BQE with its concrete walls in the depressed section. That I'm sure would be much more difficult and expensive in that densely packed urban area. Oh well; we can dream........
I couldn't get that Rochester link to work properly, but I saw something about the the mayor deciding the cameras had a disproportionate impact on the city's most impoverished neighborhoods. So what happened? Did they install the cameras only in the poorest section of the city?If Rochester is anything similar to Albany, downtown is the area where cameras would make sense - and downtown is not the richest part of a city..
I couldn't get that Rochester link to work properly, but I saw something about the the mayor deciding the cameras had a disproportionate impact on the city's most impoverished neighborhoods. So what happened? Did they install the cameras only in the poorest section of the city?I replaced my link with one from a local TV station.
I watched the new link with the Mayor. Okay now, let me get this straight: They're doing away with the cameras because the people who blow the red lights can't afford the fines? Oh I see, it's so expensive to drive dangerously, that we better not enforce the traffic laws. So let everyone stop for the friggin' red lights like we're all supposed to do regardless of income or social status. Give me a break........
I watched the new link with the Mayor. Okay now, let me get this straight: They're doing away with the cameras because the people who blow the red lights can't afford the fines? Oh I see, it's so expensive to drive dangerously, that we better not enforce the traffic laws. So let everyone stop for the friggin' red lights like we're all supposed to do regardless of income or social status. Give me a break........
I was thinking that. Do a real stop instead of a Western New York rolling stop and you won't get a ticket. I've watched some of the footage of people who claimed to stop and all of them either passed the line or didn't stop fully.
Re: RTOR; here in Nassau County the advertised County policy is that you should count 3-5 seconds before making your right-on-red, to avoid a ticket. So far it has worked for me. And re: yellow light timing, as per the MUTCD, they must be at least 3 seconds long.That would seem to me as an example of adapting our lives to fit the limitations of whatever technology is currently popular rather than making sure the technology actually fits our needs. By the time you've waited, the gap in traffic could be gone, taking away your right on red opportunity, all because the government would rather use a half-baked enforcement technology to collect revenue.
I watched the new link with the Mayor. Okay now, let me get this straight: They're doing away with the cameras because the people who blow the red lights can't afford the fines? Oh I see, it's so expensive to drive dangerously, that we better not enforce the traffic laws. So let everyone stop for the friggin' red lights like we're all supposed to do regardless of income or social status. Give me a break........Short version: there's a thing called making the punishment fit the crime, and with respect to low income people, it often doesn't; fines that are merely annoying to middle class folks can be devastating to the poor, especially when you add in all the fees/interest for payment plans and punitive measures such as punishing people for not paying by taking away their ability to have a job and make money (by suspending someone's licence, for instance).
Alps, interesting you should mention about thinking outside the box and digging under the service road. NYC did exactly that back in 1963 when they widened the Grand Central Parkway between Main St. and 168th St. However that was a somewhat easier project as there was an embankment with trees separating the Parkway and the adjacent service roads. Unlike the BQE with its concrete walls in the depressed section. That I'm sure would be much more difficult and expensive in that densely packed urban area. Oh well; we can dream........I was thinking the exact opposite could be done with the Oakdale Merge at Connetquot River State Park. You have the standard six lanes with shoulders for Sunrise Highway, and have the inner lanes of the service roads connecting the two sections of Montauk Highway run partially beneath Sunrise. Therefore traffic moves and less green space at the park is taken.
One of the ramps on I-787 exit 4 (part of northbound US 9) might become a park.
http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2016/12/09/albany-skyway
US 9 could stay concurrent on I-787 up to I-90. It could follow I-90 west to rejoin its current routing at Exit 6. Clinton Ave. and Henry Johnson Blvd. could be Reference Routes.It really does make a lot more sense.
Of course, this is if this "park" becomes a reality. Or maybe NYSDOT should consider this anyway.
One of the ramps on I-787 exit 4 (part of northbound US 9) might become a park.Except the High Line was defunct and THEN became a park at least 20 years later. This isn't defunct.
http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2016/12/09/albany-skyway
One of the ramps on I-787 exit 4 (part of northbound US 9) might become a park.Except the High Line was defunct and THEN became a park at least 20 years later. This isn't defunct.
http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2016/12/09/albany-skyway
I will give it this though, that's a creative idea for repurposing useless infrastructure. They should turn I-170 in Baltimore into a playground :bigass:
Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!
Keep in mind that the traffic count station showing 22k vehicles goes all the way from where US 9 diverges off the ramp to I-787 north from the South Mall interchange to Broadway and includes both directions. The NB count was almost certainly taken before Quay Street and the ramp in question branch off (I expect that it was even before the diverge of the ramp to I-787 NB; the math works, and this would match with the probable locations for the SB count on the other frontage road). Unfortunately, where routes follow ramps, the ramps can sometimes fall through the cracks because traffic count stations follow the primary direction. We may have done a special count on the ramp this year; I'd have to check (note that specials don't usually show up on the Traffic Data Viewer).Just checked. The AADT is 2265, based on data collected from August 2 through August 9 this year. The count was taken 410 feet north of Quay Street.
I haven't seen a ton of traffic using that ramp on the times I've been through there. The vast majority of the traffic there comes off the ramp from I-787 SB.
Keep in mind that the traffic count station showing 22k vehicles goes all the way from where US 9 diverges off the ramp to I-787 north from the South Mall interchange to Broadway and includes both directions. The NB count was almost certainly taken before Quay Street and the ramp in question branch off (I expect that it was even before the diverge of the ramp to I-787 NB; the math works, and this would match with the probable locations for the SB count on the other frontage road). Unfortunately, where routes follow ramps, the ramps can sometimes fall through the cracks because traffic count stations follow the primary direction. We may have done a special count on the ramp this year; I'd have to check (note that specials don't usually show up on the Traffic Data Viewer).Just checked. The AADT is 2265, based on data collected from August 2 through August 9 this year. The count was taken 410 feet north of Quay Street.
I haven't seen a ton of traffic using that ramp on the times I've been through there. The vast majority of the traffic there comes off the ramp from I-787 SB.
A while back in these threads, we were talking about how the states are not permitted by Federal law to place any mercantile establishments at Interstate highway rest areas, but are only allowed vending machines. And I pointed out that Region-10 just recently opened a new "Welcome Center" on the Long Island Expwy. (I-495) that does have a staffed snack bar, and isn't this illegal.
Well the FHWA has apparently taken note. Today Long Island's Newsday published a story saying the Feds are now insisting on this being corrected along with the tourism signs. And that the NYSDOT commissioner will soon be attending a meeting at FHWA hq. in Washington to discuss these matters. Stay tuned!
Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!
Good heavens, I didn't even know Rochester was building a new Amtrak station!
For a few days (weeks?) there are "two right lanes closed" signs set up on I-87 NB for alleged roadwork in Twin Bridges northbound, around 6-8 PM
Never seen any actual work, or actual lane closures, though. NYSDOT doesn't have any specific projects for I-87 in that area listed.
Is there actually something going on, or this is Bridgegate light, to celebrate Saratoga county switching from blue to red over the past elections?
I was wondering why everyone was focused on the silly signs and not the much-more-expensive Taste of NY rest areas.
I was wondering why everyone was focused on the silly signs and not the much-more-expensive Taste of NY rest areas.It was mentioned that FHWA is asking states for opinions on retail ban. Looks like things did change over past decade, and they are ready to review the policy - hence focus on a rule which is not going away any time soon.
I was wondering why everyone was focused on the silly signs and not the much-more-expensive Taste of NY rest areas.
There are only 2 Taste NY rest areas open at this time that are illegal. The signs are everywhere. That's why. Granted, FHWA got an email from me about the rest areas as well, complete with pictures of the Binghamton one.
I was wondering why everyone was focused on the silly signs and not the much-more-expensive Taste of NY rest areas.
There are only 2 Taste NY rest areas open at this time that are illegal. The signs are everywhere. That's why. Granted, FHWA got an email from me about the rest areas as well, complete with pictures of the Binghamton one.
My bet is that the cost of the two rest areas far outweigh the cost of the signs.
(personal opinion emphasized)
For some reason I can't see it on mine. Have to use the historical imagery feature on Google Earth to get it. Probably because of the clouds.Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!
Good heavens, I didn't even know Rochester was building a new Amtrak station!
Yep, and the Inner Loop is pretty much gone. The Peace Bridge interchange is radically different from how it looked a year ago.
Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!
Good heavens, I didn't even know Rochester was building a new Amtrak station!
Yep, and the Inner Loop is pretty much gone. The Peace Bridge interchange is radically different from how it looked a year ago.
Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!
Good heavens, I didn't even know Rochester was building a new Amtrak station!
Yep, and the Inner Loop is pretty much gone. The Peace Bridge interchange is radically different from how it looked a year ago.
Well the Inner Loop I knew about. Not seeing anything too drastic at the Peace Bridge though.
Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!
Good heavens, I didn't even know Rochester was building a new Amtrak station!
Yep, and the Inner Loop is pretty much gone. The Peace Bridge interchange is radically different from how it looked a year ago.
Well the Inner Loop I knew about. Not seeing anything too drastic at the Peace Bridge though.
You need to open it in Google Earth. Yuge change there. As in it now has full expressway connections on the NY side and they got rid of the light.
Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!
Good heavens, I didn't even know Rochester was building a new Amtrak station!
Yep, and the Inner Loop is pretty much gone. The Peace Bridge interchange is radically different from how it looked a year ago.
Well the Inner Loop I knew about. Not seeing anything too drastic at the Peace Bridge though.
You need to open it in Google Earth. Yuge change there. As in it now has full expressway connections on the NY side and they got rid of the light.
I see the roundabout, one new ramp and another under construction on the NB side. Is that the extent of it?
It's new plan day at NYSDOT and Region 1 released a couple no-nos in the form of NY 4 shields] (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=14322&p_is_digital=Y). Pages 27 and 28. I already sent R1 an email.
I see the roundabout, one new ramp and another under construction on the NB side. Is that the extent of it?
No. The access road through the park is gone. Local traffic needs to use the I-190 ramps to get to/from the bridge.
I see the roundabout, one new ramp and another under construction on the NB side. Is that the extent of it?
No. The access road through the park is gone. Local traffic needs to use the I-190 ramps to get to/from the bridge.
Ah, so is. I knew they pared it back some years ago, but it is indeed gone now. And I see some new overdecking on the connector to Niagara St., to accommodate the direct right turn ramp from the plaza to the 190 north. (What's the interim route for this traffic while the ramp is not yet built but the park road is already removed?)
I guess just visually, from the aerials, these changes appear subtle. That's why I was having trouble seeing any radical or "yuge" changes. ;-)
Does anyone happen to know why NY 590 will be closed 12/16 north of the can of worms? My Mom saw signs for it but I can't find any info on it.For some reason I can't see it on mine. Have to use the historical imagery feature on Google Earth to get it. Probably because of the clouds.Google Satellite Imagery for WNY updated to 10/18/2016!
Good heavens, I didn't even know Rochester was building a new Amtrak station!
Yep, and the Inner Loop is pretty much gone. The Peace Bridge interchange is radically different from how it looked a year ago.
It's new plan day at NYSDOT and Region 1 released a couple no-nos in the form of NY 4 shields] (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=14322&p_is_digital=Y). Pages 27 and 28. I already sent R1 an email.
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuugh.
It's new plan day at NYSDOT and Region 1 released a couple no-nos in the form of NY 4 shields] (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=14322&p_is_digital=Y). Pages 27 and 28. I already sent R1 an email.
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuugh.
Yeah...they politely told me to F off. There's a reason why I have no interest in working for the state.
It's new plan day at NYSDOT and Region 1 released a couple no-nos in the form of NY 4 shields] (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=14322&p_is_digital=Y). Pages 27 and 28. I already sent R1 an email.
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuugh.
Yeah...they politely told me to F off. There's a reason why I have no interest in working for the state.
I may feel like an idiot.. but can you explain the problem?
It's new plan day at NYSDOT and Region 1 released a couple no-nos in the form of NY 4 shields] (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=14322&p_is_digital=Y). Pages 27 and 28. I already sent R1 an email.
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuugh.
Yeah...they politely told me to F off. There's a reason why I have no interest in working for the state.
I've been going back and forth to New York in preparation for a move there next month. One of the routes I take is I-86 in the southern tier/Finger Lakes. Some questions:
1. Will the original service signs be replaced? The letters are not legible at night, and most of the service logos are not either.
2. Does rehabilitation of I-86 constitute the remainder of the circa 1989 segment that's in god-awful condition? It's interesting to compare the construction differences - tinning, joint spacing and barrier height, with the remainder of the Corning bypass that was built about ten years later.
3. Is there a map or guide of the formerly proposed Ithaca-region freeways?
Exit numbers have been uncovered along the Taconic. Really strange going from no numbers to Exit 20 all of a sudden heading south.
Perhaps I missed this in the discussion, but why were the numbers covered even though the signs were up? What circumstance existed until just now that it was deemed inadvisable for the public to know the exit numbers?
Perhaps I missed this in the discussion, but why were the numbers covered even though the signs were up? What circumstance existed until just now that it was deemed inadvisable for the public to know the exit numbers?
The signs were not put up all at once. It seems like they waited until all the signs were up to unbag the exit numbers so that you wouldn't have interchanges with an exit number on some signs but not others.
Perhaps I missed this in the discussion, but why were the numbers covered even though the signs were up? What circumstance existed until just now that it was deemed inadvisable for the public to know the exit numbers?
The signs were not put up all at once. It seems like they waited until all the signs were up to unbag the exit numbers so that you wouldn't have interchanges with an exit number on some signs but not others.
Except all the signs aren't up. That's the thing. There are still a few tabs missing here and there.
Perhaps I missed this in the discussion, but why were the numbers covered even though the signs were up? What circumstance existed until just now that it was deemed inadvisable for the public to know the exit numbers?
The signs were not put up all at once. It seems like they waited until all the signs were up to unbag the exit numbers so that you wouldn't have interchanges with an exit number on some signs but not others.
Except all the signs aren't up. That's the thing. There are still a few tabs missing here and there.
Yeah, I mean…they put at least a concerted effort into patching over the numerals–you knew it was now a numbered exit, you just didn't know which number it was. I guess I'm not seeing how not knowing what some of the numbers are means you shouldn't know what any of them are. Why is that detrimental enough that you should make a point of obscuring them?
(I'm not saying anyone here knows this answer; it's just what I'm wondering.)
Re: RTOR; here in Nassau County the advertised County policy is that you should count 3-5 seconds before making your right-on-red, to avoid a ticket. So far it has worked for me.I wait at least 5 second... actually a little longer. People get pissed off about it, but it's their fault if they want me to get hit by an oncoming car or truck.
5 seconds is absolutely meaningless number. I would say this is as close to prohibiting turn on red as it can get without actually prohibiting it.Re: RTOR; here in Nassau County the advertised County policy is that you should count 3-5 seconds before making your right-on-red, to avoid a ticket. So far it has worked for me.I wait at least 5 second... actually a little longer. People get pissed off about it, but it's their fault if they want me to get hit by an oncoming car or truck.
5 seconds is absolutely meaningless number. I would say this is as close to prohibiting turn on red as it can get without actually prohibiting it.Re: RTOR; here in Nassau County the advertised County policy is that you should count 3-5 seconds before making your right-on-red, to avoid a ticket. So far it has worked for me.I wait at least 5 second... actually a little longer. People get pissed off about it, but it's their fault if they want me to get hit by an oncoming car or truck.
I refuse to move past the stop line at a red light camera. I don't care what people behind me want to do.
I agree with cl94's post and I disagree with kalvado, who thinks this effectively bans RTOR. As a resident of Nassau County who makes lots of RTOR's, many at camera equipped intersections, I think the 3-5 second wait is acceptable. The camera will take your picture, (because you crossed the stop-line while the light was red) but the person reviewing it can definitely see that you did stop for sure before making your turn. Works for me.
The camera will take your picture, (because you crossed the stop-line while the light was red) but the person reviewing it can definitely see that you did stop for sure before making your turn.
I do not support going back to having RTOR be illegal everywhere in NY. It would be absolutely painful to sit at some of the traffic lights upstate with no legitimate reason to keep me from turning right.It is not just that - in many cases RTOR is what was apparently used to calculate capacity at design stage. I can think of a few spots where eliminating RTOR would require adding extra turn lane to preserve the capacity.
Well (chuckle!) Duke doesn't have to worry, 'cause in NYC RTOR is illegal except where specifically permitted so it's a non-issue.
so many drivers abuse RTOR by not stopping and yielding and causing accidents.
There seems to be a public misconception that RTOR is legal, period, without having to stop and yield as the law requires.
How often do crashes actually happen this way, though? I don't see this as being a major problem.
When I was doing traffic counts, at least once a week at an intersection I was counting, often 2-3 times. And mind you, we only did counts Monday-Thursday. It is a huge problem in some places.
When I was doing traffic counts, at least once a week at an intersection I was counting, often 2-3 times. And mind you, we only did counts Monday-Thursday. It is a huge problem in some places.
Interesting. What are the sight lines like at this intersection? Might it be appropriate to prohibit RTOR there?
A lot of interesting ideas here. I for one, would not agree with allowing RTOR without a complete stop. Reason being that the traffic-light's being there to begin with indicates a dangerous intersection. And allowing traffic to proceed past a red-light is a privilege that should only be done with the utmost care and careful checking for cross-traffic. I think that merits a complete stop in most if not all cases.A signal usually indicates traffic volumes during peak periods, not anything about intersection safety or traffic volumes off-peak necessarily. It can also indicate an arterial regardless of volume. In most cases, RTOR is perfectly safe and there are sufficient sightlines to do so without stopping. I would argue to use a flashing red arrow instead of flashing yellow, though. But I dislike FYAs.
BTW empirestate, I liked your comparison with the NYC Subways. Being a railroad buff, I am familiar with the history that led to the rule about pointing to the "conductor's board" before opening the doors at each station-stop. But can you imagine trying to enforce such a rule with people driving cars who are far less disciplined than railroad employees who are indoctrinated in rigid adherence to their rulebook?
BTW empirestate, I liked your comparison with the NYC Subways. Being a railroad buff, I am familiar with the history that led to the rule about pointing to the "conductor's board" before opening the doors at each station-stop. But can you imagine trying to enforce such a rule with people driving cars who are far less disciplined than railroad employees who are indoctrinated in rigid adherence to their rulebook?
Alps, I guess you've never been to Nassau County, Long Island where the traffic on our main roads is heavy all day long. Another factor I should have mentioned is that when making a RTOR, the cross-traffic has a green-light which gives them absolute right-of-way over vehicles facing a red light. That legal fact alone is enough to mandate a complete stop in most cases, in my opinion.No, I've never been to Nassau County. In fact, I live in my backyard.
And cl94, those rolling-stops are not just a Buffalo problem, but probably nationwide. Here on Long Island many drivers see a stop sign or red light (re: RTOR) as just a casual suggestion. LOL
In most cases, RTOR is perfectly safe and there are sufficient sightlines to do so without stopping. I would argue to use a flashing red arrow instead of flashing yellow, though. But I dislike FYAs.
But a flashing red light explicitly means "stop", equivalent to a stop sign. The reason for using flashing yellow is to permit the movement without a full stop.
But 5 second is still an overkill..Quote from: Duke87But a flashing red light explicitly means "stop", equivalent to a stop sign. The reason for using flashing yellow is to permit the movement without a full stop.
Applicable to left turns against opposing traffic...FAR less applicable to right turns unless turning traffic gets its own lane or turning right onto the side road at a T-intersection.
In either case, it's still far safer for all modes involved to require a stop before the turn.
Alps, I guess you've never been to Nassau County, Long Island where the traffic on our main roads is heavy all day long. Another factor I should have mentioned is that when making a RTOR, the cross-traffic has a green-light which gives them absolute right-of-way over vehicles facing a red light. That legal fact alone is enough to mandate a complete stop in most cases, in my opinion.No, I've never been to Nassau County. In fact, I live in my backyard.
And cl94, those rolling-stops are not just a Buffalo problem, but probably nationwide. Here on Long Island many drivers see a stop sign or red light (re: RTOR) as just a casual suggestion. LOL
Why do you feel the need to denigrate me to make your point? Anyway, you're wrong, because there are plenty of places in Nassau County where there is plenty of opportunity to turn right on red.
But 5 second is still an overkill..
5 seconds means that, with associated waits for right-of-way traffic, you're looking at no more than 1 car per cycle makes RTOR. At which point it is probably easier to ban it altogether. Single traffic light wait is a rounding error given the length of most trips. It's not going to kill you...Quote from: kalvadoBut 5 second is still an overkill..
5 seconds is a rounding error given the length of most trips. It's not going to kill you...
A HAWK pedestrian crossing popped up at NY 324 and Logan Ave. in Tonawanda (between Ted's and Anderson's). I don't remember seeing it two weeks ago. Lots of honking horns as drivers try to figure out what to do during the flashing red phase.I think they have these in downtown Stamford, CT it's a 3 light setup with two at the top and one under it? The flashing means to proceed if clear correct?
I do not understand the purpose of a HAWK signal vs. a standard traffic signal, except maybe to save money. I've never seen one except in the Manual and I think they will cause more confusion and possibly more accidents as a result. :no:Less light on time - less power consumption, less maintenance. No "stop and wait no matter what" requirement - higher throughput, you may go through if nobody is in crosswalk. Less of a problem in case of shorted button - road still active.
I don't remember seeing them on 4-lane 55 MPH roads, though, not sure if they have enough visibility distance.
I don't remember seeing them on 4-lane 55 MPH roads, though, not sure if they have enough visibility distance.
There's one on MA 114 for Merrimack College, which is 4 lanes. (It has a 45 mph speed limit, though.)
I don't remember seeing them on 4-lane 55 MPH roads, though, not sure if they have enough visibility distance.
There's one on MA 114 for Merrimack College, which is 4 lanes. (It has a 45 mph speed limit, though.)
NY 324 in Tonawanda. 6 lanes. That one has just enough pedestrian traffic to mess things up quite a bit.
Yep now that I'm home and just googled it Stamford has the same HAWK signal set up.. anyone have what the signals mean? They have it on the pole but I guess it's for the people crossing I've been wanting to check it out but not enough to park and go walk and check it outA HAWK pedestrian crossing popped up at NY 324 and Logan Ave. in Tonawanda (between Ted's and Anderson's). I don't remember seeing it two weeks ago. Lots of honking horns as drivers try to figure out what to do during the flashing red phase.I think they have these in downtown Stamford, CT it's a 3 light setup with two at the top and one under it? The flashing means to proceed if clear correct?
iPhone
This one is going to be nasty: plans released for NY 78 reconstruction in Depew (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=14522&p_is_digital=Y), including the removal of an old railroad bridge. Part of this will include a full closure with a lengthy detour. As part of the project, a dedicated left turn lane is being installed at George Urban Blvd complete with an FYA.
Article in Buffalo Rising entitled "The Future of Buffalo Area Highways" (not mine):That actually belongs to fictional highway forum..
https://www.buffalorising.com/2017/01/the-future-of-buffalo-area-highways/
Article in Buffalo Rising entitled "The Future of Buffalo Area Highways" (not mine):That actually belongs to fictional highway forum..
https://www.buffalorising.com/2017/01/the-future-of-buffalo-area-highways/
Here is an interesting question, why does the signs on the Bronx River Parkway directing US 1 North Traffic advise motorists to use Exit 6 over Exit 7E considering that Exit 7E is actually for the said route?
Look here and see www.google.com/maps/@40.855891,-73.8723936,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZXmWVtxcQRP2iu4bbleJzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Talking about last year speed limit cut on Washington ave. in Albany: A set of wrapped signs, looks like speed limit signs, sits along Washington ave. ext. for a while, I believe since November. Anyone knows what is going on? I wouldn't be surprised if there is something going on between city of A. and DOT...
Looks like permanent set of signs. ROad work there seem to be completed - at least until poles start falling. Even traffic light sync seem to be somewhat functional. And if anything, I would reorganize access to frontage roads and have local traffic use frontage to improve through flow, not the other way around.Talking about last year speed limit cut on Washington ave. in Albany: A set of wrapped signs, looks like speed limit signs, sits along Washington ave. ext. for a while, I believe since November. Anyone knows what is going on? I wouldn't be surprised if there is something going on between city of A. and DOT...
Those the work zone signs or are they on Z-bars? That being said, most (if not all) of the extension should probably be 45. That area is to busy with the malls and office complexes for it to be 55.
Just drove past. Apparently, those are permanent 45 MPH signs, and 55 MPH ones are gone. Still strange to see new signs covered for almost 2 months..Talking about last year speed limit cut on Washington ave. in Albany: A set of wrapped signs, looks like speed limit signs, sits along Washington ave. ext. for a while, I believe since November. Anyone knows what is going on? I wouldn't be surprised if there is something going on between city of A. and DOT...
Those the work zone signs or are they on Z-bars? That being said, most (if not all) of the extension should probably be 45. That area is to busy with the malls and office complexes for it to be 55.
It's for Belmont Park. Either it is stating exit closed or all parking, whether or not the racetrack is open.I remember too seeing that sign flipped around it was one of the first things that caught my eye.
It's for Belmont Park. Either it is stating exit closed or all parking, whether or not the racetrack is open.I remember too seeing that sign flipped around it was one of the first things that caught my eye.
Anyone listening to today's (#1 of 6) State of the State? Did Cuomo say "Koss-key-oss-ko"? I was out of the room and thought I heard that.
Anyone listening to today's (#1 of 6) State of the State? Did Cuomo say "Koss-key-oss-ko"? I was out of the room and thought I heard that.
That's one of the many "accepted" pronunciations. I have heard at least 5 and nobody can agree. We get around that in Albany by using another name for ours.
Can't tell you how many idiots around here insist on saying "Kos-ee-yoos-ko." Heard it's that way in Mississippi, too.
Can confirm above from Polish coworker.Anyone listening to today's (#1 of 6) State of the State? Did Cuomo say "Koss-key-oss-ko"? I was out of the room and thought I heard that.
That's one of the many "accepted" pronunciations. I have heard at least 5 and nobody can agree. We get around that in Albany by using another name for ours.
It's absolutely ridiculous. There's only one correct way to pronouce Kosciuszko (the National Park Service has been on a small rant about this as well at the National Memorial in Philadelphia):
Can't tell you how many idiots around here insist on saying "Kos-ee-yoos-ko." Heard it's that way in Mississippi, too. Dummies.
Anyone listening to today's (#1 of 6) State of the State? Did Cuomo say "Koss-key-oss-ko"? I was out of the room and thought I heard that.
That's one of the many "accepted" pronunciations. I have heard at least 5 and nobody can agree. We get around that in Albany by using another name for ours.
I'm used to Koss-key-oss-ko because that's what I raised on from television news in NYC.That's odd. I always hear "kosh-ewe-sko" on the radio.
Anyone listening to today's (#1 of 6) State of the State? Did Cuomo say "Koss-key-oss-ko"? I was out of the room and thought I heard that.
That's one of the many "accepted" pronunciations. I have heard at least 5 and nobody can agree. We get around that in Albany by using another name for ours.
I'm used to Koss-key-oss-ko because that's what I raised on from television news in NYC.That's odd. I always hear "kosh-ewe-sko" on the radio.
NYSDOT Touring Route Log for 2017 out:
- NY 191 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015 (my 24th birthday)
- NY 456 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015
- NY 314 truncated to the spur between 87 and 9.
- NY 220's extension to the Veterans Home in Oxford is gone, now just to NY 12 in Oxford Village.
- NY 261's county-maintained northern terminus lopped off.
- NY 374's county-maintained western terminus lopped off.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2017%20tour-bk.pdf
Anyone listening to today's (#1 of 6) State of the State? Did Cuomo say "Koss-key-oss-ko"? I was out of the room and thought I heard that.
That's one of the many "accepted" pronunciations. I have heard at least 5 and nobody can agree. We get around that in Albany by using another name for ours.
Wow. Quite the route number massacre in Clinton County. I'm surprised the county, which like most of the north country isn't in great economic shape, agreed to take on these roads. I know they don't total up to a lot of mileage, but as connectors to/from I-87 to other state roads, seemed to make sense as part of the state network.
I'm used to Koss-key-oss-ko because that's what I raised on from television news in NYC.That's odd. I always hear "kosh-ewe-sko" on the radio.
NYSDOT Touring Route Log for 2017 out:
- NY 191 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015 (my 24th birthday)
- NY 456 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015
- NY 314 truncated to the spur between 87 and 9.
- NY 220's extension to the Veterans Home in Oxford is gone, now just to NY 12 in Oxford Village.
- NY 261's county-maintained northern terminus lopped off.
- NY 374's county-maintained western terminus lopped off.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2017%20tour-bk.pdf
By far, Koss-key-oos-ko is the most common pronunciation I hear for both bridges. As far as Albany, that pronunciation is so ingrained in culture that you'll never change it. Never.For us older folk, the Interstate 87 bridges over the Mohawk River are still called the Crescent Bridge (singular).
By far, Koss-key-oos-ko is the most common pronunciation I hear for both bridges. As far as Albany, that pronunciation is so ingrained in culture that you'll never change it. Never.
By far, Koss-key-oos-ko is the most common pronunciation I hear for both bridges. As far as Albany, that pronunciation is so ingrained in culture that you'll never change it. Never.For us older folk, the Interstate 87 bridges over the Mohawk River are still called the Crescent Bridge (singular).
Talking about last year speed limit cut on Washington ave. in Albany: A set of wrapped signs, looks like speed limit signs, sits along Washington ave. ext. for a while, I believe since November. Anyone knows what is going on? I wouldn't be surprised if there is something going on between city of A. and DOT...and some predictable news: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Albany-NYSDOT-campaign-seeks-to-reduce-10856037.php
NYSDOT Touring Route Log for 2017 out:
- NY 191 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015 (my 24th birthday)
- NY 456 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015
- NY 314 truncated to the spur between 87 and 9.
- NY 220's extension to the Veterans Home in Oxford is gone, now just to NY 12 in Oxford Village.
- NY 261's county-maintained northern terminus lopped off.
- NY 374's county-maintained western terminus lopped off.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2017%20tour-bk.pdf
NYSDOT Touring Route Log for 2017 out:
- NY 191 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015 (my 24th birthday)
- NY 456 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015
- NY 314 truncated to the spur between 87 and 9.
- NY 220's extension to the Veterans Home in Oxford is gone, now just to NY 12 in Oxford Village.
- NY 261's county-maintained northern terminus lopped off.
- NY 374's county-maintained western terminus lopped off.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2017%20tour-bk.pdf
Also, NY430's eastern terminus has been moved slightly southwest. It now follows Washington Street in the city of Jamestown to 5th Avenue (the intersection of NY60 and eastbound NY394) as opposed to following Fluvanna Avenue.
Signage appears to confirm this. As a result, the route has been extended approximately half a mile.
Talking about last year speed limit cut on Washington ave. in Albany: A set of wrapped signs, looks like speed limit signs, sits along Washington ave. ext. for a while, I believe since November. Anyone knows what is going on? I wouldn't be surprised if there is something going on between city of A. and DOT...and some predictable news: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Albany-NYSDOT-campaign-seeks-to-reduce-10856037.php
Signs were still covered today in the morning. Why it took 2 months to uncover them still remains a question..
NYSDOT Touring Route Log for 2017 out:
- NY 191 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015 (my 24th birthday)
- NY 456 decommissioned as of March 18, 2015
- NY 314 truncated to the spur between 87 and 9.
- NY 220's extension to the Veterans Home in Oxford is gone, now just to NY 12 in Oxford Village.
- NY 261's county-maintained northern terminus lopped off.
- NY 374's county-maintained western terminus lopped off.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2017%20tour-bk.pdf
Also, NY430's eastern terminus has been moved slightly southwest. It now follows Washington Street in the city of Jamestown to 5th Avenue (the intersection of NY60 and eastbound NY394) as opposed to following Fluvanna Avenue.
Signage appears to confirm this. As a result, the route has been extended approximately half a mile.
NY 8 has been truncated to the northern end of the concurrency with NY 10 instead of running to NY 17, lopping off 2.16 miles.
NY 8 has been truncated to the northern end of the concurrency with NY 10 instead of running to NY 17, lopping off 2.16 miles.
While that concurrency was topologically unnecessary this is an odd decision. 8 is the lower number, the longer route, and also the route that is logically through at the point where the two formerly diverged (staying on 10 is a right turn, 8 was straight). I would have kept 8 and truncated 10. Curious to know what the thinking was behind this.
This also creates a quirky situation where 8 ends at 10 and 10 ends at 8.
(8 is even the shorter route, by a full 22 miles, between the two 8/10 junctions!)
NY 8 has been truncated to the northern end of the concurrency with NY 10 instead of running to NY 17, lopping off 2.16 miles.
While that concurrency was topologically unnecessary this is an odd decision. 8 is the lower number, the longer route, and also the route that is logically through at the point where the two formerly diverged (staying on 10 is a right turn, 8 was straight). I would have kept 8 and truncated 10. Curious to know what the thinking was behind this.
This also creates a quirky situation where 8 ends at 10 and 10 ends at 8.
(8 is even the shorter route, by a full 22 miles, between the two 8/10 junctions!)
I was thinking exactly the same. Maybe this was an oversight in the listing, because I drive through here very regularly and there have been no changes in signage.
The proposed transportation plan in the budget is getting NYSDOT hopeful that SFY 17-18 will have a much larger capital program than in recent years. The cash transfer essentially covers the listed accelerated projects, per my understanding.
https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/executive/eBudget1718/capitalPlan/CapPlan.pdf
See pages 65-67. As I've remarked in the I-86 conversion thread, there you have Woodbury Commons and nothing else.
(personal opinion expressed)
The proposed transportation plan in the budget is getting NYSDOT hopeful that SFY 17-18 will have a much larger capital program than in recent years. The cash transfer essentially covers the listed accelerated projects, per my understanding.
https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/executive/eBudget1718/capitalPlan/CapPlan.pdf
See pages 65-67. As I've remarked in the I-86 conversion thread, there you have Woodbury Commons and nothing else.
(personal opinion expressed)
And the NY 198 bullshit.
Well, they're certainly going to throw a lot of money at it.The proposed transportation plan in the budget is getting NYSDOT hopeful that SFY 17-18 will have a much larger capital program than in recent years. The cash transfer essentially covers the listed accelerated projects, per my understanding.
https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/executive/eBudget1718/capitalPlan/CapPlan.pdf
See pages 65-67. As I've remarked in the I-86 conversion thread, there you have Woodbury Commons and nothing else.
(personal opinion expressed)
And the NY 198 bullshit.
They still can't figure out what to do with it.
Gates Circle isn't a roundabout. It's more like the traffic circles of old. And yes, there are fundamental differences between traffic circles and roundabouts.
I have never had a problem getting through Latham Circle. Must be a rush hour thing.
It's not an issue from NY 2 EB; never tried WB. The ramp from US 9 SB is hit or miss. The ramp from US 9 NB, however, generally has rather long lines and it can take multiple minutes to get through, especially since everyone from WalMart uses it. Thankfully, one silver lining from the end of First Niagara is that I'm no longer going that way on a regular basis (the branch near there had its hours cut, so I now use the one on Wolf Road; unfortunately, that has its own issues with trying to get on the Northway, so getting my laundry quarters is now much more inconvenient than it used to be overall).
Yeah, and I have similar concerns for NY 198. Note that the last "boulevard" proposal didn't actually remove the overpasses - it just realigned the ramps to be intersections with traffic lights instead. If those became roundabouts, there would be a HUGE disparity. Heck, even replacing the overpasses with roundabouts would likely have a big disparity. IMO roundabouts work best when the disparity is low or when the flow is low enough that gaps aren't rare.
(personal opinion emphasized)
As for NY 198, I'm sure there are some who are concerned about safety who would argue that slow speeds resulting from congestion are a feature, not a bug, of a redesign involving roundabouts. Now, congestion is a safety hazard as well (in different ways from the existing road), as is the removal of grade separation... but good luck convincing the average layman to actually believe you when you try and explain this.
Correct. The big thing is the volume disparity. US 9 through traffic bypasses the circle. PHVs on NY 2 are 12-1300 EB (PM rush), likely similar WB. That doesn't leave a lot of room for vehicles to enter from US 9. CDTC doesn't release their intersection counts, so I can't provide a more thorough analysis.What if you brought NY 2 and US 9 to a signalized intersection on the ground level, all turns prohibited, and kept the roundabout for all left and right turns? That might accommodate the capacities in question.
If I were in charge, I'd rebuild that thing into a SPUI or build a bridge for NY 2 through traffic. No other unsignalized circle in the state comes close with regards to PHVs.
Correct. The big thing is the volume disparity. US 9 through traffic bypasses the circle. PHVs on NY 2 are 12-1300 EB (PM rush), likely similar WB. That doesn't leave a lot of room for vehicles to enter from US 9. CDTC doesn't release their intersection counts, so I can't provide a more thorough analysis.What if you brought NY 2 and US 9 to a signalized intersection on the ground level, all turns prohibited, and kept the roundabout for all left and right turns? That might accommodate the capacities in question.
If I were in charge, I'd rebuild that thing into a SPUI or build a bridge for NY 2 through traffic. No other unsignalized circle in the state comes close with regards to PHVs.
I like the idea of a bridge over the circle, if only for how spectacular it would be. :D
Of course, ROW costs would be obscene for any major changes to the circle.
I just reviewed the DOT's plans for the 198 re-do, and I have to say that I like what I see. Only one roundabout (on the southwest side of Grant St); more traffic signals/pedestrian signals (potentially HAWKs); and intersection improvements at Elmwood, Delaware, and Parkside. Many here say it doesn't do enough for pedestrians; however, I feel they balanced the vehicles & pedestrians as best as they could without major disruptions in traffic.I say it should have just stayed as it originally was.
What, we are getting rid of the dry cleaners, or are they not there anymore? :DI like the idea of a bridge over the circle, if only for how spectacular it would be. :D
Of course, ROW costs would be obscene for any major changes to the circle.
Not necessarily. Vacant land on the SE side and if they trench it, it could be extended east to where ROW is no longer a concern.
What, we are getting rid of the dry cleaners, or are they not there anymore? :DI like the idea of a bridge over the circle, if only for how spectacular it would be. :D
Of course, ROW costs would be obscene for any major changes to the circle.
Not necessarily. Vacant land on the SE side and if they trench it, it could be extended east to where ROW is no longer a concern.
Isn't that now owned by the redevelopers of the mall? Could still be a factor in price, couldn't it?What, we are getting rid of the dry cleaners, or are they not there anymore? :DI like the idea of a bridge over the circle, if only for how spectacular it would be. :D
Of course, ROW costs would be obscene for any major changes to the circle.
Not necessarily. Vacant land on the SE side and if they trench it, it could be extended east to where ROW is no longer a concern.
I meant SW. Oops.
I just reviewed the DOT's plans for the 198 re-do, and I have to say that I like what I see. Only one roundabout (on the southwest side of Grant St); more traffic signals/pedestrian signals (potentially HAWKs); and intersection improvements at Elmwood, Delaware, and Parkside. Many here say it doesn't do enough for pedestrians; however, I feel they balanced the vehicles & pedestrians as best as they could without major disruptions in traffic.I'm guessing that's the plan the activists are presently railing against.
D263370 - an I-81 sign rehab project includes some advance 2 mile notice signs for exits 14, 15, and 16 (and Cuomo signs)
D263370 - an I-81 sign rehab project includes some advance 2 mile notice signs for exits 14, 15, and 16 (and Cuomo signs)
Whoever designed those signs needs to be in charge of designing signs for the entire state. Those look damn good...especially compared to some of the other monstrosities posted the last few years!
D263370 - an I-81 sign rehab project includes some advance 2 mile notice signs for exits 14, 15, and 16 (and Cuomo signs)
Link - https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263370
It was supposed to run behind the mall and connect with Route 199. This was cancelled because of an environmentally sensitive lake along the route's path. Frank Sottile Blvd which runs from Route 32 to US 9W was built in the 90's as an alternative.Wow. Environmental sensitivity aside, it doesn't really seem like the smartest idea to put a whole new interchange so close between US 9W and NY 32.
They had a Regional Director who was obsessed with overhead sign structures. Tightened up inspection practices at NYSDOT overall, actually.D263370 - an I-81 sign rehab project includes some advance 2 mile notice signs for exits 14, 15, and 16 (and Cuomo signs)
Whoever designed those signs needs to be in charge of designing signs for the entire state. Those look damn good...especially compared to some of the other monstrosities posted the last few years!
NYSDOT R3 has always done the best job of freeway signage in the state. There have been a few hiccups here and there over the years but their signing practices go above and beyond anything found elsewhere in the state.
It was supposed to run behind the mall and connect with Route 199. This was cancelled because of an environmentally sensitive lake along the route's path. Frank Sottile Blvd which runs from Route 32 to US 9W was built in the 90's as an alternative.Wow. Environmental sensitivity aside, it doesn't really seem like the smartest idea to put a whole new interchange so close between US 9W and NY 32.
R3 and R6 have the best signage in the state. New signs in both are beautiful. Granted, R6 is done by a fellow roadgeek.
That's what I was thinking! Five interchanges within three miles of each other.I can accept it if they wanted to combined the US 9W and NY 32 interchanges as one on NY 199, extend the bypass north of NY 199 and extend the north end of US 209 to that, but not the way Snappyjack describes it.
I always thought it was to meet up at the Enterprise Drive interchange. In any case, NY is no stranger to close interchanges: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0407931,-75.9162726,14.75zYou know it.
I always thought it was to meet up at the Enterprise Drive interchange. In any case, NY is no stranger to close interchanges: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0407931,-75.9162726,14.75zThat's plausible. 1956 NY historic aerial predates all freeways. 1963 doesn't show 9W, but it does show 199, and Enterprise Drive is already constructed. It would be difficult but conceivable to shoehorn a freeway in there, assuming the ellipsoid was meant as a traffic circle interchange. But with all that - why not just tie the freeway into the divided 9W at the 199 cloverleaf?
While playing GeoGuessr yesterday afternoon, I came across this yellow on brown reference marker (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4052677,-73.5777095,3a,45.3y,270.71h,66.38t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa8RkTOM-qFkJKa_nEy07ZA!2e0) in the Adirondack Park. Is this normal for the Adirondack and Catskill parks or are they usually the normal white on green?
EDIT: There's also some sort of marker on the guardrail (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4052677,-73.5777095,3a,28.2y,343.04h,50.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa8RkTOM-qFkJKa_nEy07ZA!2e0) just before the reference marker. I checked old Street View imagery to make sure it wasn't just something on the guardrail, but it's there at every time on the timeline. It looks like a USGS survey marker, but there's nothing listed in the National Geodetic Survey Data Explorer. In that case, I'm guessing it's a right of way marker. Any ideas?
While playing GeoGuessr yesterday afternoon, I came across this yellow on brown reference marker (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4052677,-73.5777095,3a,45.3y,270.71h,66.38t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa8RkTOM-qFkJKa_nEy07ZA!2e0) in the Adirondack Park. Is this normal for the Adirondack and Catskill parks or are they usually the normal white on green?
EDIT: There's also some sort of marker on the guardrail (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4052677,-73.5777095,3a,28.2y,343.04h,50.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa8RkTOM-qFkJKa_nEy07ZA!2e0) just before the reference marker. I checked old Street View imagery to make sure it wasn't just something on the guardrail, but it's there at every time on the timeline. It looks like a USGS survey marker, but there's nothing listed in the National Geodetic Survey Data Explorer. In that case, I'm guessing it's a right of way marker. Any ideas?
While playing GeoGuessr yesterday afternoon, I came across this yellow on brown reference marker (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4052677,-73.5777095,3a,45.3y,270.71h,66.38t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa8RkTOM-qFkJKa_nEy07ZA!2e0) in the Adirondack Park. Is this normal for the Adirondack and Catskill parks or are they usually the normal white on green?
EDIT: There's also some sort of marker on the guardrail (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4052677,-73.5777095,3a,28.2y,343.04h,50.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa8RkTOM-qFkJKa_nEy07ZA!2e0) just before the reference marker. I checked old Street View imagery to make sure it wasn't just something on the guardrail, but it's there at every time on the timeline. It looks like a USGS survey marker, but there's nothing listed in the National Geodetic Survey Data Explorer. In that case, I'm guessing it's a right of way marker. Any ideas?
If you notice, it's also missing the support post underneath, leaving a gap in the pattern. I think it might have to do with that or the reference marker.
Really though, I don't think a grade crossing would ever have been built on a state parkway. They would have had to build an overpass.
Really though, I don't think a grade crossing would ever have been built on a state parkway. They would have had to build an overpass.
Why not? Several NY parkways have grade level intersections with streets and even traffic lights. I totally believe they would have let there be a railroad crossing there.
...in the 1940s, at least. If LIRR had in fact reactivated that line I'm sure the grade crossing would have been eliminated by now. The question is how long it would have lasted.
Interesting. I've driven/ridden that road a thousand times, and even back before it was paved over about 40 years ago, I never even noticed that as a kid. Really though, I don't think a grade crossing would ever have been built on a state parkway. They would have had to build an overpass.Well, that picture was from 1955, but I agree that they would've been better off with a bridge. Duke87 is right though, they might've felt it was okay to have one at the time. I wouldn't.
This is on "Trains Are Fun.com," but there were provisions on the Wantagh State Parkway to have a potential grade crossing just in case the LIRR decided to restore service on the Central Branch between Eisenhower Park and Bethpage Junction. :-o
http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/centralbranch/lirrcentralbranch.htm
http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/centralbranch/22-Cent-Br-Remains-ROW-at-Grade-Wantagh%20Pky-Levittown-1955%20(Schneider-Keller).jpg
This is over by the Salisbury Park Drive bridge. I'm really glad they never built that.
Really though, I don't think a grade crossing would ever have been built on a state parkway. They would have had to build an overpass.
Why not? Several NY parkways have grade level intersections with streets and even traffic lights. I totally believe they would have let there be a railroad crossing there.
...in the 1940s, at least. If LIRR had in fact reactivated that line I'm sure the grade crossing would have been eliminated by now. The question is how long it would have lasted.
Please, there are plenty of Interstate-grade roads in this part of the country with grade crossings. Look at Utica and Vermont. Would that one have been grade separated at some point? Probably. But that doesn't mean it necessarily would have.
It is worth mentioning that I-87 had a temporary grade crossing just north of Albany between its opening and 1965.
Really though, I don't think a grade crossing would ever have been built on a state parkway. They would have had to build an overpass.
Why not? Several NY parkways have grade level intersections with streets and even traffic lights. I totally believe they would have let there be a railroad crossing there.
...in the 1940s, at least. If LIRR had in fact reactivated that line I'm sure the grade crossing would have been eliminated by now. The question is how long it would have lasted.
Please, there are plenty of Interstate-grade roads in this part of the country with grade crossings. Look at Utica and Vermont. Would that one have been grade separated at some point? Probably. But that doesn't mean it necessarily would have.
It is worth mentioning that I-87 had a temporary grade crossing just north of Albany between its opening and 1965.
The NY 840 expressway was built in 2005 with a grade crossing.
Really though, I don't think a grade crossing would ever have been built on a state parkway. They would have had to build an overpass.
Why not? Several NY parkways have grade level intersections with streets and even traffic lights. I totally believe they would have let there be a railroad crossing there.
...in the 1940s, at least. If LIRR had in fact reactivated that line I'm sure the grade crossing would have been eliminated by now. The question is how long it would have lasted.
Please, there are plenty of Interstate-grade roads in this part of the country with grade crossings. Look at Utica and Vermont. Would that one have been grade separated at some point? Probably. But that doesn't mean it necessarily would have.
It is worth mentioning that I-87 had a temporary grade crossing just north of Albany between its opening and 1965.
The NY 840 expressway was built in 2005 with a grade crossing.
Don't forget about the NY-49/365 crossing.
It is worth mentioning that I-87 had a temporary grade crossing just north of Albany between its opening and 1965.Yeah, in hindsight, that was probably a bad idea. Now the Mohawk-Hudson Hike-Bike Trail needs to jog onto local streets to cross I-87 since the off-road trail is just the old rail ROW.
It is worth mentioning that I-87 had a temporary grade crossing just north of Albany between its opening and 1965.Yeah, in hindsight, that was probably a bad idea. Now the Mohawk-Hudson Hike-Bike Trail needs to jog onto local streets to cross I-87 since the off-road trail is just the old rail ROW.
Okay, re: the Wantagh Parkway again. It was built in 1938 and Long island was rural back then, so just maybe there was so little traffic that a grade crossing would have been considered realistic. Next time I drive that road, I will check if the potential crossing is still visible but I don't know how it could be. The Parkway was repaved with asphalt over the original concrete in about 1977. And it badly needs repaving again now, as that 40 year-old asphalt is falling apart.
Please, there are plenty of Interstate-grade roads in this part of the country with grade crossings. Look at Utica and Vermont. Would that one have been grade separated at some point? Probably. But that doesn't mean it necessarily would have.
ALBANY – There are no specific plans to bring a cashless toll system to the upstate portions of the Thruway even though it now operates at the Tappan Zee Bridge between Rockland and Westchester counties, a Cuomo administration official told lawmakers Wednesday.
“We’ve looked at it. We have no plans at the moment,’’ Bill Finch, the acting executive director of the Thruway Authority, testified during a joint legislative hearing looking into Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s budget plans for the state’s transportation programs.
In cashless tolling, tolls are either deducted from a driver's E-Z Pass or the license plate is photographed and you get a bill in the mail.
Cashless tolling is also being added at New York City bridge and tunnel crossings.
Finch said Thruway plazas in Western New York are areas “that would benefit from cashless tolling.’’ But he said the current plans are not to expand that toll collection system beyond downstate.
The “social costs are enormous” with cashless tolling, Finch said. They include less wait time at toll booths, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and fewer accidents.
Finch did not say why other areas of Thruway do not have plans to add the cashless tolling systems.
Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.I don't fully buy that. It is totally possible to go toward highway-speed tolls for ezpass first. Something like south Thruway terminus - that works just fine. I would say Exit B1 at the end of free I-90, B3 toward MA and Thruway 87 -> Northway are prime spots for that with significant traffic and reasonable room for construction.
Very simple: E-ZPass usage rates. Usage rates in Western New York are well under 50%. Downstate, they're around 90% Because of that, there's no benefit to any changeover. They'd be mailing bills to the majority of users. Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.But wouldn't having to staff toll booths and print paper tickets still cost more money in the long term?
Until people in Western New York start getting E-ZPass, there's no reason to introduce cashless tolling.
I think this is more about the outcry when locals who make short dashes along toll road would face $0.30 toll + $2.50 administrative fee for what used to be a quarter at the booth...Very simple: E-ZPass usage rates. Usage rates in Western New York are well under 50%. Downstate, they're around 90% Because of that, there's no benefit to any changeover. They'd be mailing bills to the majority of users. Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.But wouldn't having to staff toll booths and print paper tickets still cost more money in the long term?
Until people in Western New York start getting E-ZPass, there's no reason to introduce cashless tolling.
Though, as I'm typing this, I do realize that automated toll booths that accept paper tickets do exists. The Mass Pike used to use them.
I think this is more about the outcry when locals who make short dashes along toll road would face $0.30 toll + $2.50 administrative fee for what used to be a quarter at the booth...Very simple: E-ZPass usage rates. Usage rates in Western New York are well under 50%. Downstate, they're around 90% Because of that, there's no benefit to any changeover. They'd be mailing bills to the majority of users. Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.But wouldn't having to staff toll booths and print paper tickets still cost more money in the long term?
Until people in Western New York start getting E-ZPass, there's no reason to introduce cashless tolling.
Though, as I'm typing this, I do realize that automated toll booths that accept paper tickets do exists. The Mass Pike used to use them.
All this talk of the Buffalo area has raised a question - It's fairly common knowledge that the best route from, say, New Jersey to Buffalo involves taking I-390 and cutting a diagonal toward the Thruway. Was a freeway ever proposed for this corridor? Is there justification to provide some sort of diagonal improved road here?
Very simple: E-ZPass usage rates. Usage rates in Western New York are well under 50%. Downstate, they're around 90% Because of that, there's no benefit to any changeover. They'd be mailing bills to the majority of users. Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.BTW, how old that "below 50%" data is?
Until people in Western New York start getting E-ZPass, there's no reason to introduce cashless tolling.
Very simple: E-ZPass usage rates. Usage rates in Western New York are well under 50%. Downstate, they're around 90% Because of that, there's no benefit to any changeover. They'd be mailing bills to the majority of users. Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.BTW, how old that "below 50%" data is?
Until people in Western New York start getting E-ZPass, there's no reason to introduce cashless tolling.
I am looking at 2016 data, and exit 50 has 63% ezpass usage, 61% for exit 55 - well, still lower compared to 69.6% for exit 24...
Well, mainline Thruway can do anything - and that wouldn't affect logistics of Grand Island....Very simple: E-ZPass usage rates. Usage rates in Western New York are well under 50%. Downstate, they're around 90% Because of that, there's no benefit to any changeover. They'd be mailing bills to the majority of users. Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.BTW, how old that "below 50%" data is?
Until people in Western New York start getting E-ZPass, there's no reason to introduce cashless tolling.
I am looking at 2016 data, and exit 50 has 63% ezpass usage, 61% for exit 55 - well, still lower compared to 69.6% for exit 24...
2015. And that doesn't include the Grand Island bridges. Once those go, you'll be hearing it from the groups trying to attract tourists because of how the rental car companies slap a fee on top of the camera charge.
Okay, re: the Wantagh Parkway again. It was built in 1938 and Long island was rural back then, so just maybe there was so little traffic that a grade crossing would have been considered realistic. Next time I drive that road, I will check if the potential crossing is still visible but I don't know how it could be. The Parkway was repaved with asphalt over the original concrete in about 1977. And it badly needs repaving again now, as that 40 year-old asphalt is falling apart.There's a bike trail next to it. Any chance you could use that?
The rental car model is a disaster. They should charge a flat fee of $5 for the entire rental period if you use their tag, and that's it. It's extortion right now.Well, mainline Thruway can do anything - and that wouldn't affect logistics of Grand Island....Very simple: E-ZPass usage rates. Usage rates in Western New York are well under 50%. Downstate, they're around 90% Because of that, there's no benefit to any changeover. They'd be mailing bills to the majority of users. Plus, any changes to the main ticket system must happen at once.BTW, how old that "below 50%" data is?
Until people in Western New York start getting E-ZPass, there's no reason to introduce cashless tolling.
I am looking at 2016 data, and exit 50 has 63% ezpass usage, 61% for exit 55 - well, still lower compared to 69.6% for exit 24...
2015. And that doesn't include the Grand Island bridges. Once those go, you'll be hearing it from the groups trying to attract tourists because of how the rental car companies slap a fee on top of the camera charge.
As for camera surcharges - that is definitely one big reason why I think AET in its present form is a disaster.
it is not about rental, I am afraid. I would say this is about "they don't vote here" approach - out-of-state plates can also mean problems. Overcharging and fining those out of area is so easy. Both toll agencies and rental companies are at fault. Local governments also love to bite that cake...
The rental car model is a disaster. They should charge a flat fee of $5 for the entire rental period if you use their tag, and that's it. It's extortion right now.
When it comes to the rental car companies, I agree with Alps. It's extortion on the rental companies part, pure and simple.
One alternative for the customer, as the system currently exists, is to use their own EZPass (if they have one) in a rental vehicle. I recently did this and had no problems.
One complication regarding "out of state plates" and rental cars is that you can still have a local who's stuck with out of state plates. In my EZPass example above, I had a rental vehicle for almost a month with Pennsylvania plates, despite the fact that I both picked up and dropped off the rental vehicle in northern Vermont. I can't imagine this is an isolated situation.
When it comes to the rental car companies, I agree with Alps. It's extortion on the rental companies part, pure and simple.The key stipulation in your above-statement is (if they have one). At present, only 16 states have E-ZPass and that number does not include states that have their own independent electronic tolling system (Florida's SunPass for example, which does not recognize E-ZPass accounts (my brother found that out the hard way a few years ago)).
One alternative for the customer, as the system currently exists, is to use their own EZPass (if they have one) in a rental vehicle. I recently did this and had no problems.
A real-world scenario would be if a visitor from a non-E-ZPass state (& has no need to have an E-ZPass account) flies into a city and rents a car at or near the airport. If they have to use an all-AET facility in their travels (& a toll-free alternative route is not easily available/accessible); they're still basically at the mercy of the rental car company in terms of (exorbitant) charges & fees.
SO I need to get Sunpass tag for $15 or $25, and again end up paying 3x tolls? Yes, I may reuse tag next time.. if I choose to return. But you know, Aruba doesn't have any toll roads, and in general much less of a hassle.A real-world scenario would be if a visitor from a non-E-ZPass state (& has no need to have an E-ZPass account) flies into a city and rents a car at or near the airport. If they have to use an all-AET facility in their travels (& a toll-free alternative route is not easily available/accessible); they're still basically at the mercy of the rental car company in terms of (exorbitant) charges & fees.
This doesn't necessarily help you if your trip is on short notice, but if you have the foresight you can always sign up for a local tag from the place you're going in advance of the trip.
Of course, the percentage of non-roadgeeks who think of this is probably small.
One complication regarding "out of state plates" and rental cars is that you can still have a local who's stuck with out of state plates. In my EZPass example above, I had a rental vehicle for almost a month with Pennsylvania plates, despite the fact that I both picked up and dropped off the rental vehicle in northern Vermont. I can't imagine this is an isolated situation.It isn't. I've rented vehicles in Massachusetts that had Virginia or Georgia plates; and one time, while in Pittsburgh, the rental vehicle I used had California plates on it.
I don't think rentals even USE regular transponders like E-ZPass. The one time I had a rental, it had a proprietary "PlatePass" system, so its acceptance may be different.
I don't think rentals even USE regular transponders like E-ZPass. The one time I had a rental, it had a proprietary "PlatePass" system, so its acceptance may be different.Such depends on the rental car agency & location. One rental I had a few years ago (the facility was at an airport) actually had a transponder in the glove box; but using it (attaching it to the windshield) was subject to a fee so I left it in the glove box and paid cash for any tolls.
In areas with AET, PlatePass activates automatically and the renter is charged the ridiculous service fees plus the cash toll rate. That right there is reason enough not to have AETFTFY. :)in Buffalo given the region's heavily reliance on tourismwith no cash alternative at all.
I can see easy non-cash alternatives for visitors who want to pay without long-term commitments - like pay via Internet a-la Illinois, pay at kiosk - at gas station near exit (they would LOVE people stopping by and entering the store), rest area, PC at hotel lobby and so on.In areas with AET, PlatePass activates automatically and the renter is charged the ridiculous service fees plus the cash toll rate. That right there is reason enough not to have AETFTFY. :)in Buffalo given the region's heavily reliance on tourismwith no cash alternative at all.
I can see easy non-cash alternatives for visitors who want to pay without long-term commitments - like pay via Internet a-la Illinois, pay at kiosk - at gas station near exit (they would LOVE people stopping by and entering the store), rest area, PC at hotel lobby and so on.I don't think what you described has been implemented on a grand scale as of yet. AET is still fairly new in most regions.
We're routinely discussing California-Hawaii interstates over here. Compared to that, relatively straightforward payment system should be seen as cheap and simple project barely worth any discussion!I can see easy non-cash alternatives for visitors who want to pay without long-term commitments - like pay via Internet a-la Illinois, pay at kiosk - at gas station near exit (they would LOVE people stopping by and entering the store), rest area, PC at hotel lobby and so on.I don't think what you described has been implemented on a grand scale as of yet. AET is still fairly new in most regions.
I don't see a reason such add-ons to AET system cannot be implemented, assuming powers that be are interested in that.The key phrase/issue in your statement is shown in bold. As mentioned earlier by vdeane; rental car agencies aren't going to willingly give up their cash cow in terms of transponder/plate-pass fees.
Moreover, I can see it as a precursor to nationwide toll interoperability, as we have tag compatibility issuesElectronic tolling of some type has been in existence for over 20 years; and while E-ZPass is the largest network (up to 16 states), there are still states/agencies to this date that use an independent/non-compatible electronic tolling system.
- but license plates are more compatible.That could open up a whole other debate/can of worms.
I don't see a reason such add-ons to AET system cannot be implemented, assuming powers that be are interested in that.The key phrase/issue in your statement is shown in bold. As mentioned earlier by vdeane; rental car agencies aren't going to willingly give up their cash cow in terms of transponder/plate-pass fees.Moreover, I can see it as a precursor to nationwide toll interoperability, as we have tag compatibility issuesElectronic tolling of some type has been in existence for over 20 years; and while E-ZPass is the largest network (up to 16 states), there are still states/agencies to this date that use an independent/non-compatible electronic tolling system.- but license plates are more compatible.That could open up a whole other debate/can of worms.
And, NYSDOT Region 5 is very open about Buffalo not having a significant traffic problem anyway. They don't even have the usual rush hour humps on their daily traffic charts -- traffic in Buffalo actuall peaks at lunch time.
The mayor of Binghamton just announced some projects last night. Route 363 is being torn down. The initial plans call for it to be removed completely but there's an alternative to make it a two-lane grade level street. Absolutely ridiculous. The kowtowing to pedestrians in this country is sickening.
The state is moving forward on a $6m welcome center for Grand Island along I-190. I'm sure this will find itself in company with CuomoSigns.The FHWA didn't complain about the Taste NY store on the Thruway near Lock 13, so we'll see.
NY 363 carries about 23k vehicles there. While it doesn't need to be a freeway, that would seem to be a bit much for a two lane road (either on the same alignment or diverting to US 11).I am not too sure that FHWA is totally accepting of the Taste of NY facilities. I think the negotiations have just gone into the shadows.The state is moving forward on a $6m welcome center for Grand Island along I-190. I'm sure this will find itself in company with CuomoSigns.The FHWA didn't complain about the Taste NY store on the Thruway near Lock 13, so we'll see.
NY 363 carries about 23k vehicles there. While it doesn't need to be a freeway, that would seem to be a bit much for a two lane road (either on the same alignment or diverting to US 11).
I am not too sure that FHWA is totally accepting of the Taste of NY facilities. I think the negotiations have just gone into the shadows.
There is adequate routes for NY 363 to divert to if there is that much of a need for through traffic. The proposal, at least from what I've read, does not yet call for a two-lane parkway. And it has been demonstrated that just because a freeway or a high capacity route is removed that congestion increases elsewhere; it merely disperses or gets shifted to other routes. Rush hour is not a concern for the area.
Last thing I've seen in press was automatic checkout on existing facilities, no human cashier, no new facilities on non-tolled roads. I thought one on Thruway is OK as it is on a toll road?NY 363 carries about 23k vehicles there. While it doesn't need to be a freeway, that would seem to be a bit much for a two lane road (either on the same alignment or diverting to US 11).I am not too sure that FHWA is totally accepting of the Taste of NY facilities. I think the negotiations have just gone into the shadows.The state is moving forward on a $6m welcome center for Grand Island along I-190. I'm sure this will find itself in company with CuomoSigns.The FHWA didn't complain about the Taste NY store on the Thruway near Lock 13, so we'll see.
I'd want to see an O/D study before I pronounce that they can shift corridors. Given the lights on 434 through Vestal, actual through traffic probably IS already using 201, meaning that much of the 13K is locally generated on one side of the bridge or the other. ***EDITED TO ADD: Brought to my attention that with 17/81 construction, traffic might currently be using 363-434 that would normally use 17-201 in the future. So we may not actually be able to rely on the counts.*** 23K needs at minimum a four-lane corridor, especially given how quiet nights are (meaning that a higher percentage of traffic is present at rush hours than, say, northern NJ). If this is brought to the surface, it needs to be a four lane expressway with corridor signal progression.NY 363 carries about 23k vehicles there. While it doesn't need to be a freeway, that would seem to be a bit much for a two lane road (either on the same alignment or diverting to US 11).
And of that, half is through traffic. The ramps between 363 and the bridge carry about 13K both directions combined. Those users can easily move to NY 201 if they want a limited-access route.
For information regarding its removal and the plan to revitalize Binghamton's long neglected waterfront, see this study (https://docs.dos.ny.gov/opd-lwrp/LWRP/Binghamton_C/Original/BinghamtonSIV.pdf).
NY 363 does little to enhance the traffic flow for the city, other than speed it up through a residential neighborhood and downtown. It cuts off a revitalizing neighborhood and downtown from the Susquehanna River and impedes a long-proposed plan to incorporate a linear waterfront park along the Susquehanna and Chenango rivers.
The loop ramps with NY 434, each one block square, produce nothing for the city in terms of tax revenue. They are out of scale with the surrounding density and the land can be better reused for new mixed-use developments.
The removal of the NY 363 freeway only adds a few minutes to a commute out of downtown. Its transformation into a landscaped parkway with pedestrian crossings, buffered by a long needed park and new developments, will improve the aesthetics and tax base of the city.
The news articles have mentioned complaints regarding the facility on the LIE and the one being constructed on free 90 in Schodack. No mention of the one on at Lock 13 in any article, and that's the one to compare Grand Island to, since I-190 is part of the Thruway there.NY 363 carries about 23k vehicles there. While it doesn't need to be a freeway, that would seem to be a bit much for a two lane road (either on the same alignment or diverting to US 11).I am not too sure that FHWA is totally accepting of the Taste of NY facilities. I think the negotiations have just gone into the shadows.The state is moving forward on a $6m welcome center for Grand Island along I-190. I'm sure this will find itself in company with CuomoSigns.The FHWA didn't complain about the Taste NY store on the Thruway near Lock 13, so we'll see.
It's ludicrous to anyone who lives here to suggest removing a road and building a park will bring anyone downtown. Downtown Binghamton is where you go to deal with the government. There will never again be a true reason to go there for entertainment. Those days are long gone.
I find it interesting that Utica decided to do a full scale upgrade for its downtown expressway instead of considering a downgrade like in the case here. Although at the same time, there's quite a bit of N/S traffic that goes through there so I don't think I know what I'm talking about.
D263387 - a project to improve the interchange with I-390, I-490, and Lyell Ave in the Rochester area.I was honestly starting to wonder if that project would ever see the light of day. Of course, this is SIGNIFICANTLY scaled back from what it once was. Last I saw, it would have had more extensive interchange modifications, including express lanes. Over 15 years ago, the plan was to completely rebuild the interchange and do a full depth reconstruction from there all the way to NY 104.
Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263387
D263387 - a project to improve the interchange with I-390, I-490, and Lyell Ave in the Rochester area.Is it me or do those LEFT EXIT tabs shown on the drawings for Exit 9B appear a bit too wide?
Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263387
I am fairly sure preliminary phases of the project have already been underway under different contracts.Quite possibly (the area of NY 390 to be reconstructed did receive an overlay after that version of the project was cancelled; it was originally to be done around the same time as the work on I-490 east of there; there was also a project in the works to reconstruct NY 590 from Norton Street to Lake Ontario, as I recall). All I know is that they've been talking about this interchange since I was in elementary school, and the cost of the project has had some questioning whether the revived project (after the original was cancelled) would actually go through or not. Kinda like the exit 4 flyover around here.
Exit 4 Phase 1 was completed in 2015 with the bridge replacements. I know the rest is on CDTC's priority list, but failing bridges come first.
- NY 220's extension to the Veterans Home in Oxford is gone, now just to NY 12 in Oxford Village.
- NY 261's county-maintained northern terminus lopped off.
- NY 314 truncated to the spur between 87 and 9.
So apparently, checking it again, NY 8 has been truncated to the northern end of the concurrency with NY 10 instead of running to NY 17, lopping off 2.16 miles.
NY 102 has been truncated by 2.5 miles from NY 24 to William Street. It was county-maintained as CR 106 west of the junction, so it makes sense.
NY 204 east of I-390 lopped off.
Uh oh.. US 22 makes an appearance in R8 for an I-684 pavement rehab project from Hardscrabble Rd north to I-84
Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263441
NY 220's extension was signed as of a month ago. NY 8 was still signed to NY 17 last weekend.
The ONLY confirmed removals are in Region 7 and I, along with many others, have confirmed most personally. In cases where the log and inventory files disagree, inventory files trump.
What is interesting is that street view indicates that the signage DOES claim that NY 261 ends at the Parkway.
Signage on NY 96 just disappears (same for NY 404, even though it actually ends around NY 590; signage erroneously says it heads west and then vanishes). NY 261 has an "END" shield prior to the LOSP, the ramps from the LOSP only snow NY 261 south, and coming from the county-maintained part there's a "JCT NY 261" sign on the same assembly as the "JCT LOSP" sign.
Signage on NY 96 just disappears (same for NY 404, even though it actually ends around NY 590; signage erroneously says it heads west and then vanishes). NY 261 has an "END" shield prior to the LOSP, the ramps from the LOSP only snow NY 261 south, and coming from the county-maintained part there's a "JCT NY 261" sign on the same assembly as the "JCT LOSP" sign.
This. I can name a handful of routes that just disappear under local maintenance. NY 261 is the only one I know of with an end sign. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. But it is curious. Stuff like NY 80 and US 9W just die out. Not 261.
Signage on NY 96 just disappears (same for NY 404, even though it actually ends around NY 590; signage erroneously says it heads west and then vanishes). NY 261 has an "END" shield prior to the LOSP, the ramps from the LOSP only snow NY 261 south, and coming from the county-maintained part there's a "JCT NY 261" sign on the same assembly as the "JCT LOSP" sign.
This. I can name a handful of routes that just disappear under local maintenance. NY 261 is the only one I know of with an end sign. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. But it is curious. Stuff like NY 80 and US 9W just die out. Not 261.
I don't know that 261 has always had END signage; that may indeed be a change. But even if it is, the route log doesn't reflect it. (Neither does the inventory, although that may have changed since 2014.)
This would not be the first case of a route's "official" alignment differing from its signed alignment. NY 15 was never "officially" overlapped onto I-390 and NY 17, but signage unambiguously said it was so for quite some time.
Touring Route.Signage on NY 96 just disappears (same for NY 404, even though it actually ends around NY 590; signage erroneously says it heads west and then vanishes). NY 261 has an "END" shield prior to the LOSP, the ramps from the LOSP only snow NY 261 south, and coming from the county-maintained part there's a "JCT NY 261" sign on the same assembly as the "JCT LOSP" sign.
This. I can name a handful of routes that just disappear under local maintenance. NY 261 is the only one I know of with an end sign. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. But it is curious. Stuff like NY 80 and US 9W just die out. Not 261.
I don't know that 261 has always had END signage; that may indeed be a change. But even if it is, the route log doesn't reflect it. (Neither does the inventory, although that may have changed since 2014.)
This would not be the first case of a route's "official" alignment differing from its signed alignment. NY 15 was never "officially" overlapped onto I-390 and NY 17, but signage unambiguously said it was so for quite some time.
This would not be the first case of a route's "official" alignment differing from its signed alignment. NY 15 was never "officially" overlapped onto I-390 and NY 17, but signage unambiguously said it was so for quite some time.Touring Route.
Uh oh.. US 22 makes an appearance in R8 for an I-684 pavement rehab project from Hardscrabble Rd north to I-84I saw a US 9A shield in Riverdale at the Henry Hudson Parkway, and an NY 9 shield on Broadway at the George Washington Bridge early yesterday morning.
Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263441
Hey, new idea (or maybe not so new);Probably because they never thought of it, and they don't have a compelling reason to spend money to do it now.
Why won't the New York City DOT and Parks Department combine Exit 13 on the Major Deegan Expressway with the entrance to the northbound gas station?
I'm surprised there even is a gas station on a free Interstate highway.I'm surprised people buy gas there to begin with. Its always a dollar/dollar-fifty more than the city average. Same thing goes with the one on the Hutch
I'm surprised there even is a gas station on a free Interstate highway.I'm surprised people buy gas there to begin with. Its always a dollar/dollar-fifty more than the city average. Same thing goes with the one on the Hutch
A quick check of GasBuddy this morning shows it to be $0.14/gal more expensive than a BP station a few blocks down 233rd St, at least for Regular (87 octane). Premium is FAR more expensive.
A quick check of GasBuddy this morning shows it to be $0.14/gal more expensive than a BP station a few blocks down 233rd St, at least for Regular (87 octane). Premium is FAR more expensive.
Well, you'd have to check GasBuddy between 2011-2015. I haven't looked into it recently since I'd don't live down there anymore.
Well, they buy other items there too, since many of them also have Dunkin' Donuts franchises.I'm surprised there even is a gas station on a free Interstate highway.I'm surprised people buy gas there to begin with. Its always a dollar/dollar-fifty more than the city average. Same thing goes with the one on the Hutch
A quick check of GasBuddy this morning shows it to be $0.14/gal more expensive than a BP station a few blocks down 233rd St, at least for Regular (87 octane). Premium is FAR more expensive.
Well, you'd have to check GasBuddy between 2011-2015. I haven't looked into it recently since I'd don't live down there anymore.
Upcharge is reasonable for an on-expressway station. Look at how much more gas stations on the Thruway charge.
A quick check of GasBuddy this morning shows it to be $0.14/gal more expensive than a BP station a few blocks down 233rd St, at least for Regular (87 octane). Premium is FAR more expensive.
Well, you'd have to check GasBuddy between 2011-2015. I haven't looked into it recently since I'd don't live down there anymore.
Upcharge is reasonable for an on-expressway station. Look at how much more gas stations on the Thruway charge.
Is the Thruway still bound to the rule that they can only raise their gas prices once a week? Back in the "Lower Fuel Prices In Effect" days I knew this to be the case but I thought that was outside of then Gov. Pataki trying to keep fuel prices down on the Thruway.
There are times when fuel is cheaper at the Schuyler and Oneida Service Plazas than the nearby stations at Exits 31 and 32.
Same experience as Rothman. As a general rule, Massachusetts has the cheapest gas in New England.
A quick check of GasBuddy this morning shows it to be $0.14/gal more expensive than a BP station a few blocks down 233rd St, at least for Regular (87 octane). Premium is FAR more expensive.
Well, you'd have to check GasBuddy between 2011-2015. I haven't looked into it recently since I'd don't live down there anymore.
Upcharge is reasonable for an on-expressway station. Look at how much more gas stations on the Thruway charge.
Same experience as Rothman. As a general rule, Massachusetts has the cheapest gas in New England.
I thought New Hampshire was cheaper by a few cents.
I've found the cheapest gas in MA to be along the I-195/US 6 corridor.Same experience as Rothman. As a general rule, Massachusetts has the cheapest gas in New England.
I thought New Hampshire was cheaper by a few cents.
Greater Brockton and northern Worcester county are the two lowest priced areas for gas in New England. Some parts of NH compete with that as well.
However, gasbuddy.com has the info, avg. price for NH is $2.181/gallon, MA $2.240/gallon. You can find the cheapest gas in Mass, but places like the Cape, Islands, and Boston are so damn expensive that they skew that average upward hard. Only spots of NH that have ridiculous gas prices are in Coos County, and even so it's small mom and pop places that are very few and far between.
Springfield area. But we're getting off topic.I've found the cheapest gas in MA to be along the I-195/US 6 corridor.Same experience as Rothman. As a general rule, Massachusetts has the cheapest gas in New England.
I thought New Hampshire was cheaper by a few cents.
Greater Brockton and northern Worcester county are the two lowest priced areas for gas in New England. Some parts of NH compete with that as well.
However, gasbuddy.com has the info, avg. price for NH is $2.181/gallon, MA $2.240/gallon. You can find the cheapest gas in Mass, but places like the Cape, Islands, and Boston are so damn expensive that they skew that average upward hard. Only spots of NH that have ridiculous gas prices are in Coos County, and even so it's small mom and pop places that are very few and far between.
A quick check of GasBuddy this morning shows it to be $0.14/gal more expensive than a BP station a few blocks down 233rd St, at least for Regular (87 octane). Premium is FAR more expensive.
Well, you'd have to check GasBuddy between 2011-2015. I haven't looked into it recently since I'd don't live down there anymore.
Upcharge is reasonable for an on-expressway station. Look at how much more gas stations on the Thruway charge.
Another NY 22 question; How many rest areas exist on that road besides the two north of the Appalachian Trail Metro-North station? And should there be signage for that station?
I wouldn't use Amenia as the starting point. Austerlitz or New Lebanon are probably better starting points for desolation.
Agree. I also wouldn't classify it as desolate as cl94 is claiming. Ticonderoga has plenty of services (including a WalMart Supercenter) as does Whitehall, and there's a fair bit of traffic between Ticonderoga and Crown Point as well as some of the segments south of Whitehall.
The only part I'd call "desolate", and that's mainly because of the narrowness and the acute lack of traffic on it, is from Westport to where it meets US 9 (and I-87) south of Keeseville.
But yeah, if you think that's "desolate", man you need to get out of the Northeast more.
Oh yeah. They do call them parking areas at that one. But thanks for the info.Another NY 22 question; How many rest areas exist on that road besides the two north of the Appalachian Trail Metro-North station? And should there be signage for that station?
Rest areas? You mean like parking areas? Not many.
New STIP includes for WNY SEIS for US 219 in Cattaraugus County and preliminary design for "cap" over Kensington Expwy along Humboldt Pkwy https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/stip/files/R5.pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/stip/files/R5.pdf)
Have to agree. NY 22 is quite scenic.Yes. I just don't like getting stuck behind tourists going 10 under the limit.
I won't admit to passing on double yellows with plenty of sight distance to get around tourists.Have to agree. NY 22 is quite scenic.Yes. I just don't like getting stuck behind tourists going 10 under the limit.
I won't admit to passing on double yellows with plenty of sight distance to get around tourists.Have to agree. NY 22 is quite scenic.Yes. I just don't like getting stuck behind tourists going 10 under the limit.
Tourist are much easier to handle when you picture each with a giant dollar sign above his head. Helps me get through Times Square when I have to. :-)Great way of looking at things! :bigass:
I won't admit to passing on double yellows with plenty of sight distance to get around tourists.Have to agree. NY 22 is quite scenic.Yes. I just don't like getting stuck behind tourists going 10 under the limit.
Tourist are much easier to handle when you picture each with a giant dollar sign above his head. Helps me get through Times Square when I have to. :-)
I won't admit to passing on double yellows with plenty of sight distance to get around tourists.Have to agree. NY 22 is quite scenic.Yes. I just don't like getting stuck behind tourists going 10 under the limit.
Tourist are much easier to handle when you picture each with a giant dollar sign above his head. Helps me get through Times Square when I have to. :-)
Eh, having grown up in Lake George (which owes its existence to tourism), I still think they're morons. Traffic in the Adirondacks wouldn't be so bad if the tourists F-ing moved.
Is the 219 thing related to the itty bitty stub they want to build in Salamanca?
Edit: never mind, it actually included the SEIS for the whole Peters to Salamanca!! I'll be 30 by the time it's built though.
I won't admit to passing on double yellows with plenty of sight distance to get around tourists.Have to agree. NY 22 is quite scenic.Yes. I just don't like getting stuck behind tourists going 10 under the limit.
Tourist are much easier to handle when you picture each with a giant dollar sign above his head. Helps me get through Times Square when I have to. :-)
Eh, having grown up in Lake George (which owes its existence to tourism), I still think they're morons. Traffic in the Adirondacks wouldn't be so bad if the tourists F-ing moved.
I'm not sure if this is programmed, but are they starting construction (rebuilding, practically) of I-88 for the first few miles from Binghamton? I can't believe it hasn't been rebuilt, much less patched, since it was completed and is easily one of the worst highways I've ever driven on.It has been discussed at length at NYSDOT. Not sure if it is part of the official program yet. Sort of stuck like NY 85 was for a time, insofar as I can tell.
I'm not sure if this is programmed, but are they starting construction (rebuilding, practically) of I-88 for the first few miles from Binghamton? I can't believe it hasn't been rebuilt, much less patched, since it was completed and is easily one of the worst highways I've ever driven on.It has been discussed at length at NYSDOT. Not sure if it is part of the official program yet. Sort of stuck like NY 85 was for a time, insofar as I can tell.
There are no concrete plans to convert to mile-based exits on the interstates, despite lip service to the contrary. Unless we see another large replacement like there was on the Taconic, it just isn't going to happen.
I see signs on the interstates being replaced one at a time as needed, which means it just will not make sense to do the conversion.
May I be proven wrong.
There have been minor spasms of planning regarding the conversion, but nothing has ever been actually programmed as part of the capital program, other than I-99 and the Taconic.There are no concrete plans to convert to mile-based exits on the interstates, despite lip service to the contrary. Unless we see another large replacement like there was on the Taconic, it just isn't going to happen.
I see signs on the interstates being replaced one at a time as needed, which means it just will not make sense to do the conversion.
May I be proven wrong.
About five years ago I heard talk about NYSDOT trying a "new exit/old exit" numbering scheme but I don't know if that was just some random engineer musing out loud or if it was given some consideration.
I have always pushed NYSDOT to leave the exit numbering in the five boroughs alone and worry about upstate first with the conversion. It's upstate that would have improved safety benefits from distance based exit numbering, especially the Thruway. The Thruway could even leave everything below the Tappan Zee as is and move to mileage based above the Tappan Zee without confusing things too badly.
Some of the documentation of the conversion plan in NYSDOT has always had an Albany Airport exit along I-87 as exit 150. I went back and forth with them on how that should actually be exit 160 because I-87 doesn't start at the Thruway, there's 8.8 miles of it down to the Bruckner. They found that mind boggling.
There have been minor spasms of planning regarding the conversion, but nothing has ever been actually programmed as part of the capital program, other than I-99 and the Taconic.There are no concrete plans to convert to mile-based exits on the interstates, despite lip service to the contrary. Unless we see another large replacement like there was on the Taconic, it just isn't going to happen.
I see signs on the interstates being replaced one at a time as needed, which means it just will not make sense to do the conversion.
May I be proven wrong.
About five years ago I heard talk about NYSDOT trying a "new exit/old exit" numbering scheme but I don't know if that was just some random engineer musing out loud or if it was given some consideration.
I have always pushed NYSDOT to leave the exit numbering in the five boroughs alone and worry about upstate first with the conversion. It's upstate that would have improved safety benefits from distance based exit numbering, especially the Thruway. The Thruway could even leave everything below the Tappan Zee as is and move to mileage based above the Tappan Zee without confusing things too badly.
Some of the documentation of the conversion plan in NYSDOT has always had an Albany Airport exit along I-87 as exit 150. I went back and forth with them on how that should actually be exit 160 because I-87 doesn't start at the Thruway, there's 8.8 miles of it down to the Bruckner. They found that mind boggling.
There have been minor spasms of planning regarding the conversion, but nothing has ever been actually programmed as part of the capital program, other than I-99 and the Taconic.There are no concrete plans to convert to mile-based exits on the interstates, despite lip service to the contrary. Unless we see another large replacement like there was on the Taconic, it just isn't going to happen.
I see signs on the interstates being replaced one at a time as needed, which means it just will not make sense to do the conversion.
May I be proven wrong.
About five years ago I heard talk about NYSDOT trying a "new exit/old exit" numbering scheme but I don't know if that was just some random engineer musing out loud or if it was given some consideration.
I have always pushed NYSDOT to leave the exit numbering in the five boroughs alone and worry about upstate first with the conversion. It's upstate that would have improved safety benefits from distance based exit numbering, especially the Thruway. The Thruway could even leave everything below the Tappan Zee as is and move to mileage based above the Tappan Zee without confusing things too badly.
Some of the documentation of the conversion plan in NYSDOT has always had an Albany Airport exit along I-87 as exit 150. I went back and forth with them on how that should actually be exit 160 because I-87 doesn't start at the Thruway, there's 8.8 miles of it down to the Bruckner. They found that mind boggling.
I was a little surprised when every guide sign on NY 400 in Region 5 was replaced a couple of years ago (in one project); that would have been a great opportunity to add exit numbers to that roadway.
I still think that NYSDOT should start with the freeways/expressways without interchange numbering right now, adding them as signs are replaced. It was weird to me that they covered up the exit numbers on the Taconic until some "big reveal". I know a lot of people treat Caltrans as the red headed step child of the U.S. but the way they have been implementing exit numbering has worked just fine (not necessarily the way they _post_ the numbers, though).
There are a few non-Interstate freeways in New York that could benefit from numbering - NY 33 (expressway portion) is 8 miles long with 14 interchanges and no numbers, nearby I-290 is 10 miles long with 8 interchanges and it has numbers. The only difference is the route number designation. NY 104 (Monroe County), NY 400, US 219, these are all decent freeways in length and are designed to interstate standards, but they don't have exit numbers. This would be a good place to start.
I'm encouraged by I-99, I-781 and the Taconic, especially the Taconic getting exit numbers after many decades.
Good luck convincing Cuomo II to fund that. And after all.. it's not broken...
The Taconic is also Region 8, which had exit numbers on almost everything but the Taconic.
It'll be at least 10 years or the FHWA withholding federal funding until they start changing things over. Need to get the old blood out of NYSDOT and for that to happen, the baby boomers basically need to retire.
The Taconic now has exit numbers and new signs? Cool. I was on it in 12, and really it had only the typical NY freeway type of guides minus the exit numbers of course.
However, my old Exxon maps showed exit numbers on it using W prefixes for Westchester County exits and P prefixes for Putnam County exits. I assume it at one time had them, and then it was removed sometime later.
The Taconic now has exit numbers and new signs? Cool. I was on it in 12, and really it had only the typical NY freeway type of guides minus the exit numbers of course.
However, my old Exxon maps showed exit numbers on it using W prefixes for Westchester County exits and P prefixes for Putnam County exits. I assume it at one time had them, and then it was removed sometime later.
I've heard of these but never actually seen them. I was on the Taconic for the first time in 1998, and it didn't have any exit numbers back then, so if it actually had them, it must go back a while.
Does anyone know if it is possible to find NYSDOT breakdown by the region? I am sure such breakdown should exist somewhere, but I cannot see anything...http://nysroads.com/regions.php
Oops, my keyword is missing in editing...Does anyone know if it is possible to find NYSDOT breakdown by the region? I am sure such breakdown should exist somewhere, but I cannot see anything...http://nysroads.com/regions.php
The Taconic now has exit numbers and new signs? Cool. I was on it in 12, and really it had only the typical NY freeway type of guides minus the exit numbers of course.
However, my old Exxon maps showed exit numbers on it using W prefixes for Westchester County exits and P prefixes for Putnam County exits. I assume it at one time had them, and then it was removed sometime later.
I've heard of these but never actually seen them. I was on the Taconic for the first time in 1998, and it didn't have any exit numbers back then, so if it actually had them, it must go back a while.
The Hortontown Hill Road P7 lives on. (https://goo.gl/maps/tTfL1pAAiGG2)
No.Oops, my keyword is missing in editing...Does anyone know if it is possible to find NYSDOT breakdown by the region? I am sure such breakdown should exist somewhere, but I cannot see anything...http://nysroads.com/regions.php
is possible to find NYSDOT budget breakdown by the region?
So NYSDOT finally decommissioned NYS 102 west of Williams Street in Hempstead.
Just give me more reasons to hate the state I was born in, and life in general, Cuomo!
So NYSDOT finally decommissioned NYS 102 west of Williams Street in Hempstead.
So NYSDOT finally decommissioned NYS 102 west of Williams Street in Hempstead.
Did they?
So NYSDOT finally decommissioned NYS 102 west of Williams Street in Hempstead.
Did they?
It was dumped on the Route Log, which is probably his source. Of course, you'd never know NY 102 existed west of Williams Street
So NYSDOT finally decommissioned NYS 102 west of Williams Street in Hempstead.
Did they?
It was dumped on the Route Log, which is probably his source. Of course, you'd never know NY 102 existed west of Williams Street
Well, that's what I'm wondering; it seems a lot of changes are being attributed to that route log that aren't reflected in other sources such as inventory files and traffic count reports. NY 102 is one of many cases where part of a signed touring route is county-maintained and where the route log seems to have been updated to remove the county portion, even though other sources still indicate its existence. But there are also some genuine decommissionings listed in the log, so I'm not always sure which ones are authentic (or what "authentic" would even mean).
There are no concrete plans to convert to mile-based exits on the interstates, despite lip service to the contrary. Unless we see another large replacement like there was on the Taconic, it just isn't going to happen.
I see signs on the interstates being replaced one at a time as needed, which means it just will not make sense to do the conversion.
May I be proven wrong.
There are no concrete plans to convert to mile-based exits on the interstates, despite lip service to the contrary. Unless we see another large replacement like there was on the Taconic, it just isn't going to happen.
I see signs on the interstates being replaced one at a time as needed, which means it just will not make sense to do the conversion.
May I be proven wrong.
Or raising the speed limit to something reasonable, like 70 MPH. At least it's consistent, unlike Pennsylvania, which jerks the limit back to 55 MPH whenever it's even remotely near a town.
NY used to have the same policy (not sure if it was ever a law or not) but no longer does. There are still many remnants of it, though, including I-81 around Binghamton and I-87 south of Clifton Park (this is why the speed limit is different at exit 8 depending on which direction you're going).
NY used to have the same policy (not sure if it was ever a law or not) but no longer does. There are still many remnants of it, though, including I-81 around Binghamton and I-87 south of Clifton Park (this is why the speed limit is different at exit 8 depending on which direction you're going).
NY got rid of that in the early to mid 2000s and it was indeed a law. Originally, 65 was reserved for rural Interstates and NY 17. I'd need to deflect to others for confirmation, but I'm 95% sure I-90 was 55 until well east of US 4. Speed limit got bumped up the same time NY 7 and US 219 went to 65. The Northway kept the low limit because of the bridge.
NY used to have the same policy (not sure if it was ever a law or not) but no longer does. There are still many remnants of it, though, including I-81 around Binghamton and I-87 south of Clifton Park (this is why the speed limit is different at exit 8 depending on which direction you're going).
NY got rid of that in the early to mid 2000s and it was indeed a law. Originally, 65 was reserved for rural Interstates and NY 17. I'd need to deflect to others for confirmation, but I'm 95% sure I-90 was 55 until well east of US 4. Speed limit got bumped up the same time NY 7 and US 219 went to 65. The Northway kept the low limit because of the bridge.
It doesn't seem that long ago that "free" I-90 was 55 all the way from B1 to 24, but I'm sure it's been quite a few years by now.
NY used to have the same policy (not sure if it was ever a law or not) but no longer does. There are still many remnants of it, though, including I-81 around Binghamton and I-87 south of Clifton Park (this is why the speed limit is different at exit 8 depending on which direction you're going).
NY got rid of that in the early to mid 2000s and it was indeed a law. Originally, 65 was reserved for rural Interstates and NY 17. I'd need to deflect to others for confirmation, but I'm 95% sure I-90 was 55 until well east of US 4. Speed limit got bumped up the same time NY 7 and US 219 went to 65. The Northway kept the low limit because of the bridge.
It doesn't seem that long ago that "free" I-90 was 55 all the way from B1 to 24, but I'm sure it's been quite a few years by now.
I thought it was 55 the entire way. Wasn't the Northway 55 a bit further north as well?
NY used to have the same policy (not sure if it was ever a law or not) but no longer does. There are still many remnants of it, though, including I-81 around Binghamton and I-87 south of Clifton Park (this is why the speed limit is different at exit 8 depending on which direction you're going).
NY got rid of that in the early to mid 2000s and it was indeed a law. Originally, 65 was reserved for rural Interstates and NY 17. I'd need to deflect to others for confirmation, but I'm 95% sure I-90 was 55 until well east of US 4. Speed limit got bumped up the same time NY 7 and US 219 went to 65. The Northway kept the low limit because of the bridge.
It doesn't seem that long ago that "free" I-90 was 55 all the way from B1 to 24, but I'm sure it's been quite a few years by now.
I thought it was 55 the entire way. Wasn't the Northway 55 a bit further north as well?
Whatever it worth... But "begin" tab on first 65 MPH sign northbound is clearly newer than the sign itself. My impression is that beginning of 65 was moved north a bit fairly recently.
According to the research I did for my site's 1999 rollback April Fool's Day prank, speed limits of 65 were controlled entirely by the legislature until they deferred authority to NYSDOT and made them like any other limit. I don't recall an intermediate step where they were allowed in rural areas but not urban, unless it was a requirement the legislature was operating under (I didn't dig that far, I just wanted to make sure I got rid of any 65 zones in the exit lists that weren't around yet in April 1999). I still have the prank around, for anyone who wants to see what the roads were like back then (the NY 17 exit list is particularly impressive): http://nysroads.com/1999/index.phpNY used to have the same policy (not sure if it was ever a law or not) but no longer does. There are still many remnants of it, though, including I-81 around Binghamton and I-87 south of Clifton Park (this is why the speed limit is different at exit 8 depending on which direction you're going).
NY got rid of that in the early to mid 2000s and it was indeed a law. Originally, 65 was reserved for rural Interstates and NY 17. I'd need to deflect to others for confirmation, but I'm 95% sure I-90 was 55 until well east of US 4. Speed limit got bumped up the same time NY 7 and US 219 went to 65. The Northway kept the low limit because of the bridge.
According to the research I did for my site's 1999 rollback April Fool's Day prank, speed limits of 65 were controlled entirely by the legislature until they deferred authority to NYSDOT and made them like any other limit. I don't recall an intermediate step where they were allowed in rural areas but not urban, unless it was a requirement the legislature was operating under (I didn't dig that far, I just wanted to make sure I got rid of any 65 zones in the exit lists that weren't around yet in April 1999). I still have the prank around, for anyone who wants to see what the roads were like back then (the NY 17 exit list is particularly impressive): http://nysroads.com/1999/index.phpNY used to have the same policy (not sure if it was ever a law or not) but no longer does. There are still many remnants of it, though, including I-81 around Binghamton and I-87 south of Clifton Park (this is why the speed limit is different at exit 8 depending on which direction you're going).
NY got rid of that in the early to mid 2000s and it was indeed a law. Originally, 65 was reserved for rural Interstates and NY 17. I'd need to deflect to others for confirmation, but I'm 95% sure I-90 was 55 until well east of US 4. Speed limit got bumped up the same time NY 7 and US 219 went to 65. The Northway kept the low limit because of the bridge.
I recall I-81 being 55 up to Central Square, but I couldn't find any documentation to support it.
I was looking at an old Travel Vision Map by General Drafting of Florham Park, NJ of New York, and could not find the date of publication. I did notice that NY 7 between Troy and I-87 was shown on it as ALT NY 7 and NY 2 from Troy to I-87 was mainline NY 7. I am curious to know, was there another plan for the freeway there that had this for a short time, or was it an error as NYSDOT does not (to my knowledge) use ALT banners as you would think it would be NY 7A instead?
It is still called ALT 7 in traffic reports.I was looking at an old Travel Vision Map by General Drafting of Florham Park, NJ of New York, and could not find the date of publication. I did notice that NY 7 between Troy and I-87 was shown on it as ALT NY 7 and NY 2 from Troy to I-87 was mainline NY 7. I am curious to know, was there another plan for the freeway there that had this for a short time, or was it an error as NYSDOT does not (to my knowledge) use ALT banners as you would think it would be NY 7A instead?
ALT NY 7 was the original designation.
It is still called ALT 7 in traffic reports.I was looking at an old Travel Vision Map by General Drafting of Florham Park, NJ of New York, and could not find the date of publication. I did notice that NY 7 between Troy and I-87 was shown on it as ALT NY 7 and NY 2 from Troy to I-87 was mainline NY 7. I am curious to know, was there another plan for the freeway there that had this for a short time, or was it an error as NYSDOT does not (to my knowledge) use ALT banners as you would think it would be NY 7A instead?
ALT NY 7 was the original designation.
. So when NY 17 ended at NY 426 just shy of the PA Line, NY 426 and PA 426 were not shown in red to connect the unfinished road to I-90 at all. Instead NY 430 from Bemus Point north to Mayville, and then NY 394 north to Westfield was shown in red to connect NY 17 with I-90.
I wonder why they did not make the red line on the west shore of the lake instead of using NY 430 on the east shore? Being that all of NY 394 was old NY 17 it should have been, unless it had to do with that Lake Bridge being built later on with NY 17 being temporarily signed on NY 430 there which might make sense.. So when NY 17 ended at NY 426 just shy of the PA Line, NY 426 and PA 426 were not shown in red to connect the unfinished road to I-90 at all. Instead NY 430 from Bemus Point north to Mayville, and then NY 394 north to Westfield was shown in red to connect NY 17 with I-90.
NY 394 used to be NY 17, which terminated at the Thruway in Westfield, so that may be why it was the "major" route.
. So when NY 17 ended at NY 426 just shy of the PA Line, NY 426 and PA 426 were not shown in red to connect the unfinished road to I-90 at all. Instead NY 430 from Bemus Point north to Mayville, and then NY 394 north to Westfield was shown in red to connect NY 17 with I-90.
NY 394 used to be NY 17, which terminated at the Thruway in Westfield, so that may be why it was the "major" route.
Also this is edition that shows exit numbers on the Taconic State Parkway such as Exit W20 for Baldwin Road in Yorktown and P1 for L Sector Road in Putnam Valley. US 6, the orphaned section of the Bear Mtn. Pky, and US 202 are not shown to have numbers though. Interesting that the never posted exit numbers used prefixes with the county name on them.
Syracuse.com: NYDOT warns I-690 drivers of 'significant' travel impacts from bridge project (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/traffic_alert_work_begins_this_week_on_i-690_bridge_replacement.html)Probably from Syracuse.com trying to marginalize "downstate" NYCDOT. (:
This is from Sunday night, so the work has already begun. It bugs me that the headline uses NYDOT instead of NYSDOT.
I was reading about the never completed Bear Mtn. State Parkway in Westchester County. I see it was one of Robert Moses ideas to have NYC connected to Bear Mountain with a limited access facility using the Taoconic (then known as the Bronx River Parkway Extension) to this two lane parkway stemming west out of Yorktown. However with construction of the the Thruway, changed things so it never got built due to the lack of demand.
Now, you have a short section that connects NY 35 & US 202 to the Taconic State Paarkway missing one movemen as you can't get NB from EB. in addition to the other part that acts as a bypass of Peekskill. I did read, though, they could build the road with no eminent domain as a ROW was left behind so that the 1.8 mile segment could someday be completed. There is talk of actually completing the parkway, but not as a parkway as it would allow trucks to use it.
How accurate is those talks?
Though there is some right-of-way that NYSDOT still owns along the north side of 202/35, it appears they're more interested in improving 202/35 instead, like they did with part of the stretch a few years ago.
I think that is sillier is the fact that BMP does not have access to the Taconic NB. You would still have to use US 202 and NY 35 to complete that missing movement.
I'm assuming trucks would not be allowed on the BMP.I think that is sillier is the fact that BMP does not have access to the Taconic NB. You would still have to use US 202 and NY 35 to complete that missing movement.
Also, where would the trucks go at the end if they allowed trucks? I'm assuming they're not allowed on the Taconic.
Whether or not to allow trucks on the BMP is one of the stumbling blocks that stopped the proposed extension 15 years ago. The region and the parties involved could not come to a consensus.I personally would've said no. And I'm usually the type who considers the needs of other types of vehicles besides cars when it comes to road improvements.
I don't think so. The Lake Ontario State Parkway used to allow trucks in Orleans County; I assume the reason they were since banned is due at least in part to the pavement condition.Ahh, yes. Lake Ontario State Parkway. Another parkway with a shitty gap that ought to be merged.
I don't think so. The Lake Ontario State Parkway used to allow trucks in Orleans County; I assume the reason they were since banned is due at least in part to the pavement condition.
Why? There's literally nothing up there.You mean Lake Ontario scenery, and direct connections between state parks are considered "nothing?"
There *WAS* talk of completing the parkway about 15 years ago (see http://web.archive.org/web/20041204040643/www.202and6.com/home.html), but more recent articles suggest it didn't have much support, and there was the sticking point of whether or not to allow trucks on the revamped BMP.
Though there is some right-of-way that NYSDOT still owns along the north side of 202/35, it appears they're more interested in improving 202/35 instead, like they did with part of the stretch a few years ago.
Why? There's literally nothing up there.You mean Lake Ontario scenery, and direct connections between state parks are considered "nothing?"
Another question is to be asked what will that and the Bear Mountain Bridge together link? The PIP on the other side does not really have people wanting to cross the Hudson to get to the TSP. Most traffic heading north on the PIP continue their journey on US 9W hence why north of the Bear Mountain Circle the US route is four lanes all the way up to Newburgh. Hardly any traffic goes onto the bridge and treks to the TSP for further northward advancement. If they did NY 9D up to I-84 or NY 52 would most likely be the way to go anyway.
Hence why it really doesn't matter if there's no EB-NB ramp at the Taconic - anyone who would do that would cut the corner using US 6.
Hence why it really doesn't matter if there's no EB-NB ramp at the Taconic - anyone who would do that would cut the corner using US 6.
And anyone who knows better than that would skip much of 6 using local roads in Cortlandt and Yorktown, or even Peekskill Hollow. ;-)
What is up with Lake Welch Drive and Lake Tiorati Road being closed during Winter? I have always wondered since I was a kid why the placed a white cover over the former Exit 14A sign (now Exit 16, but I am sure that it may not be white) saying CLOSED FOR THE SEASON.
My dad said its to avoid plowing snow, but back then snow was more often then it is post climate change, El nino or whatever. However, to plow those two roads really was not that hard. My guess is they are just too cheap and just using that to cut costs.
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Region 4 was actually considering truncating the LOSP to NY 237. That's the westernmost extent of current pavement/bridge maintenance.
Do you know where else they do this kind of thing? Mountain roads that go through isolated parkland, like in the Rockies and the Adirondacks. Roads like Lake Welch Parkway and Tiorati Brook Drive, and what not are the closest thing we've got to that in the suburbs of New York City.What is up with Lake Welch Drive and Lake Tiorati Road being closed during Winter? I have always wondered since I was a kid why the placed a white cover over the former Exit 14A sign (now Exit 16, but I am sure that it may not be white) saying CLOSED FOR THE SEASON.
My dad said its to avoid plowing snow, but back then snow was more often then it is post climate change, El nino or whatever. However, to plow those two roads really was not that hard. My guess is they are just too cheap and just using that to cut costs.
They close part of LOSP in the winter for the same reason. Allows them to run a couple fewer plow trucks. With fuel costs and what they make in hourly wages, it adds up.
Do you know where else they do this kind of thing? Mountain roads that go through isolated parkland, like in the Rockies and the Adirondacks. Roads like Lake Welch Parkway and Tiorati Brook Drive, and what not are the closest thing we've got to that in the suburbs of New York City.What is up with Lake Welch Drive and Lake Tiorati Road being closed during Winter? I have always wondered since I was a kid why the placed a white cover over the former Exit 14A sign (now Exit 16, but I am sure that it may not be white) saying CLOSED FOR THE SEASON.
My dad said its to avoid plowing snow, but back then snow was more often then it is post climate change, El nino or whatever. However, to plow those two roads really was not that hard. My guess is they are just too cheap and just using that to cut costs.
They close part of LOSP in the winter for the same reason. Allows them to run a couple fewer plow trucks. With fuel costs and what they make in hourly wages, it adds up.
What seicer said. Despite "scenery" and "state parks", there just isn't the demand to spend 8-9 digits to connect the two segments of the Lake Ontario State Parkway.
It looks like I-88 for the first 2.5 miles (or thereabouts) is about to be rehabilitated near Binghamton.That' a good start. At 2.5 miles/year, it would take just 50 years for a full overhaul!
Oh hey there are a couple abandoned signs on that ramp!
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2627143,-73.6836489,3a,15y,214.07h,88.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9VcyAw7aMwqY82gNNDPsuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
GMSV is a bit too low res to read them but it looks like they are the same as these signs at the still open entrance to the same parking lot, albeit worse for wear:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.258942,-73.6834805,3a,15y,37.46h,86.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suQixWZZMxjfD-RG7rV2OfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
As for the history of the closure, I have not been able to locate anything about it in the online archives of the Journal News (a local paper). Looking at this forensically, the 1974 aerial shows the ramp clearly still open, 1993 and 1994 are too low res to tell, and 2004 shows it closed but much less overgrown than it is now. I would estimate based on its appearance then that it probably was closed in the late 90s.
And while I don't know why, it's probably a good guess that the bridge was deemed structurally unfit for traffic and not worth the cost of replacing.
I have some "ok" pictures, but can't figure out how to load them. advice?
New overhead signs are up on the Utica NS Arterial. They look nice, but seem a littie small. There are a few peculiarities. The sign northbound for Court St seems very small with a tiny little arrow. The overhead approaching the Downtown exit northbound is a good distance back from the exit itself. They put on a strange arrow reminiscent of the NJ Turnpike old arrows. The gantry is also a good distance from the Court St exit southbound. I feel this gap could (should) be filled with a cantilevered overhead. New signs southbound label "Arts District" and "Brewery District." Looks awesome.
I hope to see this continued past Noyes to Burrstone in my lifetime. Would be awesome
I have some "ok" pictures, but can't figure out how to load them. advice?
These have appeared recently at the Thruway service areas I pass regularly. This one's just before entering the parking area from the offramp to the Pattersonville service area WB between 26 and 27.
(http://www.teresco.org/~terescoj/temp/moveover.jpg)
A lot of VMS messages recently have also had the "Move Over" messages when they have nothing else to report.
Region 1 got rid of an illegal option lane at I-87 Exit 19. The problem? It went to the wrong direction (http://poststar.com/news/local/northway-entrance-change-has-drivers-perturbed/article_45cd9851-b157-506f-8ff8-7b92f6c438b9.html?utm_content=buffer2e61d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC). Now there are backups of 1/2 mile on a daily basis when there were none. If I redid this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3296305,-73.6854722,81m/data=!3m1!1e3), there would have been a dual left turn, being as it typically functioned as one before.9.5 k traffic west of intersection, 26 k east. 2 out of 3 cars passing the intersection are going to a highway.
Region 1 got rid of an illegal option lane at I-87 Exit 19. The problem? It went to the wrong direction (http://poststar.com/news/local/northway-entrance-change-has-drivers-perturbed/article_45cd9851-b157-506f-8ff8-7b92f6c438b9.html?utm_content=buffer2e61d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC). Now there are backups of 1/2 mile on a daily basis when there were none. If I redid this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3296305,-73.6854722,81m/data=!3m1!1e3), there would have been a dual left turn, being as it typically functioned as one before.9.5 k traffic west of intersection, 26 k east. 2 out of 3 cars passing the intersection are going to a highway.
NYSDOT at its business as usual.
Region 1 got rid of an illegal option lane at I-87 Exit 19. The problem? It went to the wrong direction (http://poststar.com/news/local/northway-entrance-change-has-drivers-perturbed/article_45cd9851-b157-506f-8ff8-7b92f6c438b9.html?utm_content=buffer2e61d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC). Now there are backups of 1/2 mile on a daily basis when there were none. If I redid this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3296305,-73.6854722,81m/data=!3m1!1e3), there would have been a dual left turn, being as it typically functioned as one before.9.5 k traffic west of intersection, 26 k east. 2 out of 3 cars passing the intersection are going to a highway.
NYSDOT at its business as usual.
The perfect ratio for a left-left-through setup and they do the opposite...
But since when is there a rule against option turning lanes?
Nice signs, but they could be placed elsewhere. The service areas are terribly cluttered with signs - much like my disdain for cluttered exit ramps.
But since when is there a rule against option turning lanes?
They require split phasing. Instead of changing the timing to make it split phasing, they changed lane assignments.
As I understand it, dual left with a permissive phase requires dedicated left turn lanes. Cannot be done with an option lane.
Nice signs, but they could be placed elsewhere. The service areas are terribly cluttered with signs - much like my disdain for cluttered exit ramps.
Region 1 got rid of an illegal option lane at I-87 Exit 19. The problem? It went to the wrong direction (http://poststar.com/news/local/northway-entrance-change-has-drivers-perturbed/article_45cd9851-b157-506f-8ff8-7b92f6c438b9.html?utm_content=buffer2e61d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC). Now there are backups of 1/2 mile on a daily basis when there were none. If I redid this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3296305,-73.6854722,81m/data=!3m1!1e3), there would have been a dual left turn, being as it typically functioned as one before.
Region 1 got rid of an illegal option lane at I-87 Exit 19. The problem? It went to the wrong direction (http://poststar.com/news/local/northway-entrance-change-has-drivers-perturbed/article_45cd9851-b157-506f-8ff8-7b92f6c438b9.html?utm_content=buffer2e61d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC). Now there are backups of 1/2 mile on a daily basis when there were none. If I redid this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3296305,-73.6854722,81m/data=!3m1!1e3), there would have been a dual left turn, being as it typically functioned as one before.
Everett is a classic diamond, and exit19 is some flavor of parclo on that side, so they are seriously different. But that is a good point, we need to brace for Everett road exit being screwed up pretty soon...Region 1 got rid of an illegal option lane at I-87 Exit 19. The problem? It went to the wrong direction (http://poststar.com/news/local/northway-entrance-change-has-drivers-perturbed/article_45cd9851-b157-506f-8ff8-7b92f6c438b9.html?utm_content=buffer2e61d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC). Now there are backups of 1/2 mile on a daily basis when there were none. If I redid this intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3296305,-73.6854722,81m/data=!3m1!1e3), there would have been a dual left turn, being as it typically functioned as one before.
Is the former configuration at the Exit 19 location the same situation that exists on Everett Rd, where the middle lane northbound can go straight or turn left to enter I-90 West? Or maybe the light cycles there make it a different case?
Is it just me, or is the EZPass account website always inaccessible? Whenever I try to access my account it says "500 Internal Server Error."Just checked, https://www.e-zpassny.com/ works just fine for me....
Is it just me, or is the EZPass account website always inaccessible? Whenever I try to access my account it says "500 Internal Server Error."Just checked, https://www.e-zpassny.com/ works just fine for me....
A bunch will be going up in Region 5 within the next year or two as well.
A bunch will be going up in Region 5 within the next year or two as well.
Where?
Another issue; Palisades Interstate Parkway and the Appalachian Trail. What's with the lack of bridges?
Drove past a new FYA setup on NY25A in Manhasset this evening. It's for w/b traffic turning left into the shopping center immediately east of Shelter Rock Rd. This replaces a PV signal setup that had a region 10 style doghouse (side-by-side)
Didnt pay much attention since it was dark and traffic was moving fast.
GSV link with the old setup, the second signal in the background (https://goo.gl/maps/oDsojG4kkNo)
Drove past a new FYA setup on NY25A in Manhasset this evening. It's for w/b traffic turning left into the shopping center immediately east of Shelter Rock Rd. This replaces a PV signal setup that had a region 10 style doghouse (side-by-side)
Didnt pay much attention since it was dark and traffic was moving fast.
GSV link with the old setup, the second signal in the background (https://goo.gl/maps/oDsojG4kkNo)
is the replacement of the PV style?
Looks like a significant chunk of the original concrete pavement on the Palisades is set to be asphalted. It received extensive concrete repairs earlier this year. It's rough and loud, and I'm looking forward to a new surface.I was wondering from what I can remember the section of 95 from the CT to NYS how long was it concrete? I know it's paved now but to me I remember it lasting a long time before any repairs needed to be done
Most of that 55 section is due to terrain and geometry. NY 17 through the Catskills is probably the craziest non-parkway road in the northeast excluding the PA Turnpike. It simply isn't safe to have a higher limit with many of those curves.
I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.
There is some serious Corten (the steel that rusts) guardrail rot along NY 8 in the Adirondacks region, with entire sections and supports rusted apart. I know other states use Corten extensively as guardrails and have not seen this much rot - is it from a bad batch of steel? And speaking of that - there is a lot of inconsistency in the application of Corten and regular guardrails, with a mixture of both on many scenic roadways.NYSDOT is currently replacing all rustic (Corten) rail with standard galvanized guiderail, so that's where the inconsistency comes from. The rail literally rots from the inside out. I can only assume that other states are OK with replacing guiderail every decade.
I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.
It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.
I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.
It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.
Which is most likely the reason. If I had a say, that section of NY 17 would be posted at 60. Yes, I take it at 65-70, but there's a pretty good reason why it's posted at 55. I think it has a design speed of 60 because of terrain and that section wouldn't even see an upgrade because it falls under an acceptable waiver category (mountainous terrain). Personally, I don't think that an expressway signed at 65 should have 50 mph curves (of which there are multiple), but that's a matter of opinion.
East of East Branch could realistically see 65. East Branch-Hancock shouldn't go over 60. And since New York doesn't post 60, 55 it is. Those curves see a ton of accidents, especially in the winter months.
I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.
It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.
Which is most likely the reason. If I had a say, that section of NY 17 would be posted at 60. Yes, I take it at 65-70, but there's a pretty good reason why it's posted at 55. I think it has a design speed of 60 because of terrain and that section wouldn't even see an upgrade because it falls under an acceptable waiver category (mountainous terrain). Personally, I don't think that an expressway signed at 65 should have 50 mph curves (of which there are multiple), but that's a matter of opinion.
East of East Branch could realistically see 65. East Branch-Hancock shouldn't go over 60. And since New York doesn't post 60, 55 it is. Those curves see a ton of accidents, especially in the winter months.
The only other SRs I know of that have 65mph limits are NY 49 and NY 531. I'm sure there's more though.
I'm not convinced NY 7 was meant to be I-88. I've seen various plans for I-88 and NY 7 is generally not in them.I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.
It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.
Which is most likely the reason. If I had a say, that section of NY 17 would be posted at 60. Yes, I take it at 65-70, but there's a pretty good reason why it's posted at 55. I think it has a design speed of 60 because of terrain and that section wouldn't even see an upgrade because it falls under an acceptable waiver category (mountainous terrain). Personally, I don't think that an expressway signed at 65 should have 50 mph curves (of which there are multiple), but that's a matter of opinion.
East of East Branch could realistically see 65. East Branch-Hancock shouldn't go over 60. And since New York doesn't post 60, 55 it is. Those curves see a ton of accidents, especially in the winter months.
The only other SRs I know of that have 65mph limits are NY 49 and NY 531. I'm sure there's more though.
5 west of Syracuse, 7 in Colonie, 400, 481, 690, 695, as well as US 219. All of these are generally built to 70s-90s Interstate standards (NY 7 was supposed to be I-88), unlike NY 17 east of Binghamton, which predates the Interstate system.
I'm not convinced NY 7 was meant to be I-88. I've seen various plans for I-88 and NY 7 is generally not in them.I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.
It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.
Which is most likely the reason. If I had a say, that section of NY 17 would be posted at 60. Yes, I take it at 65-70, but there's a pretty good reason why it's posted at 55. I think it has a design speed of 60 because of terrain and that section wouldn't even see an upgrade because it falls under an acceptable waiver category (mountainous terrain). Personally, I don't think that an expressway signed at 65 should have 50 mph curves (of which there are multiple), but that's a matter of opinion.
East of East Branch could realistically see 65. East Branch-Hancock shouldn't go over 60. And since New York doesn't post 60, 55 it is. Those curves see a ton of accidents, especially in the winter months.
The only other SRs I know of that have 65mph limits are NY 49 and NY 531. I'm sure there's more though.
5 west of Syracuse, 7 in Colonie, 400, 481, 690, 695, as well as US 219. All of these are generally built to 70s-90s Interstate standards (NY 7 was supposed to be I-88), unlike NY 17 east of Binghamton, which predates the Interstate system.
NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions (http://www.wbng.com/story/35954002/portion-of-route-17-in-tioga-county-closed-after-storm). Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.I wonder if that would affect, to any extent, I-81 Syracuse discussion...
NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions (http://www.wbng.com/story/35954002/portion-of-route-17-in-tioga-county-closed-after-storm). Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.
NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions (http://www.wbng.com/story/35954002/portion-of-route-17-in-tioga-county-closed-after-storm). Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.temporary traffic signal
"STATE route 88"? What the heck!
They're pretty standard in Region 1 at least.NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions (http://www.wbng.com/story/35954002/portion-of-route-17-in-tioga-county-closed-after-storm). Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.temporary traffic signal
Speaking of these, does NY use them very much? I saw 3 in a row on my trip through Coudersport, via PA 44.
They're pretty standard in Region 1 at least.NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions (http://www.wbng.com/story/35954002/portion-of-route-17-in-tioga-county-closed-after-storm). Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.temporary traffic signal
Speaking of these, does NY use them very much? I saw 3 in a row on my trip through Coudersport, via PA 44.
D263529 - a BIG project involving Rockland-Westchester Counties, features an errant US 303 shield volume 3, page 79, overall page 287.
Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263529
Glad they got it out. :DD263529 - a BIG project involving Rockland-Westchester Counties, features an errant US 303 shield volume 3, page 79, overall page 287.
Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263529
Summed up for everyone: this and another contract being let the same day are part of a huge corridor management plan for I-287 in New York.
- Ramp meters along the Thruway and Cross Westchester from Suffern to White Plains
- Bus priority on NY 59 and NY 119
- Improved speed/traffic tracking with Bluetooth, radar and other sensing technologies
D263529 - a BIG project involving Rockland-Westchester Counties, features an errant US 303 shield volume 3, page 79, overall page 287.Someone get a picture of it, just in case they go through with that error!
Link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263529
The 1947 thru 1960 topos give you your answer.They also show a small freight spur running behind "Native Landscaping Incorporated" as recently as 2000, though most of the aerial photographs available don't show the spur even existing in the Penn Central era. Not that it has anything to do with that, it's just interesting.
Does NYSDOT (or its regions) have conventions when it comes to minimum green time, yellow time, and all red time? Or should I just calculate according to ITE formulas.note to self, competition does not have access to NYSDOT signal timing guidance
I'm used to the guidance in the NJDOT Roadway Design Manual when it comes to creating signal timing directives (see below), but was wondering if NYSDOT had anything like this...
Yes, it is not wise to release guidelines on adjusting traffic cycle for efficient operation of red light cameras.Does NYSDOT (or its regions) have conventions when it comes to minimum green time, yellow time, and all red time? Or should I just calculate according to ITE formulas.note to self, competition does not have access to NYSDOT signal timing guidance
I'm used to the guidance in the NJDOT Roadway Design Manual when it comes to creating signal timing directives (see below), but was wondering if NYSDOT had anything like this...
:D
I-290 isn't even too bad by Upstate standards. Almost everything in the Albany area has more traffic. Get stuck in the daily traffic on 87, 90 or 787 at some point and the traffic counts definitely agree.
Here's a couple of recent articles from Syracuse.com about I-690 near the state fairgrounds:And I forgot my shotgun.
A first: Drones will fly at 2017 NY State Fair to help control traffic (http://www.syracuse.com/statefair/index.ssf/2017/08/a_first_drones_fly_at_2017_ny_state_fair_to_help_control_traffic.html)
Here's a couple of recent articles from Syracuse.com about I-690 near the state fairgrounds:And I forgot my shotgun.
A first: Drones will fly at 2017 NY State Fair to help control traffic (http://www.syracuse.com/statefair/index.ssf/2017/08/a_first_drones_fly_at_2017_ny_state_fair_to_help_control_traffic.html)
I went on Thursday, pre-drone, and got there early enough to park on the side street for free (not that $5 is exorbitant), so I didn't test the parking arrangement. It did smack of not enough signage in general for the various lots and entrances.
Unfortunately, it looks like the diagrams were only half scanned.
The image(s) or page(s) you are requesting was/were purposefully folded into the book at the time of the publication. Unfortunately, this book was scanned prior to our ability to scan these types of pages. The good news is that Google Books continues to improve our processes, and we are now able to scan many such images.
Something I didn't notice until I was looking at an aerial / topo today: https://historicaerials.com/location/42.413746086522806/-73.54805946350098/1971/16
The Taconic State Parkway had obvious stubs for an extension north for years.
Steve Anderson's site (once I finally got past its ads forever-loading) mentions the extension up to at least US 20, with some maps suggesting the NY 22/NY 67 vicinity or even the Canadian border as a previously-proposed terminus. I haven't seen any of these maps, however.
I remember as a teen (around 1970) that the TSP would be extended to US 4 at Whitehall if a state bond was passed.
I have seen mentions of this, cannot confirm it myself. It would help explain why the US 4 expressway ends at the NY/VT border, as the Taconic extension would have likely been related.
Quote from: cl94I have seen mentions of this, cannot confirm it myself. It would help explain why the US 4 expressway ends at the NY/VT border, as the Taconic extension would have likely been related.
Actually, that US 4 expressway was built in conjunction with the proposed "Central Corridor" for what some call the "I-92" proposal.
An FYA is in place at Delaware and Kenmore Aves in Buffalo...People won't know what it means, either.
I wonder why all of the latest traffic enhancements and technologies come to this state later. From what I understand, FYAs have been around for a number of years, right?
Parts of NY have had FYAs for years. Region 4 has had them for few years now, Region 1 has been installing them exclusively for almost 2 years. Regions 3, 5, 8 and 9 have been the big holdouts (even though 9 has the state's test case).
What is a FYA?
Parts of NY have had FYAs for years. Region 4 has had them for few years now, Region 1 has been installing them exclusively for almost 2 years. Regions 3, 5, 8 and 9 have been the big holdouts (even though 9 has the state's test case).
They're all over Region 9 at this point. I've seen them in Broome, Tioga, Chenango, and Otsego Counties.
Parts of NY have had FYAs for years. Region 4 has had them for few years now, Region 1 has been installing them exclusively for almost 2 years. Regions 3, 5, 8 and 9 have been the big holdouts (even though 9 has the state's test case).
Parts of NY have had FYAs for years. Region 4 has had them for few years now, Region 1 has been installing them exclusively for almost 2 years. Regions 3, 5, 8 and 9 have been the big holdouts (even though 9 has the state's test case).
Region 2 has been adding more FYAs recently. In the past month or so, FYAs have been activated in Little Falls (NY 5 east at NY 167 south) and Whitesboro (NY 69 in front of Whitesboro Middle School).
Parts of NY have had FYAs for years. Region 4 has had them for few years now, Region 1 has been installing them exclusively for almost 2 years. Regions 3, 5, 8 and 9 have been the big holdouts (even though 9 has the state's test case).
They're all over Region 9 at this point. I've seen them in Broome, Tioga, Chenango, and Otsego Counties.
That must be recent. R9 was still installing bimodals until pretty recently and I have not personally seen them outside of downtown Binghamton (of course, that doesn't mean they don't exist, but I clinched most of R9 within the last year).
Re: their use in NYC, they've apparently found some creative applications for FYA's other than the original intended use, including protecting pedestrians in crosswalks and bicyclists in bike lanes from turning vehicles.
Something I didn't notice until I was looking at an aerial / topo today: https://historicaerials.com/location/42.413746086522806/-73.54805946350098/1971/16Now imagine the Northway paralleling the Thruway and the Taconic paralleling the Northway. Talk about options.
The Taconic State Parkway had obvious stubs for an extension north for years.
Taconic now has exit numbers up to Exit 45 in Lagrangeville. Some old signs without numbers still remain south of there.
I live near that roundabout. I have no problem with it. Balltown Road, not Ballston, by the way.
Something I didn't notice until I was looking at an aerial / topo today: https://historicaerials.com/location/42.413746086522806/-73.54805946350098/1971/16Now imagine the Northway paralleling the Thruway and the Taconic paralleling the Northway. Talk about options.
The Taconic State Parkway had obvious stubs for an extension north for years.
How is a red light immediately after a blind curve better than a roundabout?I live near that roundabout. I have no problem with it. Balltown Road, not Ballston, by the way.
Thanks for the correction. But, a 15 mph (ok, it's advisory) roundabout immediately after a blind curve at the bottom of a 1 1/2 mile downgrade posted at 45 mph. Forgive me if I'm not convinced that's better than the traffic signal that was previously there.
How is a red light immediately after a blind curve better than a roundabout?I live near that roundabout. I have no problem with it. Balltown Road, not Ballston, by the way.
Thanks for the correction. But, a 15 mph (ok, it's advisory) roundabout immediately after a blind curve at the bottom of a 1 1/2 mile downgrade posted at 45 mph. Forgive me if I'm not convinced that's better than the traffic signal that was previously there.
I-87 was originally supposed to extend north from Elmsford and connect to I-84 at the missing Exit 14 before duplexing across the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge to join the Thruway at Exit 17.
Could they have given the same amount of warning to the signal?How is a red light immediately after a blind curve better than a roundabout?I live near that roundabout. I have no problem with it. Balltown Road, not Ballston, by the way.
Thanks for the correction. But, a 15 mph (ok, it's advisory) roundabout immediately after a blind curve at the bottom of a 1 1/2 mile downgrade posted at 45 mph. Forgive me if I'm not convinced that's better than the traffic signal that was previously there.
Coming from another local, it's a hell of a lot better than it used to be. Curve and bike path overpass blocked the light until you were on top of it. Roundabout has plenty of warning.
From a purely safety perspective (which seems to be the route Alps is taking), the roundabout would be still better than the signal because it A) forces traffic to slow down on approach, and B) fewer conflict points at the junction itself.As we figured out in the other thread, statement (A) describes design standards used, not actual driver behavior.
From a purely safety perspective (which seems to be the route Alps is taking), the roundabout would be still better than the signal because it A) forces traffic to slow down on approach, and B) fewer conflict points at the junction itself.Forcing traffic going 45 to slow down to 15 with no incremental step downs in the limit (especially on a downgrade) IMO is not a good design. And I respectfully disagree that the roundabout has better advance warning than the signal did.
I have been exploring the SR 146 Balltown Road/Aqueduct Road intersection in StreetView, which shows the roundabout still under construction.
* The downgrade seems to be 1/2 mile, not 1 1/2 miles, in length. It also seems steep enough that I would be shifting to a lower gear range and disengaging cruise control to avoid having the throttle open when the transmission is in a lower gear. However, this is because my policy of not riding the brakes on downgrades is strict enough that I usually find myself to be the only car going downhill without brake lamps lighting up.
* The intersection is quite close to the former railroad underpass/current bike path grade separation, to the extent that I question whether there was space to provide gradual deflection on approach. (I have not actually looked up the construction plans to check--I am pretty sure I have them, but I do not have the D-number.)
On the whole, however, I think the roundabout is a better solution if the intersection cannot be moved, mainly because the grade separation ensures very poor visibility to an overhead signal and active solutions for warning drivers of an upcoming red signal cannot accommodate differences in dilemma zone location between vehicles. I can see the potential for measures such as staggering the speed limit reduction, rumble strips or transverse stripes across the approach lane, etc. to secure further crash reductions.
I just looked at the aerial which shows the old configuration. The signal was much farther from the overpass than the new roundabout. A Red Signal Ahead sign would solve visibility issues. I feel like with the bike path where it is and the approaching grade, this is an example of Malta syndrome: roundabouts for roundabouts' sake.You risk loosing your hand from me shaking it too hard...
Something I didn't notice until I was looking at an aerial / topo today: https://historicaerials.com/location/42.413746086522806/-73.54805946350098/1971/16I've known that for a few decades. The intention was to have it terminate around the intersections of NY 22 and 67 in Buskirk.
The Taconic State Parkway had obvious stubs for an extension north for years.
I've known that for a few decades. The intention was to have it terminate around the intersections of NY 22 and 67 in Buskirk.
Good point.Quote from: D-Dey65I've known that for a few decades. The intention was to have it terminate around the intersections of NY 22 and 67 in Buskirk.
Depending on what time (and who) you asked, that was one of three "intentions" that existed for a Taconic Extension north of the Berkshire Spur. The other two were US 20 and all the way to the Canadian border.
We knew this one was coming: plans posted for the new I-190 rest area on Grand Island (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214615_tan17-44_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf). Exit 19 across from a certain "huge" car dealership. It will be New York's first "full" rest area not located directly on a freeway (I-81 in Alexandria Bay is seasonal and operated by the bridge authority). As NYSTA maintains this section of I-190, the retail area is not in violation of any federal laws and even if it would be, they're locating this thing off of the expressway.
We knew this one was coming: plans posted for the new I-190 rest area on Grand Island (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214615_tan17-44_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf). Exit 19 across from a certain "huge" car dealership. It will be New York's first "full" rest area not located directly on a freeway (I-81 in Alexandria Bay is seasonal and operated by the bridge authority). As NYSTA maintains this section of I-190, the retail area is not in violation of any federal laws and even if it would be, they're locating this thing off of the expressway.
The sign manuals are not online, nor are any additional signs being installed, so most of those contracts for signs on surface roads are not happening.
Well, at least the rest area looks aesthetically pleasing.
region 5 has also had several improvements underway over the past several months. Off of the top of my head, longitudinal tining has been applied to small parts of I-190 and the 4-lane section of I-90 in West Seneca.
Part of Walden Avenue (west) is being reconstructed near the Exit 52b interchange. I don't know how far along they are but it's an active scene.
Also, the Thruway has been repaved within the Ontario section, but not from NY-400 to the Lackawanna toll barrier. I wonder if this is on the agenda.
Well, at least the rest area looks aesthetically pleasing.
region 5 has also had several improvements underway over the past several months. Off of the top of my head, longitudinal tining has been applied to small parts of I-190 and the 4-lane section of I-90 in West Seneca.
Part of Walden Avenue (west) is being reconstructed near the Exit 52b interchange. I don't know how far along they are but it's an active scene.
Also, the Thruway has been repaved within the Ontario section, but not from NY-400 to the Lackawanna toll barrier. I wonder if this is on the agenda.
NY 400 to the Exit 55 tolls is being redone next year as part of bridge replacement/rehab projects on that stretch. No point in repaving it now if they'll have to tear half of it up next year.
You got that tagline from this guy, didn't you?We knew this one was coming: plans posted for the new I-190 rest area on Grand Island (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214615_tan17-44_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf). Exit 19 across from a certain "huge" car dealership. It will be New York's first "full" rest area not located directly on a freeway (I-81 in Alexandria Bay is seasonal and operated by the bridge authority). As NYSTA maintains this section of I-190, the retail area is not in violation of any federal laws and even if it would be, they're locating this thing off of the expressway.
It'll be HUUUUUGE, Grand Island, HUUUUUUGGGGGGEEEE..ah. :)
You got that tagline from this guy, didn't you?We knew this one was coming: plans posted for the new I-190 rest area on Grand Island (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214615_tan17-44_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf). Exit 19 across from a certain "huge" car dealership. It will be New York's first "full" rest area not located directly on a freeway (I-81 in Alexandria Bay is seasonal and operated by the bridge authority). As NYSTA maintains this section of I-190, the retail area is not in violation of any federal laws and even if it would be, they're locating this thing off of the expressway.
It'll be HUUUUUGE, Grand Island, HUUUUUUGGGGGGEEEE..ah. :)
http://fuccillo.com/Dealership/Locations.cfm
Anyway, I think it sucks that they're not locating it directly on I-190. I really don't like this trend of building rest areas and service areas off of the roads they're intended for.
Doubtful. Probably setbacks that the town required of the retail areas.
Doubtful. Probably setbacks that the town required of the retail areas.
Likely a combination of that, a place to put snow, and drainage. Canandaigua is in the snow belt and several of those wide areas contain retention basins. Several of the Finger Lakes are marshy at both ends.
Just give me more reasons to hate the state I was born in, and life in general, Cuomo!Well, he just gave me another one.
Just give me more reasons to hate the state I was born in, and life in general, Cuomo!Well, he just gave me another one.
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/dot-lane-closures-for-jericho-turnpike-route-135-interchange-1.14650876
:banghead:
It's always struck me as odd that those ramps were actually opened to traffic in the first place. 25 is not a divided highway so there's no real need for the "Jersey U-turn" there. Typically in this sort of stub situation you'd expect those ramps to have been never used... or never even paved, just graded.
I don't think that's going to happen........ :no: This is the first I've heard of this project in a very long time. I'm not aware of Cuomo try to re-introduce it recently. Have you heard something that we didn't, here on Long Island?A 5 million dollar study is in the state budget.
On these new signs, what exactly are the fonts being used? These were installed recently on the southbound FDR. Did region 11 put them up, or was it NYCDOT?I want to say that's E regular.
Pics were taken this morning
On these new signs, what exactly are the fonts being used? These were installed recently on the southbound FDR. Did region 11 put them up, or was it NYCDOT?I want to say that's E regular.
Pics were taken this morning
On these new signs, what exactly are the fonts being used? These were installed recently on the southbound FDR. Did region 11 put them up, or was it NYCDOT?I want to say that's E regular.
Pics were taken this morning
The stroke is too wide for E regular. It's Series E modified but the spacing between the letters is a little off. Something is out of proportion. This is E regular (as confirmed with Region 4 a few years ago).
(http://upstatenyroads.com/public/brighton.png)
It's always struck me as odd that those ramps were actually opened to traffic in the first place. 25 is not a divided highway so there's no real need for the "Jersey U-turn" there.It is here and at the interchange with NY 106 and 107. With the exception of the Caleb Smith State Park Preserve and the Smithtown area, it ought to be one as far east as Riverhead.
It's always struck me as odd that those ramps were actually opened to traffic in the first place. 25 is not a divided highway so there's no real need for the "Jersey U-turn" there.It is here and at the interchange with NY 106 and 107. With the exception of the Caleb Smith State Park Preserve and the Smithtown area, it ought to be one as far east as Riverhead.
Also it was stupid for the Town of Oyster Bay to allow the "Eagle Rock Apartments at Woodbury" to be built on the site where the west to north ramp should've been built.
Just give me more reasons to hate the state I was born in, and life in general, Cuomo!Well, he just gave me another one.
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/dot-lane-closures-for-jericho-turnpike-route-135-interchange-1.14650876
:banghead:
(http://i.imgur.com/NUvR1mO.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/yUQxeSr.jpg)
After traveling many of the same routes as described in a much earlier post - and then some, I've concluded that New York simply does not maintain its guardrails with any frequency - especially in comparison to other states. Some of the earlier guardrail rot, where the posts are simply disconnected from the rail itself, are very much prevalent in Corten and regular galvanized steel sections - 7 months after I initially complained about them.
It's gotten to the point that I am marking them on my GPS and relaying them to the local district but I have yet to receive a reply.
After driving I-86/NY 17 considerably, I've been noticing that many of the center guardrails have not been maintained, even after they have long been hit.
Is this something that I should continue to relay over to the local districts?
After traveling many of the same routes as described in a much earlier post - and then some, I've concluded that New York simply does not maintain its guardrails with any frequency - especially in comparison to other states. Some of the earlier guardrail rot, where the posts are simply disconnected from the rail itself, are very much prevalent in Corten and regular galvanized steel sections - 7 months after I initially complained about them.
It's gotten to the point that I am marking them on my GPS and relaying them to the local district but I have yet to receive a reply.
After driving I-86/NY 17 considerably, I've been noticing that many of the center guardrails have not been maintained, even after they have long been hit.
Is this something that I should continue to relay over to the local districts?
Come to think of it, west of Brooksite Drive and Edgewood Avenue, and east of NY 111 and the NY 25A overlap would work just fine. I know there are a lot of historic structures on the north side of Route 25 east of NY 25A/111, so the focus of the construction should be on the south side of the road.It's always struck me as odd that those ramps were actually opened to traffic in the first place. 25 is not a divided highway so there's no real need for the "Jersey U-turn" there.It is here and at the interchange with NY 106 and 107. With the exception of the Caleb Smith State Park Preserve and the Smithtown area, it ought to be one as far east as Riverhead.
Also it was stupid for the Town of Oyster Bay to allow the "Eagle Rock Apartments at Woodbury" to be built on the site where the west to north ramp should've been built.
The stretch by the park in Smithtown should be divided ... even with the safety improvements that stretch is still dangerous.
Hey what is up with the latest name for the Robert Moses Parkway in Niagara County? I thought Googlemaps made a mistake but Wikipedia confirms that in a few years back NYSDOT renamed the parkway (once freeway now super two) that was named for the famous city planner of NYC, to the Niagara River Scenic Parkway.
It's not overdue and the problem is it's just going to die at Devil's Hole. A good regional biking trail would involve in Lewiston as well. However, that won't happenRMSP really never needed to be built in the first place. Unless it was going to connect with LOSP, it just wouldn't have any sort of volume using it to justify there being a parkway.
The Robert Moses Parkway is partly the reason why Niagara Falls was disconnected from its namesake park - and the rest of its riverfront. It's removal and replacement with a linear park and bike/hike trail is more than long overdue.When I went there in the 70's as a kid, the road was closed in the park, but we walked to the observation deck via a foot bridge that no longer exists.
Robert Moses has become quite unpopular anywhere. He's a pretty well known racist.
It's not overdue and the problem is it's just going to die at Devil's Hole. A good regional biking trail would involve in Lewiston as well. However, that won't happen
Major reconstruction/resigning project in Watkins Glen coming up next year (plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263597)). If you look at the plans and sign face layouts, the signs were done by a fellow roadgeek, so this may be the first major NYSDOT project where I have seen no sign errors.That region does pretty well but I disagree with its lack of NY 15 signage.
Major reconstruction/resigning project in Watkins Glen coming up next year (plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263597)). If you look at the plans and sign face layouts, the signs were done by a fellow roadgeek, so this may be the first major NYSDOT project where I have seen no sign errors.That region does pretty well but I disagree with its lack of NY 15 signage.
I'm just saying 15 and 15 should connect.Major reconstruction/resigning project in Watkins Glen coming up next year (plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263597)). If you look at the plans and sign face layouts, the signs were done by a fellow roadgeek, so this may be the first major NYSDOT project where I have seen no sign errors.That region does pretty well but I disagree with its lack of NY 15 signage.
Because NY 15 was officially truncated a while back. Any remaining NY 15 signage is errant (and the sign guy refuses to sign a route that no longer exists).
I'm just saying 15 and 15 should connect.Major reconstruction/resigning project in Watkins Glen coming up next year (plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263597)). If you look at the plans and sign face layouts, the signs were done by a fellow roadgeek, so this may be the first major NYSDOT project where I have seen no sign errors.That region does pretty well but I disagree with its lack of NY 15 signage.
Because NY 15 was officially truncated a while back. Any remaining NY 15 signage is errant (and the sign guy refuses to sign a route that no longer exists).
I'd rather move 17 back onto surface roads wherever possible when I-86 is fully commissioned. I'd also rather extend US 46 and 22 onto Long Island and eat fine cuisine every day without having to work.I'm just saying 15 and 15 should connect.
I'd rather decommission NY 15 and re-extend US 15 back to Rochester.
I'm just saying 15 and 15 should connect.
Because NY 15 was officially truncated a while back. Any remaining NY 15 signage is errant (and the sign guy refuses to sign a route that no longer exists).
I'd rather decommission NY 15 and re-extend US 15 back to Rochester.
I'm just saying 15 and 15 should connect.Major reconstruction/resigning project in Watkins Glen coming up next year (plans (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263597)). If you look at the plans and sign face layouts, the signs were done by a fellow roadgeek, so this may be the first major NYSDOT project where I have seen no sign errors.That region does pretty well but I disagree with its lack of NY 15 signage.
Because NY 15 was officially truncated a while back. Any remaining NY 15 signage is errant (and the sign guy refuses to sign a route that no longer exists).
I'd rather decommission NY 15 and re-extend US 15 back to Rochester.
I'd rather decommission NY 15 and re-extend US 15 back to Rochester.
When PA gets around to commissioning I-99 north of Williamsport, I'd rather truncate US 15 to Williamsport and leave NY 15 as is.
I'd rather decommission NY 15 and re-extend US 15 back to Rochester.
When PA gets around to commissioning I-99 north of Williamsport, I'd rather truncate US 15 to Williamsport and leave NY 15 as is.
And as much as I hate to say this, extend I-99 up to Rochester and dump I-390. Give the corridor one number.
The big problem with I-99 is that it doesn’t go anywhere. It goes to Altoona. Who the blazes wants to go to Altoona?
The big problem with I-99 is that it doesnt go anywhere. It goes to Altoona. Who the blazes wants to go to Altoona?
(And Rochester to Pittsburgh already has I-90 to I-79; I don’t see how I-99 to US 22 is that much of an improvement.)
Plus traffic from Rochester to DC and south is generally routed along US 15 and I-270, not I-83, so that would need to be upgraded too to provide an all-freeway connection.
Plus traffic from Rochester to DC and south is generally routed along US 15 and I-270, not I-83, so that would need to be upgraded too to provide an all-freeway connection.
Wonder how the Wegmans trucks that I see on U.S. 15 travel once past Harrisburg?
It's about 265 miles from the U.S. 15 junction with the Pennsylvania Turnpike near Harrisburg to Rochester, and most of those miles, if routed with Google, are on non-freeway U.S. 15.
But Wegmans also has a warehouse complex in Pottsville, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania off I-81 at PA-901 - less than 65 nearly all-freeway miles from the same location in Harrisburg, so maybe that's where most of the trucks I see on U.S. 15 are coming from or going to?
The LOSP should be re-named to NY 18 and NY 18 to NY 18A. Give the western end a proper terminus instead of the dinky little stub it has now.
Plans for reconstruction of the I-90/NY 75 interchange (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/netdata/contractors/documents/d214577_tab17-30_plans-volume-1-of-1.pdf) in Hamburg were posted. Trumpet on the NY 75 half of the interchange is being removed and replaced with a signal. Some of the temp signals will have 3 up arrows, something I haven't seen in several years.
Huge day for NYSDOT plans:
- NB I-87 rest area plans released. This will be similar to the other recent welcome centers, but in full compliance with federal regulations. Contract info here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263652). Some highlights:
* Old building being demolished, temporary restrooms adjacent to truck parking will exist during construction.
* Fenced playground being installed on north side of new building. Will feature a play structure designed to look like a fire tower and a zip line.
* Chair swing using an old ski lift chair will be installed next to car parking.
* Fenced dog area will be installed on south side of building.
* Walk of fame will be installed at entrance, similar to the LI rest area and the upcoming Grand Island one.
* Taste NY stuff will be entirely through vending machines, but with a prep area behind closed doors. No idea what will be in the machines, but as it's vending machines, it is 100% in compliance.
* Seating area with Adirondack chairs
* Floor map with tourist attractions
- Major sign replacements in New York City on most of the expressways/parkways in the outer boroughs that haven't received recent replacements. New shields for the Bronx River Parkway and Korean War Veterans Parkway (which is finally getting the "renamed" signs removed), Grand Central Parkway will have new shields installed along much of the length. That button copy sign on the Bruckner north of the Cross Bronx is safe for now. Contract info here (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D263530).
Edit: contract info added
I do like the new BRP and KWVP shields. In fact, I like what they're doing with them overall. Will like to see some of the other parkways.
I do like the new BRP and KWVP shields. In fact, I like what they're doing with them overall. Will like to see some of the other parkways.
Is anybody compiling these shields anywhere (say, Wikipedia or such)?
I do like the new BRP and KWVP shields. In fact, I like what they're doing with them overall. Will like to see some of the other parkways.
Is anybody compiling these shields anywhere (say, Wikipedia or such)?
If I find them, I could upload them.
Creating them is another story. The figure of the boat and bushes or whatever would take a while just to get right. I don't understand how people make these kinds of things in Inkscape anyways.
If you're referring to "last exit before toll", that is still correct. The booths are gone, but the tunnels/bridges are not free; rather, those without E-ZPass will be mailed a bill based on their license plate.https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=19043&p_is_digital=Y
If you're referring to "last exit before toll", that is still correct. The booths are gone, but the tunnels/bridges are not free; rather, those without E-ZPass will be mailed a bill based on their license plate.
The Rooftop Highway through northern New York State is gaining some traction again, it appears.
http://northcountrynow.com/news/canton-meeting-will-update-public-route-11-upgrade-study-0225439 (http://northcountrynow.com/news/canton-meeting-will-update-public-route-11-upgrade-study-0225439)
The state has put the brakes on a $101 million plan to convert the Scajaquada Expressway into a lower-speed boulevard after receiving public comments that were overwhelmingly in opposition.
The decision by the state Department of Transportation comes at the end of a long design process to reshape 2.2 miles of Route 198 between Parkside Avenue and Grant Street, which has been slowed to a 30 mph roadway. The state had been expected to announce later this year the start of a project to design additional traffic-calming measures, such as doubling the number of traffic signals, adding pedestrian crossings and installing wide medians at those crossings.
And it's through an Olmstead designed park. Why do we have to ram freeeways through everything?It's already there. Go find another windmill at which to tilt.
There's also I-890/NY 890 (assuming it still counts now that the exit numbers no longer match at exit 4), the NYSDOT part of I-95, and the Taconic.Right right. Forgot about I-890, and don't know if I ever knew about the downstate ones.
When will NY convert to mileage-based exit numbers?
I know it has been officially proposed before :pan: However, to my knowledge, I-99 and I-781 are the only current freeways with mileage based numbers. I'd like to see the whole state convert soon.
I wonder if NY Thruway will go mile-based when the Thruway goes all-electronic.[looks for :fingers crossed: emoji, but to no avail]
When will NY convert to mileage-based exit numbers?
I know it has been officially proposed before :pan: However, to my knowledge, I-99 and I-781 are the only current freeways with mileage based numbers. I'd like to see the whole state convert soon.
It won't happen until NYSDOT and the Thruway Authority have no choice but to comply with federal guidelines. They have said repeatedly that they'd rather use the money for something more important like bridge repairs, etc.
If only somebody had told NY that Reagan would cancel the metric conversion, we would have had mile-based numbers by now.
I could see the Thruway converting with AET. With no more toll tickets, the need for a distinct numbering system would be reduced. Moving I-90 to the Berkshire Spur would also make conversion easier, since then the Spur could just continue I-90's mileage.
If only somebody had told NY that Reagan would cancel the metric conversion, we would have had mile-based numbers by now.
I could see the Thruway converting with AET. With no more toll tickets, the need for a distinct numbering system would be reduced. Moving I-90 to the Berkshire Spur would also make conversion easier, since then the Spur could just continue I-90's mileage.
Would be interesting, in a theoretical I-87/I-90 multiplex, to see which set of exit numbers would be used on the overlap.
For the life of me I have never been able to figure out why the Northway and Free 90 start over with milepost 0 at the I-87/I-90 interchange. Even with sequential numbers this doesn't really make sense.
For the life of me I have never been able to figure out why the Northway and Free 90 start over with milepost 0 at the I-87/I-90 interchange. Even with sequential numbers this doesn't really make sense.
You answered your own question. That is mile 0 of the Northway and mile 0 of "Free 90" - treating both as distinct roads rather than following the interstate designations they carry.
It's in violation of standard convention but it's not nonsensical.
Huh? The Northway and Free I-90 are NYSDOT. Makes sense due to the ownership change that the exits reset. Take Exit 24 and you'll see that the designation does not simply pass through a simple interchange, but the engineering cluster**** that is Exit 24/Exit 1.
It is too bad the Thruway isn't a simpler setup like the Ohio Turnpike, but I always thought the Thruway could take the lessons learned from that changeover.
It is also cultural. The Northway is considered an entirely separate highway to the point where I wonder how many people realize that the I-87 portions of the Deegan, Thruway and Northway are one route.Huh? The Northway and Free I-90 are NYSDOT. Makes sense due to the ownership change that the exits reset. Take Exit 24 and you'll see that the designation does not simply pass through a simple interchange, but the engineering cluster**** that is Exit 24/Exit 1.
It is too bad the Thruway isn't a simpler setup like the Ohio Turnpike, but I always thought the Thruway could take the lessons learned from that changeover.
I don't see what ownership has to do with it. There should be at least some degree of coordination, in that NYSDOT should acknowledge the existence of portions of those routes that they don't maintain. It seems to me the responsibility for continuing the numbering schemes was/is on them.
There should be at least some degree of coordination
Huh? The Northway and Free I-90 are NYSDOT. Makes sense due to the ownership change that the exits reset. Take Exit 24 and you'll see that the designation does not simply pass through a simple interchange, but the engineering cluster**** that is Exit 24/Exit 1.
It is too bad the Thruway isn't a simpler setup like the Ohio Turnpike, but I always thought the Thruway could take the lessons learned from that changeover.
If you will, the way highways are interconnected in Albany, as well as legal ownership, it makes sense to consider NYC-Albany-Buffalo road as single highway (apparently that means bending I-90 to NYC), and Montreal-Albany-MA border as the other one, lets call it I-87*. Which would make it even more messy - and more fun as we can get few more I-X90's.It is also cultural. The Northway is considered an entirely separate highway to the point where I wonder how many people realize that the I-87 portions of the Deegan, Thruway and Northway are one route.Huh? The Northway and Free I-90 are NYSDOT. Makes sense due to the ownership change that the exits reset. Take Exit 24 and you'll see that the designation does not simply pass through a simple interchange, but the engineering cluster**** that is Exit 24/Exit 1.
It is too bad the Thruway isn't a simpler setup like the Ohio Turnpike, but I always thought the Thruway could take the lessons learned from that changeover.
I don't see what ownership has to do with it. There should be at least some degree of coordination, in that NYSDOT should acknowledge the existence of portions of those routes that they don't maintain. It seems to me the responsibility for continuing the numbering schemes was/is on them.
When I moved here, I didn't even know I-87 north of the Thruway was called the Northway and it is very ingrained in the community that way...along with "Alt 7," unfortunately.
It's interesting to note that the reference markers on the Northway in Region 1 show the "county count" for the entire length of I-87 but in Region 7 show the "county count" for only the Northway.Not quite. The Region 1 ones count Albany County twice - one for the Thruway, and one for the Northway.
And NOBODY calls it "Free 90" outside of the roadgeek community. Heck, a lot of people from here don't even know what I-87 is, because it's the Northway or the Thruway.
It's just I-90.And NOBODY calls it "Free 90" outside of the roadgeek community. Heck, a lot of people from here don't even know what I-87 is, because it's the Northway or the Thruway.
So what do they call Free 90?
On NY110 going south, right after the Jericho Turnpike intersection, the route 110 sign was replaced with a US shield instead of a NYS shield. Must have been done in the past month.
^ That - was just about to chime in about how confusing many of the interchanges are because of the additions over the years.They still should leave them up in Port Jefferson.
--
In other news:
New York docked $14M for I Love NY highway signs (http://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/02/01/feds-dock-new-york-love-ny-signs/1087117001/)
The federal government has docked New York $14 million in highway funds for installing more than 500 I Love NY road signs that violate federal highway rules and state law.
The Federal Highway Administration unveiled the penalty in a letter Thursday to transportation officials in Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration, which installed the blue signs across the state in recent years despite a 2013 federal order prohibiting it from doing so.
The letter from Brandye Hendrickson, FHWA's acting administrator, gives the state until Sept. 30 to come into compliance with federal rules.
(Don't worry, if the state doesn't come into compliance, the $14 million penalty sticks. Otherwise, it will be refunded. But given the state won't install mile-based exit signs...)
Oh no! Not $14m! Why, God why? Oh, NY will never recover! Oh, the humanity!And given that installation is said to be $8M....
(Great news story, but in the end, meaning very little given how federal aid works)
From what I am reading it is a one shot fine.Oh no! Not $14m! Why, God why? Oh, NY will never recover! Oh, the humanity!And given that installation is said to be $8M....
(Great news story, but in the end, meaning very little given how federal aid works)
However - is that $14M a one-time fine, or recurring amount? Can they increase the number next year if nothing changes?
Why are you in a roads forum if you're anti-roads?
Why are you in a roads forum if you're anti-roads?What a fucking stupid question. People research and discuss Hitler without being a Nazi.
The elevated highway was antiquated and not kept up, but look at FDR Drive (southern reaches), Lake Shore Drive, and other successful waterfront highways. Had WSH been maintained properly and modernized over time (gradually improving curves, merges, etc.), it could be a perfectly fine highway. It would certainly help with traffic if there weren't all those lights.
It's just Steve being a dick against me for years. No big deal.Trying to figure out which years you're referring to. I actually saw you biking around Cincinnati a few years ago but didn't have the confidence to say anything. I'm not against you, just against the idea that the WSH is unnecessary.
It's just Steve being a dick against me for years. No big deal.Trying to figure out which years you're referring to. I actually saw you biking around Cincinnati a few years ago but didn't have the confidence to say anything. I'm not against you, just against the idea that the WSH is unnecessary.
Not all was lost. Funds for the Westway was reallocated for the $811 million replacement project and $1.7 billion to upgrade buses and subways throughout the city. That's probably as good, if not possibly better, of an outcome than one could have expected. How much would more funds have been expended for an EIS, lawyers and more court wrangling if the city and others continued to push for Westway? Some of the rationales for the cancellation of the Westway (striped bass between piers?) were silly, but much of the anger that came about was fueled from years of mistrust bourne out of the destruction wrought by Robert Moses and others (and that's not saying that all of what Robert Moses did was in malice or in poor taste). It's hard to blame them for having a distrust of the government.
*shrugs*
I don't mind 9A the way it is.
*shrugs*I have to say that, while there is always traffic, it does move. You can get uptown and downtown fairly easily enough. Plus, the additional access to the waterfront for city residents is great.
I don't mind 9A the way it is.
*shrugs*
I don't mind 9A the way it is.
I have to say that, while there is always traffic, it does move. You can get uptown and downtown fairly easily enough. Plus, the additional access to the waterfront for city residents is great.
Kind of hard to have a boulevard since the FDR is elevated above the East River.*shrugs*
I don't mind 9A the way it is.
I have to say that, while there is always traffic, it does move. You can get uptown and downtown fairly easily enough. Plus, the additional access to the waterfront for city residents is great.
I wonder what will happen to FDR and the east side highway once it reaches the end of its lifespan. Would a boulevard work better than the rather obsolete freeway that exists now?
I wonder what will happen to FDR and the east side highway once it reaches the end of its lifespan. Would a boulevard work better than the rather obsolete freeway that exists now?Kind of hard to have a boulevard since the FDR is elevated above the East River.
Nice trolling. Ever seen the 12 mile delays up there? Sure, that'll flow better with less capacity.*shrugs*
I don't mind 9A the way it is.
I have to say that, while there is always traffic, it does move. You can get uptown and downtown fairly easily enough. Plus, the additional access to the waterfront for city residents is great.
I wonder what will happen to FDR and the east side highway once it reaches the end of its lifespan. Would a boulevard work better than the rather obsolete freeway that exists now?
You and froggie... I give him a lot of shit too, but we're still friends. I'm just gonna call you out when I gotta. (Like on FDR Drive...) It's a pretty big state over. I'll be driving by you again tomorrow on I-86. I mean NY 17. I mean the Quickway.It's just Steve being a dick against me for years. No big deal.Trying to figure out which years you're referring to. I actually saw you biking around Cincinnati a few years ago but didn't have the confidence to say anything. I'm not against you, just against the idea that the WSH is unnecessary.
No problem. I'm extending an olive branch to put this behind us. I have no hard or lingering feelings but I'm not anti-road in any sense. I am far from an eco-liberal - and more of a Tim Allen-moderate, if you will. Feel free to reach out and message me if you want to chat. And I'm more than glad to meet up - especially since I'm just a state over.
Nice trolling. Ever seen the 12 mile delays up there? Sure, that'll flow better with less capacity.*shrugs*
I don't mind 9A the way it is.
I have to say that, while there is always traffic, it does move. You can get uptown and downtown fairly easily enough. Plus, the additional access to the waterfront for city residents is great.
I wonder what will happen to FDR and the east side highway once it reaches the end of its lifespan. Would a boulevard work better than the rather obsolete freeway that exists now?
Fills have been occurring on both sides of Manhattan for some time. It's not out of the realm of possibility to see land added for a FDR Boulevard and park.
Improved river access, more walkable neighbourhood
(urbanist hat on :sombrero:)
Those money are better spent on improving public transportation, and not on fixing something that shouldn't be there to begin with. Improved river access, more walkable neighbourhood, quality of life, less parking demand...
(urbanist hat off :angry:)
Improved river access, more walkable neighbourhood
Bullshit.
The South Street Viaduct allows pedestrians to walk under it at any cross street, and in some places where there isn't a cross street if you don't mind jaywalking, while the majority of vehicular traffic passes harmlessly overhead. Were it to be removed and replaced with a ground level boulevard, the option of crossing midblock would be lost in places where it currently exits, and at intersections pedestrians would have to contend with longer crosswalks and longer waits for the light to change (since FDR traffic would need more green time than South Street currently has, and you wouldn't feasibly be able to cross against the light anymore). You would also see an increase in the number of traffic injuries and fatalities (particularly to pedestrians and cyclists) since grade separation is an extremely effective method of preventing these things while wider intersections create more opportunities for them.
In what upside-down dimension does this represent improved river access and walkability? Looks an awful lot like a step backwards on both of those metrics to me.
What's actually happening here is that humans are insane and irrational creatures and, when confronted with a big elevated structure, they perceive it to be a barrier when really it isn't.
Nice trolling. Ever seen the 12 mile delays up there? Sure, that'll flow better with less capacity.*shrugs*
I don't mind 9A the way it is.
I have to say that, while there is always traffic, it does move. You can get uptown and downtown fairly easily enough. Plus, the additional access to the waterfront for city residents is great.
I wonder what will happen to FDR and the east side highway once it reaches the end of its lifespan. Would a boulevard work better than the rather obsolete freeway that exists now?
I don't understand how people see a viaduct as a barrier since it's easier to cross than a grade level street or boulevard.
And enough groups who think urban highway is a bad thing to begin with.I don't understand how people see a viaduct as a barrier since it's easier to cross than a grade level street or boulevard.
Feels before reals. :P
Actually, yes: https://www.nymtc.org/Required-Planning-Products/Regional-Transportation-Plan-RTP/RTP-2040That's a great vision!
It's a plan, but the execution is another issue. When it costs several billion to build such a short section of the 2nd Avenue Subway - when it costs FAR less in other developed nations, you have to question the role of our bureaucratic quagmire, powerful public sector unions, and project management. After all, the majority of the costs went not to the tunnel itself but to the stations.
Then there is the issue of why it costs so much - and why it's so delayed, to upgrade the signals in the subway. And why it's so darn antiquated, to begin with. But this might be going towards a tangent that is more mass transit than highway. I'm not sure that the highway rebuilds or works in New York are ever so delayed or mired in cost overruns to the percentage that mass transit is in the NYC metro area.
Not everyone has to be in supportive of every road project. I made it quite clear years ago that I was not in favour of highways that were rammed through inner cities, many of which were done under racial pretences. Robert Moses is one of the worst offenders of this, an outright racist, but many planners across the United States deliberately placed highways through the "worst" neighbourhoods for "slum clearances" and "urban renewal."Not this crap again. Did you ever think that Moses simply wanted to create a connection between the George Washington Bridge and the (future) Throgs Neck Bridge? Also the Cross Bronx Expressway goes through some non "slum" neighborhoods and if the Sheridan had been finished it would've done the same.
The part you're contesting is true, though. He absolutely believed in slum clearance, was unquestionably racist (parkways were low-bridges so that buses couldn't take blacks to beaches), and specifically routed I-95 the way he did because it was slightly shorter and was his idea, and did not see the value in saving that particular neighborhood because he considered it too slummy.Not everyone has to be in supportive of every road project. I made it quite clear years ago that I was not in favour of highways that were rammed through inner cities, many of which were done under racial pretences. Robert Moses is one of the worst offenders of this, an outright racist, but many planners across the United States deliberately placed highways through the "worst" neighbourhoods for "slum clearances" and "urban renewal."Not this crap again. Did you ever think that Moses simply wanted to create a connection between the George Washington Bridge and the (future) Throgs Neck Bridge? Also the Cross Bronx Expressway goes through some non "slum" neighborhoods and if the Sheridan had been finished it would've done the same.
Meanwhile Port Morris and Mott Haven are nowhere near the Cross Bronx, so to blame Moses and that expressway for their decline is foolish.
The part you're contesting is true, though. He absolutely believed in slum clearance, was unquestionably racist (parkways were low-bridges so that buses couldn't take blacks to beaches), and specifically routed I-95 the way he did because it was slightly shorter and was his idea, and did not see the value in saving that particular neighborhood because he considered it too slummy.I'm not saying he didn't believe in slum clearance. I'm just saying it's not the primary reason he built any of the roads he built. Throgs Neck, and it's subsidiaries never went down the toilet the way Port Morris, Mott Haven, Highbridge, Morris Heights, Melrose, and Tremont did. The Cross Bronx doesn't even go near Port Morris, Mott Haven, Longwood, and Hunts Point. The Long Island Expressway didn't turn Fresh Meadows, Douglaston or Little Neck into slums. Meanwhile many of the neighborhoods that the Cross Brooklyn and Bushwick Expressways were supposed to go through became slums anyhow.
He gave Harlem a glorious pool and play center–now Jackie Robinson Park–one of the best public works of the New Deal era anywhere in the United States. A crowd of 25,000 attended the opening ceremony in August, 1936, the 369th Regiment Band playing “When the Music Goes ”˜Round and ”˜Round” before Parks Commissioner Moses was introduced–to great applause–by Bill “Bojangles” Robinson.Also, there are bus stops at Jones Beach too. And if Moses truly had his way, not only would the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway have gone up to the Bayville-Rye Bridge, but down to Wantagh State Parkway south of Merrick Road, providing access to those buses and trucks taking boats and other goods to the beach. Weird for someone who supposedly was so hell-bent on keeping minorities from using Jones Beach.
And contrary to a claim in The Power Broker, Moses clearly meant buses to serve his “little Jones Beach” in the Rockaways–Jacob Riis Park. While oriented mainly toward motorists (the parking lot was once the largest in the world), it is simply not true that New Yorkers without cars were excluded. The original site plan included bus drop-off zones, and photographs from the era plainly show buses loading and unloading passengers. “Bus connections with the B.M.T. and I.R.T. in Brooklyn,” reported the Brooklyn Eagle when the vast seaside playground opened 80 years ago this summer, “make the park easily accessible to non-motorists.”
Unless it includes transforming NY 347, NY 454, NY 27 west of NY 109, and Suffolk CRs 83 and 97 into limited-access highways, I'd have to disagree with that. Don't get me wrong. There are certainly some good ideas in there.Actually, yes: https://www.nymtc.org/Required-Planning-Products/Regional-Transportation-Plan-RTP/RTP-2040That's a great vision!
A new residential area had popped up in Eastern Long Island resulting of a new traffic light on CR-46/William Floyd Parkway. :(I saw that last time I was up there. The Town of Brookhaven would've been better off letting Suffolk County DPW revive that formerly proposed extension of Suffolk CR 101.
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=40.84433,-72.89692&z=16&t=H
However, looks like a on-ramp to I-495 from the C-D road/service road will be moved a bit further west.
Is this one still in Region 11?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_9A_Error_Sign_in_Spuyten_Duyvil-South_Riverdale,_Bronx.jpg
Because if so, we can e-mail them about it too.
I thought this was slightly interesting, and figured if anyone else thought so too they're probably members of this forum who read this thread. I just traveled NY 7B for the first time today and noticed that every reference marker I paid attention to was still a NY 7 marker. Does New York not bother updating these or is the route, for the purposes of these markers, still "7", while the actual NY 7 through the area, concurrent with I-88, only "88I"?
NY generally doesn't update reference markers. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it's not supposed to. Part of I-390 near Wayland still has 245 markers, and part of NY 151 and all of Third Ave Ext (a reference route) say 43. Meanwhile, most markers in Wayne County (47) use county code 37, and Tioga (97) still uses 65.
The reason for this is because accident reports are tied to the reference marker, so the marker in the field needs to stay correlated with any past reports.
Yet West Virginia can go 70 MPH whereas the 85th percentile is hovering at 75 MPH?Advisory speeds are for all vehicles. Your passenger car can go 70 around those curves but a truck better not exceed 55.
There are sections of the West Virginia Turnpike that have such tight curves, yet it is signed at 60 MPH (and 65 MPH for those old enough to remember that).
Even with the upgrades at Hale Eddy, those curves are negotiable at speeds above 55 MPH. If they need advisory signs - which are just that, advisory and not enforceable, then just sign it and be done with it. West Virginia - and other states with hills and mountains, do this just fine.
Uh, no.
Stopping sight distance isn't an issue on what will eventually become an interstate. It's a well-designed freeway for most of its length, although it is dated in several segments where NY 17 is well over 50 years old at this point. If sight distance has been an issue, it's one that has not been raised when segments have been upgraded or proposed for upgrading. This isn't that trecherous of a road that it's not different than similar facilities in other more mountainous states.
And yes, it is enforced. A lot. There has not been a time that I have driven it in the day or night and have spotted at a minimum two officers patrolling - even when it's 4 AM in the morning on a highway that receives practically no traffic at night. It's revenue generation, full stop. If it was for safety, we'd be seeing a high accident rate, but that's not the case. And the 85th percentile clearly shows that people disregard the speed limits as is.
And FWIW, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire have significant portions at 70 MPH with Maine topping at 75 MPH. That's more than a few.
NY generally doesn't update reference markers. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it's not supposed to. Part of I-390 near Wayland still has 245 markers, and part of NY 151 and all of Third Ave Ext (a reference route) say 43. Meanwhile, most markers in Wayne County (47) use county code 37, and Tioga (97) still uses 65.
The reason for this is because accident reports are tied to the reference marker, so the marker in the field needs to stay correlated with any past reports.
Uh, no.Sight distance actually has been an issue with upgrading NY 17 to I-86. There was a project part of the upgrade between NY 17K and I-84 to reconstruct the road, not because of pavement condition or to widen it, but to remove the bunny hops.
Stopping sight distance isn't an issue on what will eventually become an interstate. It's a well-designed freeway for most of its length, although it is dated in several segments where NY 17 is well over 50 years old at this point. If sight distance has been an issue, it's one that has not been raised when segments have been upgraded or proposed for upgrading. This isn't that trecherous of a road that it's not different than similar facilities in other more mountainous states.
And yes, it is enforced. A lot. There has not been a time that I have driven it in the day or night and have spotted at a minimum two officers patrolling - even when it's 4 AM in the morning on a highway that receives practically no traffic at night. It's revenue generation, full stop. If it was for safety, we'd be seeing a high accident rate, but that's not the case. And the 85th percentile clearly shows that people disregard the speed limits as is.
And FWIW, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire have significant portions at 70 MPH with Maine topping at 75 MPH. That's more than a few.
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/02/14/love-ny-signs-state-wanted-swap-signs-almost-identical-ones/335041002/ (https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/02/14/love-ny-signs-state-wanted-swap-signs-almost-identical-ones/335041002/)I agree with you on this, but they still can't be everywhere, like they are now. I'm still okay with leaving the existing signs in Port Jefferson alone, since they're clearly meant for people coming off the ferry from Bridgeport.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration has pledged to erect revamped I Love NY road signs to replace the current controversial ones, which are at the center of a years-long dispute that led the federal government to withhold $14 million in highway funding on Feb. 1.
But just days before, the state submitted a proposal calling for new signs nearly identical to the ones already lining the state's highways – with the same size, colors, tourism logos, web address and mobile application that are currently on display.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/b0b4d67d83b0233a44949d3637de57e435d5e273/c=16-3-1116-830&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2018/02/13/Rochester/Rochester/636541389095835470-scan0007-copy.jpg)
-
I think that region based tourism signs are not a bad idea, but their latest proposal, before the feds nixed $14 million in highway funding, solved pretty much nothing.
...
And yes, I heard your comments about design speed the first time - but the *entire highway* isn't designed to a 55 MPH speed limit. There are a handful sharper curves than normal, but as I explained earlier, that doesn't mean the *entire highway* should be signed for 55 MPH. If that was the case, West Virginia would have kept their interstates at 55 MPH, considering how many of their curves have advisory speeds of 55 MPH.
Just because they're legally allowed to be different doesn't mean they SHOULD be. That 55 stretch from Hale Edds to Roscoe is PAINFUL to drive because of the low speed limit and quite frankly I'm glad I live in an area where I don't have to deal with it. There are also a few two lane roads that are painful to drive because the geometry is good enough for higher speeds (NY 12 north of Alexandria Bay comes to mind, and that road actually was designed such that an in-place upgrade to an interstate would be feasible).
Driving in New England is even worse. I try to avoid non-interstates where possible especially in MA and CT.
(personal opinion)
Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph. Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.
Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph. Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.I would dispute that. FHWA did sponsor a policy study in the mid-1970's to explore the question of whether the double-nickel speed limit justified the use of lower design speeds for new facilities in rural areas, and reached the conclusion that, for the sake of design conservatism and consistency with older facilities, the older and higher design speeds should be used.
Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph. Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.I would dispute that. FHWA did sponsor a policy study in the mid-1970's to explore the question of whether the double-nickel speed limit justified the use of lower design speeds for new facilities in rural areas, and reached the conclusion that, for the sake of design conservatism and consistency with older facilities, the older and higher design speeds should be used.
I would dispute that as well. AFAIK the normal rural Interstate standards remained at 70 mph from the 1970s onward.
Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph. Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.I would dispute that. FHWA did sponsor a policy study in the mid-1970's to explore the question of whether the double-nickel speed limit justified the use of lower design speeds for new facilities in rural areas, and reached the conclusion that, for the sake of design conservatism and consistency with older facilities, the older and higher design speeds should be used.
I would dispute that as well. AFAIK the normal rural Interstate standards remained at 70 mph from the 1970s onward.
Everything I can find supports that rural interstates outside of mountainous terrain had to be designed for 70+. Mountainous areas have always been 55 if higher speeds were cost-prohibitive. And yes, mountainous areas in other states are 55. Even in West Virginia, those curves have higher radii.
^ Per AASHTO's Policy on Interstate System Design Standards, design speed in mountainous areas (and urban areas as well) can be dropped to 50 MPH.
But the highways seicer is referencing aren't Interstate highways, so these 'disputes' aren't looking at the correct criteria.
There have been Interstate standards since the early 1940's, long before there was dedicated funding for Interstates, let alone the Interstate Construction program with 90% federal match. Where horizontal curvature is concerned, the original criteria are easy to remember: maxima of 3°, 4°, and 5° for 70 mph (flat terrain), 60 mph (rolling country), and 50 mph (mountainous terrain) respectively. (Divide 5730 by degree of curvature to obtain radius in feet.)
There have been Interstate standards since the early 1940's, long before there was dedicated funding for Interstates, let alone the Interstate Construction program with 90% federal match.
Apparently the ORT gantries on the GI bridges are in and ready to go by March. But the toll booths will still remain? So that means that you have to fly into these booths doing 55+ hoping you don't crash into the sides I guess.
Geometry. The curve radii on the 55 section are too small for 65. The hairpin just east of Deposit has a 50 MPH advisory. Multiple other curves would require advisory speeds of 55 and I don't think I've ever seen an advisory below 60 on a 65 in New York. The area around the Shawangunk Ridge drops for a few 50-55 mph curves as well.
My understanding is that there is a separate contract to remove the booths ready to be let. Unlike the MassPike, the Thruway is not commiting to a specific date for when the booths will be removed, but I can't imagine it will be too long (especially since Thruway booths are easier to remove than MassPike booths... the Thruway uses crosswalks to get toll takers to the booths instead of tunnels). Obviously, the Thruway can't remove the booths until the gantries go into effect (or were you hoping for free trips during the transition?).Apparently the ORT gantries on the GI bridges are in and ready to go by March. But the toll booths will still remain? So that means that you have to fly into these booths doing 55+ hoping you don't crash into the sides I guess.
Indeed; I drove over both Grand Island Bridges last weekend. I was ecstatic to see the gantries installed and seemingly ready for use.
I'm sure the long-term plan involves removal of the booths, does it not? Leaving them there would be detrimental to traffic flow on the approaches and pretty much defeat the purpose of the conversion.
Perhaps they'll pave a segment wide enough for two lanes so traffic can flow by at-speed until the booths are removed. Looking forward to going to Canada again mid-March and seeing how the booths are ultimately handled.
Obviously, the Thruway can't remove the booths until the gantries go into effect (or were you hoping for free trips during the transition?).
How did the Thruway handle removing the Black Rock and City Line barriers? I would assume they corralled traffic to one half of roadway and removed the barrier on the other half, but I didn’t see any of the process.
My understanding is that there is a separate contract to remove the booths ready to be let.
My understanding is that there is a separate contract to remove the booths ready to be let.It has already been let--bid opening was last January 31.
Graphs of the current curve radii for various speeds and degrees of banking can be found in Chapter 5 of NYSDOT'S Highway Design Manual (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-repository/chapt_5_final.pdf). Look at pages 5-56 and 5-57 (pages 62 and 63 in the PDF) for graphs on skidding. Pages 5-59 and 5-60 (pages 65 and 66 in the PDF) have graphs for avoiding truck rollovers.Geometry. The curve radii on the 55 section are too small for 65. The hairpin just east of Deposit has a 50 MPH advisory. Multiple other curves would require advisory speeds of 55 and I don't think I've ever seen an advisory below 60 on a 65 in New York. The area around the Shawangunk Ridge drops for a few 50-55 mph curves as well.
There are two 55 MPH advisory curves I'm aware of (and a third I found while writing this post), all at both ends of NY 695. One is on the NY 695 north to I-690 east ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0782176,-76.2264045,3a,66.8y,40.66h,85.88t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sqO5bVIez3bYOixM1IycIqA!2e0), another is on the NY 695 south to NY 5 east ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0586916,-76.2370592,3a,66.8y,188.49h,86.52t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seTPOhHRGkih81OoJCAumCA!2e0), and the one I found is on the NY 695 north to I-690 west ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0763439,-76.2280262,3a,66.8y,43.85h,87.66t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1suZ8O56wbvZfOS3P_tsHkIw!2e0). The I-690 west to NY 695 south ramp isn't signed at all, but I feel like 60 is pushing it a bit on the curve. I've also done 60 on the NY 695 north to I-690 east ramp, and I may have done a bit more while passing a slower car once. 60 is definitely pushing it on that curve, and when I was passing, I felt uncomfortable going so fast on that curve, but I wanted to get around the slower car to avoid being in their blind spot or right next to them for too long.
Many highways and roadways were built during the later 70's and 80's when the NMSL limit was 55 mph. Thus, a lot of highways were designed for 55 or 60 mph.I would dispute that. FHWA did sponsor a policy study in the mid-1970's to explore the question of whether the double-nickel speed limit justified the use of lower design speeds for new facilities in rural areas, and reached the conclusion that, for the sake of design conservatism and consistency with older facilities, the older and higher design speeds should be used.
I would dispute that as well. AFAIK the normal rural Interstate standards remained at 70 mph from the 1970s onward.
Everything I can find supports that rural interstates outside of mountainous terrain had to be designed for 70+. Mountainous areas have always been 55 if higher speeds were cost-prohibitive. And yes, mountainous areas in other states are 55. Even in West Virginia, those curves have higher radii.
But the highways seicer is referencing aren't Interstate highways, so these 'disputes' aren't looking at the correct criteria.
I found no mention of NY 17 being built as part of some interstate plan in casual newspaper searches - other than it being an upgrade of existing NY 17 through the Catskills. As far as design speed, interstates during the NMSL era were not designed to 55 or 60 MPH - there are quite a few highways built during this era that had design speeds of 70 MPH or greater.
I found no mention of NY 17 being built as part of some interstate plan in casual newspaper searches - other than it being an upgrade of existing NY 17 through the Catskills. As far as design speed, interstates during the NMSL era were not designed to 55 or 60 MPH - there are quite a few highways built during this era that had design speeds of 70 MPH or greater.
The Southern Tier Expressway, that being NY-17 west of I-81 and connecting to I-90 near Erie PA, got most its funding from being ADHS Corridor T which was authorized in 1964.
https://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/ADHSMap9-30-2017.pdf
New York generally won't sign an advisory speed below 60 MPH on a 65 MPH road outside of an interchange. They won't. Suggesting otherwise strays into fictional territory.
I found no mention of NY 17 being built as part of some interstate plan in casual newspaper searches - other than it being an upgrade of existing NY 17 through the Catskills. As far as design speed, interstates during the NMSL era were not designed to 55 or 60 MPH - there are quite a few highways built during this era that had design speeds of 70 MPH or greater.
The Southern Tier Expressway, that being NY-17 west of I-81 and connecting to I-90 near Erie PA, got most its funding from being ADHS Corridor T which was authorized in 1964.
https://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/ADHSMap9-30-2017.pdf
It's funny how the Eastern section is called the "Quickway," when it's anything but.
I've found upstate New York to be pretty good with surface road speed limits. Consistently 55 in places where Massachusetts would sign it at 35-40. My experience is from NY 206 and NY 79 from I-88 to Ithaca, but I also remember someone saying the speed limit changes dramatically on NY/MA 23 crossing the state border.
What I did was compare what other states do to New York and voiced my displeasure. So who cares about what you believe? That would run against the purpose of a forum - to exchange new ideas, to voice opinions, and to gather new insights? Fin.
It's funny how the Eastern section is called the "Quickway," when it's anything but.The Quickway probably was considered quick before I-84 and I-81 were around. It also provides access from NYC to the Catskills.
It does. 55 in NY to 30 in MA. Not the only place a 15+ MPH jump happens at the eastern border, either. NY/MA 2 is 55/40, as is MA 295. The only places NY and MA speed limits match are NY/MA 43 (both 55) and I-90 (both 65).What's amazing is just how much the speed limits do match on the NY/VT border. US 2 matches (though largely due to how short it is in NY... no point in posting 55 if you're just going to slow to 50 immediately afterwards), as does US 4 (because the VT side is limited access), NY 185/VT 17 (because of the historic stuff and a hamlet, both sides post it 30), and VT 279 (due to the Bennington Bypass). I'd count NY 149, too - while the speed limit does change (30 to 40 entering VT), such is actually due to leaving the Village of Granville, and the change would still happen regardless of whether the state border happened to be there.
Massachusetts regulatory speed limits generally leave a lot to be desired. Whereas advisory signs would suffice, there was a road I was on that jumped around so many times that even Waze wasn't able to keep up with. 50 MPH down to 35 MPH? And 15 MPH around a curve? And then to 50 MPH only to drop to 30 MPH? And all without any of the required "Speed Limit XX Ahead" (and related) signs - so those abrupt drops in speed were instantaneous and sometimes enforced.
Who cares what you believe? Oh, wait, that's insulting. Do not insult other users.New York generally won't sign an advisory speed below 60 MPH on a 65 MPH road outside of an interchange. They won't. Suggesting otherwise strays into fictional territory.
What I did was compare what other states do to New York and voiced my displeasure. So who cares about what you believe? That would run against the purpose of a forum - to exchange new ideas, to voice opinions, and to gather new insights? Fin.
I believe the tunnels in question are on this old video from the 40's of a GWB crossing. It starts about the 1:38 mark going westbound toward NJ.
I believe the tunnels in question are on this old video from the 40's of a GWB crossing. It starts about the 1:38 mark going westbound toward NJ.
I'm not convinced Anderson's site has been updated in 15 years. A lot of that info is OLD.I'd say 10 years, but it's still a shame either way.
Massachusetts regulatory speed limits generally leave a lot to be desired. Whereas advisory signs would suffice, there was a road I was on that jumped around so many times that even Waze wasn't able to keep up with. 50 MPH down to 35 MPH? And 15 MPH around a curve? And then to 50 MPH only to drop to 30 MPH? And all without any of the required "Speed Limit XX Ahead" (and related) signs - so those abrupt drops in speed were instantaneous and sometimes enforced.They must be set that way so they can enforce them under actual speeding statues versus the basic speed law. MA also has weird laws concerning authority to set speed limits. In some cases local municipalities can set their own speed limits on SRs.
I said "generally only accessible by automobile." Unless you live near the LIRR (which has a bus connection to Jones and Long - and I think another?), it's an extensive venture just to get down there.Again, I cite Throgs Neck, which also had the Cross Bronx built through it, and remained a working class neighborhood.
While Moses didn't -create- the slums, he helped turn what were working class neighborhoods and ghettos (minority heavy area) into derelict districts.
Might be 27A, not 276. Maybe it's a typo on that map?
I saw it too, but I think it's a mistake or a typo.
Carmans Mill Road. This is known, but for Wikipedia purposes, we're still working out the details.
Why, with AADT of 15k, is Alternative 2 a good idea here?
Massachusetts regulatory speed limits generally leave a lot to be desired. Whereas advisory signs would suffice, there was a road I was on that jumped around so many times that even Waze wasn't able to keep up with. 50 MPH down to 35 MPH? And 15 MPH around a curve? And then to 50 MPH only to drop to 30 MPH? And all without any of the required "Speed Limit XX Ahead" (and related) signs - so those abrupt drops in speed were instantaneous and sometimes enforced.They must be set that way so they can enforce them under actual speeding statues versus the basic speed law. MA also has weird laws concerning authority to set speed limits. In some cases local municipalities can set their own speed limits on SRs.
Quote from: BuffaboyWhy, with AADT of 15k, is Alternative 2 a good idea here?Because, depending on side street/driveway frequency, you can have adequate operations for a 3-lane urban section up to a traffic level of around 20K vpd. And that stretch of Route 20 does not have a whole lot of such frequency.
Might be 27A, not 276. Maybe it's a typo on that map?
I think the map definitely says 276, especially since all the alphanumeric route numbers have the letter stacked under the number. Don't have any idea if it's correct, but my eyes see the same thing.
Carmans Mill Road. This is known, but for Wikipedia purposes, we're still working out the details.Yeah, I expected that. But the map made it look like County Line and Carmans Mill share the same intersection (and we all know that's not true).
I drove that stretch of Carman Mill Rd. recently. It does look like an old New York State road. Three narrow concrete lanes the way NYS used to build them. NY-102 (Front St.) in East Meadow looked like that too back in the 1950's and 60's.The last time I was there, Montauk Highway still had that from East Patchogue to Brookhaven.
Carmans Mill Road. This is known, but for Wikipedia purposes, we're still working out the details.Yeah, I expected that. But the map made it look like County Line and Carmans Mill share the same intersection (and we all know that's not true).I drove that stretch of Carman Mill Rd. recently. It does look like an old New York State road. Three narrow concrete lanes the way NYS used to build them. NY-102 (Front St.) in East Meadow looked like that too back in the 1950's and 60's.The last time I was there, Montauk Highway still had that from East Patchogue to Brookhaven.
Here’s something interesting I noticed yesterday and have confirmed through GMSV. Every bridge on the thruway between Buffalo and Syracuse is wide enough for six lanes. Starting in Buffalo and heading east:
S Cayuga Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9519646,-78.7450253,3a,75y,114.26h,81.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1X7zcUCVCIH1H7Bs9nIPPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Aero Dr (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9511434,-78.7375377,3a,75y,102.65h,82.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUd6q6Cz84PgiW7qL_BgQGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DUd6q6Cz84PgiW7qL_BgQGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D332.8943%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)/Ellicott Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9506826,-78.7326794,3a,75y,108.38h,71.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssT88g1V2lG6b-_EWcHYoYw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 78 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.949791,-78.6971936,3a,75y,112.18h,89.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEdUYGPifsRYH5-y8b1Z08A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Harris Hill Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9477112,-78.6774664,3a,75y,78.4h,83.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1k8X-fkBODi4x07FJXxzkA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 5 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9948235,-78.4275228,3a,89.9y,62.56h,78.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1styxoQEO3SncDMzXqXGcW7Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Exit 48A (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0032728,-78.4128614,3a,75y,50.91h,89.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSy8Sp-4SVOkNWK5o21vwPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Tonawanda Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0128043,-78.3240679,3a,75y,86.98h,86.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNfrfZIvut8U8sibQOrxuOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Black Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0180387,-78.0812395,3a,75y,66.15h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGRFxA6JDFQ-_JZd1ZaEKfQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 383 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0434347,-77.7294554,3a,75y,119.97h,74.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTkh68U0L1sAQEE6kQAtHlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Genesee River (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0430948,-77.7272485,3a,75y,121.35h,73.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfUd7RDjbB_TfDkReugDwzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Unnamed Railroad, Henrietta (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0445472,-77.6809998,3a,75y,88.85h,75.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL324L48bPqGvKlIkT4wgng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Mendon Center Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0400716,-77.5421159,3a,75y,136h,75.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbfBSghU17ELgAmujFJ1oTQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 96 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0109491,-77.4445975,3a,75y,125.42h,73.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0zXAPhM6ls9nm3QXf4P83A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/(current six lane segment includes four bridges)/Flint Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9772674,-77.2159563,3a,75y,85.09h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss3qa5W6TcLtinAR0Vk6Akw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Rocky Run (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9729879,-77.1584039,3a,75y,91.07h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYFrnfKxUD4ROAzig-V4o4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 88 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9698551,-77.0762629,3a,75y,102.53h,79.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRJp_r4x0nr2EVijFBA42qg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Flint Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9685456,-77.0610704,3a,75y,115.54h,76.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saONGYL-f-D8kTmNuGwaV3g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Ontario County 6 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9553185,-77.012898,3a,75y,96.96h,81.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syxalSpcqaLBJ3l5Y5iFiqg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Flint Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9548747,-76.9907624,3a,75y,76.25h,71.98t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1schOww2pFcIVmMx-koLwDYA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DchOww2pFcIVmMx-koLwDYA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D350.04123%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)/Exit 42 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9547974,-76.9823432,3a,75y,76.25h,71.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snUr89ty5yNJToNQwBw3hbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/NY 14 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9547489,-76.9776286,3a,75y,118.75h,79.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLTUNX589rZWN7KUvwxMEiA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Seneca River (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9974632,-76.7318147,3a,75y,103.4h,89.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smnlBKCTKP3MkVYDPCfMB6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Cayuga Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0407975,-76.6284184,3a,75y,46h,93.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFGEg86NZW_dX_UgRZu01pQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)/Unnamed Railroad, Port Byron (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0497803,-76.6127167,3a,75y,75.57h,67.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd76pNeoOLNgOHYKd08eNsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The only reasonable conclusion I can draw from all this is that it is in the long-term plans to widen the thruway. Since bridge widening would be a significant portion of the cost, this should simplify and hopefully expedite a potential large-scale widening (which I personally am an advocate of)!
Rochester-Geneva is 38-46k
This jumps during tourist season.
IMO, it's nearly impossible to speed too heavily with random rolling road blocks.
I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.Whatever it worth.. Different jurisdiction, but maybe same school of thinking? Northway overpass near exit 4 was fully rebuilt few years ago. New bridges look to be designed for 4 lanes each, old ones were 3-lane - I don't think old were wide enough for 2+2..
I've also had a different experience than signalman south of Albany....I have run into congestion several times, though these predominantly related to holidays or long weekends, and typically began around the Kingston exit when heading south. Also in my experience, while state troopers are a regular presence along the Thruway, I haven't noticed them in any inordinate frequency compared to other states. It's largely the volume that prevents heavy speeding.
The traffic counts for I-87 south of Albany drop to 34k at the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge and increase to about 38k in the Catskills. South of there, about 41k to at least I-84. Rochester-Depew is 38-41k throughout. Rochester-Geneva is 38-46k and Geneva-Syracuse is 33-35k. This jumps during tourist season.
That said, I believe the Thruway was originally designed to accommodate the possibility of widening it.
Whatever it worth.. Different jurisdiction, but maybe same school of thinking? Northway overpass near exit 4 was fully rebuilt few years ago. New bridges look to be designed for 4 lanes each, old ones were 3-lane - I don't think old were wide enough for 2+2..It's worth noting that there is an another motivation behind the width of the exit 4 bridges: the need to maintain three continuous lanes each way on all work days throughout the entire construction period.
SPUI at exit 6 a bit down the road was also build just a few years ago, but looks like 4th lane is not really planned for. It may be shoehorned in, though... Maybe that is the actual plan?
Both locations get about same amount of traffic.
Interestingly, the lowest AADT between Buffalo and Syracuse is between LeRoy and Henrietta. I would have though Henrietta to Victor would have much lower volumes (because westbound traffic originating from east of Rochester tends to get on at Henrietta, whereas eastbound traffic from the entire area gets on at Victor).Suburb-suburb commutes between Victor and Henrietta?
I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.
Quote from: webny99Interestingly, the lowest AADT between Buffalo and Syracuse is between LeRoy and Henrietta. I would have though Henrietta to Victor would have much lower volumes (because westbound traffic originating from east of Rochester tends to get on at Henrietta, whereas eastbound traffic from the entire area gets on at Victor).Suburb-suburb commutes between Victor and Henrietta?
I-490 isn’t always the shortest or fastest way to get where you’re going. If you’re coming from east of Victor, I-390 is a better route to Henrietta shopping, U of R/Strong Hospital, the airport, or really almost anywhere on the west side.Interestingly, the lowest AADT between Buffalo and Syracuse is between LeRoy and Henrietta. I would have though Henrietta to Victor would have much lower volumes (because westbound traffic originating from east of Rochester tends to get on at Henrietta, whereas eastbound traffic from the entire area gets on at Victor).Suburb-suburb commutes between Victor and Henrietta?
I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.
I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.
I wonder if 8 lanes between Rochester and Buffalo would be a stretch in the future.We make do with four now, so I'm going to go with yes, it would be a bit of a stretch :-D
In any event, a 6 lane expansion shouldn't cost most that $100-200m, if that, right?Well, that's the underlying point I was making; that a widening to six lanes really would not be that much of an expense. Given the obvious forethought of the original planners/designers, I'm a bit surprised a widening hasn't happened already (at least on the busier sections - certainly including Rochester to Buffalo).
When I was checking all the bridges, I made another relevant find: there are six or seven bridges like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0295302,-77.8601405,3a,75y,5.98h,85.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shqpGz8XwixPsRWCjF5tTQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), where there's a single bridge despite an unpaved median (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0297053,-77.8604326,3a,75y,112.65h,80.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAa6s_a-XV5JjcZvT0o6r2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). This supports the theory that future widening was considered when the thruway was being built.I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.But also notice that the original overpasses have piers that are located to allow for a third lane (using 1950s design standards; piers right up against the shoulder). This suggests that the original design was future-proofed for a third lane.
Wide bridges aren't an indication of planning for extra lanes (indeed, volumes were much lower back then, so that kind of added expense would not have been warranted based on that argument).How do you explain the above, then?
I wonder if 8 lanes between Rochester and Buffalo would be a stretch in the future.We make do with four now, so I'm going to go with yes, it would be a bit of a stretch :-D
There really aren't very many long-distance interstates of more than six lanes total - the NJ turnpike being the most prominent example, and that is way busier than Rochester to Buffalo will ever be.QuoteIn any event, a 6 lane expansion shouldn't cost most that $100-200m, if that, right?Well, that's the underlying point I was making; that a widening to six lanes really would not be that much of an expense. Given the obvious forethought of the original planners/designers, I'm a bit surprised a widening hasn't happened already (at least on the busier sections - certainly including Rochester to Buffalo).
A few of these Thruway "bridges" look like they're actually culverts.
I hate double-posting, but in other unrelated news, the closed Schodack rest area is being reopened as a parking area/"truck inspection station" (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=20605&p_is_digital=Y).Last year there was a beautiful sign "Building The Future! Governor Cuomo blah-blah". Last week that was a virgin snow field with the old building gone..
What about the arch bridges like the Mendon Rd (https://goo.gl/maps/vji9mizSRkN2) overpass? Street view has this looking better than I recall it, so it is possible it is newer, but I don't think the real-estate is there for an easy three-lanes under each arch.
I'd bet the bridges were widened since the 1950s.
I am with froggie on this one. As I also said above, wide bridges aren't an indication of planning for extra lanes (indeed, volumes were much lower back then, so that kind of added expense would not have been warranted based on that argument). Rather, it is about enabling maintenance and protection of traffic (MPT) during construction.
Bridges in that area were some of the first, if not the first, constructed for the Thruway. Much of 44-46 was constructed initially as a NY 96 Victor bypass.What about the arch bridges like the Mendon Rd (https://goo.gl/maps/vji9mizSRkN2) overpass? Street view has this looking better than I recall it, so it is possible it is newer, but I don't think the real-estate is there for an easy three-lanes under each arch.
The peak of the arch looks like it’s over the left current lane, so I think it’s designed for for a third lane. Remember, we’re talking about 1950s design standards, so there wouldn’t be provision for a full-width left shoulder, and the pier would be closer to the shoulder than in a modern design.
As for its condition, I think I remember the concrete got a complete refinishing (maybe in the late ’80s or early ’90s?), but the basic structure is definitely original – it’s on the FHWA list of historic Interstate Highway bridges (https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_topics/historic_pres/highways_list.aspx).
Links don't show what you are describing and I don't see how any form of wider bridge is some sort of omen that the entire Thruway is to be widened in the near future.When I was checking all the bridges, I made another relevant find: there are six or seven bridges like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0295302,-77.8601405,3a,75y,5.98h,85.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shqpGz8XwixPsRWCjF5tTQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), where there's a single bridge despite an unpaved median (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0297053,-77.8604326,3a,75y,112.65h,80.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAa6s_a-XV5JjcZvT0o6r2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). This supports the theory that future widening was considered when the thruway was being built.I've heard it differently...that the wider bridges (many of which also exist south of Albany) weren't in order to widen the Thruway but were intended to better allow for 4-lane/2-way traffic on one side during bridge work.But also notice that the original overpasses have piers that are located to allow for a third lane (using 1950s design standards; piers right up against the shoulder). This suggests that the original design was future-proofed for a third lane.Wide bridges aren't an indication of planning for extra lanes (indeed, volumes were much lower back then, so that kind of added expense would not have been warranted based on that argument).How do you explain the above, then?
The NY 64 one actually looks like a culvert now that I think about it. Note that there's grass on top.
I do recall reading that the Thruway built things to make widening easier (learning and applying the lessons from the PTC's restricted ROW). Of course, that doesn't say anything about an imminent widening in the present, which I don't expect to happen. Even it it did, I'd think it would cost quite a bit more than the estimates here. Keep in mind the Thruway doesn't just slap some asphalt down next to the existing lanes - the usually do a full-depth reconstruction when they widen. I'd think they would have added an extra lane to 39-40 when they rebuilt that section if there were any plans to widen west of Syracuse.
When infrastructure is designed for future widening in mind, the construction plans often show the outlines of the proposed future widened facility. Do the original construction plans for the Thruway include such tracings? (The experience with recently completed rural freeways in Kansas that were initially staged in the 1970's as roadgeek Super Twos--two-lane highways with comprehensive grade separation--is that the infrastructure added later to achieve full build-out often does not fit neatly into the footprint reserved for it, often owing to changed design standards.)
The NY 64 one actually looks like a culvert now that I think about it. Note that there's grass on top.
I do recall reading that the Thruway built things to make widening easier (learning and applying the lessons from the PTC's restricted ROW). Of course, that doesn't say anything about an imminent widening in the present, which I don't expect to happen. Even it it did, I'd think it would cost quite a bit more than the estimates here. Keep in mind the Thruway doesn't just slap some asphalt down next to the existing lanes - the usually do a full-depth reconstruction when they widen. I'd think they would have added an extra lane to 39-40 when they rebuilt that section if there were any plans to widen west of Syracuse.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't widening between exits 23 and 24 include some creative shoehorning of lanes under the overpasses too narrow for that?..
I don't want to sound contrary, but I find it hard to believe that anyone in 1950 (the approximate design approval date) ever envisioned a future need for a 6-lane Thruway, other than maybe for about 40 miles north of NYC.
I don't want to sound contrary, but I find it hard to believe that anyone in 1950 (the approximate design approval date) ever envisioned a future need for a 6-lane Thruway, other than maybe for about 40 miles north of NYC.I don't think it is implausible. The spread in annual traffic estimates for the original length of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, prior to opening in 1940, was 260,000 to 1.3 million. In the first few days it was open, about 27,000 vehicles used it per day, and annualized that is 8.1 million, or 6.2 times the high-end estimate. Obviously the novelty effect tailed off, but actual usage in the first years was about 2.4 million a year, almost double the high-end estimate.
On the basis of this experience, it is not implausible that the Thruway Authority would have made provision for widening from four to six lanes, as an inexpensive hedge against traffic being significantly higher than projected. Unlike the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the Thruway is a very easy crossing of the Appalachians and as such would have been very attractive to long-distance trucks, which count much more heavily against capacity than passenger cars.
If it turns out that the Thruway as-builts show the footprint of a six-lane facility, that will be a fairly definitive answer. I don't know if they actually do or not. My purpose in making the last post was really to plant the idea that it would be nice if the as-builts were available through an online repository of some kind.
It is interesting that seicer's map showed the Thruway going down into New Jersey apparently following Route 17 and then probably heading towards the GWB. How nice it would be to have that direct connexion between the Thruway and the NJ Turnpike now. Who would have been responsible for this change?
It is interesting that seicer's map showed the Thruway going down into New Jersey apparently following Route 17 and then probably heading towards the GWB. How nice it would be to have that direct connexion between the Thruway and the NJ Turnpike now. Who would have been responsible for this change?
When the Mass Turnpike opened in 1957, it was 6 lanes from Route 128 west to Framingham (Exit 12) and 4 lanes the rest of the way. But, the roadway grade and all the bridges/overpasses as far west as Sturbridge (Exit 9) were built to accommodate an added lane. That lane was added in the late 60s.
How do you explain the above, then?Links don't show what you are describing and I don't see how any form of wider bridge is some sort of omen that the entire Thruway is to be widened in the near future.
I was real young then, as it was either 71 or 72 when we rode it. It was at night, but I do remember the lighting on the Jersey wall in the center of the Susqhuehenna Bridge as rather than pole lighting to illuminate the deck they chose that similar to New Jersey near Newark Airport that used them on bridge railings.When the Mass Turnpike opened in 1957, it was 6 lanes from Route 128 west to Framingham (Exit 12) and 4 lanes the rest of the way. But, the roadway grade and all the bridges/overpasses as far west as Sturbridge (Exit 9) were built to accommodate an added lane. That lane was added in the late 60s.
I am trying to recall whether the bridges on the 42-mile I-95 Northeastern Expressway in Maryland were built with 3 directional lanes. It opened in 1963 with 4 lanes (2 each way) and was widened to 6 lanes (3 each way) in 1972. I do recall that the Susquehanna River Bridge was built with 4 lanes and with 12-foot right shoulders, and only needed restriping to be used for 6 lanes.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/fallston-joppa/ph-ag-jfk-memorial-highway-turns-50-jpg-20131114-photogallery.html
The widening was near completion when I first drove on it in 1972. I seem to recall that the other mainline bridges had to be widened.
I am trying to recall whether the bridges on the 42-mile I-95 Northeastern Expressway in Maryland wereI was real young then, as it was either 71 or 72 when we rode it. It was at night, but I do remember the lighting on the Jersey wall in the center of the Susqhuehenna Bridge as rather than pole lighting to illuminate the deck they chose that similar to New Jersey near Newark Airport that used them on bridge railings.
I also remember Maryland House was the only service area as Chesapeake House was not yet constructed. I wish I saw if it were 2 lanes each way or 3. However, you brought back memories as the family was supposed to go to California, but my mom, my sister, and myself got to go, but I got sick and we had to return home ahead of time and my dad got jipped on his vacation as he was join us there later. Once I got better we done a road trip down to Roanoke, VA via the Blue Ridge mountains and Gettysburg, PA. On the way back I saw DC for the first time and we drove home via the BW Parkway to the Harbor Tunnel Thruway into I-95 then home to Clark, NJ via the NJ Turnpike.
Most of the problems that I've encountered south of Albany have been caused by left lane bandits. I can't honestly say I've ever experienced delays due to volume on that section. There is plenty of predatory speed enforcement by NY troopers though. IMO, it's nearly impossible to speed too heavily with random rolling road blocks.South of Albany? Really? West of Albany I always encounter left lane bandits.
Most of the problems that I've encountered south of Albany have been caused by left lane bandits. I can't honestly say I've ever experienced delays due to volume on that section. There is plenty of predatory speed enforcement by NY troopers though. IMO, it's nearly impossible to speed too heavily with random rolling road blocks.South of Albany? Really? West of Albany I always encounter left lane bandits.
Most of the problems that I've encountered south of Albany have been caused by left lane bandits. I can't honestly say I've ever experienced delays due to volume on that section. There is plenty of predatory speed enforcement by NY troopers though. IMO, it's nearly impossible to speed too heavily with random rolling road blocks.South of Albany? Really? West of Albany I always encounter left lane bandits.
Yeah, I'd agree with south of. As you go downstate, proper lane usage becomes less of a public priority.
Most of the problems that I've encountered south of Albany have been caused by left lane bandits. I can't honestly say I've ever experienced delays due to volume on that section. There is plenty of predatory speed enforcement by NY troopers though. IMO, it's nearly impossible to speed too heavily with random rolling road blocks.South of Albany? Really? West of Albany I always encounter left lane bandits.
Yeah, I'd agree with south of. As you go downstate, proper lane usage becomes less of a public priority.
South of Albany there's often less passing and more two lanes of cars. Lane usage isn't a priority because there isn't the capacity for proper lane usage; once you're in a lane, not much room to leave it.
That isn't unique to the Taconic, nor is it unique to the Hudson Valley. In my experiences, middle lane bandits pop up in any 6 laned section of freeway. Also, in many of those jurisdictions, the middle lane camper is a LLB from a truck driver's perspective, since they aren't allowed to use the left lane.Most of the problems that I've encountered south of Albany have been caused by left lane bandits. I can't honestly say I've ever experienced delays due to volume on that section. There is plenty of predatory speed enforcement by NY troopers though. IMO, it's nearly impossible to speed too heavily with random rolling road blocks.South of Albany? Really? West of Albany I always encounter left lane bandits.
Yeah, I'd agree with south of. As you go downstate, proper lane usage becomes less of a public priority.
South of Albany there's often less passing and more two lanes of cars. Lane usage isn't a priority because there isn't the capacity for proper lane usage; once you're in a lane, not much room to leave it.
That's part of it, but also people are more used to passing in any available lane rather than primarily the left one. And that's largely because people tend to "keep middle" rather than "keep right". (The 3-lane sections of the Taconic are excellent examples of this.)
South of Albany there's often less passing and more two lanes of cars. Lane usage isn't a priority because there isn't the capacity for proper lane usage; once you're in a lane, not much room to leave it.
South of Albany there's often less passing and more two lanes of cars. Lane usage isn't a priority because there isn't the capacity for proper lane usage; once you're in a lane, not much room to leave it.
Despite this, I would agree with signalman and empirestate's claims about the prevelence of LLB's and lack of lane discipline in the Hudson Valley. In my experience, it's a New York thing in general (one of the top three states for such).
South of Albany there's often less passing and more two lanes of cars. Lane usage isn't a priority because there isn't the capacity for proper lane usage; once you're in a lane, not much room to leave it.
Despite this, I would agree with signalman and empirestate's claims about the prevelence of LLB's and lack of lane discipline in the Hudson Valley. In my experience, it's a New York thing in general (one of the top three states for such).
Of course, New York is one of the few states where "keep right except to pass" is not a thing, nor is it signed. You'll see the occasional "slower traffic keep right" signs on hills, but that's it.
South of Albany there's often less passing and more two lanes of cars. Lane usage isn't a priority because there isn't the capacity for proper lane usage; once you're in a lane, not much room to leave it.
Despite this, I would agree with signalman and empirestate's claims about the prevelence of LLB's and lack of lane discipline in the Hudson Valley. In my experience, it's a New York thing in general (one of the top three states for such).
Of course, New York is one of the few states where "keep right except to pass" is not a thing, nor is it signed. You'll see the occasional "slower traffic keep right" signs on hills, but that's it.
At one time the Thruway Authority had posted a lot of "Keep Right Except To Pass" signs, especially on bridge supports in the median. Have these disappeared?
Don't know about NY being in the top three regarding LLBs, but I find it a much more prevalent epidemic in Ohio.
Don't know about NY being in the top three regarding LLBs, but I find it a much more prevalent epidemic in Ohio.
That isn't unique to the Taconic, nor is it unique to the Hudson Valley. In my experiences, middle lane bandits pop up in any 6 laned section of freeway. Also, in many of those jurisdictions, the middle lane camper is a LLB from a truck driver's perspective, since they aren't allowed to use the left lane.South of Albany there's often less passing and more two lanes of cars. Lane usage isn't a priority because there isn't the capacity for proper lane usage; once you're in a lane, not much room to leave it.
That's part of it, but also people are more used to passing in any available lane rather than primarily the left one. And that's largely because people tend to "keep middle" rather than "keep right". (The 3-lane sections of the Taconic are excellent examples of this.)
FWIW, I tend to disagree that NY is not a "keep right except to pass" state. Every state, including NY, has a law of some form requiring motorists to keep right, and there are a decent amount of signs on the thruway.
As for Rochester, passing on the right is a time-honored tradition.
Legally speaking is NYS a Slower Traffic Keep Right or Keep Right Except to pass state? Also does it have an exemption for roads with 3 or more lanes?
Legally speaking is NYS a Slower Traffic Keep Right or Keep Right Except to pass state? Also does it have an exemption for roads with 3 or more lanes?
Slower traffic keep right, but it's not enforced, nor is it really signed away from hills. No exemption that I know of, as most signs on freeways are where a climbing lane makes a third lane.
As for Rochester, passing on the right is a time-honored tradition.
Yep :D
On six lane highways, its especially noticeable. We often have traffic flowing past the middle lane on both left and right. If the folks on the left would set a more reasonable pace, we wouldn't have this problem :-P
Legally speaking is NYS a Slower Traffic Keep Right or Keep Right Except to pass state? Also does it have an exemption for roads with 3 or more lanes?
It is, and there's no exemption on 3-lane roads for keeping right. However, there's an exemption for those doing the passing; you can do that on the right on a 3-lane road.ANd here is something I don't understand. If we're talking about 3-lanes as 1+turning+1, I don't quite understand how NOT to keep right on those. If 3 lane is asymmetric 2+1, then it looks messy - but I can remember only very few of those, and they are often busy enough to have both lanes full.
Three per direction.It is, and there's no exemption on 3-lane roads for keeping right. However, there's an exemption for those doing the passing; you can do that on the right on a 3-lane road.ANd here is something I don't understand. If we're talking about 3-lanes as 1+turning+1, I don't quite understand how NOT to keep right on those. If 3 lane is asymmetric 2+1, then it looks messy - but I can remember only very few of those, and they are often busy enough to have both lanes full.
Three per direction.It is, and there's no exemption on 3-lane roads for keeping right. However, there's an exemption for those doing the passing; you can do that on the right on a 3-lane road.ANd here is something I don't understand. If we're talking about 3-lanes as 1+turning+1, I don't quite understand how NOT to keep right on those. If 3 lane is asymmetric 2+1, then it looks messy - but I can remember only very few of those, and they are often busy enough to have both lanes full.
S 1123. When overtaking on the right is permitted.
(a) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
(...)
2. Upon a street or highway with unobstructed pavement not occupied by parked vehicles of sufficient width for two or more lines of moving vehicles in each direction;
I'm saying three through lanes. When there's three or more lanes are you required in NYS to keep right even if you are moving either at the speed limit of with the normal flow of traffic?It is, and there's no exemption on 3-lane roads for keeping right. However, there's an exemption for those doing the passing; you can do that on the right on a 3-lane road.ANd here is something I don't understand. If we're talking about 3-lanes as 1+turning+1, I don't quite understand how NOT to keep right on those. If 3 lane is asymmetric 2+1, then it looks messy - but I can remember only very few of those, and they are often busy enough to have both lanes full.
I hate double-posting, but in other unrelated news, the closed Schodack rest area is being reopened as a parking area/"truck inspection station" (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=20605&p_is_digital=Y).It's took a long time to show up.
Last year there was a beautiful sign "Building The Future! Governor Cuomo blah-blah". Last week that was a virgin snow field with the old building gone..At least they kept the buildings on I-684.
Now I know how the future looks like - it means no more restrooms but more oversight...
Baloney. It wouldn't be blocking if they didn't impede tracking. Ohio is absolutely horrible for having slow people in the left lane. If you are going so slow to slow me down, you should never be in the left lane. :DDon't know about NY being in the top three regarding LLBs, but I find it a much more prevalent epidemic in Ohio.
It's entirely dependent on your definition. The Ohio mentality is that the left lane of the Turnpike will move at or around 80 mph. Set the cruise, or pick another lane if you're not a bandwagon fan. It's certainly true that Ohioans are some of the "worst" left lane bandits, but at the same time, they're rarely disruptive to flow when they're doing it.
New York, on the other hand, tends to be worse overall, only because you can't guarantee consistency. Some people camp at 55, some at 65, some at 70, and they're all as bad as each other, especially when they don't attempt to maintain the pace set by the guy in front. The other thing is that, in eastern/southern areas of the state, no matter how densely packed a freeway is, you can guarantee the left lane will be moving faster on average than other lanes, even if there are left lane campers. In Western NY, people who left lane camp don't always set a reasonable pace like they do downstate, so they're more disruptive to flow.
FWIW, I tend to disagree that NY is not a "keep right except to pass" state. Every state, including NY, has a law of some form requiring motorists to keep right, and there are a decent amount of signs on the thruway.
Baloney. It wouldn't be blocking if they didn't impede tracking. Ohio is absolutely horrible for having slow people in the left lane. If you are going so slow to slow me down, you should never be in the left lane. :DDon't know about NY being in the top three regarding LLBs, but I find it a much more prevalent epidemic in Ohio.
It's entirely dependent on your definition. The Ohio mentality is that the left lane of the Turnpike will move at or around 80 mph. Set the cruise, or pick another lane if you're not a bandwagon fan. It's certainly true that Ohioans are some of the "worst" left lane bandits, but at the same time, they're rarely disruptive to flow when they're doing it.
New York, on the other hand, tends to be worse overall, only because you can't guarantee consistency. Some people camp at 55, some at 65, some at 70, and they're all as bad as each other, especially when they don't attempt to maintain the pace set by the guy in front. The other thing is that, in eastern/southern areas of the state, no matter how densely packed a freeway is, you can guarantee the left lane will be moving faster on average than other lanes, even if there are left lane campers. In Western NY, people who left lane camp don't always set a reasonable pace like they do downstate, so they're more disruptive to flow.
FWIW, I tend to disagree that NY is not a "keep right except to pass" state. Every state, including NY, has a law of some form requiring motorists to keep right, and there are a decent amount of signs on the thruway.
Always dread driving through Ohio because of all the LLBs. Never experience anything close to that in my native NY.
How hard is it to get over? Seriously!Baloney. It wouldn't be blocking if they didn't impede tracking. Ohio is absolutely horrible for having slow people in the left lane. If you are going so slow to slow me down, you should never be in the left lane. :DDon't know about NY being in the top three regarding LLBs, but I find it a much more prevalent epidemic in Ohio.
It's entirely dependent on your definition. The Ohio mentality is that the left lane of the Turnpike will move at or around 80 mph. Set the cruise, or pick another lane if you're not a bandwagon fan. It's certainly true that Ohioans are some of the "worst" left lane bandits, but at the same time, they're rarely disruptive to flow when they're doing it.
New York, on the other hand, tends to be worse overall, only because you can't guarantee consistency. Some people camp at 55, some at 65, some at 70, and they're all as bad as each other, especially when they don't attempt to maintain the pace set by the guy in front. The other thing is that, in eastern/southern areas of the state, no matter how densely packed a freeway is, you can guarantee the left lane will be moving faster on average than other lanes, even if there are left lane campers. In Western NY, people who left lane camp don't always set a reasonable pace like they do downstate, so they're more disruptive to flow.
FWIW, I tend to disagree that NY is not a "keep right except to pass" state. Every state, including NY, has a law of some form requiring motorists to keep right, and there are a decent amount of signs on the thruway.
Always dread driving through Ohio because of all the LLBs. Never experience anything close to that in my native NY.
Having made the drive from Chicago to Syracuse, N.Y. on several occasions over the past year, I can safely say that Ohio is AWFUL to drive through because of the LLBs. Once you get Northeast of Cleveland it's not quite as bad, but I've driven across Ohio on 80/90, 70, 71, and 77 and there's more LLBs than any of the other 46 states I've driven in.
I've driven the entire length of the NYS Thruway numerous times, and south of Albany on I-87 has more LLBs than the I-90 portion, and it gets worse the closer you get to New York.
Baloney. It wouldn't be blocking if they didn't impede tracking. Ohio is absolutely horrible for having slow people in the left lane. If you are going so slow to slow me down, you should never be in the left lane. :D
Always dread driving through Ohio because of all the LLBs. Never experience anything close to that in my native NY.
I have driven in both New York and Ohio. As someone who sets cruise control at or slightly below the speed limit and regards overtaking as an isolated activity, I have not been able to see a difference between either state in tendency to block the left lane.
I'm saying three through lanes. When there's three or more lanes are you required in NYS to keep right even if you are moving either at the speed limit of with the normal flow of traffic?It is, and there's no exemption on 3-lane roads for keeping right. However, there's an exemption for those doing the passing; you can do that on the right on a 3-lane road.ANd here is something I don't understand. If we're talking about 3-lanes as 1+turning+1, I don't quite understand how NOT to keep right on those. If 3 lane is asymmetric 2+1, then it looks messy - but I can remember only very few of those, and they are often busy enough to have both lanes full.
How hard is it to get over? Seriously!
I think many LLB's are either senior citizens who just don't get that speed limits are not taken seriously.............and immigrants who naively believe that speed limits in America are for real.
I think many LLB's are either senior citizens who just don't get that speed limits are not taken seriously.............and immigrants who naively believe that speed limits in America are for real.
Hmm.......I might have used the wrong terminology. I'm talking about people who drive at the speed limit in the left lane causing traffic to back up behind them and have to pass on the right. If that's not what an LLB is then sorry, my mistake.
I think many LLB's are either senior citizens who just don't get that speed limits are not taken seriously.............and immigrants who naively believe that speed limits in America are for real.Or, they could also be people who get into the left turn lanes, because they want to be able to get into the left-turn lanes that they're looking for.
That is an example of an LLB, but not the actual definition.
Or, they could also be people who get into the left turn lanes, because they want to be able to get into the left-turn lanes that they're looking for.
Hmm.......I might have used the wrong terminology. I'm talking about people who drive at the speed limit in the left lane causing traffic to back up behind them and have to pass on the right. If that's not what an LLB is then sorry, my mistake.
Or, they could also be people who get into the left turn lanes, because they want to be able to get into the left-turn lanes that they're looking for.
You might be right.........but I doubt any of them are Germans because in Germany there is strict adherence to the idea of keeping right except to pass. It's a way of life there. They even have a phrase for it: Rechts Fahren It means: "drive right".
Here's a picture I took of work under NY-5 Skyway. There always seems to be work going on with this bridge. What are they doing here?
Here's a picture I took of work under NY-5 Skyway. There always seems to be work going on with this bridge. What are they doing here?
Probably routine bridge inspections. Call NYSDOT and check with them.
Early this afternoon, the New York state Department of Transportation reported that the contractor who installed the sign has fixed it. "An overlay has since been applied to the sign, at the contractor’s expense, with the correction," DOT public information officer Jordan M. Guerrein said in a statement.
Drilling +inspections = deck repairs with barrier pinned into the deck so it doesn't move.Here's a picture I took of work under NY-5 Skyway. There always seems to be work going on with this bridge. What are they doing here?
Probably routine bridge inspections. Call NYSDOT and check with them.
They're drilling and stuff on the deck too though. I know they have a big project coming up.
However the bus driver who entered the restricted parkway near Kennedy Airport apparently ignored the posted signs. Also the commander of the State Police Troop said on the news that the driver was using a "non-commercial" type GPS which would not have indicated the parkway restriction. Common problem with truck and bus drivers coming to Long Island.This incident is eerily familiar to the bus crash (also carrying high school students) that occurred on Soldiers Field Road in Allston/Boston, MA over five years ago. The overhead signs on the entrance ramps there read DANGER - LOW CLEARANCE with the truck head-banging warning sign symbol on them. It may have also had the lower-hanging CARS ONLY banners. If a vehicle touches the latter; it will not clear the lowest of overpasses along the road.
I've often thought that the signing is badly worded though. Instead of saying "No Commercial Vehicles" it might be clearer if it said "No Trucks or Busses". I think some of these drivers don't realize that "commercial vehicle" applies to them.
I've often thought that the signing is badly worded though. Instead of saying "No Commercial Vehicles" it might be clearer if it said "No Trucks or Busses". I think some of these drivers don't realize that "commercial vehicle" applies to them.
Yes! Sunrise Highway should have been converted to an expressway years ago when there was more room to do it. A real missed opportunity, like many in the New York Area.For people like this it certainly wouldn't prevent any truck or bus collisions with overpasses. But for people who know better and go there anyway thinking they can get away with it just because they don't want to put up with all the traffic lights on the current Sunrise Highway, it would certainly do some good. There were parts of Sunrise where room for improvements should've been set aside, but developers grabbed that land making sure that would never happen.
However the bus driver who entered the restricted parkway near Kennedy Airport apparently ignored the posted signs. Also the commander of the State Police Troop said on the news that the driver was using a "non-commercial" type GPS which would not have indicated the parkway restriction. Common problem with truck and bus drivers coming to Long Island.
I've often thought that the signing is badly worded though. Instead of saying "No Commercial Vehicles" it might be clearer if it said "No Trucks or Busses". I think some of these drivers don't realize that "commercial vehicle" applies to them.
Problem is, that's not quite accurate, since there are commercial vehicles other than trucks and buses that are prohibited on the parkways.
I loved hearing about this last night on the evening news. I immediately dismissed the driver's claim of unfamiliarity as that's no excuse to not read signage and heed its warning. I also particularly liked media's claim that the passengers didn't have a chance to warn the driver not to use the parkway. It's not like it takes very long to say "Dude, stop! You can't use this road, exit immediately"
I loved hearing about this last night on the evening news. I immediately dismissed the driver's claim of unfamiliarity as that's no excuse to not read signage and heed its warning. I also particularly liked media's claim that the passengers didn't have a chance to warn the driver not to use the parkway. It's not like it takes very long to say "Dude, stop! You can't use this road, exit immediately"
Some councilman was on the news blaming the DOT because of lack of signs saying "the truck sign with the red line through it doesn't speak to bus drivers." OK soooo what is the best way to word it? "Passenger Cars Only?" Oh gee I drive an SUV I guess I can't use the road then.
How much would it cost to equip all vehicles over 8' tall with commercial type GPSs?Such won't help if the driver's using the GPS on his/her smart-phone.
I'm a bit surprised, though, that some GPS software guys wouldn't offer vehicle type option - possibly as a paid option.How much would it cost to equip all vehicles over 8' tall with commercial type GPSs?Such won't help if the driver's using the GPS on his/her smart-phone.
I'm a bit surprised, though, that some GPS software guys wouldn't offer vehicle type option - possibly as a paid option.How much would it cost to equip all vehicles over 8' tall with commercial type GPSs?Such won't help if the driver's using the GPS on his/her smart-phone.
Actually a remember Waze asking people on their forum if there is an interest in that - and there were quite a few suggestions. For now, they have "taxi", "electric" and "motorcycle" options - I am not sure how different are obtained directions. But looks like basic elements to add commercial vehicle option are there.
It has to be an involved set of options, ni\ot a single one, though - 53 vs 48 vs tandem or triple; hazmat, height.. But it is definitely doable..I'm a bit surprised, though, that some GPS software guys wouldn't offer vehicle type option - possibly as a paid option.How much would it cost to equip all vehicles over 8' tall with commercial type GPSs?Such won't help if the driver's using the GPS on his/her smart-phone.
Actually a remember Waze asking people on their forum if there is an interest in that - and there were quite a few suggestions. For now, they have "taxi", "electric" and "motorcycle" options - I am not sure how different are obtained directions. But looks like basic elements to add commercial vehicle option are there.
I wouldn't be surprised if Waze adds a commercial option. They added an E-ZPass option recently and that's quite nice.
Commercial vehicles means ALL vehicles registered with commercial plates. Has nothing to do with height.Sure, no maintenance vehicles should be able to go on that road!
^ Maintenance vehicles are typically government vehicles, not registered as commercial. If it happens to be a case where a private firm is contracted out for the maintenance, I'm sure accommodations are made for their vehicle access.I am not sure that "no commercial vehicles" regulation makes sense. As far as I understand, this is one of Robert Moses' creations - and it is far from fair, some go as far as calling it racist.
^ Maintenance vehicles are typically government vehicles, not registered as commercial. If it happens to be a case where a private firm is contracted out for the maintenance, I'm sure accommodations are made for their vehicle access.
Commercial vehicles means ALL vehicles registered with commercial plates. Has nothing to do with height.
(8) Commercial vehicle. Every type of motor-driven vehicle used for commercial purposes on the highways, such as the transportation of goods, wares and merchandise and motor coaches carrying passengers; including trailers and semitrailers and tractors when used in combination with trailers and semitrailers, and excepting such vehicles as are run only upon rails or tracks…
^ Maintenance vehicles are typically government vehicles, not registered as commercial. If it happens to be a case where a private firm is contracted out for the maintenance, I'm sure accommodations are made for their vehicle access.
§ 182.31 Restricted vehicles.
The following type vehicles, including those elsewhere defined in this Part, are not permitted
on the parkways within the parkway system, unless authorized under an agreement with the
department:
Are hire vehicles prohibited then?
A motor vehicle having a seating capacity for passengers of not more than seven persons, in addition to the driver, and used in the business of transporting passengers for compensation.
Is anyone measuring the sign size on Uber and Lyft?
Is anyone pulling over pizza delivery cars?
But back on the subject it's amazing how literal they take "commercial vehicle." Didn't know they go that far when I thought it was just for big vehicles.
I mean, my dad's stepfather was pulled over on one of the parkways in the 80s for having a box of catalogs for his used book store on the back seat. Using the parkway for commercial purposes. So if they're gonna be that strict, they can pull over anyone delivering anything.How does one even NOTICE the catalogs at speed?
And might the camera have trouble fitting under a Parkway bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6908594,-73.5874455,3a,60y,152h,174.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB_xjQ3hyeDnNRYSGeOhlfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
I mean, my dad's stepfather was pulled over on one of the parkways in the 80s for having a box of catalogs for his used book store on the back seat. Using the parkway for commercial purposes. So if they're gonna be that strict, they can pull over anyone delivering anything.How does one even NOTICE the catalogs at speed?
Here's something I've never seen in Street View before! I just stumbled on a few trailers of new BGSes in a parking lot (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7994882,-76.124521,3a,24.1y,194.2h,84.43t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sg1lE-sKR_HKhzhVXyqS9Gg!2e0) on NY 80 just off of I-81 in Tully waiting to be installed.
Did anyone else notice yellow license plates starting to give way? I saw maybe 6 peeled off plates within past two days, mostly Fxx- series.No, in New Jersey the yellow plates are all going slowly in the left lane, not giving way.
Didn't last a full decade...
With more and more AET facilities being introduced, this may become an interesting way of avoiding toll..
Yeah, over here you can tell NJ cars by the wake turbulence they leave behind as they try to get airborne....Did anyone else notice yellow license plates starting to give way? I saw maybe 6 peeled off plates within past two days, mostly Fxx- series.No, in New Jersey the yellow plates are all going slowly in the left lane, not giving way.
Didn't last a full decade...
With more and more AET facilities being introduced, this may become an interesting way of avoiding toll..
Did anyone else notice yellow license plates starting to give way? I saw maybe 6 peeled off plates within past two days, mostly Fxx- series.
Didn't last a full decade...
With more and more AET facilities being introduced, this may become an interesting way of avoiding toll..
No, in New Jersey the yellow plates are all going slowly in the left lane, not giving way.
Did anyone else notice yellow license plates starting to give way? I saw maybe 6 peeled off plates within past two days, mostly Fxx- series.
Didn't last a full decade...
With more and more AET facilities being introduced, this may become an interesting way of avoiding toll..
Someone stole my runway on the ride home. D:Yeah, over here you can tell NJ cars by the wake turbulence they leave behind as they try to get airborne....Did anyone else notice yellow license plates starting to give way? I saw maybe 6 peeled off plates within past two days, mostly Fxx- series.No, in New Jersey the yellow plates are all going slowly in the left lane, not giving way.
Didn't last a full decade...
With more and more AET facilities being introduced, this may become an interesting way of avoiding toll..
Did anyone else notice yellow license plates starting to give way? I saw maybe 6 peeled off plates within past two days, mostly Fxx- series.
Didn't last a full decade...
With more and more AET facilities being introduced, this may become an interesting way of avoiding toll..
I have seen a lot of E** blue and whites with a decent amount of peeling (including one of my relatives).There were quite a bit of complains about white plates peeling off; I believe that was related to different film manufacturers. Some of E series - but not all - are prone to peeling; and actually my ED- is holding very well.
Was on I-88 Saturday and could not believe how awful the pavement has gotten in just a year's time near Worcester and Richmondville: Video (https://www.facebook.com/seicer/videos/10105534696455860/). Most of the traffic was riding in the left lane, which is where I also camped out in after a quick video. Will this section be on the list for rehab this year?
Another section that was most recently rehabbed, from Central Bridge east to Duanesburg (north end) is also failing after being completed just late last year. Most of the joints have reappeared in the asphalt and potholes are already forming. What differs from this rehab from others along I-88 that are in excellent condition?
Skyway closures begin as two-year construction project starts (http://buffalonews.com/2018/04/30/skyway-closures-begin-as-two-year-construction-project-starts/)
So this project only extends the life of the bridge another 20 years. What happens at the end of its life cycle? Built in 1956, by the time it reaches that point, it will be 84 years old.
I've seen ideas - by politicians and groups all around Buffalo, that want to see it removed and I assume replaced with a grade level replacement with a drawbridge. How often is the river used by large boats anymore? Nearly all of the mills further east are closed.
I doubt a drawbridge would be a good idea considering the level of barge activity. I'm sure General Mills would oppose it.Every detail sounds the same as the Pulaski Skyway I sincerely hope your project does not extend as long.
Also by the way, I drove into downtown today and it was very awkward going northbound on the southbound side.
Another 20 years is a fine goal ... that is a long time.
Another 20 years is a fine goal ... that is a long time.No it isn't, in the scheme of roads. If you're going to rebuild a structure, people are going to want to see at least 30 years out of it.
Another 20 years is a fine goal ... that is a long time.No it isn't, in the scheme of roads. If you're going to rebuild a structure, people are going to want to see at least 30 years out of it.
$29 million isn't all that much in the scheme of things. They could also be hedging their bets on the low end with a public statement. I feel a bit better about it now.Another 20 years is a fine goal ... that is a long time.No it isn't, in the scheme of roads. If you're going to rebuild a structure, people are going to want to see at least 30 years out of it.
Well, here is what the article said, "for at least two decades". So that could be 3 or more, we need to find out what design year the DOT is using.
Few roads in Buffalo have as much history as the Skyway, which has towered over Lake Erie and the city's skyline since the mid-1950s. On Monday, this portion of Route 5 entered a new era with the start of a $29 million reconstruction project. The renovation will keep the Skyway viable for at least two decades, according to a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Transportation.
Well, here is what the article said, "for at least two decades". So that could be 3 or more, we need to find out what design year the DOT is using.$29 million isn't all that much in the scheme of things. They could also be hedging their bets on the low end with a public statement. I feel a bit better about it now.
Few roads in Buffalo have as much history as the Skyway, which has towered over Lake Erie and the city's skyline since the mid-1950s. On Monday, this portion of Route 5 entered a new era with the start of a $29 million reconstruction project. The renovation will keep the Skyway viable for at least two decades, according to a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Transportation.
In the wintertime I will drive full speed, 55 MPH on this bridge. Even in high winds (okay maybe not 55). It just comes with having driven on it literally thousands of times.
They want to replace it with a drawbridge or a tunnel...that would break my heart as the scenery from the top is pretty much unparalleled, and a viable alternative for southtowns traffic is never discussed.
I can't find the article I was looking at last night, but it had statistics for the amount of traffic that enters the Buffalo River. I think that the river is down to just 2 customers that would be impacted if a drawbridge was built. But what if it was a higher elevation crossing - somewhere in between Michigan Avenue and the Skyway? The Skyway is already below capacity, and if openings could be minimized to just the largest of ships, that might be a decent compromise.
I can't find the article I was looking at last night, but it had statistics for the amount of traffic that enters the Buffalo River. I think that the river is down to just 2 customers that would be impacted if a drawbridge was built. But what if it was a higher elevation crossing - somewhere in between Michigan Avenue and the Skyway? The Skyway is already below capacity, and if openings could be minimized to just the largest of ships, that might be a decent compromise.
Depends on the drawbridge clearance when closed. Satellite view shows about 100 sailboats docked on the river. Some sailboats have masts over 50 feet high.
Is that even needed? The VPD counts for the Skyway are well below its designed capacity and isn't projected to grow. With the Thruway to the east, the notion that NY 5 is a through route is over - but it is still an important regional connector. I think outside of the question of the bridge type that's needed - is an expressway with the overly complicated ramp situation at its northern terminus necessary?
Depends on the drawbridge clearance when closed. Satellite view shows about 100 sailboats docked on the river. Some sailboats have masts over 50 feet high.None of the boats there have particularly high masts, but you'd still need a clearance of 40-50 feet to avoid a ridiculous amount of openings. A new crossing near Ohio Street might work (still movable). Main commercial customer on the river is General Mills, but there's commercial use down to Silo City right now.
With coordinated signals and at least 60% green time for NY 5 through traffic a 6-lane arterial could handle that volume. I'd probably stick with a 4-lane freeway, though. 40K is a bit high for a 4-lane arterial. And despite Buffaboy's commutes, those PHV's don't really warrant 6 lanes and some congestion during peak commuting hours is to be expected anyway.
My main problem with that section of 5 is the stretch through Woodlawn, which is 40 mph. The rest of it is 55 from the Skyway and some parts southwest. Woodlawn is basically a choke point. There's no way to fix this, even if you jersey barriered the median.
Probably wouldn't shock anyone here to learn that NY 5 between NY 179 and the Skyway is one of the busiest surface roads Upstate (NY 104 in Rochester is slightly more, NY 5/8/12 in Utica and US 20 and NY 7 near Albany are slightly less). US 9 between I-84 and Poughkeepsie ranges from 30-60K and is the busiest in the Hudson Valley. The differences with US 9 are higher speed limit, MUCH higher green times for US 9, fewer signals, and medians (it's basically expressway-grade).
I was driving on Washington ave ext in Albany every day while R1 had endeavor into synchronization of those 3 lights. I lost even residue of my faith in NYS engineering after that show.
Coordinated signals? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. This is NYSDOT Region 5 we're talking about. NY 78 supposedly has coordinated signals on the 6-lane section. Doesn't prevent me from getting stopped at every signal whenever I try to use it.
I wonder if there are any good Syracuse candidates. NY 252 in Henrietta has to be up there, too.
[NY-5 Skyway]
AADT is around 40,000 with PHVs of 3,300 EB and 2,700 WB in 2013. You'd need a pretty beefy surface road to accommodate that and the Thruway doesn't have the capacity to take the overflow.
My main problem with that section of 5 is the stretch through Woodlawn, which is 40 mph. The rest of it is 55 from the Skyway and some parts southwest. Woodlawn is basically a choke point. There's no way to fix this, even if you jersey barriered the median.
Coordinated signals? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. This is NYSDOT Region 5 we're talking about.
US 9 between I-84 and Poughkeepsie ranges from 30-60K and is the busiest in the Hudson Valley. The differences with US 9 are higher speed limit, MUCH higher green times for US 9, fewer signals, and medians (it's basically expressway-grade).
^ I didn't say that. Looks like cl94's quote.
Benefit of the doubt: given he has 3 posts total (as of this moment), he probably hasn't fully figured out the quoting function yet.
You know, on my November 2017 trip to the Tri-State Area, I never saw a NYS 900A reference route marker anywhere along Main Street in Greenport, or a 900C reference route marker anywhere along the Orient Beach State Park Road:
http://www.empirestateroads.com/sr/refroute10.html
You know, on my November 2017 trip to the Tri-State Area, I never saw a NYS 900A reference route marker anywhere along Main Street in Greenport, or a 900C reference route marker anywhere along the Orient Beach State Park Road:
http://www.empirestateroads.com/sr/refroute10.html
No, and since the invention of Street View, I've been able to confirm the existence or absence of actual markers much more easily. (I'm theoretically in the midst of updating all these pages, by the way.) But most of the info in that column is based on inventory products from NYSDOT, originally the Highway Sufficiency Ratings Manual, which lists reference marker legends at various points along the route. Where given, these are included in my tables, but in some cases they may be purely theoretical.
No, and since the invention of Street View, I've been able to confirm the existence or absence of actual markers much more easily. (I'm theoretically in the midst of updating all these pages, by the way.) But most of the info in that column is based on inventory products from NYSDOT, originally the Highway Sufficiency Ratings Manual, which lists reference marker legends at various points along the route. Where given, these are included in my tables, but in some cases they may be purely theoretical.Yes, Street View can do a lot of good, as long as it's kept up to date, and there's nothing preventing the visibilty of signs or other features (anything from blurring out signs, to zooming restrictions, trucks or other vehicles, or worse). The one thing I did encounter was a resurfacing project, not only on "NY 900A," but on the section of Main Street that NY 25 runs along. I had hoped against all hope that they might've been there but were taken down for the construction project, but I tend to know better than to keep my hopes up.
Lack of a reference marker means nothing.
So on a trip to Saratoga Springs last week for work, I had the privilege (?) of driving through Malta.I even heard NYSDOT's COO say "Good luck with that!" when they were being built in a speech at ITS-NY. The US 9 one was terrible last I was there.
Roundabouts officially need to go die in a fire.
Complete topic switch, but with the Grand Island Bridges going AET, I wonder if I-190's Exit 17 is in for a full overhaul. It's got to be substandard as heck in both directions.
There are a few more on the way to global which backup during commute. Overall Malta is exhibit 1 in the case against roundabouts.So on a trip to Saratoga Springs last week for work, I had the privilege (?) of driving through Malta.I even heard NYSDOT's COO say "Good luck with that!" when they were being built in a speech at ITS-NY. The US 9 one was terrible last I was there.
Roundabouts officially need to go die in a fire.
I sat for several minutes just trying to get off the Northway waiting for an opening. Eventually I just had to floor it and go for it... getting honked at in the process.There are a few more on the way to global which backup during commute. Overall Malta is exhibit 1 in the case against roundabouts.So on a trip to Saratoga Springs last week for work, I had the privilege (?) of driving through Malta.I even heard NYSDOT's COO say "Good luck with that!" when they were being built in a speech at ITS-NY. The US 9 one was terrible last I was there.
Roundabouts officially need to go die in a fire.
The reason for the roundabouts at exit 12 was actually because turning lanes would have added significant extra width to the bridge.Is that for all 7 of those roundabouts?
The reason for the roundabouts at exit 12 was actually because turning lanes would have added significant extra width to the bridge.Is that for all 7 of those roundabouts?
You may be more correct than you expect.The reason for the roundabouts at exit 12 was actually because turning lanes would have added significant extra width to the bridge.Is that for all 7 of those roundabouts?
No. The others were built specifically to annoy people.
Pfft. No.You may be more correct than you expect.The reason for the roundabouts at exit 12 was actually because turning lanes would have added significant extra width to the bridge.Is that for all 7 of those roundabouts?
No. The others were built specifically to annoy people.
Rotaries and roundabouts are two importantly different things. Rotaries are those death traps that have drivers going in a circle at high speeds. Roundabouts are smaller and always require entering traffic to yield to traffic already in the circle, making them considerably safer and less confusing.Relax, it is 8.30 pm and you're off the clock. You don't have to quote those memos...
I believe the right-of-way law is the same for both rotaries and roundabouts. Traffic entering must yield to traffic already circling. So if V-deane's definition is correct, the only real difference between the two is the size of the circle and traffic speeds. And they're both terrible IMO.We do have a separate thread for beating up roundabouts, feel free to join: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15546.0
There are circles that have different yielding requirements, though I'm not familiar with all the distinctions between all the non-roundabout ones.You mentioned rotary vs roundabout.
Sec. 1145. Vehicle approaching rotary traffic circle or island. Except where a traffic control device directs otherwise, the driver of aThere is no separate requirement for roundabouts in NYS V&T law you mentioned except the one I quoted above.
vehicle approaching or about to enter a rotary traffic circle or island shall yield the right of way to any vehicle already traveling on such circle or around such island.
Roundabouts are smaller and always require entering traffic to yield to traffic already in the circle
Except it's true (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm). Why not just drive slower, especially in urban environments? And drive with regard to other motorists and other users of the roadway and space?Just another quote of the same old story. No, it is just high quality data massage.
And no, rotaries and roundabouts are not the same, especially for yielding purposes. Here is a useful diagram (http://www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/331). It's even codified as such in several states, so no, they are not the same.
Seicer's useful diagram made me dizzy as did the the fine print re: all the technical differences between a rotary and a roundabout. And if even I had trouble comprehending all that fine detail, you can be sure most drivers will never know or appreciate all those technical differences.ANd for the sake of everyone's convenience:
I can buy the idea that there are fewer serious accidents than with signalized intersections. Probably mostly sideswipes and low-speed rear-end collisions but the fact remains: rotaries and roundabouts are a friggin' nuisance to drive through.
I don't have a good example handy.
Seicer's useful diagram made me dizzy as did the the fine print re: all the technical differences between a rotary and a roundabout. And if even I had trouble comprehending all that fine detail, you can be sure most drivers will never know or appreciate all those technical differences.
I can buy the idea that there are fewer serious accidents than with signalized intersections. Probably mostly sideswipes and low-speed rear-end collisions but the fact remains: rotaries and roundabouts are a friggin' nuisance to drive through.
Except it's true (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm). Why not just drive slower, especially in urban environments? And drive with regard to other motorists and other users of the roadway and space?Just another quote of the same old story. No, it is just high quality data massage.
And no, rotaries and roundabouts are not the same, especially for yielding purposes. Here is a useful diagram (http://www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/331). It's even codified as such in several states, so no, they are not the same.
OK, let me show where the flaw is in your reference.Except it's true (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm). Why not just drive slower, especially in urban environments? And drive with regard to other motorists and other users of the roadway and space?Just another quote of the same old story. No, it is just high quality data massage.
And no, rotaries and roundabouts are not the same, especially for yielding purposes. Here is a useful diagram (http://www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/331). It's even codified as such in several states, so no, they are not the same.
I can cite more studies, if you'd like. But you would refute them, just as you've refuted pretty much any analytical or scientific message that's come through on this forum. I won't bother.
Roundabouts reduced injury crashes by 75 percent at intersections where stop signs or signals were previously used for traffic controlI am not sure about exact numbers, but if I remember correctly stop signs can handle something like 5k/day traffic(if that), 10 times less than what we're talking about.
2x3 aredeathcrash traps.
Let me copy my own post from the other dreaded post:Quote from: kalvado2x3 aredeathcrash traps.
FTFY. While there are indications that multi-lane roundabouts see more crashes in some cases, they are rarely deadly because of the slower speeds involved. And even their fatality rate is less than signalized intersections.
BTW, since you mentioned capacity, a 1x1 roundabout has about 4 times the throughput of an all-stop-sign intersection. They are not one and the same.
Ramps to roundabouts can be signalized if the traffic warrants are high enough.Yeah, you can put signals on approaches and remove the central island for ultimate throughput. Requires some heavy construction, though.
All-way stop signs are an abomination.
Ramps to roundabouts can be signalized if the traffic warrants are high enough.Yeah, you can put signals on approaches and remove the central island for ultimate throughput. Requires some heavy construction, though.
I agree that roundabouts are bad idea. I have had bad experiences with them too, especially in Massachusetts where they call them rotaries. I would much prefer a well designed signalized intersection, anytime.
Yeah, it takes some time to accept that innovation. But you're OK with signals on approach, so you're half way there.Ramps to roundabouts can be signalized if the traffic warrants are high enough.Yeah, you can put signals on approaches and remove the central island for ultimate throughput. Requires some heavy construction, though.
I wasn't suggesting removing the central island.
I wasn't commenting on anything specific to NYS traffic law. I was talking on a general, nationwide basis. Note that the post I was replying to was referring to Massachusetts:There are circles that have different yielding requirements, though I'm not familiar with all the distinctions between all the non-roundabout ones.You mentioned rotary vs roundabout.Quote from: NYS V&T lawSec. 1145. Vehicle approaching rotary traffic circle or island. Except where a traffic control device directs otherwise, the driver of aThere is no separate requirement for roundabouts in NYS V&T law you mentioned except the one I quoted above.
vehicle approaching or about to enter a rotary traffic circle or island shall yield the right of way to any vehicle already traveling on such circle or around such island.Roundabouts are smaller and always require entering traffic to yield to traffic already in the circle
I agree that roundabouts are bad idea. I have had bad experiences with them too, especially in Massachusetts where they call them rotaries. I would much prefer a well designed signalized intersection, anytime.
I wasn't commenting on anything specific to NYS traffic law. I was talking on a general, nationwide basis. Note that the post I was replying to was referring to Massachusetts:There are circles that have different yielding requirements, though I'm not familiar with all the distinctions between all the non-roundabout ones.You mentioned rotary vs roundabout.Quote from: NYS V&T lawSec. 1145. Vehicle approaching rotary traffic circle or island. Except where a traffic control device directs otherwise, the driver of aThere is no separate requirement for roundabouts in NYS V&T law you mentioned except the one I quoted above.
vehicle approaching or about to enter a rotary traffic circle or island shall yield the right of way to any vehicle already traveling on such circle or around such island.Roundabouts are smaller and always require entering traffic to yield to traffic already in the circleI agree that roundabouts are bad idea. I have had bad experiences with them too, especially in Massachusetts where they call them rotaries. I would much prefer a well designed signalized intersection, anytime.
OK, can you give an example of different yield arrangement in circulatory motion? I believe Russia used "circulating traffic yields" till 2003 or so, but that was changed; and we're talking US anyway.At least one in NJ (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1317915,-74.0654812,3a,75y,89.47h,80.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7RoLwvr5gxlHX7AmPB8UJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Any other examples?
OK, can you give an example of different yield arrangement in circulatory motion? I believe Russia used "circulating traffic yields" till 2003 or so, but that was changed; and we're talking US anyway.
Any other examples?
Yeah, it takes some time to accept that innovation. But you're OK with signals on approach, so you're half way there.I wasn't suggesting removing the central island.Ramps to roundabouts can be signalized if the traffic warrants are high enough.Yeah, you can put signals on approaches and remove the central island for ultimate throughput. Requires some heavy construction, though.
Yeah, it takes some time to accept that innovation. But you're OK with signals on approach, so you're half way there.I wasn't suggesting removing the central island.Ramps to roundabouts can be signalized if the traffic warrants are high enough.Yeah, you can put signals on approaches and remove the central island for ultimate throughput. Requires some heavy construction, though.
No, I was just outlining the range of treatments that are possible depending on volume.
Roundabouts can also be widened to 2 or 3 lanes, or built with that in the first place, if the design year volume warrants that.
The new roundabout at VA-144 and the I-95 ramps at Colonial Heights is that wide and has quite high capacity.
Roundabouts can also be widened to 2 or 3 lanes, or built with that in the first place, if the design year volume warrants that.And it is pretty well understood by now - except that understanding is still filtering down to design folks - that 3-lanes roundabouts are less than safe.
The new roundabout at VA-144 and the I-95 ramps at Colonial Heights is that wide and has quite high capacity.
So what it has to do with thread title in general and Malta NY in particular?Roundabouts can also be widened to 2 or 3 lanes, or built with that in the first place, if the design year volume warrants that.And it is pretty well understood by now - except that understanding is still filtering down to design folks - that 3-lanes roundabouts are less than safe.
The new roundabout at VA-144 and the I-95 ramps at Colonial Heights is that wide and has quite high capacity.
Technically it is 2 lanes, and there are channelization-separated bypass lanes.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-95_temple_ave.asp
...it's just another example of proving your point is inadequate. TBH, this whole portion of the thread really could be moved into a roundabout / rotary thread because it has little to do with New York.OK, lets look at things at perspective.
Yes, I've been through Malta on quite a few trips. I'm well familiar with those roundabouts - even in rush hour. And while there is congestion queueing, it's nothing out of the ordinary and nothing that didn't exist before the roundabouts were installed. You can't design these intersections to be free-flowing in all conditions, but the fact is, roundabouts are safer than traditional traffic signals in almost all applications, they are free-flowing in almost all instances, and they have lower long-term operating costs. Without providing specifics as to your original point, we then have to rely on the general consensus, backed by research and data, that these roundabouts are better in instances where it is properly applied. And there is nothing out of the ordinary about these roundabouts to signify that they were improper.So ALMOST is your keyword. They are not free flowing - but they are ALMOST always free flowing. They are ALMOST ALWAYS safer - but sometimes crashes are increased.. OK, we're not talking about city of Almost, SomeState, US- we're talking about Malta NY.
And what are you talking about with this "50k" number? AADT is only around 14,000-16,000 on SR 67. US 9 is around 11,000 to 15,000. Even rush hour statistics, pulled from NYSDOT, aren't out of the ordinary.
Despite this, when it comes to less severe crashes, multilane roundabouts fail to provide the same benefit. In many cases , they actually come with increased rates of crashes resulting in property damage only.
Rotaries = Entering drivers must yield
It is true for MA rotaries.Rotaries = Entering drivers must yield
There's no such connotation with the term; while some states may define the term "rotary", it doesn't have a universal meaning (other than as a New England-centric term for "traffic circle").
It is true for MA rotaries.Rotaries = Entering drivers must yield
There's no such connotation with the term; while some states may define the term "rotary", it doesn't have a universal meaning (other than as a New England-centric term for "traffic circle").
There's no such connotation with the term; while some states may define the term "rotary", it doesn't have a universal meaning (other than as a New England-centric term for "traffic circle").
By contrast, the term "roundabout" (in the U.S.) connotes a circular intersection with a specific set of design features, including the requirement to yield on the approaching legs. A circular intersection that doesn't have these design features would not be referred to as a roundabout.
There's no such connotation with the term; while some states may define the term "rotary", it doesn't have a universal meaning (other than as a New England-centric term for "traffic circle").
Rotary as an engineering term goes back at least as far as the 1965 AASHO Blue Book, where it refers to a type of circular intersection where entering traffic is expected to merge with traffic already in the circulatory carriageway. Intersections of this type were built outside the Northeast, notably at US 62/I-35 in Oklahoma City (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4931698,-97.465276,149m/data=!3m1!1e3) (the circulatory carriageway was removed in the early noughties but the bridges that carried it over I-35 remain in service as facilitated U-turns for the frontage roads).
By contrast, the term "roundabout" (in the U.S.) connotes a circular intersection with a specific set of design features, including the requirement to yield on the approaching legs. A circular intersection that doesn't have these design features would not be referred to as a roundabout.
Supposedly the term roundabout was invented in Britain in the 1920's by an American working for the BBC. The (then) Road Research Laboratory did not carry out the original research that established the advantages of the yield-on-entry rule until much later, beginning in the late 1950's. In Britain roundabout was and still is a general term for circular intersections of all types, most but not all of which have been converted to yield-on-entry.
The current approach to roundabout design arrived in the US in the 1990's and there has been a considerable amount of language policing by practitioners to try to restrict the use of the word roundabout to what are also called modern roundabouts, i.e. ones with yield on entry, inscribed circle diameters generally smaller than those of the old AASHO rotaries, and a concept of operation that does not rely on entering traffic merging at speed.
I agree that roundabouts are bad idea. I have had bad experiences with them too, especially in Massachusetts where they call them rotaries.
Were there circular junctions built that were identical save for the yielding requirement, which were not referred to as rotaries?
In any event, even if rotaries are defined by a yield requirement, the salient point is that they are not synonymous with roundabouts, as the latter are a specific sub-type of circular intersection. That's in response to this earlier assertion:I agree that roundabouts are bad idea. I have had bad experiences with them too, especially in Massachusetts where they call them rotaries.
Yes, tires. Deflection on entry and outward crossfall (the norm for modern roundabouts in the US, though not necessarily for older US rotaries or roundabouts in Britain) all impose side friction demand and this tends to increase the rate of tire wear even when a car is driven with close attention to vehicle sympathy.
Yes, tires. Deflection on entry and outward crossfall (the norm for modern roundabouts in the US, though not necessarily for older US rotaries or roundabouts in Britain) all impose side friction demand and this tends to increase the rate of tire wear even when a car is driven with close attention to vehicle sympathy.
How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?
Abundance. I go through a loop ramp twice a day for commute, and none on weekends. I go through roundabout 7 times a day for commute plus twice every time I need to get a gallon of milk or a toothbrush or just get anywhere.Yes, tires. Deflection on entry and outward crossfall (the norm for modern roundabouts in the US, though not necessarily for older US rotaries or roundabouts in Britain) all impose side friction demand and this tends to increase the rate of tire wear even when a car is driven with close attention to vehicle sympathy.
How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?
Abundance. I go through a loop ramp twice a day for commute, and none on weekends. I go through roundabout 7 times a day for commute plus twice every time I need to get a gallon of milk or a toothbrush or just get anywhere.Yes, tires. Deflection on entry and outward crossfall (the norm for modern roundabouts in the US, though not necessarily for older US rotaries or roundabouts in Britain) all impose side friction demand and this tends to increase the rate of tire wear even when a car is driven with close attention to vehicle sympathy.How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?
Tires are not an issue, but tie rod ends seem to be affected a bit.
How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?
Or urban areas where one must make several 90-degree intersection turns?
How is that different from loop ramps on freeways?Not at all. I don't like loop ramps on freeways either.
Were there circular junctions built that were identical save for the yielding requirement, which were not referred to as rotaries?
The 1965 Blue Book does not mention yield on entry. The presumption has to be that any circular intersection built to Blue Book standards was called a rotary (at least by engineers) regardless of priority rule.
In any event, even if rotaries are defined by a yield requirement, the salient point is that they are not synonymous with roundabouts, as the latter are a specific sub-type of circular intersection. That's in response to this earlier assertion:I agree that roundabouts are bad idea. I have had bad experiences with them too, especially in Massachusetts where they call them rotaries.
To my mind, the key difference is in concept of operation, which is dictated largely by inscribed circle diameter. I personally wouldn't call an AASHO rotary a roundabout even if it were in a jurisdiction with yield on entry as the default. On the other hand, telling a person he is not correct to speak of a rotary as if it were the same thing as a modern roundabout does not go far toward persuading him of the advantages modern roundabouts offer.
I don't want to abruptly change the subject, but I'm wondering why the Thruway Authority goes through all of that work to redirect I-90 traffic in West Seneca/reconstruct and repair bridges, but doesn't widen the road to 4 lanes in the meantime.
I don't want to abruptly change the subject, but I'm wondering why the Thruway Authority goes through all of that work to redirect I-90 traffic in West Seneca/reconstruct and repair bridges, but doesn't widen the road to 4 lanes in the meantime.
Fortunately, the subject is New York, so you haven't changed it at all! ;-)
I don't want to abruptly change the subject, but I'm wondering why the Thruway Authority goes through all of that work to redirect I-90 traffic in West Seneca/reconstruct and repair bridges, but doesn't widen the road to 4 lanes in the meantime.
I don't want to abruptly change the subject, but I'm wondering why the Thruway Authority goes through all of that work to redirect I-90 traffic in West Seneca/reconstruct and repair bridges, but doesn't widen the road to 4 lanes in the meantime.
Widening would have required a higher level of environmental review and permitting. Basic reconstruction/repairing, up to and including upgrading to modern standards doesn't require much in the way of review as long as it does not add capacity.
I've been noticing around Rochester that there are a bunch of new interstate shields with 18'' numerals like is most of the rest of the country. It really saddens me to see them invading here. IMO, they're ugly.
Since when does the federal MUTCD require 18'' numerals? NY switched 3di shields to series C a while ago, but I didn't see anything but 15'' numerals until this year.
Honestly, 18'' numerals make me want to puke. Maybe I'll have to move to Florida to get away from them. IMO they should be banned at the national level!
Today I was searching for a historic house in Upper Red Hook, New York named the "Lyle House" (which I still haven't found), when I stumbled upon this mysterious pull-off area on US 9 (Albany Post Road), next to Old Post Road:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/42°00'46.0%22N+73°53'15.0%22W/@42.0343217,-73.8474367,175m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d42.012778!4d-73.8875?hl=en
As expected, I have to ask why that exists.
I just saw an article (http://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/traffic-patterns-changing-along-i-690-at-teall-ave/1196877698) from NewsChannel 9 that said that the westbound I-690 lanes near Teall Ave in Syracuse will be transitioned to the new road today.
That link doesn't work (it searches "42" on Google Maps, for some reason).Yeah, they do that to me a lot.
Correct link. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/42°00'46.0%22N+73°53'15.0%22W/@42.0343217,-73.8474367,175m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d42.012778!4d-73.8875?hl=en)
That link doesn't work (it searches "42" on Google Maps, for some reason).Yeah, they do that to me a lot.
Correct link. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/42°00'46.0%22N+73°53'15.0%22W/@42.0343217,-73.8474367,175m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d42.012778!4d-73.8875?hl=en)
This afternoon I observed construction activity at I-90/Thruway exit 57 @ Camp Road. They are digging a trench to access utilities, striping the road, cones and construction vehicles are staged.
They are preparing to redo the interchange and tear down the bridge, bringing everything to grade. This is bittersweet because it's my "home" interchange, and waiting at a light for 30 seconds instead of taking a ramp will suck.
This afternoon I observed construction activity at I-90/Thruway exit 57 @ Camp Road. They are digging a trench to access utilities, striping the road, cones and construction vehicles are staged.
They are preparing to redo the interchange and tear down the bridge, bringing everything to grade. This is bittersweet because it's my "home" interchange, and waiting at a light for 30 seconds instead of taking a ramp will suck.
Is it an “overpowered” interchange
Add Interstate 84 in New York to the routes converted to the mileage numbers.Awesome! Is this complete, or when is it scheduled to be done?
Rather than make you guys go through the full plans:
This makes I-84 the first large-scale renumbering in New York. Possibly a test case for other conversions?
Looks great but why the use of "I-XX" or "NYS XXX" on supplementary signs instead of their respective shields?
Add Interstate 84 in New York to the routes converted to the mileage numbers. Rather than make you guys go through the full plans:
1 = 1
2 = 4
3 E/W = 15 A/B
4 E/W = 19 A/B
5 = 28
5A = 32
6 = 34
7 A/B = 36 A/B
8 = 37
10 = 39
11 = 41
12 = 44
13 = 46 (A&B westbound)
15 = 50 (Lime Kiln Road getting CR 27 shields)
16 S/N = 52 A/B
17 = 58 (Ludingtonville Road getting CR 43 shields)
18 = 61
19 = 65
20 S/N = 68 A/B
21 = 69
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=21436&p_is_digital=Y
EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_84_in_New_York#Exits_9_and_14Add Interstate 84 in New York to the routes converted to the mileage numbers. Rather than make you guys go through the full plans:
1 = 1
2 = 4
3 E/W = 15 A/B
4 E/W = 19 A/B
5 = 28
5A = 32
6 = 34
7 A/B = 36 A/B
8 = 37
10 = 39
11 = 41
12 = 44
13 = 46 (A&B westbound)
15 = 50 (Lime Kiln Road getting CR 27 shields)
16 S/N = 52 A/B
17 = 58 (Ludingtonville Road getting CR 43 shields)
18 = 61
19 = 65
20 S/N = 68 A/B
21 = 69
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=21436&p_is_digital=Y (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=21436&p_is_digital=Y)
What projects were exit numbers 9 and 14 reserved for?
For I-684, westbound, a 2-mile advance would likely fall within or pretty close to Connecticut. It could be combined with an overhead for the westbound-only exit before (US 6/202/New Salem).
I really can't stand the "TO NEW YORK CITY" and "TO BREWSTER" for the I-684 exit. And the continuation of the "86 West 17 West", but only "17 East".
For I-684, westbound, a 2-mile advance would likely fall within or pretty close to Connecticut. It could be combined with an overhead for the westbound-only exit before (US 6/202/New Salem).Actually that exit's about 1 mile from the I-684/NY 22 interchange.
I do notice this project includes 1/2 mile advances, which aren't too common in NY. Everywhere I've seen (in rural areas), there's a 1 mile advance, and an exit now, sometimes two (one ground, one overhead).For some reason, there's always been limited advance-notice for the I-684 exit along westbound I-84 (& eastbound I-287 in White Plains). Not sure why NYSDOT is/has always been reluctant to provide more advance signage for this interchange & highway.
I really can't stand the "TO NEW YORK CITY" and "TO BREWSTER" for the I-684 exit.The use of TO for such is indeed odd. I guess whoever decided such want to clarify that neither I-684 & NY 22 actually enter/pass through those cities/towns.
...
Are there plans for other conversions?
It seems likely that the thruway will be last... maybe I-390 next? or even I-81? I-190 would be an easy one, too; a bunch of the exit numbers could stay as-is through Niagara Falls.
I wonder if NYSDOT will replace/update all signage statewide when changing the exit numbers or if that's specific to the I-84 project.
...
NYSDOT?
Seems to be working fine for me...
Region 3 did Oswego too. Most everything on I-81 in R3 is now new, and includes 2 mile advance signs in rural areas.
Region 3 did Oswego too. Most everything on I-81 in R3 is now new, and includes 2 mile advance signs in rural areas.
I think the 2 mile advance exit signs started with the adoption of the 2009 MUTCD, but wasn’t seen wide scale until the new signs on I-81 in Oswego County. There were 2 mile advance signs on I-88 around Exits 4 and 5, but they didn’t last very long for some reason.
I know I-81 is slated to be renumbered to sequential exits whenever the Syracuse viaduct project happens. I think I-84 may have been done first because it’s the only primary interstate in the state maintained by only one region.
Region 3 did Oswego too. Most everything on I-81 in R3 is now new, and includes 2 mile advance signs in rural areas.
I think the 2 mile advance exit signs started with the adoption of the 2009 MUTCD, but wasn’t seen wide scale until the new signs on I-81 in Oswego County. There were 2 mile advance signs on I-88 around Exits 4 and 5, but they didn’t last very long for some reason.
I know I-81 is slated to be renumbered to sequential exits whenever the Syracuse viaduct project happens. I think I-84 may have been done first because it’s the only primary interstate in the state maintained by only one region.
I-81 is also having all of its signs replaced in one shot. No other 2DI aside from I-99 is short enough to get that.
I know I-81 is slated to be renumbered to distance-based exits whenever the Syracuse viaduct project happens.
^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....
I know I-81 is slated to be renumbered to distance-based exits whenever the Syracuse viaduct project happens.
Is there any information online on this?
I guess you don't like the ka-thunk sound. Personally, I think it gives the road character, and makes it much more fun to drive. Regarding Binghamton, I think it has been done; it seemed significantly smoother when I drove through to/from the CSVT meet two months ago than before.^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....
Uh, yes. Oneonta-Cobleskill is miserable original concrete that warrants left-lane camping. The overlay they did in Schoharie Town last year isn't holding up well after the bad winter, either. The stretch in Binghamton is miserable, but slated to be redone soon.
I guess you don't like the ka-thunk sound. Personally, I think it gives the road character, and makes it much more fun to drive. Regarding Binghamton, I think it has been done; it seemed significantly smoother when I drove through to/from the CSVT meet two months ago than before.^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....
Uh, yes. Oneonta-Cobleskill is miserable original concrete that warrants left-lane camping. The overlay they did in Schoharie Town last year isn't holding up well after the bad winter, either. The stretch in Binghamton is miserable, but slated to be redone soon.
I guess you don't like the ka-thunk sound. Personally, I think it gives the road character, and makes it much more fun to drive. Regarding Binghamton, I think it has been done; it seemed significantly smoother when I drove through to/from the CSVT meet two months ago than before.^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....
Uh, yes. Oneonta-Cobleskill is miserable original concrete that warrants left-lane camping. The overlay they did in Schoharie Town last year isn't holding up well after the bad winter, either. The stretch in Binghamton is miserable, but slated to be redone soon.
It's still a bit rough of a ride...and this is coming from a guy who lives 2.5 miles from the nearest pavement...
Was on I-88 Saturday and could not believe how awful the pavement has gotten in just a year's time near Worcester and Richmondville: Video (https://www.facebook.com/seicer/videos/10105534696455860/). Most of the traffic was riding in the left lane, which is where I also camped out in after a quick video. Will this section be on the list for rehab this year?
Another section that was most recently rehabbed, from Central Bridge east to Duanesburg (north end) is also failing after being completed just late last year. Most of the joints have reappeared in the asphalt and potholes are already forming. What differs from this rehab from others along I-88 that are in excellent condition?
I guess you don't like the ka-thunk sound. Personally, I think it gives the road character, and makes it much more fun to drive. Regarding Binghamton, I think it has been done; it seemed significantly smoother when I drove through to/from the CSVT meet two months ago than before.^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....
Uh, yes. Oneonta-Cobleskill is miserable original concrete that warrants left-lane camping. The overlay they did in Schoharie Town last year isn't holding up well after the bad winter, either. The stretch in Binghamton is miserable, but slated to be redone soon.
It's still a bit rough of a ride...and this is coming from a guy who lives 2.5 miles from the nearest pavement...
The concrete on that stretch of I-88 between Oneonta and Cobleskill was subject to diamond grinding a little more than 10 years ago.
I disagree. I-86 through the Seneca Nation is much, much worse.I guess you don't like the ka-thunk sound. Personally, I think it gives the road character, and makes it much more fun to drive. Regarding Binghamton, I think it has been done; it seemed significantly smoother when I drove through to/from the CSVT meet two months ago than before.^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....
Uh, yes. Oneonta-Cobleskill is miserable original concrete that warrants left-lane camping. The overlay they did in Schoharie Town last year isn't holding up well after the bad winter, either. The stretch in Binghamton is miserable, but slated to be redone soon.
It's still a bit rough of a ride...and this is coming from a guy who lives 2.5 miles from the nearest pavement...
The concrete on that stretch of I-88 between Oneonta and Cobleskill was subject to diamond grinding a little more than 10 years ago.
Diamond grinding doesn't fix the problem, which is joints. That stretch needed a dowel bar retrofit in addition to the grinding. Of course, with the joints how they are now, it just needs to be torn out and reconstructed. That is, hands-down, the worst section of pavement on an Interstate in New York. Worse than the Thruway through the reservation, worse than I-684 in Westchester.
I disagree. I-86 through the Seneca Nation is much, much worse.I guess you don't like the ka-thunk sound. Personally, I think it gives the road character, and makes it much more fun to drive. Regarding Binghamton, I think it has been done; it seemed significantly smoother when I drove through to/from the CSVT meet two months ago than before.^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....
Uh, yes. Oneonta-Cobleskill is miserable original concrete that warrants left-lane camping. The overlay they did in Schoharie Town last year isn't holding up well after the bad winter, either. The stretch in Binghamton is miserable, but slated to be redone soon.
It's still a bit rough of a ride...and this is coming from a guy who lives 2.5 miles from the nearest pavement...
The concrete on that stretch of I-88 between Oneonta and Cobleskill was subject to diamond grinding a little more than 10 years ago.
Diamond grinding doesn't fix the problem, which is joints. That stretch needed a dowel bar retrofit in addition to the grinding. Of course, with the joints how they are now, it just needs to be torn out and reconstructed. That is, hands-down, the worst section of pavement on an Interstate in New York. Worse than the Thruway through the reservation, worse than I-684 in Westchester.
All the way through? Last time I was through there, I noted a reconstructed portion and started celebrating...and then hit a remaining stretch of the barely-above-macadam "pavement."I disagree. I-86 through the Seneca Nation is much, much worse.I guess you don't like the ka-thunk sound. Personally, I think it gives the road character, and makes it much more fun to drive. Regarding Binghamton, I think it has been done; it seemed significantly smoother when I drove through to/from the CSVT meet two months ago than before.^ 88 needs a pavement rehab far more than it needs a sign rehab....
Uh, yes. Oneonta-Cobleskill is miserable original concrete that warrants left-lane camping. The overlay they did in Schoharie Town last year isn't holding up well after the bad winter, either. The stretch in Binghamton is miserable, but slated to be redone soon.
It's still a bit rough of a ride...and this is coming from a guy who lives 2.5 miles from the nearest pavement...
The concrete on that stretch of I-88 between Oneonta and Cobleskill was subject to diamond grinding a little more than 10 years ago.
Diamond grinding doesn't fix the problem, which is joints. That stretch needed a dowel bar retrofit in addition to the grinding. Of course, with the joints how they are now, it just needs to be torn out and reconstructed. That is, hands-down, the worst section of pavement on an Interstate in New York. Worse than the Thruway through the reservation, worse than I-684 in Westchester.
I-86 was reconstructed a few years ago. That's generally in great shape now.
With this rehab project, will there be any signs remaining that were erected by the Thruway Authority? With the old milemarkers (mercifully) gone, there won't be much evidence of the former Thruway maintenance left on the highway...
I-86 was reconstructed a few years ago. That's generally in great shape now.All the way through? Last time I was through there, I noted a reconstructed portion and started celebrating...and then hit a remaining stretch of the barely-above-macadam "pavement."
I-86 was reconstructed a few years ago. That's generally in great shape now.All the way through? Last time I was through there, I noted a reconstructed portion and started celebrating...and then hit a remaining stretch of the barely-above-macadam "pavement."
The part with the US-219 overlap was rehabbed and is excellent. That is the only part I use.
What about US-219 south of I-86 to PA? Old concrete pavement probably from the 1960s and in terrible condition, very bumpy. When are they going to rehab that?
I-86 was reconstructed a few years ago. That's generally in great shape now.All the way through? Last time I was through there, I noted a reconstructed portion and started celebrating...and then hit a remaining stretch of the barely-above-macadam "pavement."
The part with the US-219 overlap was rehabbed and is excellent. That is the only part I use.
What about US-219 south of I-86 to PA? Old concrete pavement probably from the 1960s and in terrible condition, very bumpy. When are they going to rehab that?
The part with the US-219 overlap was rehabbed and is excellent. That is the only part I use.I-86 / NY 17 was built in 1980-1987 in the Salamanca area, whose construction was held up for years by the Senecas (for a variety of reasons). That pavement failed fairly quickly and was rehabilitated some two years ago after the project was delayed by the Senecas.
What about US-219 south of I-86 to PA? Old concrete pavement probably from the 1960s and in terrible condition, very bumpy. When are they going to rehab that?
US 219 south of I-86 was twinned around the same time, so that concrete pavement is of the same age of I-86.
As for the southernmost section, it was just rehabilitated. And by that, they just chunked out the worst aspects of it and replaced it with asphalt instead of doing full-depth concrete repairs, and then diamond grinded the whole thing. It is FAR smoother than before but still very much uneven. I've not seen pavement repairs done in such a manner, where asphalt is used instead of concrete for such repairs.The Thruway does that between 44 and 45.
Everything through Seneca land has been rehabbed within the past few years. I was on it last year and it was smooth.
The part with the US-219 overlap was rehabbed and is excellent. That is the only part I use.I-86 / NY 17 was built in 1980-1987 in the Salamanca area, whose construction was held up for years by the Senecas (for a variety of reasons). That pavement failed fairly quickly and was rehabilitated some two years ago after the project was delayed by the Senecas.
What about US-219 south of I-86 to PA? Old concrete pavement probably from the 1960s and in terrible condition, very bumpy. When are they going to rehab that?
US 219 south of I-86 was twinned around the same time, so that concrete pavement is of the same age of I-86.
Well, still it is horrendous and needs major rebab and resurfacing. What are they waiting for - Hell to freeze over?
Pennsylvania did a major rebab and resurfacing and replacement of bridge decks on the 10-mile US-219 Bradford Expressway about 5 years ago. I believe it was originally built in the 1970s. It was in likewise poor condition and in some places the pavement was completely replaced. Now it is in very fine condition.
The Bradford Expressway is 10 miles? That doesn't sound right.
The Bradford Expressway is 10 miles? That doesn't sound right.True. It looks to be about 5.5 miles.
https://goo.gl/maps/UKTdDmVes2U2
JN, where did you find the archived plans? I only saw the current plans.
Reported by newsday that governor cuomo and NYSDOT are no longer pursuing a cross sound bridge or tunnel between Long Island and westchester or Connecticut. I’d say they realized the $50B price tag was ridiculous to even fathom when our roads are crumbling and there’s so many other priorities that could use funding first
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/long-island-sound-tunnel-state-dot-1.19476581 (https://www.newsday.com/long-island/long-island-sound-tunnel-state-dot-1.19476581)
And is another example of why these types of projects can cost $55 billion. Or why any project in that region can seemingly cost 3 to 4 times as much as anywhere else: politics and "studies."
The idea that this crossing is needed is poppycock.I happen to agree - the Throgs/Whitestone combo are adequate for western LI compared to many of the other regional roads. A crossing closer to I-91 would make much more sense.
The idea that this crossing is needed is poppycock.
The fact the study was commissioned, that assertion made therein and now a retreat by the Governor proves this was just an appeasement exercise. Cling to its "findings" all you want.
The crossing proposals to Connecticut and Rhode Island suffer from the fact that those states don't really have much incentive and benefit to connect to Long Island, especially given what is involved in building a fixed crossing 15 miles long or longer.I fail to see the difference in terms of traffic demands. The incentive is that LIers can more easily get to and from New England and vice versa, improving comments in all of those states (LI counts as a state for this purpose :D).
The crossing entirely within New York State would be logical given the incentive to improve access within the state and the fact that state controls the entire project.
The crossing proposals to Connecticut and Rhode Island suffer from the fact that those states don't really have much incentive and benefit to connect to Long Island, especially given what is involved in building a fixed crossing 15 miles long or longer.I fail to see the difference in terms of traffic demands. The incentive is that LIers can more easily get to and from New England and vice versa, improving comments in all of those states (LI counts as a state for this purpose :D).
The crossing entirely within New York State would be logical given the incentive to improve access within the state and the fact that state controls the entire project.
I reserve the right to rant nonetheless.The fact the study was commissioned, that assertion made therein and now a retreat by the Governor proves this was just an appeasement exercise. Cling to its "findings" all you want.
That is what I already said. They were playing games. They weren't serious.
Although the travel demand metric is likely realistic.
The crossing proposals to Connecticut and Rhode Island suffer from the fact that those states don't really have much incentive and benefit to connect to Long Island, especially given what is involved in building a fixed crossing 15 miles long or longer.I fail to see the difference in terms of traffic demands. The incentive is that LIers can more easily get to and from New England and vice versa, improving comments in all of those states (LI counts as a state for this purpose :D).
The crossing entirely within New York State would be logical given the incentive to improve access within the state and the fact that state controls the entire project.
Today I rode on the Lockport Bypass for the first time. It's a very interesting highway–only a couple of miles long built like a Super 2 with very wide shoulders, Interstate-width travel lanes and wide drainage ditches. I have to wonder whether this has something to do with I-990, or what it's original purpose is. The way it ends at NY-93 leaves more questions than answers.I don't think it was related to 990, despite one website that claims otherwise. My understanding is 990 would have passed south around Lockport.
Today I rode on the Lockport Bypass for the first time. It's a very interesting highway–only a couple of miles long built like a Super 2 with very wide shoulders, Interstate-width travel lanes and wide drainage ditches. I have to wonder whether this has something to do with I-990, or what it's original purpose is. The way it ends at NY-93 leaves more questions than answers.I don't think it was related to 990, despite one website that claims otherwise. My understanding is 990 would have passed south around Lockport.
The only thing is, NYC is basically perpetual gridlock, at least during the day. Even worse if the MTA decides to close a lane on every single one of their bridges at the same time. Long Island has no good way to bypass this.Add that and the more recent attempts to make more neighborhoods walkable and add more exclusive bus lanes, and you end up making the existing roads within the city even more crowded. Not that I don't recognize the need for SBS lanes, but we can't expect them to solve every traffic problem in the city.
Where are we "solving every traffic problem in the city" by adding bus lanes? No one's claiming that.The only thing is, NYC is basically perpetual gridlock, at least during the day. Even worse if the MTA decides to close a lane on every single one of their bridges at the same time. Long Island has no good way to bypass this.Add that and the more recent attempts to make more neighborhoods walkable and add more exclusive bus lanes, and you end up making the existing roads within the city even more crowded. Not that I don't recognize the need for SBS lanes, but we can't expect them to solve every traffic problem in the city.
Where are we "solving every traffic problem in the city" by adding bus lanes? No one's claiming that.It's the false notion that getting everybody out of their cars is going to make getting around easier.
Walkability improvements are a strange scapegoat. What are you talking about? LPIs? Refuge islands? The lowered speed limit? By and large these vision zero changes don't materially affect motor vehicle throughput–sidewalks aren't being widened (even in places where they 100% need to be, like 8 Av in midtown).Sure they do. They make it so cars can't use those streets and have to crowd up on others nearby.
The number 1 reason for worsening congestion in NYC is the skyrocketing popularity of rideshare apps, which has been largely caused by the complete deterioration of reliable service in NYC's transit system.No, this would've been a problem even if those apps never existed.
You need to think about changes to street design on a person basis, not a vehicle basis. If BRT infrastructure is able to support significantly higher ridership at the cost of decreased speeds for other vehicles, on a person basis you are providing a good result for a majority of people. SBS in NYC has not been able to achieve that for a variety of reasons, mainly the city's complete ineptitude in any degree of bus lane enforcement, but I digress. There's no reason to prioritize the unimpeded movement of the most space-inefficient transportation method when we can be making massive improvements in modes that are much more efficient.Driving is already expensive in New York, and you're wrong; street design does need to be thought of on a vehicle basis. The only difference between the 19th Century, and the 20th and 21st, is that the vehicles back then didn't have motors. Also I don't know where you get the idea that there's all this free parking anywhere in the city, let alone Manhattan. Whenever I go visit relatives in Queens, I have to find an available parking space on the street where they live, and try to be sure I'm not next to a fire hydrant or somebody else's driveway. Everywhere else is either a private parking lot, or you have to pay. And I already take mass transit while I'm there, so it's not like I don't know there's a need for it, but you'd be foolish if you suggested I bike all the way from Central Long Island or Florida to get to the Five Boroughs. As far as "paving over Manhattan," it's already paved.
There is no excess capacity for single occupancy vehicles in Manhattan. Reducing congestion is only possible by changing the SOV mode share. The only practical way to do that is to make driving expensive. NYC's outrageous asymmetrical toll structure and abundant free street parking actually encourage driving into and through the Manhattan CBD, the last thing we want people doing unnecessarily when they could be going around the city or taking transit. Adopt a flat congestion charge for all entry into the Manhattan CBD and charge market rate for street parking. That's the only way short of paving over Manhattan (although I know the latter option sounds more appealing to some roadgeeks).
Also I don't know where you get the idea that there's all this free parking anywhere in the city, let alone Manhattan.
I have not found NYC to be perpetual deadlock during the day.Maybe not every milimeter, but it's definitely hard to get through. I can count on one hand the number of trips I've had in the city where I didn't sit in stop and go (or worse!) traffic at least somewhere. Particularly noteworthy was when I was trying to head back to upstate NY from the Long Island meet. The Grand Central Parkway was essentially a parking lot all the way from LaGuardia all the way to the Triboro because the MTA closed a lane. Well, I was looping there anyways to clinch Truck I-278 and the piece of the Whitestone Expressway connecting I-678 to Grand Central, so I looped back around and just crossed the Whitestone instead of looping back. Turns out that was stop and go once I got past what would have been my turnaround point, because the MTA closed one of its lanes too! At that point I headed down the Bruckner, since my plan was to get northbound photos of the Deegan, only to hit some traffic there as well and dealt with stop and go traffic basically the entire way up the Deegan due to construction. I had planned some clinching in Rockland County, but cancelled it because by that point my patience was long gone and I just wanted to get home as quickly as possible (I don't remember eating lunch on that trip, so I may have cancelled that too in the name of getting home before rush hour).
Yep, I have hit traffic in NYC, too. But, perpetual gridlock every day all day? Nah.And would I willingly live in or near any of them? Nope! Traffic that's worse than what I deal with here is a deal-breaker for me.
Other cities in the U.S. have worse traffic.
You need to think about changes to street design on a person basis, not a vehicle basis. If BRT infrastructure is able to support significantly higher ridership at the cost of decreased speeds for other vehicles, on a person basis you are providing a good result for a majority of people. SBS in NYC has not been able to achieve that for a variety of reasons, mainly the city's complete ineptitude in any degree of bus lane enforcement, but I digress. There's no reason to prioritize the unimpeded movement of the most space-inefficient transportation method when we can be making massive improvements in modes that are much more efficient.Making bus lanes at least to break even in terms of persons per hour is fairly difficult.
Yep, I have hit traffic in NYC, too. But, perpetual gridlock every day all day? Nah.That's definitely true... unless somebody has evidence that NYC has surpassed LA and DC (not likely at this time).
Other cities in the U.S. have worse traffic.
Never say never. Things change over time. Public attitudes change. At some point in the distant future public pressure may finally favor such a crossing. We simply can't predict the future.
Ten years ago the Long Island Railroad couldn't find enough public support to build a third track from Floral Park to Hicksville, and everyone thought that idea was dead. But ten years later now there is public support, largely from the business community and construction is slated to begin soon.
My observations from other parts of the country outside of Upstate New York are a bit different, Val, and more in line with what I had posted earlier.Can also be "sour grapes" thing. Then it would look a bit different from inside than from the outside.
It turns out that Millennials like cars as much as any previous generation. They just haven’t been able to afford them until now. The same applies to other life-changing events: They weren’t avoiding marriage and child-rearing, they were just putting them off until they could afford them. They were just being practical.
According the results of a new J.D. Power study that tracks buyer behavior reported last month in WardsAuto: “As Gen Y consumers enter new life stages, earn higher incomes and grow their families, their ability and desire to acquire new vehicles is increasing.”
New York is one of the most prosperous cities in the world, yet it has one of the world’s most dysfunctional transportation systems. Delays plague the subway a year after Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority promised to fix that mess. The roads, especially in Manhattan, are in not much better shape. Average traffic speeds south of 60th Street have fallen nearly 22 percent in the past seven years, according to the City Department of Transportation. At the same time, many taxi and livery drivers say that they can barely afford to make ends meet – six of them have killed themselves in recent months. One shot himself in front of City Hall to protest officials whom he accused of flooding the streets with for-hire cars and driving him to ruin.
The New York City Council will soon vote on a package of bills that lawmakers pledge would reduce congestion and improve the lives of taxi and Uber drivers. While the bills offer some important progress, they wouldn’t do nearly enough to address the city’s transportation woes.
I saw on Wikipedia that Interstate 84 changed its exit sequence from sequential to mileage-based last month. Can someone confirm whether or not this is the case?
I saw on Wikipedia that Interstate 84 changed its exit sequence from sequential to mileage-based last month. Can someone confirm whether or not this is the case?
And never will.It will happen.
Despite having driven I-99 a lot, I just noticed the final service signs going northbound still read for Exit 4, when it's (long?) been Exit 13. (e.g. https://goo.gl/maps/9CLZcNQ1eFA2)
^ You really don't understand Long Island if you think this is going to happen.I don’t but I’m being optimistic here. Maybe eventually politics will change and this could be built despite opposition. We need to stop letting the few negatively impact the mass.
^ You really don't understand Long Island if you think this is going to happen.I don’t but I’m being optimistic here. Maybe eventually politics will change and this could be built despite opposition. We need to stop letting the few negatively impact the mass.
Thoughts on whether this should be replaced or not. lolNo. Our precious.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1817/44083944561_f8a0b5a878_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2aaxJRF)
Listen, I'm from New York City, lived in Jersey most of my life. I've given up the hoot that freeway expansion in the northeast is going to happen. And honestly, NJ and NY need to focus on restoring what they have.It is important to restore what we have, yes, but that isn’t fixing another–arguably equal–problem which is managing congestion. Mobility is important and while improving mass transit and bike/pedestrian infrastructure will play an important part, increasing freeway capacity and adding new connections is a must!
increasing freeway capacity and adding new connections is a must!
Not when you can't afford it. Even if there was local support for a Long Island Sound crossing, $55 billion (yes, with a B) is no small chunk of change. And to pay for that, the jurisdictions involved would have to give up on restoring what they already have for a number of years. There's no way tolls would be sufficient enough to cover that level of cost.
The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival. People on the north shore don't want to look at one.
The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival. People on the north shore don't want to look at one.
The only thing that is dead is the imagination and initiative of the state and local officials that studied the crossing.
Not really. A multi-billion dollar project for a new addition to the system is just fiscally out of the question.The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival. People on the north shore don't want to look at one.The only thing that is dead is the imagination and initiative of the state and local officials that studied the crossing.
The idea is broadly considered laughable. Some squeaky wheels got a whole lot of money wasted on this last study, but there is really no political will to see this thing coming to fruition ever, especially when our existing infrastructure is eroding.Not really. A multi-billion dollar project for a new addition to the system is just fiscally out of the question.The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival. People on the north shore don't want to look at one.The only thing that is dead is the imagination and initiative of the state and local officials that studied the crossing.
Then get it on a long range plan. Build consensus. Maybe it takes 5 to 10 years, maybe more, to get it started. The important thing is to make some progress even if it moves slowly.
So the only goal is to restore what we have while other nations pass us up in creating adequate facilities that handle traffic flow get we're gridlocked because all we did was rebuilt what we currently have?The idea is broadly considered laughable. Some squeaky wheels got a whole lot of money wasted on this last study, but there is really no political will to see this thing coming to fruition ever, especially when our existing infrastructure is eroding.Not really. A multi-billion dollar project for a new addition to the system is just fiscally out of the question.The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival. People on the north shore don't want to look at one.The only thing that is dead is the imagination and initiative of the state and local officials that studied the crossing.
Then get it on a long range plan. Build consensus. Maybe it takes 5 to 10 years, maybe more, to get it started. The important thing is to make some progress even if it moves slowly.
(personal opinion emphasized)
It is what NY can afford, keeping in mind that a huge chunk of funding for NYSDOT's capital program is now borrowed (I'd estimate about 20% per year now, on average).So the only goal is to restore what we have while other nations pass us up in creating adequate facilities that handle traffic flow get we're gridlocked because all we did was rebuilt what we currently have?The idea is broadly considered laughable. Some squeaky wheels got a whole lot of money wasted on this last study, but there is really no political will to see this thing coming to fruition ever, especially when our existing infrastructure is eroding.Not really. A multi-billion dollar project for a new addition to the system is just fiscally out of the question.The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival. People on the north shore don't want to look at one.The only thing that is dead is the imagination and initiative of the state and local officials that studied the crossing.
Then get it on a long range plan. Build consensus. Maybe it takes 5 to 10 years, maybe more, to get it started. The important thing is to make some progress even if it moves slowly.
(personal opinion emphasized)
What we currently have can’t handle the demand, even if it is restored to its former glory. It’s a goose chase if that’s the only goal we have.
Rebuilding the 495 viaduct costs $90 million. To which I say :-D , but we'll see just where it actually comes in. And that is being rebuilt with full shoulders - so adding capacity is definitely affordable. Adding new connections, maybe not, but you can add capacity and improve existing connections for relatively cheaper.Quote from: Plutonic Pandaincreasing freeway capacity and adding new connections is a must!
Not when you can't afford it. Even if there was local support for a Long Island Sound crossing, $55 billion (yes, with a B) is no small chunk of change. And to pay for that, the jurisdictions involved would have to give up on restoring what they already have for a number of years. There's no way tolls would be sufficient enough to cover that level of cost.
Nevermind that "adding new connections" when you can't even maintain what you already have is ludicrous. And in part why this nation has gotten into the infrastructure mess it's in. This is something that far too many roadgeeks fail to understand.
So the only goal is to restore what we have while other nations pass us up in creating adequate facilities that handle traffic flow get we're gridlocked because all we did was rebuilt what we currently have?
What we currently have can’t handle the demand, even if it is restored to its former glory. It’s a goose chase if that’s the only goal we have.
^ However, the Hampton Roads area and TPTB are utilizing tolls for most of those expansions. And cost of construction in Tidewater is considerably less than it is in New York.Amen.
I would also argue that, in those areas where they're expanding their systems, they've either added taxes or utilized tolls to do so or their existing systems are getting the short shrift.
^ However, the Hampton Roads area and TPTB are utilizing tolls for most of those expansions. And cost of construction in Tidewater is considerably less than it is in New York.
I would also argue that, in those areas where they're expanding their systems, they've either added taxes or utilized tolls to do so or their existing systems are getting the short shrift.
Nevermind that "adding new connections" when you can't even maintain what you already have is ludicrous. And in part why this nation has gotten into the infrastructure mess it's in. This is something that far too many roadgeeks fail to understand.
I understand there are places in the U.S. that are doing so. It is stil worth mentioning that we are being passed up by other nations or will be passed if we don’t do more than we are currently doing.So the only goal is to restore what we have while other nations pass us up in creating adequate facilities that handle traffic flow get we're gridlocked because all we did was rebuilt what we currently have?
What we currently have can’t handle the demand, even if it is restored to its former glory. It’s a goose chase if that’s the only goal we have.
Let's not bring up the "what other countries are doing" argument. Many areas in the U.S. are both maintaining and expanding their highway systems.
When it comes to unusually large and complex bridges and tunnels and their connecting highways, the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area recently upgraded and/or expanded 5 crossings (Elizabeth River and branch) at a total of $2.2 billion, has 2 under construction (I-64 Elizabeth River branch and CBBT) at a total of $1.3 billion, and another to be expanded (I-64 HRBT) at $3.4 billion starting in 2019. The Third Hampton Roads Crossing (I-564 extension) is still in the long-range plan albeit is unfunded.
I completely agree with this.It is what NY can afford, keeping in mind that a huge chunk of funding for NYSDOT's capital program is now borrowed (I'd estimate about 20% per year now, on average).So the only goal is to restore what we have while other nations pass us up in creating adequate facilities that handle traffic flow get we're gridlocked because all we did was rebuilt what we currently have?The idea is broadly considered laughable. Some squeaky wheels got a whole lot of money wasted on this last study, but there is really no political will to see this thing coming to fruition ever, especially when our existing infrastructure is eroding.Not really. A multi-billion dollar project for a new addition to the system is just fiscally out of the question.The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival. People on the north shore don't want to look at one.The only thing that is dead is the imagination and initiative of the state and local officials that studied the crossing.
Then get it on a long range plan. Build consensus. Maybe it takes 5 to 10 years, maybe more, to get it started. The important thing is to make some progress even if it moves slowly.
(personal opinion emphasized)
What we currently have can’t handle the demand, even if it is restored to its former glory. It’s a goose chase if that’s the only goal we have.
You want additional lanes paved? Let's fully fund the program to stop conditions from declining first and then get more funding to do so.
That means stop raiding gas taxes and then probably raising them.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I understand there are places in the U.S. that are doing so. It is stil worth mentioning that we are being passed up by other nations or will be passed if we don’t do more than we are currently doing.
As a whole, our infrastructure is deteriorating and our cities are becoming grid locked due to lack of capacity and poor facilities. We shouldn’t be keeping up with countries, we should be an example, let alone have other countries build projects that seem too ambitious for us such as road tunnels. The few that we have shouldn’t be looked at in the negative light they have been. That’s all you seem to hear about them is how expensive they were and why you probably won’t see anymore anytime soon.
The “many areas” we have that are investing in freeways and infrastructure isn’t enough.
I was saying thirty years ago that the Belt Parkway needed to be rebuilt ten lanes wide even if it meant charging a toll to pay for it, but get it built!
So today the original six lane parkway is being rebuilt a short section at a time, still only six lanes wide. How friggin' short sighted! :angry:
What I find most amusing about this thread is that the people arguing for another crossing are not locals, while the people who are being realistic on why this will never happen are the locals....
The AADT and hourly volume figures for the Whitestone and Throgs Neck are readily available online through the MTA's website. A perusal of those should convince you that another crossing is not fiscally responsible. Basically, there is not nearly enough congestion at those bridges to suggest a need for a third crossing. It would simply be a matter of convenience for those going from the Island straight to CT or I-287. I don't buy 100,000 ADT anytime soon - maybe 40 years down the road, but that's with continued growth.
Should it stay on the radar? Every proposal thus far has been killed, so no. Not for now. If those other two bridges become truly clogged, then reopen the discussion.
Many non-locals comment on Norfolk/Hampton Roads area highways, just to use the example I used upthread.
Quote from: BeltwayMany non-locals comment on Norfolk/Hampton Roads area highways, just to use the example I used upthread.If you're referring to me, recall that I was stationed there. Twice.
My response to the "what other countries are doing" argument is to ask what they will be doing beginning in twenty years when their currently almost brand-new infrastructure is beginning to wear out.
My response to the "what other countries are doing" argument is to ask what they will be doing beginning in twenty years when their currently almost brand-new infrastructure is beginning to wear out.I would twist it a bit differently.
Best bet for a new crossing would be from Narragansett to Montauk or Westerly to Montauk. Get Boston and Providence-departing traffic away from I-95. Next would be a crossing from the Rockaways to Sandy Hook and connect it to an extended NJ 18. Sunrise Highway (NY 27) could be brought up to Interstate Standards and designated I-995.If you bet for that to happen, I will gladly bet against it.
Best bet for a new crossing would be from Narragansett to Montauk or Westerly to Montauk. Get Boston and Providence-departing traffic away from I-95. Next would be a crossing from the Rockaways to Sandy Hook and connect it to an extended NJ 18. Sunrise Highway (NY 27) could be brought up to Interstate Standards and designated I-995.
The congestion problem isn't really the bridges themselves, but the 35+ miles of connecting highways that serve (poorly) in lieu of the unbuilt western crossing.
The congestion problem isn't really the bridges themselves, but the 35+ miles of connecting highways that serve (poorly) in lieu of the unbuilt western crossing.
This. The Throggs Neck bridge is not a significant bottleneck because the rate limiting factors on its usage are congestion on I-95 on the Bronx side, and congestion on the narrow, curvy ramps connecting the Clearview and Cross Island to the LIE on the Queens side (as well as congestion on the LIE itself).
The Whitestone, likewise, is limited by capacity through the interchange with the Cross Island on the Queens side.
Improvements to these specific bottlenecks would enable more capacity to be extracted out of those two bridges. However these improvements are also unlikely to happen for similar reasons as a new crossing (would require the use of eminent domain and spending money New York doesn't have).
Best bet for a new crossing would be from Narragansett to Montauk or Westerly to Montauk. Get Boston and Providence-departing traffic away from I-95. Next would be a crossing from the Rockaways to Sandy Hook and connect it to an extended NJ 18. Sunrise Highway (NY 27) could be brought up to Interstate Standards and designated I-995.
I'm now on the floor laughing maniacally. This is as likely to happen as gravity reversing itself.
I'm not aware of anything, but it's peak tourist season, and NY 86 through Lake Placid tends to slow WAY down due to frequent pedestrian crossings, parking, etc. Google will route there for me if I absolutely force it to, but since it defaults to whatever is fasted in the very moment you search, I'm not surprised it's trying to bypass downtown Lake Placid.
Google Maps usually gives a notification "this route avoids closure on Route X" or something like that. If it doesn't give that message, I'd assume the route you want is genuinely a lot slower, due to the factors vdeane mentioned, among others.It has to be the country club, because I just tried it at 0:22 and it still won't go. Oftentimes this happens due to a one-day or one-week event that Google never updates. They did an ironman in 2017 - maybe they did another this year?
Weekday mornings bring rush-hour chaos to the Queensboro Bridge.
“You have cars, trucks, cabs, and they’re all blowing their horns,” said Oscar Vivar, whose sidewalk coffee cart on the Manhattan side of the bridge overlooks a battlefield, with traffic agents fighting gridlock, and drivers vying for tiny advances along clogged streets.
Amid the raging rat race, Mr. Vivar works his tiny grill making egg sandwiches next to a column of traffic inching onto the bridge and sees the lucky people headed out to lovely summer weekends on eastern Long Island.
“That’s the American dream,” said Mr. Vivar, a Mexican immigrant whose wife, Sara Moran, works alongside him.
N.Y. Times: A Single Road With Many Names, Traversing Many Worlds - No practical person would opt to drive the length of Route 25, the slow road out of New York. So we did it for you. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/nyregion/a-single-road-with-many-names-traversing-many-worlds.html)QuoteWeekday mornings bring rush-hour chaos to the Queensboro Bridge.Quote“You have cars, trucks, cabs, and they’re all blowing their horns,” said Oscar Vivar, whose sidewalk coffee cart on the Manhattan side of the bridge overlooks a battlefield, with traffic agents fighting gridlock, and drivers vying for tiny advances along clogged streets.QuoteAmid the raging rat race, Mr. Vivar works his tiny grill making egg sandwiches next to a column of traffic inching onto the bridge and sees the lucky people headed out to lovely summer weekends on eastern Long Island.Quote“That’s the American dream,” said Mr. Vivar, a Mexican immigrant whose wife, Sara Moran, works alongside him.
When my father was stationed in the Hampton Roads area during the Korean War, he and everybody else couldn't stand having to wait for the ferry to get to the Delmarva Peninsula. So needless to say he would've loved it if the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel had been around at that time. If you think I would've been against another bridge over the Long Island Sound if I had lived in any of the communities they were supposed to have gone through, you've got another thing coming.What I find most amusing about this thread is that the people arguing for another crossing are not locals, while the people who are being realistic on why this will never happen are the locals....
Many non-locals comment on Norfolk/Hampton Roads area highways, just to use the example I used upthread.
NY 220's extension was signed as of a month ago. NY 8 was still signed to NY 17 last weekend.
The ONLY confirmed removals are in Region 7 and I, along with many others, have confirmed most personally. In cases where the log and inventory files disagree, inventory files trump.
That's always been my belief. It looks like what happened is that somebody looked at maintenance jurisdiction rather than posted numbering and thought, "Oh hey, that section isn't state maintained; it's county. Better remove it from the list."
(MODS: Possible to split off this side-topic?)
https://goo.gl/maps/u4TEonCU94D2
Is NY 293 SB longer than NY 293 NB?
In the above photo you see US 6 EB use half the road in the image. US 6 WB is on the ramp to the far left, as US 6 and NY 293 interchange at a trumpet where NY 293 is the main body and US 6 exits itself to become the Long Mountain Parkway. I assume that NY 293 uses the left side of the double line and officially ends where US 6 merges behind the image here?
https://goo.gl/maps/u4TEonCU94D2
Is NY 293 SB longer than NY 293 NB?
In the above photo you see US 6 EB use half the road in the image. US 6 WB is on the ramp to the far left, as US 6 and NY 293 interchange at a trumpet where NY 293 is the main body and US 6 exits itself to become the Long Mountain Parkway. I assume that NY 293 uses the left side of the double line and officially ends where US 6 merges behind the image here?
Note that trucks are banned from the Long Mountain Parkway. They have to take NY 293.Yes, but unfortunately, westbound trucks have to deal with a low, narrow bridge under US 9W and very little signage for US Truck Route 6 along US 9W.
It looks like all of the NY 13 guide signs from Ithaca north towards Lansing are being replaced. I don't think these signs are original - but may date to circa 1975? Crews are out drilling for new posts.
It looks like all of the NY 13 guide signs from Ithaca north towards Lansing are being replaced. I don't think these signs are original - but may date to circa 1975? Crews are out drilling for new posts.
The existing signs are from the late 90s/early 2000s. Signing dating to 1975 would be dark green, button copy, and most likely all-text.
I am interested to see what's been developed. I think that the tourism signs, while overkill with the quick succession signs, were ultimately successful. The gateway signs for particular regions are helpful, and work well in conjunction with New York's beautiful themed rest areas (take note, other states). I think that many of the issues have been resolved - such as the display of the website and app.I wonder if there is any numerical measure for success. I don't know how many people end up in upstate without at least a vague idea of what they are doing and would have their plans changed because of signs.
I hope those new signs that were used during the campaign - like New York State Parks, and Path Through History, are not reused - or used outside of those gateway signs. They were unreadable at highway speeds, much less anything slower. Too much text. What's wrong with the park/tree icon and the state park name under it that is/was used?
I am interested to see what's been developed. I think that the tourism signs, while overkill with the quick succession signs, were ultimately successful. The gateway signs for particular regions are helpful, and work well in conjunction with New York's beautiful themed rest areas (take note, other states). I think that many of the issues have been resolved - such as the display of the website and app.Earlier articles about the negotiation said that the new signs would just be the main ones, not the smaller ones, and not have the URL or app on them. Apparently the big impasse was over whether the word "experience" could be in italics or not.
I hope those new signs that were used during the campaign - like New York State Parks, and Path Through History, are not reused - or used outside of those gateway signs. They were unreadable at highway speeds, much less anything slower. Too much text. What's wrong with the park/tree icon and the state park name under it that is/was used?
Any comments on the October 10th Schoharie Ford Excursion limousine crash, that killed 20? One has to wonder if driver impairment was to blame here.
A small question.. There is some road work on I-87 southbound, between exits 10 and 9. Just 1 truck and 1 bulldozer - but it goes on for the second week if not more. It really looks like they are putting in a driveway to the interstate.
Any idea what that is?
UPD: actually a bit further north, and there is already something like a driveway there on google maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9116943,-73.7941708,3a,75y,220.27h,83.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQtQrjuhLc92AP5gCkEMHqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
This is an interesting place to put signs
(https://i.imgur.com/BI4NeOIh.jpg)
This is an interesting place to put signs
(https://i.imgur.com/BI4NeOIh.jpg)
Where is that, Buffaboy?
ixnay
Has there been any discussion about the upcoming reconstruction of the Interstate 278 Promenade structure in Brooklyn? This page has 156 pages and I don't have time to go through all of them. I have a feeling this project will be a long, difficult one. Does anyone have any ideas about this project?They haven't settled on what they're doing yet. Still trying to sort through all the community feedback.
Are any other highways in New York that currently have sequencial exit numbers planning a mileage-based conversion in the near future?
Since the Federal Highway Administration has not made adopting the reference post marking system a mandate, but rather an option;
Keep in mind that this page hasn't been updated in more than a decade. Since then, I-781 was built with mileage-based numbers, US 15 was converted, the Taconic gained numbers, and the I-84 conversion was designed.Are any other highways in New York that currently have sequencial exit numbers planning a mileage-based conversion in the near future?
https://www.dot.ny.gov/about-nysdot/faq/nys-interstate-exit--system-sequential-or-milepost-system
Is New York State planning to change its Interstate exit numbering system from a sequential system to a distance-based milepost system?
At this time, the Department does not have immediate plans to adopt the mileage based exit numbering system although strong consideration has been given to the idea. The use of both consecutive and milepost exit numbering systems is approved by the Federal Highway Administration. While many states have converted to the milepost exit numbering system, New York is one of several states in the Northeast that still numbers freeway exits using the consecutive numbering system.
Actually, New York was an early pioneer in converting exit numbers from a consecutive order (e.g. Exit 1, Exit 2, Exit 3, ...) to a system based on distance (miles or kilometers). In the 1970's, New York unsuccessfully experimented with the mileage based system in New York City and Schenectady. The milepost system works best when exits are separated by more than a mile. Unfortunately, in some of New York's urban areas, exit spacing is less than a mile.
The Department released a report in January 2003 regarding the feasibility of converting exit numbers on freeways from a consecutive numbering system to a milepost exit numbering system. The conclusion was that although the change is technically possible, it would be quite costly and would have to compete with other worthwhile projects for consideration of scarce resources. Since the Federal Highway Administration has not made adopting the reference post marking system a mandate, but rather an option; New York will likely defer the changeover until it becomes a requirement or additional funding is available to implement the plan.
I-87 will probably be the last one in New York State to be converted.
I-87 will probably be the last one in New York State to be converted.
I bet NYCDOT will ask the FHWA for some kind of exemption to stick to sequential exit numbers. That would mean that I-87, I-95, I-495 and I-78 would have their Exit 0's outside the Five Boroughs, then count down the closer you got to Manhattan. Forget the SRs and Parkways, those will probably stay sequential forever.I-87 will probably be the last one in New York State to be converted.
I think I-495 on Long Island or any of the initeratates in nyc will be last. There is no funding to change exit signs on Long Island with too many other areas that are priority like trying to get our 10K+ curb ramps to be federal ADA PROWAG compliant (I’m stuck on the curb ramp specialist team, I still can’t belive the amount of time and money being wasted on some of these esp those that failed by 0.2% slopes.) also, I believe down here will be last as the link I provided state that many of our exits are closer than a mile together which starts messing up the mileage based exits scheme.
I also think you're gonna end up with a situation where all Thruway ROW stays sequential and then the continuing Interstates will have their exits be milage based. The Berkshire Extension portion of I-90 and Free I-90 would both be milage-based as well.Such would likely mean that the CWE portion of I-287's current MM CW 0 at I-87/NYS Thruway would become MM 20.
I think once the Thruway goes all electronic for its tolling, the notion of having separate exit numbers for I-90 and I-87 will be a lot easier.
^ Some states up here have already asked FHWA for exemptions and waivers. I know Vermont did a few years ago. They were politely told "no".
As for the Thruway...given the typical distance between exits, there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't make the Thruway exit numbers mileage-based.
I think once the Thruway goes all electronic for its tolling, the notion of having separate exit numbers for I-90 and I-87 will be a lot easier.
Somewhat easier. You still have institutional inertia, which is a real thing in New York.^ Some states up here have already asked FHWA for exemptions and waivers. I know Vermont did a few years ago. They were politely told "no".
Precisely. It's going to happen whether people like it or not. There is no reason to not change other than people being reluctant to change. If a slow change is what's necessary to make people warm up to it, so be it. Better than MA, which planned a change and then had to back down due to public outcry.
I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways) not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.Negative. Not required.
I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways) not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.
I believe you folks are mistaken. In the 2009 Manual's Section 2E - Freeways and Expressways, Sec. 2E.31.04 states: Interchange exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method. The consecutive exit numbering method shall not be used. The Manual does not show any distinction on this requirement between Interstate vs. U.S. or State freeways and expressways.
I could swear there's another state or two that uses sequential for non-Interstates and distance-based for Interstates, but I may be mistaken.
^ The MUTCD applies to almost all roads. If FHWA wanted to, they could withhold federal funding for any projects on a roadway using non-MUTCD compliant exit numbering, or even withhold all federal funds for Georgia and Pennsylvania until a conversion plan was established.
Could be worse. Ohio's non-interstates are the luck of the draw with mileage-based exits. Will it be unsigned? Or signed in accordance with the statewide mileage total? Or countywide mileage total? Find out on Route 2!
I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways) not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.
Negative. Not required.
Standard: Interchange numbering shall be used in signing each freeway interchange exit. Interchange exit numbers shall be displayed with each Advance Guide Sign, Exit Direction Sign, and Exit Gore sign.
Could be worse. Ohio's non-interstates are the luck of the draw with mileage-based exits. Will it be unsigned? Or signed in accordance with the statewide mileage total? Or countywide mileage total? Find out on Route 2!
Or US 33. Exits in District 6 are signed by statewide mileage, but those in Athens County are county mileage.
The MUTCD says that, but the FHWA has since stated that they are not enforcing it to many state agencies. Which makes it odd that MA hinged its exit renumbering on the sentiments of Cape Cod re: US 6.I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways) not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.
Negative. Not required.
Really?Quote from: FHWA, in MUTCD 2009 § 2E.31.02Standard: Interchange numbering shall be used in signing each freeway interchange exit. Interchange exit numbers shall be displayed with each Advance Guide Sign, Exit Direction Sign, and Exit Gore sign.
I am pretty sure the NPRM and NFR for the 2009 MUTCD make it clear that it is FHWA's intention to extend the requirement to provide exit numbering to non-Interstate freeways as well as Interstates. In the MUTCD itself, the preceding paragraph in § 2E.31 makes it clear that the only scenario in which FHWA envisions exit numbering not being provided on freeways or expressways is AASHTO expressways with a mixture of flat intersections and grade separations. And even there provision of exit numbering is urged if there is "appreciable continuity of interchange facilities."
JNW hit the nail on the head with his quote from Sec. 2E-31. The MUTCD does not seem to distinguish between Interstate freeways and Non-Interstate freeways. The standards are the same for all freeways. And a freeway is defined as any highway with full control of access vs. an Expressway which is partial control of access.I'm a professional engineer whose job involves the MUTCD. I'm well aware what's inside. What are you?
And again, I'm not saying the FHWA enforces the standards equally among all freeways. I'm not sure what their priorities and policies are. I'm only saying how the Manual actually reads.
Our friend Mr. Alps would do well to read the Manual before making repeated mis-statements of fact concerning what the Manual does and doesn't say.
The MUTCD says that, but the FHWA has since stated that they are not enforcing it to many state agencies. Which makes it odd that MA hinged its exit renumbering on the sentiments of Cape Cod re: US 6.
I could swear there's another state or two that uses sequential for non-Interstates and distance-based for Interstates, but I may be mistaken.Granted it's only highway in this particular state but the NJ Turnpike still uses sequential-based interchange numbering.
JNW hit the nail on the head with his quote from Sec. 2E-31. The MUTCD does not seem to distinguish between Interstate freeways and Non-Interstate freeways. The standards are the same for all freeways. And a freeway is defined as any highway with full control of access vs. an Expressway which is partial control of access.I'm a professional engineer whose job involves the MUTCD. I'm well aware what's inside. What are you?
And again, I'm not saying the FHWA enforces the standards equally among all freeways. I'm not sure what their priorities and policies are. I'm only saying how the Manual actually reads.
Our friend Mr. Alps would do well to read the Manual before making repeated mis-statements of fact concerning what the Manual does and doesn't say.
^ I'd make a case for Mike Tantillo knowing more than Alps (IIRC, Mike has been on NCUTCD longer than Steve), but that's because goat...🙃
If Richard Moeur were on this forum, he'd have everyone beat hands down. I defer to him on all things signage (though we often disagree about off-street bike paths).
NCUTCD?
Tantillo isn't active any more, so Steve wins by default. But yes, if Tantillo were still active on the forum, he'd win.Tantillo's most recent post is from this past Nov. 29.
Okay guys, I hate to get into a flaming war here, but if Alps is a Professional Engineer who is regularly involved with the MUTCD, then why has he repeatedly made factual mis-statements about its standards? If anything, he should be the most knowledgable among us and be able to explain the Manual correctly and accurately.
But what the heck, I've known defensive driving instructors who were misinformed about state traffic laws too so I guess this problem permeates many professions.
I may not be a P.E. but I can read and understand the English language and quote it correctly. My apologies for this long winded post, but I really hate being lied to by professional people who should know better.
My apologies for coming on a little too strong. I've modified my previous post to make it a little less abrasive.It's still abrasive. To teach you a little more about how the MUTCD works, we design to the standards in Sections 2-4 (most typically), but there are plenty of times that state agency policies supersede or even contradict what's in the MUTCD. As far as the standards, I will beat you every time. As far as how they're applied by each state and enforced by the FHWA, you could catch me on that only because the FHWA's enforcement depends on their own policy, which depends on who's calling the shots. So no, they're not going to remove requirements about all exit numbering being mile-based, but they've made it very clear that is not their current enforcement policy.
In a roundabout way, the Town of Tonawanda wants to make it easier for drivers, bus passengers and bicyclists to travel one of the main east-west thoroughfares in the Northtowns.
Town officials are discussing a host of changes to Sheridan Drive as it runs from Niagara Falls Boulevard to the Niagara River.
The wish list includes shrinking the number of driving lanes, creating dedicated bicycle lanes, bringing express bus service to the road and adding "smart" traffic signals.
And, yes, they envision installing a trio of roundabouts at the three-headed intersection of Sheridan Drive, Niagara Falls Boulevard and Eggert Road on the Tonawanda-Amherst border.
Image from John Hickey/The Buffalo News
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/bncore/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/1011827486-LOCAL-Intersecti-750x445.jpg)
Imagine turning these intersections into roundabouts.QuoteIn a roundabout way, the Town of Tonawanda wants to make it easier for drivers, bus passengers and bicyclists to travel one of the main east-west thoroughfares in the Northtowns.
Town officials are discussing a host of changes to Sheridan Drive as it runs from Niagara Falls Boulevard to the Niagara River.
The wish list includes shrinking the number of driving lanes, creating dedicated bicycle lanes, bringing express bus service to the road and adding "smart" traffic signals.
And, yes, they envision installing a trio of roundabouts at the three-headed intersection of Sheridan Drive, Niagara Falls Boulevard and Eggert Road on the Tonawanda-Amherst border.
https://buffalonews.com/2018/12/08/rethinking-sheridan-drive-bike-lanes-smarter-traffic-signals-and-roundabouts/
Here's a 3 lane roundabout...which I would suspect is uncommonlooks more like 4-lane with essentially slip lanes between the arms. And a nice touch from a roundabout design company: poor placement of crosswalks requiring crossing guard being deployed.
“It’s the decline in reflectivity that’s prompting the replacement,″ said Doug Cotton, the design manager for the I-84 project.
Even more ironic, the remaining roughly 30+ year old signs out there are still readable at night.Quote“It’s the decline in reflectivity that’s prompting the replacement,″ said Doug Cotton, the design manager for the I-84 project.
Okay. Tell that to the Thruway Authority who, until recently, put up non-compliant (and possibly illegal) signs that are not visible in the night at all 😂
I always wondered what test is done for reflectivity. WVDOH did a massive sign replacement along I-79 and US 50 a year or so ago because the signs were generally all put up at the same time - guide signs, regulatory signs, etc. But not all - some had been replaced as signs were knocked down over the years and as some faded out.
I have never heard of this junction (never been to LI), but judging by the aerial photos, it looks like a mess with that double merge.
It is interesting to see that all options are on the table in those cutaways. I doubt 75% of them will be considered.
Following NY27A, the signed route to NY27 involves using the Heckscher Parkway... which is closed to trucks. Hence, the "truck" banner appears to be used to denote the truck route to NY27.
Not the only place in the state where the "truck" banner is being used to denote a route trucks are allowed on as opposed to being a separate signed route...
I was driving on NY110 and came across this sign. As awesome as it would be to have a US Route on Long Island, I don't think that sign is correct :spin:
(https://i.imgur.com/nmnjLBb.jpg)
I was driving on NY110 and came across this sign. As awesome as it would be to have a US Route on Long Island, I don't think that sign is correct :spin:
(https://i.imgur.com/nmnjLBb.jpg)
In Huntington on ny-25a:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181228/ee7f10da85eff4645fbd7582d41c1bb8.jpg)
iPhone
I guess you can say NY110 is having an identity crisis...
Although from what it looks like in your pic I think theres black tape on the border of the sign, hiding the NY shield and making look more like a CT shield.
Are they outsourcing sign production to Tonawanda now?Yes to the Tonawanda transmission plant for General Motors.
Question: where is this Truck NY 27 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7472515,-73.1534263,3a,15y,293.25h,88.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swqFHLDQwhMa1_wW3qXnJ_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) that I found while looking at the area?
Is anyone going to see the (old) Tappan Zee Bridge being exploded on January 12 at 9:30 AM? Remember to take photos!If a weather system hits the area this Saturday as predicted; such might be postponed.
Is anyone going to see the (old) Tappan Zee Bridge being exploded on January 12 at 9:30 AM? Remember to take photos!
Fingers crossed.Is anyone going to see the (old) Tappan Zee Bridge being exploded on January 12 at 9:30 AM? Remember to take photos!If a weather system hits the area this Saturday as predicted; such might be postponed.
Postponed, no new date set as of yet. (https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/rockland/tappan-zee/2019/01/10/tappan-zee-bridge-demolition-explosives-postponed/2539336002/?fbclid=IwAR0HBiemQj0_D5pymNZYyvXQ1aDQSqUnv_7dN86o2fi9X6904DLLLoSOC5k)Fingers crossed.Is anyone going to see the (old) Tappan Zee Bridge being exploded on January 12 at 9:30 AM? Remember to take photos!If a weather system hits the area this Saturday as predicted; such might be postponed.
"The sustained winds caused delays to the preparatory work of the planned demolition operation," read a statement from Tappan Zee Constructors. "We appreciate the patience of the local community, and once we have rescheduled the operation we will provide an update."________________________________________
Postponed, no new date set as of yet. (https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/rockland/tappan-zee/2019/01/10/tappan-zee-bridge-demolition-explosives-postponed/2539336002/?fbclid=IwAR0HBiemQj0_D5pymNZYyvXQ1aDQSqUnv_7dN86o2fi9X6904DLLLoSOC5k)Fingers crossed.Is anyone going to see the (old) Tappan Zee Bridge being exploded on January 12 at 9:30 AM? Remember to take photos!If a weather system hits the area this Saturday as predicted; such might be postponed.Quote from: lohud.com Article"The sustained winds caused delays to the preparatory work of the planned demolition operation," read a statement from Tappan Zee Constructors. "We appreciate the patience of the local community, and once we have rescheduled the operation we will provide an update."________________________________________
Update: Tuesday Jan. 15 is now the rescheduled date; however, the time has not yet been determined.
I have never heard of this junction (never been to LI), but judging by the aerial photos, it looks like a mess with that double merge.It's a total disaster that NYSDOT knows they could've avoided, but they wanted to build it in a way that didn't piss off the environmental lobby. Plan V-3 is the best of them, but even that needs some modifications. One of which is to have the west end of Montauk Highway and the entrance to Connetquot River State Park in an intersection with the service roads. The other is to reduce the number of on and off ramps between Connetquot Avenue and Locust Avenue. NY 27A/Connetquot River State Park and Suffolk CR 85 should strictly be Exit 47. There should be no Exit 46A, no Exit 47A, and no unnumbered exits to minor roads and local businesses.
It is interesting to see that all options are on the table in those cutaways. I doubt 75% of them will be considered.
Regarding the first bridge, I would say email the MTA as it is maintained by them. I used to drive under that bridge daily, amazing how high it is.Looks about 27'-31' tall based on the roadway lane.
A few nights ago, I came across this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0009429,-77.1340878,3a,15y,70.26h,91.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgWsYCrC1bjCO2wc6kn7xtQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) sign on US 15 northbound at the NY border. What's the point of making radar detectors illegal for just bigger vehicles? I couldn't find anything about the law on Google.
A few nights ago, I came across this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0009429,-77.1340878,3a,15y,70.26h,91.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgWsYCrC1bjCO2wc6kn7xtQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) sign on US 15 northbound at the NY border. What's the point of making radar detectors illegal for just bigger vehicles? I couldn't find anything about the law on Google.I noticed THIS sign on G.S.V. which was close to yours: https://goo.gl/maps/umm5qb5U6KM2
Now I hope that it happened to be the day the newer blue sign had gone up! :-D
A few nights ago, I came across this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0009429,-77.1340878,3a,15y,70.26h,91.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgWsYCrC1bjCO2wc6kn7xtQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) sign on US 15 northbound at the NY border. What's the point of making radar detectors illegal for just bigger vehicles? I couldn't find anything about the law on Google.As far as I understand:
A few nights ago, I came across this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0009429,-77.1340878,3a,15y,70.26h,91.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgWsYCrC1bjCO2wc6kn7xtQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) sign on US 15 northbound at the NY border. What's the point of making radar detectors illegal for just bigger vehicles? I couldn't find anything about the law on Google.
I noticed THIS sign on G.S.V. which was close to yours: https://goo.gl/maps/umm5qb5U6KM2
Now I hope that it happened to be the day the newer blue sign had gone up! :-D
Hey, thanks for posting that! I've been waiting for years for Street View to drive the new segment of I-99 -- I used to check every so often but hadn't in ages.
Looking at that I-99 GSV, it looks like NYSDOT converted that roadway to mileage based exits (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0827753,-77.1531059,3a,21.9y,9.71h,91.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqhjJnHtLte74hyTiIGFm4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Is this just one of those fits and starts things depending on region?I heard from someone that it was required so the road could be designated/signed as I-99.
Looking at that I-99 GSV, it looks like NYSDOT converted that roadway to mileage based exits (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0827753,-77.1531059,3a,21.9y,9.71h,91.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqhjJnHtLte74hyTiIGFm4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Is this just one of those fits and starts things depending on region?I heard from someone that it was required so the road could be designated/signed as I-99.
The Taconic has also added mile-based numbers and I-84 is converting this year. As for if/when anything else will convert, who knows.
(personal opinion)
I-84 has not yet begun to convert. Sign plans were released a few months ago.Looking at that I-99 GSV, it looks like NYSDOT converted that roadway to mileage based exits (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0827753,-77.1531059,3a,21.9y,9.71h,91.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqhjJnHtLte74hyTiIGFm4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Is this just one of those fits and starts things depending on region?I heard from someone that it was required so the road could be designated/signed as I-99.
The Taconic has also added mile-based numbers and I-84 is converting this year. As for if/when anything else will convert, who knows.
(personal opinion)
Is this really recent? Google Maps still shows sequential exits on the map itself.
Looking at that I-99 GSV, it looks like NYSDOT converted that roadway to mileage based exits (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0827753,-77.1531059,3a,21.9y,9.71h,91.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqhjJnHtLte74hyTiIGFm4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Is this just one of those fits and starts things depending on region?I heard from someone that it was required so the road could be designated/signed as I-99.
The Taconic has also added mile-based numbers and I-84 is converting this year. As for if/when anything else will convert, who knows.
(personal opinion)
https://www.truckersnews.com/i-84-exit-numbers-changing-in-new-york/
It looks like I-84 is beating I-81 out as they are getting the new numbers as we speak. Someone said Rand McNally got them in the next edition already.
If the New York Thruway ever gets mileage-based exits, no matter which direction the exits increase, the exit sequence along the NYT and the Major Deegan Expressway should be continuous. If the exit sequence starts at the Pennsylvania border, the MDE's exits should continue the numbering of the NYT, and/or vice versa.
I wonder if they would feel better if the map was mirrored, and there could be a continuous increase going south->north->east?https://www.truckersnews.com/i-84-exit-numbers-changing-in-new-york/
It looks like I-84 is beating I-81 out as they are getting the new numbers as we speak. Someone said Rand McNally got them in the next edition already.
Yeah, we've known about this for a while. Plans were posted about a year ago and it was known internally well before that. I-84 was the first large-scale conversion because it's entirely within a single region.If the New York Thruway ever gets mileage-based exits, no matter which direction the exits increase, the exit sequence along the NYT and the Major Deegan Expressway should be continuous. If the exit sequence starts at the Pennsylvania border, the MDE's exits should continue the numbering of the NYT, and/or vice versa.
Any new exit numbers will likely be distinct for I-87 and I-90. FHWA does NOT like the idea of one route's numbers decreasing as one heads north/east. They have also made it clear that they want I-87 and I-90 to each have one set of numbers in the state instead of three.
If the New York Thruway ever gets mileage-based exits, no matter which direction the exits increase, the exit sequence along the NYT and the Major Deegan Expressway should be continuous. If the exit sequence starts at the Pennsylvania border, the MDE's exits should continue the numbering of the NYT, and/or vice versa.Any new exit numbers will likely be distinct for I-87 and I-90. FHWA does NOT like the idea of one route's numbers decreasing as one heads north/east. They have also made it clear that they want I-87 and I-90 to each have one set of numbers in the state instead of three.
At one point, AET was supposed to be implemented by the end of 2020, but who knows if it will materialize. I wouldn't at all be surprised if we hear exit numbers are changing once AET is in place.
It's gonna happen. Some of the infrastructure is already in place. Minor exits will simply involve mounting equipment in existing booths, as has been done in PA. Exit 22 is ready to go (GSV caught them installing equipment last summer (https://goo.gl/maps/d85kEgh5Qy7T8ynD9)).
Ugh, and at West Stockbridge, a lower work zone speed limit sat there much longer than necessary.
Might even still be there.
Ugh, and at West Stockbridge, a lower work zone speed limit sat there much longer than necessary.By statute it isn't enforceable unless people are there working. This isn't MD.
Might even still be there.
^ Removing booths may be a future endeavor. Look at the Mass Pike for an example...those booths didn't exactly come down in a day once they switched their AET on.Unlike Masspike, where equipment is away from booths, image above shows cameras on booth island. So even if building itself is gone, road layout with split into individual lanes separated by islands and associated requirement to slow way down will stay
Not sure if that is true in MA and I wouldn't put it past a Statie to think otherwise.Ugh, and at West Stockbridge, a lower work zone speed limit sat there much longer than necessary.By statute it isn't enforceable unless people are there working. This isn't MD.
Might even still be there.
^ Removing booths may be a future endeavor. Look at the Mass Pike for an example...those booths didn't exactly come down in a day once they switched their AET on.Let's hope, but at least with the MassPike demolition started very shortly before conversion, and it was known it would well before then. With this, we have no way of knowing if eventual demolition is in the plans, and if it is, I'm guessing it's on a longer timespan because they put the equipment in the booths themselves instead of erecting a gantry.
I do not see now why they just don't convert the old trumpet T or trumpet to trumpets as diamonds or even SPUI set ups as now without the tickets the present interchanges serve no purpose.Guess on my part, but the reasoning as towards why all the interchanges aren't converted is money. Only the ones where there's either high traffic volumes and/or the removal of the booths create more dangerous weaving problems (due to vehicles no longer stopping) will undergo a conversion.
Somehow I managed to drive on I-90, I-87. I-88, I-86 and I-390 in the same day.Heh. I think I have done all of those except I-87 in a day.
Somehow I managed to drive on I-90, I-87. I-88, I-86 and I-390 in the same day.Heh. I think I have done all of those except I-87 in a day.
Somehow I managed to drive on I-90, I-87. I-88, I-86 and I-390 in the same day.No I-81?
It would make sense to put mainline gantries between each interchange charging the distance between them.I do not see now why they just don't convert the old trumpet T or trumpet to trumpets as diamonds or even SPUI set ups as now without the tickets the present interchanges serve no purpose.Guess on my part, but the reasoning as towards why all the interchanges aren't converted is money. Only the ones where there's either high traffic volumes and/or the removal of the booths create more dangerous weaving problems (due to vehicles no longer stopping) will undergo a conversion.
Personally, plus seeing how the AET conversion worked out along the Mass Pike (I-90) thus far; I would prefer placing the AET gantries along the NYS Thruway mainline between interchanges rather than the interchanges themselves. This option eliminates the expense of relocating ramp AETs or erecting additional ones should an interchange be reconfigured.
It would make sense to put mainline gantries between each interchange charging the distance between them.I know that is done in other cases, and things would be complicated for Thruway. A stupid historical-political reason.
Somehow I managed to drive on I-90, I-87. I-88, I-86 and I-390 in the same day.No I-81?
Personally, plus seeing how the AET conversion worked out along the Mass Pike (I-90) thus far; I would prefer placing the AET gantries along the NYS Thruway mainline between interchanges rather than the interchanges themselves. This option eliminates the expense of relocating ramp AETs or erecting additional ones should an interchange be reconfigured.
When I've driven the Mass Pike since the conversion, my NYSTA E-ZPass statement has one entry per trip, not per gantry. Consolidating trips is not a hard problem, you just see the series of entries in sequence at appropriate times and merge them. So there's no reason NYSTA couldn't do the same and have free vs. not free trips between 24 and 25A just as now. If you only traveled that segment, no charge. If you traveled beyond, you pay.That is if everything goes perfectly. Once one gantry goes offline for whatever reason, consolidation may start getting funny. Also stop on travel plasa vs exit and re-entry may mean something, e.g. for I-87/88 transfer as mentioned above.
Bottom line, they know where you got on and off by which gantries you passed through.
When I've driven the Mass Pike since the conversion, my NYSTA E-ZPass statement has one entry per trip, not per gantry. Consolidating trips is not a hard problem, you just see the series of entries in sequence at appropriate times and merge them. So there's no reason NYSTA couldn't do the same and have free vs. not free trips between 24 and 25A just as now. If you only traveled that segment, no charge. If you traveled beyond, you pay.That is if everything goes perfectly. Once one gantry goes offline for whatever reason, consolidation may start getting funny. Also stop on travel plasa vs exit and re-entry may mean something, e.g. for I-87/88 transfer as mentioned above.
Bottom line, they know where you got on and off by which gantries you passed through.
This are certainly very resolvable issues in general , but this is NYS...
This is part of the reason I'm not the biggest fan of mileage based exit numbers in New York. It erodes the distinction of the Thruway. I'm okay with doing it on I-95, I-84, I-81, I-86, I-88, and even (Ugh!) I-99 if it gets extended along I-390. But other than that, for most limited access roads in the state, I'll pass. You can remind me that I-95 is part of the New York Thruway system in Westchester County, but I can point out that until 1958 it was the New England Thruway, thus making it a separate entity.https://www.truckersnews.com/i-84-exit-numbers-changing-in-new-york/
It looks like I-84 is beating I-81 out as they are getting the new numbers as we speak. Someone said Rand McNally got them in the next edition already.
Yeah, we've known about this for a while. Plans were posted about a year ago and it was known internally well before that. I-84 was the first large-scale conversion because it's entirely within a single region.If the New York Thruway ever gets mileage-based exits, no matter which direction the exits increase, the exit sequence along the NYT and the Major Deegan Expressway should be continuous. If the exit sequence starts at the Pennsylvania border, the MDE's exits should continue the numbering of the NYT, and/or vice versa.
Any new exit numbers will likely be distinct for I-87 and I-90. FHWA does NOT like the idea of one route's numbers decreasing as one heads north/east. They have also made it clear that they want I-87 and I-90 to each have one set of numbers in the state instead of three.
The problem with NY Thruway exit numbering is that the road is part of three separate Interstate routes, 87, 287, and 90. And some of it runs north/south and some runs east/west. Also, not all of some of those routes is part of the Thruway. So it gets unusually complicated.That and the 287 part is an overlap with I-87.
MUTCD has guidance on it.The problem with NY Thruway exit numbering is that the road is part of three separate Interstate routes, 87, 287, and 90. And some of it runs north/south and some runs east/west. Also, not all of some of those routes is part of the Thruway. So it gets unusually complicated.That and the 287 part is an overlap with I-87.
D-dey65, the New England Thruway was built circa 1958. Before that it didn't exist. And I think it was always part of the New York Thruway Authority system.They still had their own distinct signs, and no direct connection to the rest of the thruway system.
There is nothing special about the Thruway to warrant non-standard interchange numbering. I-90 gets numbered west to east across the entire state. I-87 gets numbered south to north the length of the state. Any similar numbers along the Thruway portion would be so far apart mileage wise that it wouldn’t make much difference to the average motorist. (Maybe Batavia and Coxsackie would be close in numbering?). I-287’s exit numbers would pick up west to east from I-87, with however far it is in mileage from where I-287 entered New York. The Berkshire section would simply get I-90’s numbers; I would just remove the number from Exit 21A.
Other states handle this type of numbering just fine (Ohio, Illinois come to mind), New York should just do the same.
I know it would be confusing but I would prefer the Thruway mainline exits to be numbered based on mileage from Yonkers to Ripley. The extant Interstates could be numbered based on mileage on their non-Thruway portions. So,Not a bad idea. I'd say ignore the Thruway mileposts and go off the I-87 / I-90 mileposts.
Exit 1 on the Northway would be come Exit 148 (or 149). This would require a re-numbering of I-87's mileposts since they reset at the split.
Exit 13 on the Deegan becomes exit 8
Exit B3 on the Berkshire Extension becomes Exit 23.
From Albany west MPs for the Thruway Mainline and I-90, respectively, could be installed.
Okay, but even after the Thruway Commission got a hold of it, it was a free road. The same goes for I-84 when they grabbed that. But the Berkshire Spur, the Garden State Parkway connector, and the former Niagara Thruway are connected to the main line. The New England Thruway isn't.
The original exit signs on the New England T'way. were the same dark blue as the Mainline, though they may have been formatted slightly different. However the entrance signs were distinctive to the New England Section, being yellow with black lettering if I remember right.
True that there was originally no direct connection to the Mainline of the Thruway, though since around 1991 they are connected by the Cross Westchester Expwy. which became part of the Thruway System after having been a NYSDOT highway since it was built circa 1960.
Nah. Do it by route as the MUTCD dictates.The issue is the Thruway goes north-south then west-east. The Ohio Turnpike is just east-west. I'm not saying it cannot be done; the debate is with how to number the exits on the north-south section and on the east-west section. Should it be done as one entity starting from the Bronx/Westchester line to the PA line or have it done as the two separate Interstate highways they are? IMHO, I prefer the exit numbers to line up with the current mile markers that are on the Thruway (slightly less cost in replacing the mile markers and the tenth mile markers), however, the prevailing opinion is to "do it by the route as the MUTCD dictates" (Rothman). If any exit numbers on the north-south section potentially have the same as one on the west-east section, one of them could be off by 1--just like Exit 56 (Lehigh Valley Interchange) on the Northeast Extension of the PA Tpk. That interchange is actually at milepost 57, however, on the mainline there is an Exit 57 (Pittsburgh Interchange) so the PA Turnpike Commission decided not to show two Exit 57's on the toll ticket and made the Lehigh Valley Interchange, Exit 56. Yes, I know Exit 56 is on I-476 and not on the mainline but the toll tickets show what you would pay on the entire system.
Ohio Turnpike is a couple of different routes and they figured it out. So can NY.
There is nothing special about the Thruway to warrant non-standard interchange numbering. I-90 gets numbered west to east across the entire state. I-87 gets numbered south to north the length of the state. Any similar numbers along the Thruway portion would be so far apart mileage wise that it wouldn’t make much difference to the average motorist. (Maybe Batavia and Coxsackie would be close in numbering?). I-287’s exit numbers would pick up west to east from I-87, with however far it is in mileage from where I-287 entered New York. The Berkshire section would simply get I-90’s numbers; I would just remove the number from Exit 21A.I see you have changed your user name, as you wished. How are things in Chicago?
Other states handle this type of numbering just fine (Ohio, Illinois come to mind), New York should just do the same.
Sign project to convert to mileage based numbers is progressing on I-84. New foundations are set as far west as Exit 15 in Hopewell JCT. You can see them behind one of the button copy signs that were forgotten during the last sign replacement contract.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47831997592_a697eeaf7d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fSKurE)
Sign project to convert to mileage based numbers is progressing on I-84. New foundations are set as far west as Exit 15 in Hopewell JCT. You can see them behind one of the button copy signs that were forgotten during the last sign replacement contract.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47831997592_a697eeaf7d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fSKurE)
Are the foundations in the photo for a replacement Park & Ride sign? If so, it seems like overkill to have three posts.
Sign project to convert to mileage based numbers is progressing on I-84. New foundations are set as far west as Exit 15 in Hopewell JCT. You can see them behind one of the button copy signs that were forgotten during the last sign replacement contract.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47831997592_a697eeaf7d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fSKurE)
Are the foundations in the photo for a replacement Park & Ride sign? If so, it seems like overkill to have three posts.
I believe they are rearranging the sign locations. I think the new "1 Mile" advance sign is going in that spot and the Park & Ride sign is being moved further west of here. There will also be a 2 mile and "right lane" advance signs for this exit. Current exit 15 future exit 50.
Sign project to convert to mileage based numbers is progressing on I-84. New foundations are set as far west as Exit 15 in Hopewell JCT. You can see them behind one of the button copy signs that were forgotten during the last sign replacement contract.
Are the foundations in the photo for a replacement Park & Ride sign? If so, it seems like overkill to have three posts.
I believe they are rearranging the sign locations. I think the new "1 Mile" advance sign is going in that spot and the Park & Ride sign is being moved further west of here. There will also be a 2 mile and "right lane" advance signs for this exit. Current exit 15 future exit 50.
I figured that was the case. However, this is NYSDOT, so anything's possible. Curious if the new signs are going to have any destinations. If they are going to just read 'Brick Kiln Rd' like the current signs do, it doesn't appear to me that the sign width justifies the expense and potential hazard of adding the center post.
At the I-684 interchange US-6/US-202 are dropped from the signs going EB according to the plans I saw.If you're referring to I-84 eastbound; the main current signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3937551,-73.6004948,3a,75y,169.98h,71.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPQdCt_a1SLvkYMEnD4fsEA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) didn't have US 6/202 shields on them. Such is likely why the upcoming replacement signs don't have them either.
A county route shield is added Duchess County 27 Lime Klin Rd Exit 50.
If you're referring to I-84 eastbound, the main current signs didn't have US 6/202 shields on them. Such is likely why the upcoming replacement signs don't have them either.
D-dey65, I'm not sure which road you're saying was a free road. The Cross Westchester Expwy was yes; but the New England Twy. always had the New Rochelle toll barrier from the time it was built circa 1959. Toll was 25 cents back then, both directions. LOLCross Westchester, of course.
I don't see them either eastbound or westbound. The only US 6/202 shields I see are northbound on I-684 itself at the north-to-westbound ramp. Well, that and westbound I-84 at Exit 21.At the I-684 interchange US-6/US-202 are dropped from the signs going EB according to the plans I saw.If you're referring to I-84 eastbound; the main current signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3937551,-73.6004948,3a,75y,169.98h,71.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPQdCt_a1SLvkYMEnD4fsEA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) didn't have US 6/202 shields on them. Such is likely why the upcoming replacement signs don't have them either.
*Is it just me, or is it high time the southeast quadrant of that interchange gets rebuilt, with the east-to-north ramp given more of a curve, and the north-to-east ramp relocated around it?
*Is it just me, or is it high time the southeast quadrant of that interchange gets rebuilt, with the east-to-north ramp given more of a curve, and the north-to-east ramp relocated around it?
It's high time something got done there–I'm not worried about the east-to-north ramp, but the north-to-east ramp is a constant bottleneck, due to its sharp curves (due largely, I think, to the Star Ridge Rd overpass) and the merge into two lanes of I-84. Then again, I-84 is one huge fustercluck from there pretty much all the way to Hartford, so fixing the Brewster interchange might be like felling a redwood with a fly swatter.
Still, can't help but wonder what exactly was behind the change. Perhaps those few left-lane blockers complained to the town or something.I seem to recall a message from a concerned citizen regarding that road making the rounds through Region 1 a while back.
I know it would be confusing but I would prefer the Thruway mainline exits to be numbered based on mileage from Yonkers to Ripley. The extant Interstates could be numbered based on mileage on their non-Thruway portions. So,Not a bad idea. I'd say ignore the Thruway mileposts and go off the I-87 / I-90 mileposts.
Exit 1 on the Northway would be come Exit 148 (or 149). This would require a re-numbering of I-87's mileposts since they reset at the split.
Exit 13 on the Deegan becomes exit 8
Exit B3 on the Berkshire Extension becomes Exit 23.
From Albany west MPs for the Thruway Mainline and I-90, respectively, could be installed.
Mile 0 on I-87 would be at I-278, and on I-90 it would be the PA line.
Major Exits:
Thruway Exit 1 (Yonkers) - exit 9
Thruway Exit 24 (I-87 / I-90 switch) - exit 156 (I-87) / exit 345 (I-90)
Northway Exit 1 - exit 156
Northway Exit 43 (last in US) - exit 332
Berkshire Exit B1 - exit 367
Berkshire Exit B3 (last in NY) - exit 373
*Is it just me, or is it high time the southeast quadrant of that interchange gets rebuilt, with the east-to-north ramp given more of a curve, and the north-to-east ramp relocated around it?
It's high time something got done there–I'm not worried about the east-to-north ramp, but the north-to-east ramp is a constant bottleneck, due to its sharp curves (due largely, I think, to the Star Ridge Rd overpass) and the merge into two lanes of I-84. Then again, I-84 is one huge fustercluck from there pretty much all the way to Hartford, so fixing the Brewster interchange might be like felling a redwood with a fly swatter.
I recall that NYSDOT was planning to straighten the I-684 NB to I-84 EB ramp, which would include replacing the Star Ridge Road overpass. That was several years ago, so I'm not sure if that's still the case or if NYSDOT decided to put their money elsewhere. In the longer term, NYSDOT wants to eventually add a third lane in each direction from I-684 to the Connecticut state line. The recently-replaced bridges over Dingle Ridge Road are wide enough to accommodate a third lane if and when NYSDOT gets around to constructing the additional lane.
I recall that NYSDOT was planning to straighten the I-684 NB to I-84 EB ramp, which would include replacing the Star Ridge Road overpass. That was several years ago, so I'm not sure if that's still the case or if NYSDOT decided to put their money elsewhere. In the longer term, NYSDOT wants to eventually add a third lane in each direction from I-684 to the Connecticut state line. The recently-replaced bridges over Dingle Ridge Road are wide enough to accommodate a third lane if and when NYSDOT gets around to constructing the additional lane.
They did soften the I-684 NB ramp to I-84 EB. It's still a sharp curve but not as bad as before. I'm not really sure how they did it but it didn't involve any bridges but it is softer now.
Speaking of the I-84/684 interchange: I'm not exactly liking the new striping treatment along the southbound mainline overpass approaching the I-84 eastbound exit ramp. What used to be two through-lanes and an exit lane (see older GSVs) is now one through lane & one exit lane with a lot of white gore-hatch striping. This configuration creates a needless traffic backup along the southbound mainline; most of the traffic is heading south for I-684. Judging by the brand-new overhead signs (each sign with a downward arrow for the corresponding lane); such is planned to be a permanent condition.
The above-observations were from yesterday (Memorial Day)... late afternoon/early evening. I only noticed this while bypassing the two-mile long backup along I-84 westbound approaching I-684 (the parallel US 6/202 was fine). I-684 southbound traffic beyond the I-84 interchange was fine.
And that makes me wonder if you just experience highly unusual traffic patterns, because that's what there was at that time and date. At the same time, the MNR train out of Poughkeepsie was what can only be described as "standing room only" (and inaccurately so, since there was no "room"), which happens a statistically negligible number of times per year. (The local train out of Croton was dead empty.)
And that makes me wonder if you just experience highly unusual traffic patterns, because that's what there was at that time and date. At the same time, the MNR train out of Poughkeepsie was what can only be described as "standing room only" (and inaccurately so, since there was no "room"), which happens a statistically negligible number of times per year. (The local train out of Croton was dead empty.)
Not to get too off topic, but it's ridiculous how terrible the service is on the Upper Hudson line considering Dutchess & Putnam county residents pay the same MTA taxes as everyone else downstate. Once you leave electrified territory MNR just doesn't seem to care–Upper Hudson line trains are usually packed, peak and off-peak, but there's never been any push to improve service. The diesel coaches are also the worst out of the entire fleet (with no replacement in the foreseeable future) and the locomotives are very mechanically problematic. There's clearly high demand on the line, weekend trains are frequently standing room only, especially on holidays and when the weather's nice, but running the bare minimum in service just pushes people to drive.
Soften...meaning changing the ramp's grade, angle or both?
Aerial imagery shows what might be a more curved ROW, but the ramps have never occupied that area. Comparing Historic Aerials, it appears that the ramp was moved very slightly to the left in 2015.
Aerial imagery shows what might be a more curved ROW, but the ramps have never occupied that area. Comparing Historic Aerials, it appears that the ramp was moved very slightly to the left in 2015.
Really? Because I'm looking at the aerial pics from both GSV and Historic Aerials, and I don't notice that much of a difference.
I was driving back to DE from CT this morning and noticed that the I-684 exit from I-84 is now Exit 68 (formerly Exit 20). That one threw me off. I did see that there's a discussion of mileage-based exits on I-84 in NY. Are any other roads being converted?I guess the Taconic, but NYSDOT is really stalling on that one. Other than that, no other roads pop out of me as being converted.
I was driving back to DE from CT this morning and noticed that the I-684 exit from I-84 is now Exit 68 (formerly Exit 20). That one threw me off. I did see that there's a discussion of mileage-based exits on I-84 in NY. Are any other roads being converted?
Given that the Taconic didn't have exit numbers, whether "converted" is the right word is debatable. In any case, the exit numbers on it now extend all the way to NY 295, so that project is done.I was driving back to DE from CT this morning and noticed that the I-684 exit from I-84 is now Exit 68 (formerly Exit 20). That one threw me off. I did see that there's a discussion of mileage-based exits on I-84 in NY. Are any other roads being converted?I guess the Taconic, but NYSDOT is really stalling on that one. Other than that, no other roads pop out of me as being converted.
I guess the Taconic, but NYSDOT is really stalling on that one. Other than that, no other roads pop out of me as being converted.
I was driving back to DE from CT this morning and noticed that the I-684 exit from I-84 is now Exit 68 (formerly Exit 20). That one threw me off. I did see that there's a discussion of mileage-based exits on I-84 in NY. Are any other roads being converted?
That's a very ancient used to.I guess the Taconic, but NYSDOT is really stalling on that one. Other than that, no other roads pop out of me as being converted.
I was driving back to DE from CT this morning and noticed that the I-684 exit from I-84 is now Exit 68 (formerly Exit 20). That one threw me off. I did see that there's a discussion of mileage-based exits on I-84 in NY. Are any other roads being converted?
Exits on the Taconic used to be numbered sequentially by county. IIRC, exit numbers would have a letter prefix indicating the county. Exit numbers increased heading north, but reset at each county line. Last year, NYSDOT replaced all the signs on the Taconic and applied mile based numbering for the entire length of the parkway. There was an article about the I-84 renumbering that stated that NYSDOT plans to replace signs and renumber exits on the Hutch in the near future. Here is a link to that article.
https://www.recordonline.com/news/20181209/state-will-convert-current-i-84-exit-signs-to-mileage-based-numbers
Exits on the Taconic used to be numbered sequentially by county. IIRC, exit numbers would have a letter prefix indicating the county. Exit numbers increased heading north, but reset at each county line.
That's a very ancient used to.
The Hutch-Merritt Parkway exit configurations make no sense at all. I mentioned in an earlier post that I was iffy about a lot of the mileage-based exit numbers, but in this case I'm looking forward to them a lot more. I vaguely remember reading something about why Connecticut starts off with Exit 27 on Merritt Parkway after Exit 30 on the NY-CT State Line, but I forgot what it was.I guess the Taconic, but NYSDOT is really stalling on that one. Other than that, no other roads pop out of me as being converted.
I was driving back to DE from CT this morning and noticed that the I-684 exit from I-84 is now Exit 68 (formerly Exit 20). That one threw me off. I did see that there's a discussion of mileage-based exits on I-84 in NY. Are any other roads being converted?
Exits on the Taconic used to be numbered sequentially by county. IIRC, exit numbers would have a letter prefix indicating the county. Exit numbers increased heading north, but reset at each county line. Last year, NYSDOT replaced all the signs on the Taconic and applied mile based numbering for the entire length of the parkway. There was an article about the I-84 renumbering that stated that NYSDOT plans to replace signs and renumber exits on the Hutch in the near future. Here is a link to that article.
https://www.recordonline.com/news/20181209/state-will-convert-current-i-84-exit-signs-to-mileage-based-numbers
The Hutch-Merritt Parkway exit configurations make no sense at all. I mentioned in an earlier post that I was iffy about a lot of the mileage-based exit numbers, but in this case I'm looking forward to them a lot more. I vaguely remember reading something about why Connecticut starts off with Exit 27 on Merritt Parkway after Exit 30 on the NY-CT State Line, but I forgot what it was.
And I wouldn't be surprised if the spur to I-684 gets an exit number in the process as well.
The Hutch-Merritt Parkway exit configurations make no sense at all. I mentioned in an earlier post that I was iffy about a lot of the mileage-based exit numbers, but in this case I'm looking forward to them a lot more. I vaguely remember reading something about why Connecticut starts off with Exit 27 on Merritt Parkway after Exit 30 on the NY-CT State Line, but I forgot what it was.I still wish we could have had a joint venture between CT and NY where the milage doesn't reset at the border and thus neither do the exit numbers.I guess the Taconic, but NYSDOT is really stalling on that one. Other than that, no other roads pop out of me as being converted.
I was driving back to DE from CT this morning and noticed that the I-684 exit from I-84 is now Exit 68 (formerly Exit 20). That one threw me off. I did see that there's a discussion of mileage-based exits on I-84 in NY. Are any other roads being converted?
Exits on the Taconic used to be numbered sequentially by county. IIRC, exit numbers would have a letter prefix indicating the county. Exit numbers increased heading north, but reset at each county line. Last year, NYSDOT replaced all the signs on the Taconic and applied mile based numbering for the entire length of the parkway. There was an article about the I-84 renumbering that stated that NYSDOT plans to replace signs and renumber exits on the Hutch in the near future. Here is a link to that article.
https://www.recordonline.com/news/20181209/state-will-convert-current-i-84-exit-signs-to-mileage-based-numbers
And I wouldn't be surprised if the spur to I-684 gets an exit number in the process as well.
...I wouldn't be surprised if the spur to I-684 gets an exit number in the process as well.Speaking of which & a side bar: it appears that Goggle Maps erred (https://www.google.com/maps/place/White+Plains,+NY/@41.0268931,-73.7272253,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c29422e2a335d9:0x541404101a5bfc6c!8m2!3d41.0339862!4d-73.7629097) in terms of what's I-684 vs. the spur/Hutchinson River Parkway Connector.
Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1. GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)Honestly, I'd rather the interchange just settle on one number. If that means NY converts and CT just uses the NY number if/when they convert, so be it.
Who's going to win that political battle though? I would sooner bet on 20/1 than either state conceding.Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1. GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)Honestly, I'd rather the interchange just settle on one number. If that means NY converts and CT just uses the NY number if/when they convert, so be it.
Exit 2 A-B: Pelham Parkway East/WestPersonally, I want to see them do a serious overhaul of the Hutch-Pelham-I-95 triangle. And I still want disconnected service roads from Pelham Bay Park Subway station to Co-Op City along I-95.
Exit 3A (SB ONLY): I-95 SOUTH TO I-695/I-295 Throgs Neck Br//Stillwell Ave
Exit 3B (SB ONLY): Baychester Ave//TO I-95 NORTH New Haven
This is precisely why the milage shouldn't reset at the border. The highway historically leads to Boston, the numbers should be continuous.Who's going to win that political battle though? I would sooner bet on 20/1 than either state conceding.Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1. GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)Honestly, I'd rather the interchange just settle on one number. If that means NY converts and CT just uses the NY number if/when they convert, so be it.
I always assumed that the only reason it was different in the first place was because CT didn't feel like renumbering CT 15 when the Hutch was renumbered. Given that it's with NY 120A, I would think a NY number would be most logical, but if numbering it 1 for CT is what would allow a consistent number if CT ever renumbers CT 15 to mile-based, I'll take it.Who's going to win that political battle though? I would sooner bet on 20/1 than either state conceding.Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1. GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)Honestly, I'd rather the interchange just settle on one number. If that means NY converts and CT just uses the NY number if/when they convert, so be it.
*SturbridgeThis is precisely why the milage shouldn't reset at the border. The highway historically leads to Boston, the numbers should be continuous.Who's going to win that political battle though? I would sooner bet on 20/1 than either state conceding.Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1. GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)Honestly, I'd rather the interchange just settle on one number. If that means NY converts and CT just uses the NY number if/when they convert, so be it.
This is precisely why the mileage shouldn't reset at the border. *snipped*...the numbers should be continuous.If such philosophy were applied to every highway in the country; there would be some very high-numbered interchanges in the northeastern part of the country.
Once above 100 - which is normal for a mileage-based approach - it shouldn't really matter.This is precisely why the mileage shouldn't reset at the border. *snipped*...the numbers should be continuous.If such philosophy were applied to every highway in the country; there would be some very high-numbered interchanges in the northeastern part of the country.
Once above 100 - which is normal for a mileage-based approach - it shouldn't really matter.This is precisely why the mileage shouldn't reset at the border. *snipped*...the numbers should be continuous.If such philosophy were applied to every highway in the country; there would be some very high-numbered interchanges in the northeastern part of the country.
So what? I don't think exit 28-05 sounds much worse than exit 355.Once above 100 - which is normal for a mileage-based approach - it shouldn't really matter.This is precisely why the mileage shouldn't reset at the border. *snipped*...the numbers should be continuous.If such philosophy were applied to every highway in the country; there would be some very high-numbered interchanges in the northeastern part of the country.
Until you hit 1000... but we would be well into the thousands for roads like I-90 and even I-95.
I can see it now:"Come visit our new location at South Station! Exit 3017A off the Mass Pike."
Exit 3017A: South Station
Exit 3017B: I-93 North
Exit 3017C: I-93 South
Exit thirty-seventeen A off Masspike. Or call one-eight hundred - seven-six-four-...I can see it now:"Come visit our new location at South Station! Exit 3017A off the Mass Pike."
Exit 3017A: South Station
Exit 3017B: I-93 North
Exit 3017C: I-93 South
So what? I don't think exit 28-05 sounds much worse than exit 355.Until you hit 1000... but we would be well into the thousands for roads like I-90 and even I-95.Once above 100 - which is normal for a mileage-based approach - it shouldn't really matter.This is precisely why the mileage shouldn't reset at the border. *snipped*...the numbers should be continuous.If such philosophy were applied to every highway in the country; there would be some very high-numbered interchanges in the northeastern part of the country.
Yeah, I agree that sequencial exit numbers are better. But unfortunately....So what? I don't think exit 28-05 sounds much worse than exit 355.Until you hit 1000... but we would be well into the thousands for roads like I-90 and even I-95.Once above 100 - which is normal for a mileage-based approach - it shouldn't really matter.This is precisely why the mileage shouldn't reset at the border. *snipped*...the numbers should be continuous.If such philosophy were applied to every highway in the country; there would be some very high-numbered interchanges in the northeastern part of the country.
So... it does matter if you care about the extra digit.
So they didn't change Exit 20N into Exit 68B yet?
And what will Exit 21 be?
NYSDOT installed the first of the mile-based exits on 84: (https://i.imgur.com/PNlXXA1.jpg)
I’m surprised the contractor isn’t using the latest standards for exit tab design.
So they didn't change Exit 20N into Exit 68B yet?
And what will Exit 21 be?
NYSDOT installed the first of the mile-based exits on 84: (https://i.imgur.com/PNlXXA1.jpg)
I’m surprised the contractor isn’t using the latest standards for exit tab design.
NYSDOT installed the first of the mile-based exits on 84: (https://i.imgur.com/PNlXXA1.jpg)
I’m surprised the contractor isn’t using the latest standards for exit tab design.
Which standards to you mean?
I feel like this photo captures the current standards for exit signage fairly well (aside from the centered NY 55 shield) (at least for participating regions/projects): http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=tsp&state=NY&file=101_9117.JPG
Actually, the entire 55 WEST legend should be more centered with respect to the below-control city legend; see the exit ramp BGS further down as an example. I'm guessing that such a fabrication error and the WEST legend was an overlooked entity that was placed on at the last moment before the panel left the shop.I feel like this photo captures the current standards for exit signage fairly well (aside from the centered NY 55 shield) (at least for participating regions/projects): http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=tsp&state=NY&file=101_9117.JPG
Also, WEST should be on the other side of the NY 55 shield.
Yeah, the whole "NY 55 West" legend should be centered, rather than the NY 55 shield. Unfortunately I didn't clarify that properly in my post. Not sure why "West" would be on the left. That would actually be an oddity.Actually, the entire 55 WEST legend should be more centered with respect to the below-control city legend; see the exit ramp BGS further down as an example. I'm guessing that such a fabrication error and the WEST legend was an overlooked entity that was placed on at the last moment before the panel left the shop.I feel like this photo captures the current standards for exit signage fairly well (aside from the centered NY 55 shield) (at least for participating regions/projects): http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=tsp&state=NY&file=101_9117.JPG
Also, WEST should be on the other side of the NY 55 shield.
Thought you guys might get a kick out of this, NYCDOT or NYSDOT replaced these signs a few weeks ago and with a 295 shield in place of a 278 shield.Since no one has said anything yet - thank you. Wish I lived on that side of the river to check it out.
The compass direction can be mounted on either side or above the route-shield as per the MUTCD. Different agencies seem to have different preferences and practices on that. I personally prefer the direction to almost always be to the right of the shield. I'd like to see that as the uniform standard.
I think NY is right more often than not, with some on top, especially if there are a lot of shields needing direction banners on a sign. I don't see left too often, here or elsewhere.
I think NY is right more often than not, with some on top, especially if there are a lot of shields needing direction banners on a sign. I don't see left too often, here or elsewhere.
The compass direction can be mounted on either side or above the route-shield as per the MUTCD.The only times I've seen such displayed in the MUTCD is for left side/lane movements/exits and/or on diagrammatic signs for left side/lane movements. Not for cloverleaf interchanges like the fore-mentioned NY 55/Taconic State Parkway interchange.
Not sure why "West" would be on the left. That would actually be an oddity.
In other words, NY 55 West is a left turn, so WEST should be on the left.Incorrect, the NY 55/Taconic State Parkway interchange is a cloverleaf type. The ramp to NY 55 westbound is the next immediate right (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6701018,-73.7885171,3a,75y,12.7h,86.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2lhwkT6MnMeFTEcblPMTiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) after the Parkway crosses over NY 55.
In other words, NY 55 West is a left turn, so WEST should be on the left.Incorrect, the NY 55/Taconic State Parkway interchange is a cloverleaf type. The ramp to NY 55 westbound is the next immediate right (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6701018,-73.7885171,3a,75y,12.7h,86.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2lhwkT6MnMeFTEcblPMTiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) after the Parkway crosses over NY 55.
To my knowledge, cloverleaf interchanges are never signed per your description. Such IMHO would cause more not less confusion due to the possibility of a motorist thinking that the second ramp is indeed on the left. See page 229 in the MUTCD (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2e.pdf) for appropriate sign legends for cloverleaf interchanges.In other words, NY 55 West is a left turn, so WEST should be on the left.Incorrect, the NY 55/Taconic State Parkway interchange is a cloverleaf type. The ramp to NY 55 westbound is the next immediate right (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6701018,-73.7885171,3a,75y,12.7h,86.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2lhwkT6MnMeFTEcblPMTiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) after the Parkway crosses over NY 55.
Whoa, sorry for the misunderstanding. Obviously, the exit is to the right. I should have said left movement. To a motorist on the northbound Taconic, NY 55 West itself heads left from the junction, so if the shield was on the left, that would be a visual cue of such.
To my knowledge, cloverleaf interchanges are never signed per your description. Such IMHO would cause more not less confusion due to the possibility of a motorist thinking that the second ramp is indeed on the left. See page 229 in the MUTCD (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2e.pdf) for appropriate sign legends for cloverleaf interchanges.
I'm looking everywhere on Google Maps from Astoria to Corona, and I still can't figure out where these signs are supposed to be. And I walked from the 65th Street Subway Station on the IND Queens Boulevard Line to the St. Michael's Cemetery in the BQE-GCP Triangle in April, so I should've recognized the signposts if they were along the way.Thought you guys might get a kick out of this, NYCDOT or NYSDOT replaced these signs a few weeks ago and with a 295 shield in place of a 278 shield.Since no one has said anything yet - thank you. Wish I lived on that side of the river to check it out.
New signage in CT still has the direction to the right, even for a left hand exit. Here's an example a gantry with consecutive left exits, one with the direction to the right, and the other with the direction over the route shield with a TOTo be honest, I had to scour the MUTCD for guidance on this not too long ago, and there is nothing that specifies whether the direction comes before or after the shield. Something I'll make a mental note of to comment on the next NPA.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7861/47112618031_91a1d85fdc_n.jpg)
I'm looking everywhere on Google Maps from Astoria to Corona, and I still can't figure out where these signs are supposed to be. And I walked from the 65th Street Subway Station on the IND Queens Boulevard Line to the St. Michael's Cemetery in the BQE-GCP Triangle in April, so I should've recognized the signposts if they were along the way.Thought you guys might get a kick out of this, NYCDOT or NYSDOT replaced these signs a few weeks ago and with a 295 shield in place of a 278 shield.Since no one has said anything yet - thank you. Wish I lived on that side of the river to check it out.
There are cases where I prefer to find the cardinal direction above the shield. Two or more shields on the same BGS, for starters.Depends on the sign. I think I recall an image of an APL in Alabama that had the directions on top even though all that did was add to the sign height since there was ample horizontal space.
Imagine how intense it would be if you had three or four shields on one sign with all the cardinals on the right. The middle one(s) would have a cardinal on both sides, a recipe for confusion. Legend and shield sizes would have to decrease just to fit the sign over the road.
Or you could stack the shields vertically, but then think about how tall the sign would be. There would be no space allotment left to include the destinations.
Interestingly enough, the newer signs (http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i390&state=NY&file=101_9338.JPG) in the area of webny99's example also have the direction on the right, even though it was on the left.
I'm looking everywhere on Google Maps from Astoria to Corona, and I still can't figure out where these signs are supposed to be. And I walked from the 65th Street Subway Station on the IND Queens Boulevard Line to the St. Michael's Cemetery in the BQE-GCP Triangle in April, so I should've recognized the signposts if they were along the way.Thought you guys might get a kick out of this, NYCDOT or NYSDOT replaced these signs a few weeks ago and with a 295 shield in place of a 278 shield.Since no one has said anything yet - thank you. Wish I lived on that side of the river to check it out.
It's roughly at Astoria Blvd EB and 30th St. Looks like the old sign on the right did not have a 278 shield. The new one has an erroneous "295 West." https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7698262,-73.9164171,3a,78y,98.63h,100.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siza4Ero15GQl-WyVY-Hjvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I'm wondering about I-84...is Exit 1 the only exit which can remain as is?
In CT, 1 would become 1AUnless there's an official set of plans/documents stating such; that could be open for debate. Should CTDOT adopt the use of Exit 0; the current Exit 1 would change to that given that it's adjacent to the NY border.
in MA, 1 would become 3.Agreed.
The only differences up to 8 in CT would be making Exit 2 into 1B EB and 1 B-C WB, since it falls within the 1 MP. NB)After looking through GSVs, the mainline I-84 overpass for Exit 2/2B-A is located between MM 1.0 and 1.2; so rounding up to the next whole number is not out of the ordinary. PA did similar for the I-95/PA 320/352 interchange in Chester; Exit 6 despite the overpasses being located at MM 5.4. Usually MM X.5 at the center of the interchange/crossing is the decider for rounding up to the next whole number (i.e. Exit X+1).
I'm looking everywhere on Google Maps from Astoria to Corona, and I still can't figure out where these signs are supposed to be. And I walked from the 65th Street Subway Station on the IND Queens Boulevard Line to the St. Michael's Cemetery in the BQE-GCP Triangle in April, so I should've recognized the signposts if they were along the way.Thought you guys might get a kick out of this, NYCDOT or NYSDOT replaced these signs a few weeks ago and with a 295 shield in place of a 278 shield.Since no one has said anything yet - thank you. Wish I lived on that side of the river to check it out.
It's roughly at Astoria Blvd EB and 30th St. Looks like the old sign on the right did not have a 278 shield. The new one has an erroneous "295 West." https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7698262,-73.9164171,3a,78y,98.63h,100.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siza4Ero15GQl-WyVY-Hjvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Zachb, the Meadowbrook Pkwy. toll plaza at Exit-M10 was recently torn down and the road is being rebuilt to a new configuration. The routing that you described must be a temporary detour.
Mrsman, I completely agree with you that I-278 in Brooklyn and Queens should be signed North-South. I've felt that way for the last fifty years since I was a kid and I've never understood why it is signed as East-West. So you're not alone in your thinking! LOL
Maybe this part of the thread should be moved to the Metro-North thread that I started a while back, and considered merging into the general LIRR/NJT and other commuter railroad thread because it was being ignored.And that makes me wonder if you just experience highly unusual traffic patterns, because that's what there was at that time and date. At the same time, the MNR train out of Poughkeepsie was what can only be described as "standing room only" (and inaccurately so, since there was no "room"), which happens a statistically negligible number of times per year. (The local train out of Croton was dead empty.)
Not to get too off topic, but it's ridiculous how terrible the service is on the Upper Hudson line considering Dutchess & Putnam county residents pay the same MTA taxes as everyone else downstate. Once you leave electrified territory MNR just doesn't seem to care–Upper Hudson line trains are usually packed, peak and off-peak, but there's never been any push to improve service. The diesel coaches are also the worst out of the entire fleet (with no replacement in the foreseeable future) and the locomotives are very mechanically problematic. There's clearly high demand on the line, weekend trains are frequently standing room only, especially on holidays and when the weather's nice, but running the bare minimum in service just pushes people to drive.
It's interesting that you mention that, since as I alluded to before, I haven't observed service issues to be the norm at all (and my regular commute involves the Poughkeepsie trains up to Peekskill). The biggest headaches usually involves crowds heading to Yankee games and other special events, but not because they fill the train, only because they are the opposite of tranquil. Still, the typical Poughkeepsie train is miles above the Harlem and New Haven lines in availability of seating, and compared to the LIRR or NJT, well… :-)
This is a common issue. Check out the debate on the Penn Tpke./I-95 Interchange thread re: I-295's cardinal directions. LOL
And as I mentioned possibly on that board, one way to solve this whole issue would be to follow the German Autobahn practice of using route shields and cities only, with no cardinal directions shown. But seriously, I believe the U.S. practice is better and more informative.
NYSDOT installed the first of the mile-based exits on 84: (https://i.imgur.com/PNlXXA1.jpg)While riding along I-84 westbound towards the I-684 interchange last night (June 17); I noticed that the old BGS' (w/the sequential exit numbers) for Exits 69/21 & 68/20 are still on the premises; laying face-up in most instances adjacent the signposts/gantries.
Any news on the Rooftop Highway?You kidding?
Any news on the Rooftop Highway?
Any news on the Rooftop Highway?
Any news on the Rooftop Highway?
Any progress report on how far down I-84 they've gotten with this project? I've only heard about the 5 easternmost exits so far.
As of this past Monday, at the latest, the partial interchange (former-Exit 21) between I-684 and the CT State Line was renumbered to Exit 69.Any progress report on how far down I-84 they've gotten with this project? I've only heard about the 5 easternmost exits so far.I drove the eastern-most leg of I-84 on Saturday; the 684/22 interchange remains the only renumbered interchange.
One thing I noticed about the new mileage-based exit signs in New York is that there are no Old Exit Number tabs.
One thing I noticed about the new mileage-based exit signs in New York is that there are no Old Exit Number tabs.Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.
Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.
Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.
I'm pretty sure I vaguely remember them being at the I-84/I-684 interchange, below the sign.One thing I noticed about the new mileage-based exit signs in New York is that there are no Old Exit Number tabs.
Maybe an add after the fact?
:spin:One thing I noticed about the new mileage-based exit signs in New York is that there are no Old Exit Number tabs.Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.
Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.
Those didn't involve changing numbers, as they were unnumbered previously.
One thing I noticed about the new mileage-based exit signs in New York is that there are no Old Exit Number tabs.Actually, separate OLD EXIT XX panels are placed below the new main panels on the ground-mounted signs. I'm not sure whether similar panels were/will be placed near the elevated signs. The only one I saw in my recent travels was the cantilevered I-684 BGS just prior to the exit ramp from westbound I-84.
Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.
Those didn't involve changing numbers, as they were unnumbered previously.
US 15 has numbers, those were renumbered, and there are "FORMERLY EXIT XX" signs placed there. Streetview still shows them.Those didn't involve changing numbers, as they were unnumbered previously.Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.
Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.
Those didn't involve changing numbers, as they were unnumbered previously.
US 15 has numbers, those were renumbered, and there are "FORMERLY EXIT XX" signs placed there. Streetview still shows them.
Someone on this forum used FORMERLY but the MUTCD standard is OLD. Shorter and gets the point across.Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.
Those didn't involve changing numbers, as they were unnumbered previously.
US 15 has numbers, those were renumbered, and there are "FORMERLY EXIT XX" signs placed there. Streetview still shows them.
I recently had a discussion with a fellow road geek about this, “FORMERLY EXIT XX” or “OLD EXIT XX” , as with the I-84 project NYSDOT has now used both. The first time I saw “FORMERLY EXIT XX” in New York was on NY 17 in the Elmira area. I know Massachusetts used “FORMERLY EXIT XX” along MA 128 back in the 80s. Some states use one, some states use the other, are there any other states that use both FORMERLY and OLD?
US 15 has numbers, those were renumbered, and there are "FORMERLY EXIT XX" signs placed there. Streetview still shows them.Those didn't involve changing numbers, as they were unnumbered previously.Yeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.
It would seem that you are referring to NY. However, we were talking about PA, which did not have numbers on US 15 prior to getting the I-99 numbers in the last couple years.
I believe MA 25 uses FORMERLY, but RI uses OLDYeah this isn't Pennsylvania where you have 20 year old "new exit! wow!" signs.They never did when they had US 15 renumbered to match I-99's mileage.
Those didn't involve changing numbers, as they were unnumbered previously.
US 15 has numbers, those were renumbered, and there are "FORMERLY EXIT XX" signs placed there. Streetview still shows them.
I recently had a discussion with a fellow road geek about this, “FORMERLY EXIT XX” or “OLD EXIT XX” , as with the I-84 project NYSDOT has now used both. The first time I saw “FORMERLY EXIT XX” in New York was on NY 17 in the Elmira area. I know Massachusetts used “FORMERLY EXIT XX” along MA 128 back in the 80s. Some states use one, some states use the other, are there any other states that use both FORMERLY and OLD?
Massachusetts has always used FORMERLY when interchange numbers were revised in the past.I recently had a discussion with a fellow road geek about this, “FORMERLY EXIT XX” or “OLD EXIT XX” , as with the I-84 project NYSDOT has now used both. The first time I saw “FORMERLY EXIT XX” in New York was on NY 17 in the Elmira area. I know Massachusetts used “FORMERLY EXIT XX” along MA 128 back in the 80s. Some states use one, some states use the other, are there any other states that use both FORMERLY and OLD?I believe MA 25 uses FORMERLY, but RI uses OLD
OSM has a good rule about not putting in the new numbers until the whole road has been converted, however they had the Taconic done almost immediately.In that case, there were no old numbers - the exits were unnumbered prior to getting mile-based exit numbers, so it's not really a "conversion".
It still lists I-95 through Rhode Island as a "free" limited access highway, even though Rhode Island started collecting tolls on trucks last summer.Given that those tolls only applies towards trucks and not passenger cars/vehicles; Rand McNally probably felt justified in not showing the truck-tolled stretches as a full-blown toll facilities since the majority of their customers are in passenger vehicles.
General road atlases are aimed at passenger cars. I believe there are special truck atlases where showing I-95 as tolled would be appropriate.
Current and past Rand McNally (RMN) editions would show the single-corridored VA 267 & the Dulles (Airport) Access Road in dual colored free/toll line (such was usually shown wider. I believe RMN shows I-95 north of Baltimore, where the centered Express-Toll lanes are located, as dual-colored as well.General road atlases are aimed at passenger cars. I believe there are special truck atlases where showing I-95 as tolled would be appropriate.
Even on routes with tolled lanes (HOT, express, etc.) Rand McNally depicts them with a blue line, which corresponds to the route being "free" according to their map legend, so I agree they need to come up with another color to indicate a "mixed" route that coule either be free or tolled under certain conditions.
On a related note, it'll be interesting to see how Rand McNally and other mapmakers handle the tolling of all vehicles going into parts of Manhattan. To me, it looks lime they'll need to come up with another color legend to depict tolled streets.Is that actually going to take place?
On a related note, it'll be interesting to see how Rand McNally and other mapmakers handle the tolling of all vehicles going into parts of Manhattan. To me, it looks lime they'll need to come up with another color legend to depict tolled streets.
Probably. :-DOn a related note, it'll be interesting to see how Rand McNally and other mapmakers handle the tolling of all vehicles going into parts of Manhattan. To me, it looks lime they'll need to come up with another color legend to depict tolled streets.
Is that a hint for which color to use?
Some awful new roundabout guide signage posted by NYSDOT on their twitter page. Black arrows? Seriously?While we're at it, the last arrow shouldn't be there. The roundabout should end in a stub since there's no destination associated with the U-turn.
I see NYSDOT region 2 (Utica) is getting rid of quite a few overhead sign gantries and replacing them with ground mounted signs. They’re also adding control cities for NY 49 and I-790/NY 5 as appropriate.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=25984&p_is_digital=Y
I picked up the 2020 Rand McNally Road Atlas last week. It has the new mile-based exit numbers listed for I-84 through New York, but it doesn't list exit numbers for the Taconic Parkway even though the Taconic received mile-based exit numbers a year or two ago.Anything else mile-based in New York, beside I-84 and I-95?
Anything else mile-based in New York, beside I-84 and I-95?:confused: When did I-95 in NY convert? To my knowledge, the only recent change there was the AET conversion along the New England Thruway portion.
Anything else mile-based in New York, beside I-84 and I-95?:confused: When did I-95 in NY convert? To my knowledge, the only recent change there was the AET conversion along the New England Thruway portion.
Anything else mile-based in New York, beside I-84 and I-95?
I picked up the 2020 Rand McNally Road Atlas last week. It has the new mile-based exit numbers listed for I-84 through New York, but it doesn't list exit numbers for the Taconic Parkway even though the Taconic received mile-based exit numbers a year or two ago.
Yes, but you said they didn't show it on the Road Atlas.Anything else mile-based in New York, beside I-84 and I-95?
I picked up the 2020 Rand McNally Road Atlas last week. It has the new mile-based exit numbers listed for I-84 through New York, but it doesn't list exit numbers for the Taconic Parkway even though the Taconic received mile-based exit numbers a year or two ago.
I-99/US-15, I-781 and the Taconic Parkway are mile-based. The Hutch is slated to convert to mile-based exits next year.
Can't we just use I-95 at South of the Border as an example?Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1. GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)Honestly, I'd rather the interchange just settle on one number. If that means NY converts and CT just uses the NY number if/when they convert, so be it.
I see NYSDOT region 2 (Utica) is getting rid of quite a few overhead sign gantries and replacing them with ground mounted signs. They’re also adding control cities for NY 49 and I-790/NY 5 as appropriate.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=25984&p_is_digital=Y
Well, that interchange is mostly in NC, and the roadway continues into both states. NY 120A, though it dips into CT, is a NY state touring route and both directions ultimately head to NY.Can't we just use I-95 at South of the Border as an example?Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1. GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)Honestly, I'd rather the interchange just settle on one number. If that means NY converts and CT just uses the NY number if/when they convert, so be it.
So much low hanging fruit for exit number conversions: all the I-x90s (890 is already), I-787, I-495, I-86, I-88, I-81...I-787 is interesting because it averages one exit per mile. Might even be easier to just leave them as-is. If it were to convert, it would likely look like this:
I did see y'all thinking out loud about I-81 going once they figure out the viaduct boondoggle. Personally, I'd love to see them keep the viaduct rather than pushing all the traffic to I-481.
Possibly with the completion of the work in Birmingham if there are plans for it. I think there might be some minor work in Vestal needed, however.
Possibly with the completion of the work in Birmingham if there are plans for it. I think there might be some minor work in Vestal needed, however.
vdeane meant Binghamton. Honestly, extending Interstate 81 down Interstate 59 would be an intriguing Fictional Highways thread.IMHO, it's something that should happen. Practically a straight line diagonal from Canada to the Gulf. And no new construction needed, just signage. :clap:
Found this in downtown Rochester.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1527095,-77.6061667,3a,15y,267.29h,86.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQKoTE2a11mD4vawabZc_4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
The shield for I 490 is painted on the pavement. I wonder how long that will last.
Whatever it worth:Found this in downtown Rochester.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1527095,-77.6061667,3a,15y,267.29h,86.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQKoTE2a11mD4vawabZc_4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
The shield for I 490 is painted on the pavement. I wonder how long that will last.
Looks to me to be a preformed thermoplastic shield. Based on the installations I've seen in Massachusetts and other states, they tend to be fairly durable.
I'm looking forward to the Hutchinson River Parkway (and hopefully, many other New York roads) having its exit numbers converted from sequential-to-milepost in 2020. Please post to this thread when the conversion occurs, and if any other New York roads also receive such a conversion.
Any ideas when I-86 will finally be signed between the state line in Waverly to the Tioga/Broome line? Also, I think it's time to take down the "TO" banners for I-86 around Vestal.
Not worth its own thread, so I'll post here: Friday afternoon was an absolute disaster for the entire road network on Rochester's east side, thanks to the closure of the NY 104 ramp between the Irondequoit and the Bay Bridge. A lot of people either didn't realize the Bay Bridge itself was open, or decided to backtrack using Empire or Browncroft, instead of the posted detour using 590 North. The ramp is going to remain closed for about a month, and there's already a dedicated Facebook group - you can tell we're not used to traffic! :-PI encountered that Friday afternoon and used Browncroft/Atlantic mainly because the on ramp to Empire was such a cluster.
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2019/07/15/bay-bridge-project-route-104-east-ramp-closure-facebook-group-webster-rochester-ny/1733330001/
I encountered that Friday afternoon and used Browncroft/Atlantic mainly because the on ramp to Empire was such a cluster.
Irondequoit Bay Bridge carries around 67K vehicles per day according to wiki.I encountered that Friday afternoon and used Browncroft/Atlantic mainly because the on ramp to Empire was such a cluster.
Yesterday (Monday) was just as bad as Friday. I can only imagine the mid-week days will be worse.
I found out about the closure about a week or so in advance. I had a gut feeling that the impact on Browncroft and Blossom would be monstrous, but I never told anyone, because it seems so absolutely absurd that there would even be any impact. So now, everyone else is wondering what is the deal with all the traffic? I can explain the ramp closure, but making the connection between a closure on 104 and the traffic so much further south is a stretch, even for the most intuitive folks.
It is really a multi-dimensional problem with applications far beyond the area directly affected. I can only say I vastly, vastly, underestimated the volume of traffic crossing the Bay Bridge and heading south to their east side destination. Much of the traffic exiting at Empire is choosing not to head north; instead detouring via Empire or Atlantic, given that their destination may indeed be south of Empire!
Prior to this, I basically assumed that the Bay Bridge, regardless of your origin, was a viable route only for points north of NY 404. I now realize how many people, coming from 104, use it to head south to their Penfield or West Webster destination. With the closure, there is simply not enough capacity on the other routes across Irondequoit Creek to accommodate the additional traffic. Yet, as soon as people start taking the posted detour, 590 North instantly backs up. The single lane ramp to 104, clogged enough on a good day, simply can't handle all 32,000 vehicles headed for the Bay Bridge. So now you have people from 104 East and 590 North (the two peak directions in the afternoon), detouring onto Empire and Browncroft, and, once those back up, also Blossom. Intersections all over the east side that usually function well even at peak times start failing, with disastrous effects.
EDIT TO ADD: The ramp from NY 590 to 104 east needs to be two lanes and has needed that for years.The way it's striped suggests that it was at one time and was removed to eliminate a short merge lane on the left.
EDIT TO ADD: The ramp from NY 590 to 104 east needs to be two lanes and has needed that for years.The way it's striped suggests that it was at one time and was removed to eliminate a short merge lane on the left.
Irondequoit Bay Bridge carries around 67K vehicles per day according to wiki.
Also, I expect already crowded NY 441 is being impacted by this as well with drivers using Five Mile Line Rd. and NY 250 to reach points north.
I miss the original blue Thruway signs on both the mainline and NE Thruway. I even remember that US 1 was texted as Route 1 at one interchange in New Rochelle and Exit 14 near Spring Valley was signed as Route 59 up until the late 80's when the NYSTA replaced the signs with the current overhead guides in Rockland County.
I miss the original blue Thruway signs on both the mainline and NE Thruway. I even remember that US 1 was texted as Route 1 at one interchange in New Rochelle and Exit 14 near Spring Valley was signed as Route 59 up until the late 80's when the NYSTA replaced the signs with the current overhead guides in Rockland County.Care for some old blue Thruway signage from a movie?
Anyone remember that in the early-1980's when all the old wooden park signs along the Southern State Parkway were replaced, they replaced them all with overhead Big Brown Signs in Nassau County, and then later on in the decade, they replaced them with Big Green Signs to be MUTCD-compliant? They left the brown signs for Valley Stream State Park behind.
I actually convinced them to do that, because it was an exit for a park.
Those were later additions, but they need more of them in the vicinity of Belmont Lake State Park. I also remember recommending them in that area. In fact, I think they should have them for Hempstead Lake State Park as well, or at least a split brown and green one for that. If I recall, there was an old proposal to upgrade the interchange at Exit 18 with some ramps for Eagle Avenue and other strictly for the park. Had this been built, separately colored signs would've been a good idea there instead.Anyone remember that in the early-1980's when all the old wooden park signs along the Southern State Parkway were replaced, they replaced them all with overhead Big Brown Signs in Nassau County, and then later on in the decade, they replaced them with Big Green Signs to be MUTCD-compliant? They left the brown signs for Valley Stream State Park behind.
I actually convinced them to do that, because it was an exit for a park.
That’s pretty cool, there also brown sign for Belmont lake state park e/b southern state pkwy. All of the overhead signs on Robert Moses Causeway south of the GSB bridge are brown as well recently put up. There use to be a brown sign for e/b heckscher pkwy on w/b sunrise hwy service rd too but has been changed to green when the bridge deck was relaxed couple years ago.
I just discovered this planning map from the 1960s today...
It makes me wonder, is there still a chance of an I-190/NY-400 direct connection?
I just discovered this planning map from the 1960s today...Is there a reason? Getting to I-190 from 400 is really quick on 90. It makes no difference and would be incredibly redundant. Yes, that stretch of 16 can be slow. Incredibly slow at times.
It makes me wonder, is there still a chance of an I-190/NY-400 direct connection?
Also, this would involve demolishing houses, Tim Russert Park and an active freight line.
News just came out that NYSDOT will be doing some temporary striping this weekend at 590N and 104E to provide 2 lanes on the ramp. Makes sense, considering there's no merging traffic right now with the closed ramp. Honestly, I'm surprised it wasn't done sooner.
Welp... that didn't take long. The new Exit 58 gore sign on I-84 westbound has been taken out.You don't think it was targeted, do you? Or was it just another drunk, stoned, or distracted driver that plowed into it?
Barely a month?
Welp... that didn't take long. The new Exit 58 gore sign on I-84 westbound has been taken out.You don't think it was targeted, do you? Or was it just another drunk, stoned, or distracted driver that plowed into it?
Barely a month?
Welp... that didn't take long. The new Exit 58 gore sign on I-84 westbound has been taken out.
Barely a month?
Welp... that didn't take long. The new Exit 58 gore sign on I-84 westbound has been taken out.You don't think it was targeted, do you? Or was it just another drunk, stoned, or distracted driver that plowed into it?
Barely a month?
Googlemaps show the removal of the WB NY 17 ramp from NY 32 SB in Woodbury, NY. For traffic heading west from NY 32 now has another ramp at US 6. Is that a permanent thing, or is that a temporary ramp during the NY 17 & 32 Bridge replacement?everything is temporary right now
Considering that in nearby NJ they have been getting rid of them (or they were in the 1990's anyway) and now they want to make the same mistakes as their neighbor did.A modern roundabout and an old-style NJ traffic circle are two completely different things.
Heck if Florida did not learn what over developing did from New Jersey's mistake, why cannot New York either from other mistakes like this.
Boy, a DDI and two new roundabouts? Gonna be a lot of confused drivers in that area!
Yeah, as engineers unlearn how to design, users have to put more effort into compensating for deficiencies..Boy, a DDI and two new roundabouts? Gonna be a lot of confused drivers in that area!
Reading and comprehending signs and other markings should not be an exception to standard motorist behavior.
In Massachusetts a NJ circle is a Rotary. Anyway, they function the same regardless as they bring a bunch of roads together around a circle.
You may add lane design, where at certain exits of roundabout outer lane is an exit-only lane, making inner lane an outer one. So exit from inner lane is not an issue. Lane designation for certain exits and especially communicating that information to drivers is a weak point of many roundabouts, thoughQuote from: roadman65In Massachusetts a NJ circle is a Rotary. Anyway, they function the same regardless as they bring a bunch of roads together around a circle.
No they don't. In Massachusetts, *ALL* rotaries have traffic entering the circle yielding to traffic already in the circle, much as is the case for a roundabout. Several of the New Jersey circles give right-of-way to the entering traffic instead....Flemington and Somerville being two examples. This results in VERY DIFFERENT operational functions. And it isn't the first time you've been told this on this forum.
To SignBridge: roundabouts are designed with a smaller radii than traffic circles and flared entrances to reduce right-of-way requirements and reduce entering speeds (and thus reduce crash severity). As I noted above, traffic already inside the roundabout has right-of-way over entering traffic, while the opposite is true of many New Jersey circles. Roundabouts also don't have traffic signals, while many traffic circles (especially in D.C.) do.
Boy, a DDI and two new roundabouts? Gonna be a lot of confused drivers in that area!
Reading and comprehending signs and other markings should not be an exception to standard motorist behavior.
Reading and comprehendingsigns and other markingsshould not be an exception to standardmotoristbehavior.
Who cares the technical terms. They exist! This is not an exam at MIT where we must know the technical term. It's like Chef and a Kitchen Manager in a Restaurant are both the same function, though one went to school and receives not only the title but the respect to have him addressed as "Chef" and not by name. Yet both manage a kitchen staff.Quote from: roadman65In Massachusetts a NJ circle is a Rotary. Anyway, they function the same regardless as they bring a bunch of roads together around a circle.
No they don't. In Massachusetts, *ALL* rotaries have traffic entering the circle yielding to traffic already in the circle, much as is the case for a roundabout. Several of the New Jersey circles give right-of-way to the entering traffic instead....Flemington and Somerville being two examples. This results in VERY DIFFERENT operational functions. And it isn't the first time you've been told this on this forum.
To SignBridge: roundabouts are designed with a smaller radii than traffic circles and flared entrances to reduce right-of-way requirements and reduce entering speeds (and thus reduce crash severity). As I noted above, traffic already inside the roundabout has right-of-way over entering traffic, while the opposite is true of many New Jersey circles. Roundabouts also don't have traffic signals, while many traffic circles (especially in D.C.) do.
Errr... no, not even close to ALL. There are several smaller rotaries, off the state highway system, where there is basically a free-for-all.
No they don't. In Massachusetts, *ALL* rotaries have traffic entering the circle yielding to traffic already in the circle, much as is the case for a roundabout.
Vdeane, I recall that there are technical differences between an old-style traffic circle and a roundabout. Could you briefly summarize the differences in layman's terms?
Where? The smaller rotaries I can think of still expect entering drivers to yield.Errr... no, not even close to ALL. There are several smaller rotaries, off the state highway system, where there is basically a free-for-all.
No they don't. In Massachusetts, *ALL* rotaries have traffic entering the circle yielding to traffic already in the circle, much as is the case for a roundabout.
An interesting question about reading and comprehending.Boy, a DDI and two new roundabouts? Gonna be a lot of confused drivers in that area!
Reading and comprehending signs and other markings should not be an exception to standard motorist behavior.
And a plethora of news articles every time a new one goes in. However, lest the specifics detract from my underlying point, I'll offer a revision of your response:Quote
Reading and comprehendingsigns and other markingsshould not be an exception to standardmotoristbehavior.
Or to put it another way: having once (or twice, or a zillion times) been given a piece of information, to what extent should we be reasonably expected to have, comprehend and retain that information?
Maybe you expect it, but the signs tend to go missing. Now, is this veering off topic?Where? The smaller rotaries I can think of still expect entering drivers to yield.Errr... no, not even close to ALL. There are several smaller rotaries, off the state highway system, where there is basically a free-for-all.
No they don't. In Massachusetts, *ALL* rotaries have traffic entering the circle yielding to traffic already in the circle, much as is the case for a roundabout.
I don't find such things to be unintuitive at all. Proper pavement markings (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6457273,-73.8518233,3a,75y,230.88h,94.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smYfjlI2NXZtY1bxIDPJSIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) go a long way (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.106734,-77.5762945,3a,75y,353.56h,71.25t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-dR1uj3F4xFi-QNgvyg5yg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-dR1uj3F4xFi-QNgvyg5yg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D154.60045%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656). In these examples, the roundabout lane assignment is just like a turning lane, and going the wrong way through the DDI would be a clear right turn.Intuitive is an antithesis to "proper marking". And yes, they go a long way: https://imgur.com/a/15r4ynE (https://imgur.com/a/15r4ynE) - actually on that particular circle I see cars going wrong way on the circle - a head-on approach happens to me approximately every other year. Either I am pretty lucky, or that should happen a few times a week at that location.
Tappan Zee Bridge signs being patched:When I saw the title for the first time, I thought they are patching " Gov. Cuomo bridge" to "Gov. M. Cuomo bridge"
https://hosted.ap.org/republicanherald/article/8c6b66e40c6a4c8f8d9f742153bb115e/ny-fixing-new-bridge-signs-due-ex-govs-missing-initial (https://hosted.ap.org/republicanherald/article/8c6b66e40c6a4c8f8d9f742153bb115e/ny-fixing-new-bridge-signs-due-ex-govs-missing-initial)
Edit: replaced with a link to the full AP version of the article.
Who cares the technical terms[?]
Problems occur when bad designs (even with best intentions) come into play[…]
It's good to know that New York has all its potholes patched and can afford to grant Gov. Cuomo his little ego trip. Of all the things to get worked up over, the missing middle initial is hardly worthy of consideration.During my recent trip to New England last week; I already saw at least two overhead BGS' that now have the initial. One of them replaced an older sign listing Tappan Zee Bridge along I-287 westbound approaching the merge w/the Thruway/I-87. Note: As of this past Friday (Aug. 16), only the left BGS was replaced. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0594155,-73.827602,3a,75y,267.09h,84.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syf9i6lSGwPl16XXO9hzi6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
It's good to know that New York has all its potholes patched and can afford to grant Gov. Cuomo his little ego trip. Of all the things to get worked up over, the missing middle initial is hardly worthy of consideration.During my recent trip to New England last week; I already saw at least two overhead BGS' that now have the initial. One of them replaced an older sign listing Tappan Zee Bridge along I-287 westbound approaching the merge w/the Thruway/I-87. Note: As of this past Friday (Aug. 16), only the left BGS was replaced. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0594155,-73.827602,3a,75y,267.09h,84.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syf9i6lSGwPl16XXO9hzi6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
The I-84 exit numbers are now all mileage based east of the Hudson.Wow! That is a big step now that all that is started. Who would ever think that NY would go mileage. I mean I-99 is, but only a short distance and so new, but an existing highway to be renumbered. Wonder what one will be the next?
There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design
I chose plate 1 because it's simple.
Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.
There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-designI choose neither, because they're all too white.
I chose plate 1 because it's simple.
Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.
The I-84 exit numbers are now all mileage based east of the Hudson.Wow! That is a big step now that all that is started. Who would ever think that NY would go mileage. I mean I-99 is, but only a short distance and so new, but an existing highway to be renumbered. Wonder what one will be the next?
Just so you know where US 9W and US 6 meet at Bear Mountain its a circle by NJ standards but whoever wrote about it in Wikipedia calls it a roundabout.Because on Wikipedia, they forced the name "roundabout" on all of them.
I don't know why New York has such an obsession with re-plates. NJ has plenty of plates that are older than 2002 (NY's last forced re-plate) on the road still.
There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design
I chose plate 1 because it's simple.
Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.
my vote would be for plate 1 using plate 5's "NEW YORK" and "EXCELSIOR" text design.
On the winning design, which will be selected based on public opinion and expert reviews.There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design
I chose plate 1 because it's simple.
Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.
my vote would be for plate 1 using plate 5's "NEW YORK" and "EXCELSIOR" text design.
I see the state's egomaniac-in-chief had to get "Dad's Bridge" on one of the designs?
Plate 5 all the way, particularly because they plan on replacing the Blue and White Empire plates with them. The past 2 designs were simple and timeless, but the 1986 Liberty plates are still the best.Currently NJ plates issued as far back as 1959 are still valid so long as the registration never lapsed. Old straw plates (issued 1959-1979) are still kicking around. Less and less all the time for obvious reasons.
I don't know why New York has such an obsession with re-plates. NJ has plenty of plates that are older than 2002 (NY's last forced re-plate) on the road still.
I don't understand why they're changing from the current "new" plate, the blue and orange. Why not just standardize that design instead of always having at least two different color plates for the same state?The original intent for the Empire Gold plates WAS to replace the Empire Blue plates in their entirety, as a way to raise money during the Great Recession. Massive public backlash resulted in the plan being scrapped (not only did people object to paying the fees, the design was hated). However, the plates had already been manufactured by then, so they were used for new plates going forward. I'm guessing the contest and only forcing plate changes on 10+ year old plates are ways of trying to avoid that backlash.
As for why we're changing, making it easier to read plates on toll gantries seems to be a major motivation.
Let's just name it the Mario Tappan Cuomo Zee Oh Look At The Pretty Hudson River Bridge and call it a day!What's in a name? You think many call Washington National Airport as Reagan National? Does anyone call the RFK Bridge by that name? Is the Hugh Carey Tunnel yet called by its latest name?
Looks like a detail is coming up - plates older than 10 years are to be replaced. Which is somewhat meaningful, as 10 years take toll on plates. My set is almost 12, if I remember correctly, and they start to show the age. Saying that worn out plates are not read properly is almost reasonable.As for why we're changing, making it easier to read plates on toll gantries seems to be a major motivation.
Gov. Cuomo supposedly said as much, in announcing the "contest." He said the new plates will make for easier image recognition on the ALPR's to be used to enforce congestion pricing in Manhattan.
Looks like a detail is coming up - plates older than 10 years are to be replaced. Which is somewhat meaningful, as 10 years take toll on plates. My set is almost 12, if I remember correctly, and they start to show the age. Saying that worn out plates are not read properly is almost reasonable.As for why we're changing, making it easier to read plates on toll gantries seems to be a major motivation.
Gov. Cuomo supposedly said as much, in announcing the "contest." He said the new plates will make for easier image recognition on the ALPR's to be used to enforce congestion pricing in Manhattan.
I looked around the parking lot this morning. There are still some A**-**** plates on the lot, and those were issued during first half mandatory replacement, i.e. in 2001-early 2002. They are still readable, but definitely show the age.Looks like a detail is coming up - plates older than 10 years are to be replaced. Which is somewhat meaningful, as 10 years take toll on plates. My set is almost 12, if I remember correctly, and they start to show the age. Saying that worn out plates are not read properly is almost reasonable.As for why we're changing, making it easier to read plates on toll gantries seems to be a major motivation.
Gov. Cuomo supposedly said as much, in announcing the "contest." He said the new plates will make for easier image recognition on the ALPR's to be used to enforce congestion pricing in Manhattan.
Green Massachusetts plates (30 years!) are still legible.
A**-****
Let's just name it the Mario Tappan Cuomo Zee Oh Look At The Pretty Hudson River Bridge and call it a day!What's in a name? You think many call Washington National Airport as Reagan National? Does anyone call the RFK Bridge by that name? Is the Hugh Carey Tunnel yet called by its latest name?
How many still call Denali, Mount McKinley?
A**-****You don't have to censor yourself.
I am old enough to remember it being called Idlewild. Seriously, do you thing anyone still calls it that?Probably a few that still call JFK Idlewild. And how many people call the 59th Street bridge by its official full name? And of course, there’s the whole 128 thing in MA.Let's just name it the Mario Tappan Cuomo Zee Oh Look At The Pretty Hudson River Bridge and call it a day!What's in a name? You think many call Washington National Airport as Reagan National? Does anyone call the RFK Bridge by that name? Is the Hugh Carey Tunnel yet called by its latest name?
How many still call Denali, Mount McKinley?
[
He said the new plates will make for easier image recognition on the ALPR's to be used to enforce congestion pricing in Manhattan.
The transition to Empire Gold did not involve a mandatory replacement. Even now, close to 10 years after Empire Gold became our plate design, there are still a large number of vehicles with the older Empire Blue plates. Note that the Empire Gold design was unpopular and NY allows people to hang onto plates when they change vehicles, so many people have done just that.[
He said the new plates will make for easier image recognition on the ALPR's to be used to enforce congestion pricing in Manhattan.
Really? Because easier recognition was the reason they gave for going to the Empire Gold in the first place.
Why is the Empire Gold plate not popular? I think it looks fine. And which plates are the ones not being read properly by toll cameras? The gold or the older blue/white plates?Empire Blue is more aesthetically pleasing than Empire Gold.
A**-****You don't have to censor yourself.
Ha. It actually happens to be a perfect match for a-hole, but he meant plates in the A- series.
Well I'm glad that's all the public has to worry about. Interestingly, in neighboring New Jersey, they have had the same dull looking beige license plates with black lettering since at least the 1960's if not longer. Though it does look to be a slightly brighter shade in recent years.
Denali, Mount McKinley? Unofficial, never approved by Congress.
Not. They did an end run around the legitimate process.Quote from: BeltwayDenali, Mount McKinley? Unofficial, never approved by Congress.Doesn't need to be approved by Congress. The Board of Geographic Names has that authority and, barring any action by the Board, the Secretary of the Interior also has authority.
The legitimate process still does not require Congressional approval.
I dispute that.Looks like a detail is coming up - plates older than 10 years are to be replaced. Which is somewhat meaningful, as 10 years take toll on plates. My set is almost 12, if I remember correctly, and they start to show the age. Saying that worn out plates are not read properly is almost reasonable.As for why we're changing, making it easier to read plates on toll gantries seems to be a major motivation.
Gov. Cuomo supposedly said as much, in announcing the "contest." He said the new plates will make for easier image recognition on the ALPR's to be used to enforce congestion pricing in Manhattan.
Green Massachusetts plates (30 years!) are still legible.
Thanks J&N. I had completely forgotten about the blue plates. Do you remember what years they were used? And yes I guess the new plate is a light-yellow as compared to the original beige. But still a very no-frills design compared to New York's various plates over the years. (chuckle)The blue plates were issued from 1979-1992.
The legitimate process still does not require Congressional approval.
It was an illegitimate way to change the name of a nationally known location.
Vdeane, I recall that there are technical differences between an old-style traffic-circle and a roundabout. Could you briefly summarize the differences in layman's terms?
The green-on-white MA plate on my mother's 2001 Escort that she had since 1992 was still legible through 2016... when she totaled it hitting a tree (she was 79 at the time). Her driving days ended after that & the plate was since turned in to the RMV.Green Massachusetts plates (30 years!) are still legible.I dispute that.
Vdeane, I recall that there are technical differences between an old-style traffic-circle and a roundabout. Could you briefly summarize the differences in layman's terms?
I was surprised there wasn't another response answering your question yet so here goes...
The NJ traffic circles (such as Somerville and Flemington and others) generally are very large diameter sort of round traffic islands. ONE direction of one of the roads (usually the dominant road and only in one direction of it) gets to come flying into the circle with nothing more restrictive than ad advisory speed. In fact, the posting of the advisory speed is usually the best before you get there clue that you are on the leg of the circle that doesn't yield.
No matter how you get into the circle (from the no stop dominant road or you dart out into a gap from one of the other yielding roads), you don't yield or stop for anything until and unless you make it back around to the dominant road. I believe the circle has stops at that point but in practice you'd have to stop almost all the time anyway because these are busy places even off hours.
In my opinion (was a NJ resident for 3 years) the circles aren't such a terrible thing but they are VERY intimidating to the uninitiated. Really though the main stress with them comes from them being so large and busy with multiple lanes, some of which often are forced to exit at a certain leg. That one direction doesn't stop isn't that challenging to deal with and keeps at least that one leg from almost ever backing up too much. Some circles (Somerville being one) have a stop light about 500 feet from one of the non favored legs of the circle which helps to create gaps in the onslaught of people coming from that leg and that helps keep the circle moving.
Really, the circles are an industrial strength intersection that are nothing anybody would choose to build unless they had a 6 way intersection and a crap load of traffic. But for those unfortunate intersections with NJ's unfortunate volume of traffic, they are about the only way to do what they do that allow all roads to connect to all others at that point.
Some of them have been modified recently to allow the dominant road to go around or even completely over the circle making the circle more of an 'exit to the circle' option for non-through traffic on the dominant road...
What's in a name? You think many call Washington National Airport as Reagan National?in NOVA, i regularly hear the airports referred to as "Reagan" and "Dulles" - so that's a yes.
The hotel was probably named after the park rather than the mountain.The legitimate process still does not require Congressional approval.
It was an illegitimate way to change the name of a nationally known location.
I worked a summer in Denali National Park back in about 1996 and believe me, the Denali name was overwhelmingly dominant already. I worked at the 'Parks Hotel Denali' not 'Parks Hotel McKinley' etc. One of the few times when a name change is embraced more quickly by much of the public than by the bureaucracy.
I worked a summer in Denali National Park back in about 1996 and believe me, the Denali name was overwhelmingly dominant already. I worked at the 'Parks Hotel Denali' not 'Parks Hotel McKinley' etc. One of the few times when a name change is embraced more quickly by much of the public than by the bureaucracy.Two different entities.
Vdeane, I recall that there are technical differences between an old-style traffic-circle and a roundabout. Could you briefly summarize the differences in layman's terms?
I was surprised there wasn't another response answering your question yet so here goes...
The NJ traffic circles (such as Somerville and Flemington and others) generally are very large diameter sort of round traffic islands. ONE direction of one of the roads (usually the dominant road and only in one direction of it) gets to come flying into the circle with nothing more restrictive than ad advisory speed. In fact, the posting of the advisory speed is usually the best before you get there clue that you are on the leg of the circle that doesn't yield.
No matter how you get into the circle (from the no stop dominant road or you dart out into a gap from one of the other yielding roads), you don't yield or stop for anything until and unless you make it back around to the dominant road. I believe the circle has stops at that point but in practice you'd have to stop almost all the time anyway because these are busy places even off hours.
In my opinion (was a NJ resident for 3 years) the circles aren't such a terrible thing but they are VERY intimidating to the uninitiated. Really though the main stress with them comes from them being so large and busy with multiple lanes, some of which often are forced to exit at a certain leg. That one direction doesn't stop isn't that challenging to deal with and keeps at least that one leg from almost ever backing up too much. Some circles (Somerville being one) have a stop light about 500 feet from one of the non favored legs of the circle which helps to create gaps in the onslaught of people coming from that leg and that helps keep the circle moving.
Really, the circles are an industrial strength intersection that are nothing anybody would choose to build unless they had a 6 way intersection and a crap load of traffic. But for those unfortunate intersections with NJ's unfortunate volume of traffic, they are about the only way to do what they do that allow all roads to connect to all others at that point.
Some of them have been modified recently to allow the dominant road to go around or even completely over the circle making the circle more of an 'exit to the circle' option for non-through traffic on the dominant road...
Traffic circles are perfectly fine traffic control devices when the volume isn't too severe. This is why circles lasted in a lot of areas of NJ that were much more suburban or rural until the mid to late 80s in most places. However, it does bear pointing out that there's also a reason NJDOT has invested in either eliminating or updating so many of them in the past 30-40 years. Once traffic volumes get much higher, they become much more dangerous and cause more problems than they solve. Somerville is probably the worst example of a traffic circle that one could ever give these days. The best option would be for it to finally be completely eliminated, but geometry, the need for land, and other factors make that impractical at best. Flemington should probably be eliminated as well, but they have done the work over there to move a lot of thru traffic on 202 out of the circle itself with the bypass roads.
Roundabouts are designed for smaller intersections to not need a traffic light and can better manage traffic than stop signs and the like.
Also, why just "Denali" and not "Mount Denali"? To give it a human or spirit name?
Also, why just "Denali" and not "Mount Denali"? To give it a human or spirit name?for this point, I provide Haleakalā as relevant precedent (the largest mountain on the island of Maui). it may not be common in English, but it's plenty common in other languages.
Or the Matterhorn in the Alps.That's actually a satisfying short hike (Camel's Hump).
Here in Vermont, we have a mountain that's simply called Camel's Hump.
Or the Matterhorn in the Alps.That's actually a satisfying short hike (Camel's Hump).
Here in Vermont, we have a mountain that's simply called Camel's Hump.
There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design
I chose plate 1 because it's simple.
Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.
Delaware asks you to hold its Dogfish Head.There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design
I chose plate 1 because it's simple.
Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.
Honestly, CT and MA have the nation's blandest plates.
Even though it is about to be acquired by a company in one of the aforementioned bland states?Delaware asks you to hold its Dogfish Head.There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design
I chose plate 1 because it's simple.
Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.
Honestly, CT and MA have the nation's blandest plates.
Texas has had a black on white color scheme since 2012. I'd say that's quite bland.There's a vote underway for new license plate design: https://now.ny.gov/page/s/vote-for-the-next-nys-license-plate-design
I chose plate 1 because it's simple.
Honestly I wish NY had a simple California style license plate that's timeless.
Honestly, CT and MA have the nation's blandest plates.
Syracuse.com: This will be the last NYS Fair with that traffic signal on I-690 (https://www.syracuse.com/statefair/2019/08/this-will-be-the-last-nys-fair-with-that-traffic-signal-on-i-690.html)This'll also mean the end of the button copy flip signs, if they aren't already gone.
I'm a bit disappointed that a unique Interstate quirk won't be in my local area anymore.
Syracuse.com: This will be the last NYS Fair with that traffic signal on I-690 (https://www.syracuse.com/statefair/2019/08/this-will-be-the-last-nys-fair-with-that-traffic-signal-on-i-690.html)
I'm a bit disappointed that a unique Interstate quirk won't be in my local area anymore.
Syracuse.com: This will be the last NYS Fair with that traffic signal on I-690 (https://www.syracuse.com/statefair/2019/08/this-will-be-the-last-nys-fair-with-that-traffic-signal-on-i-690.html)This'll also mean the end of the button copy flip signs, if they aren't already gone.
I'm a bit disappointed that a unique Interstate quirk won't be in my local area anymore.
When's the last day of the fair? If my car is fixed soon I might head that way to get a look at it. I've never seen it before.Syracuse.com: This will be the last NYS Fair with that traffic signal on I-690 (https://www.syracuse.com/statefair/2019/08/this-will-be-the-last-nys-fair-with-that-traffic-signal-on-i-690.html)This'll also mean the end of the button copy flip signs, if they aren't already gone.
I'm a bit disappointed that a unique Interstate quirk won't be in my local area anymore.
They’re all still there, saw them last Saturday. I was thinking they had been replaced when all the ground mounted signs in the area were replaced, but the button copy signs remained intact. They’re the only signs that still have patches over the exit numbers when the exits were renumbered in the late 1980s.
When's the last day of the fair? If my car is fixed soon I might head that way to get a look at it. I've never seen it before.Syracuse.com: This will be the last NYS Fair with that traffic signal on I-690 (https://www.syracuse.com/statefair/2019/08/this-will-be-the-last-nys-fair-with-that-traffic-signal-on-i-690.html)This'll also mean the end of the button copy flip signs, if they aren't already gone.
I'm a bit disappointed that a unique Interstate quirk won't be in my local area anymore.
They’re all still there, saw them last Saturday. I was thinking they had been replaced when all the ground mounted signs in the area were replaced, but the button copy signs remained intact. They’re the only signs that still have patches over the exit numbers when the exits were renumbered in the late 1980s.
Has that traffic signal on Interstate 690 been there since the Interstate first opened? Would it have been possible to provide a connection that did not need at-grade access (possibly like what they are planning to do now)?
Any new pics for the I-84 sign replacement and exit conversion?
Looks like the SB Thruway at I-787 was a major choke point today. As I've complained in the past, it's too bad they didn't continue the six lanes down to NY 17.FTFY
Looks like the SB Thruway at I-787 was a major choke point today. As I've complained in the past, it's too bad they didn't continue the six lanes down to NY 17.FTFY
I would disagree.Looks like the SB Thruway at I-787 was a major choke point today. As I've complained in the past, it's too bad they didn't continue the six lanes down to NY 17.FTFY
Granted, it needs it. But given that won't happen in the near-term, the Berkshire Spur seems like a lot more logical spot for a lane drop than I-787.
^ His point was there's enough of a typical traffic drop at the Berkshire Spur to where it would make the next logical termini for a Thruway widening. Sure, it may only see 14-15K, but the vast majority of that 14-15K is coming from the north.Not sure about that, especially for holiday traffic. As I mentioned, that stretch really feels desolate pretty much every time I drive there - people don't really use that, even when Masspikje traffic is good. For me the prime reason to use Berkshire connector is to bypass commute or road work on free I-90. None of those are an issue on Labor day. In particular, backup on 787 interchange should trigger free I-90 routing on most navigators.
Eh, I see LOS D or worse more often than not during daylight hours between Harriman and Albany. Weekends, it's often LOS E over that stretch with recurrent morning/evening congestion south of Kingston. One little fender bender shouldn't cause a 20 mile backup, yet that's what happens on the Thruway south of Albany. The congestion this weekend wasn't "holiday weekend only", it is MOST weekends. Some states would widen for weekend tourist traffic (see: Colorado and I-70 west of Denver). An extra lane south of Albany would definitely not hurt and ~50K is where most agencies would widen. Heck, the Ohio Turnpike has generally 4-laned anything with an AADT over 30K! Surely a toll facility should provide better traffic flow than a free facility. NY is lacking here.That is @Alps' point - either 6-lane all the way, or an extra exit of 6-lane highway is just a feel-good. While we all know what would work best, I doubt Thruway is going to have resources for that as everything went towards Daddy's Bridge.
I'd be willing to bet that a widening south of Kingston would have the side benefit of taking some traffic off of US 9W. That's where a lot of people (myself included) bail to if flow is remotely unstable. If I'm gonna be stop and go, may as well not pay a toll for doing so.
Eh, I see LOS D or worse more often than not during daylight hours between Harriman and Albany. Weekends, it's often LOS E over that stretch with recurrent morning/evening congestion south of Kingston. One little fender bender shouldn't cause a 20 mile backup, yet that's what happens on the Thruway south of Albany. The congestion this weekend wasn't "holiday weekend only", it is MOST weekends. Some states would widen for weekend tourist traffic (see: Colorado and I-70 west of Denver). An extra lane south of Albany would definitely not hurt and ~50K is where most agencies would widen. Heck, the Ohio Turnpike has generally 4-laned anything with an AADT over 30K! Surely a toll facility should provide better traffic flow than a free facility. NY is lacking here.This year, it seemed to be that way the whole system. I haven't had a drive from Rochester to Albany where there wasn't some section of stop and go (or worse, completely stopped) even though such used to be rare on the portion I travel.
I'd be willing to bet that a widening south of Kingston would have the side benefit of taking some traffic off of US 9W. That's where a lot of people (myself included) bail to if flow is remotely unstable. If I'm gonna be stop and go, may as well not pay a toll for doing so.
There is a lot commuter traffic on 787. Albany (area, not city) grows west and north, a bit to the east - but very little commuter traffic goes south. So 200 days a year that lane drop at 787 is perfectly meaningful.
^ His point was there's enough of a typical traffic drop at the Berkshire Spur to where it would make the next logical termini for a Thruway widening. Sure, it may only see 14-15K, but the vast majority of that 14-15K is coming from the north.
The congestion this weekend wasn't "holiday weekend only", it is MOST weekends. Some states would widen for weekend tourist traffic (see: Colorado and I-70 west of Denver).
Heck, the Ohio Turnpike has generally 4-laned anything with an AADT over 30K! Surely a toll facility should provide better traffic flow than a free facility. NY is lacking here.
This year, it seemed to be that way the whole system. I haven't had a drive from Rochester to Albany where there wasn't some section of stop and go (or worse, completely stopped) even though such used to be rare on the portion I travel.
I've been commuting weekly to Syracuse from Albany for a while now (coming back to Albany on weekends). The traffic on the Thruway has been more than tolerable. The only slower part has been between Syracuse and NY 13 on the way back on Fridays and it isn't that much of a slowdown.
Now that left-hand merge from I-690 EB to I-481 NB on the other hand is just a little dicey. :D
New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any state
New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any state
I bet the Dakotas have less.
I immediately thought of Wyoming. I can't think of anything that's 6 lanes there.New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any state
I bet the Dakotas have less.
I immediately thought of Wyoming. I can't think of anything that's 6 lanes there.New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any stateI bet the Dakotas have less.
New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any state
I bet the Dakotas have less.
Vermont says hi...we don't even have URBAN 6-lane highways...New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any stateI bet the Dakotas have less.
Thruway has Daddy's bridge as a monster money sink. AET transition will not be free as well.Vermont says hi...we don't even have URBAN 6-lane highways...New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any stateI bet the Dakotas have less.
OK, of any state with both true rural areas AND several significant population centers (250k +).
Also, unlike the Dakotas, Wyoming, Vermont, Rhode Island, etc., the Thruway literally has more bridges than you can count sitting there with space for an extra lane. Some states are actually designating funding for widening projects, while NYSTA wouldn't even have to do that, hardly. A Thruway widening would probably be the cheapest interstate widening in US history.
Vermont says hi...we don't even have URBAN 6-lane highways...New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any stateI bet the Dakotas have less.
OK, of any state with both true rural areas AND several significant population centers (250k +).
Also, unlike the Dakotas, Wyoming, Vermont, Rhode Island, etc., the Thruway literally has more bridges than you can count sitting there with space for an extra lane. Some states are actually designating funding for widening projects, while NYSTA wouldn't even have to do that, hardly. A Thruway widening would probably be the cheapest interstate widening in US history.
Also keep in mind the grades around Little Falls. Check out how the ramps were built for that interchange, now for a community for which no one knows why it exists.Vermont says hi...we don't even have URBAN 6-lane highways...New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any stateI bet the Dakotas have less.
OK, of any state with both true rural areas AND several significant population centers (250k +).
You're moving the goalposts...QuoteAlso, unlike the Dakotas, Wyoming, Vermont, Rhode Island, etc., the Thruway literally has more bridges than you can count sitting there with space for an extra lane. Some states are actually designating funding for widening projects, while NYSTA wouldn't even have to do that, hardly. A Thruway widening would probably be the cheapest interstate widening in US history.
I agree with Kalvado. A Thruway widening basically anywhere east of about Utica would require a fair bit of blasting, and especially south of Albany.
You're moving the goalposts...😌OK, of any state with both true rural areas AND several significant population centers (250k +).Vermont says hi...we don't even have URBAN 6-lane highways...New York probably has the least rural six lane highways of any stateI bet the Dakotas have less.
A Thruway widening basically anywhere east of about Utica would require a fair bit of blasting, and especially south of Albany.
This is a good example (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2462148,-73.8891464,3a,40.8y,241.18h,82.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK_EDgHcWMH7ZMzawT5i6_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for the Albany-Harriman section. Narrower median, more rock cuts, steeper grades, etc. It's only really flat north of exit 21B.
Here's a better example showing the type of blasting that would be necessary, and also an example of the median rock ledges I mentioned above.
Why add a third lane when you can just tell cars to use the Taconic? That's what I would do.
But since we're reading into Val's example, I can spot two things offhand. First, the rock ledge on both sides does not meet current clear-zone standards outside the right shoulder. Second, the median in that particular spot would need to be widened by about 6 feet to meet full standards for a 6-lane urban section (as this would be classified given the fully paved median with Jersey barrier). It technically would meet minimum standards, but it wouldn't meet FHWA's preference for a full left shoulder with 6 lanes.
Here's a better example (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2076593,-73.916468,3a,75y,15.3h,89.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skmULpT5YRu-oUDg3_IMB4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) showing the type of blasting that would be necessary, and also an example of the median rock ledges I mentioned above.
Why add a third lane when you can just tell cars to use the Taconic? That's what I would do.
The southern portions of the Taconic, from Southern Dutchess and down, are already deficient at their heaviest volumes (weekend vacation traffic). Trying to enter the road from a stop sign during the peak few hours on Friday evening or Sunday is especially bad, and when people are forced to wait too long for a gap, they make unsafe decisions. With the road's safety issues (at-grade intersections in Dutchess, general narrowness and curviness in Putnam) where a single crash will frequently cripple traffic for hours, I don't think sending more traffic down the Taconic is a great idea.
Here’s New York’s new license plate design (https://www.wwnytv.com/2019/09/06/heres-new-yorks-new-license-plate-design/)
I like this quite a bit, actually, and it was easily my favorite of the five. Still not a fan of the mandatory fee involved with their replacement, but the new design is still far better than the butt-ugly Empire Gold plates.
Here’s New York’s new license plate design (https://www.wwnytv.com/2019/09/06/heres-new-yorks-new-license-plate-design/)I really like the design, too. I think it does a nice job showcasing the state. Funny thing is, one of my neighbors has NY plates and they still have the mid/late-2000s blue and white plate.
I like this quite a bit, actually, and it was easily my favorite of the five. Still not a fan of the mandatory fee involved with their replacement, but the new design is still far better than the butt-ugly Empire Gold plates.
Meanwhile, some people here are tired of our gradient blue design here in Connecticut. My only problem with them was when we started issuing 7 character plates. The letter/number font was quite narrow and hard to read from a distance.I personally felt kind of meh about Connecticut's plate design (though I always liked the Preserve the Sound plates). Maryland has a special plate that actually looks similar to the CT plate from a distance so I'd get excited to see someone from home down here in DE, but then I see it's MD and feel slightly disappointed.
Then there were people who complained when Maine added the lobster on some of their plates in 1987 or so. Some locals think it looked like a giant cockroach.IIRC, the complaints regarding the lobster on those plates was because the color of it was shown as red; a color that's associated with a lobster after it's boiled (i.e. dead). The majority color for live lobsters is usually black.
Black? Nah. They usually are called "greenish brown" or similar when live.I prefer the blue ones. Rare lobsters taste better.
Here’s New York’s new license plate design (https://www.wwnytv.com/2019/09/06/heres-new-yorks-new-license-plate-design/)I really like the design, too. I think it does a nice job showcasing the state. Funny thing is, one of my neighbors has NY plates and they still have the mid/late-2000s blue and white plate.
I like this quite a bit, actually, and it was easily my favorite of the five. Still not a fan of the mandatory fee involved with their replacement, but the new design is still far better than the butt-ugly Empire Gold plates.Meanwhile, some people here are tired of our gradient blue design here in Connecticut. My only problem with them was when we started issuing 7 character plates. The letter/number font was quite narrow and hard to read from a distance.I personally felt kind of meh about Connecticut's plate design (though I always liked the Preserve the Sound plates). Maryland has a special plate that actually looks similar to the CT plate from a distance so I'd get excited to see someone from home down here in DE, but then I see it's MD and feel slightly disappointed.
Speaking of I-690 near the Fair, I've long wondered... is there any reason why this ramp to I-690 east (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.081809,-76.2243502,3a,75y,87.95h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHB3Oik3C3bgkYF5Vfy2T7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is closed?
And you have Jersey, which still looks like a smeared egg thrown against a wall,
Aren't the Fair parking lots used for concerts in the Amphitheater?Speaking of I-690 near the Fair, I've long wondered... is there any reason why this ramp to I-690 east (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.081809,-76.2243502,3a,75y,87.95h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHB3Oik3C3bgkYF5Vfy2T7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is closed?
I guess I wonder, does it really serve any purpose when the Fair isn't going?
Getting away from Syracuse for a bit...any progress on the I-84 renumbering project? Are they west of the Hudson with it now?
Speaking of I-690 near the Fair, I've long wondered... is there any reason why this ramp to I-690 east (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.081809,-76.2243502,3a,75y,87.95h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHB3Oik3C3bgkYF5Vfy2T7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is closed?
I guess I wonder, does it really serve any purpose when the Fair isn't going?
What is with the ghost ramp along I-690:
1956 view showing the lack of ghost ramps but the location of a wide path that appears to be a former railroad grade (but no topo map can confirm this): https://www.historicaerials.com/location/43.10688868558635/-76.24458230353763/1956/16
1960 topo showing the ghost ramps: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/43.10471703398228/-76.24035867617145/T1960/16
1972 view showing the never finished ramps and what appears to be a single lane underpass: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/43.104727253843635/-76.24038577079773/1972/16
Speaking of I-690 near the Fair, I've long wondered... is there any reason why this ramp to I-690 east (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.081809,-76.2243502,3a,75y,87.95h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHB3Oik3C3bgkYF5Vfy2T7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is closed?
I guess I wonder, does it really serve any purpose when the Fair isn't going?
Oddly enough, it looks open in satellite/3D view (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.0818281,-76.2243822/43.0817869,-76.2243745/@43.0819586,-76.2253568,54a,35y,105.94h,69.56t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0)...
Aren't the Fair parking lots used for concerts in the Amphitheater?Speaking of I-690 near the Fair, I've long wondered... is there any reason why this ramp to I-690 east (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.081809,-76.2243502,3a,75y,87.95h,89.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHB3Oik3C3bgkYF5Vfy2T7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is closed?
I guess I wonder, does it really serve any purpose when the Fair isn't going?
Thank you for contacting the Department of Transportation regarding the I590/I490 interchange. As part of our project development process, we look for operational improvement opportunities, such as the one you have suggested below. We have reviewed your concept for changing the ramp configuration and estimate it would cost close to $1 Million for highway reconstruction to make the 490 WB ramp its own lane onto 590 SB and create a new ramp lane for 490 EB to 590 SB. Since the interchange has space constraints and Interstate standards (i.e. taper lengths and shoulder widths) must be maintained, this concept would require construction of a new through lane from 490 WB and ramp lane from 490 EB. Furthermore, new embankment retaining structures, drainage and highway lighting relocation, and new guide rail installation would likely be needed.
We currently have a resurfacing project programmed for this interchange in 2021. We will evaluate this and other operational and safety improvements during design of this project and pursue implementing them if funding levels and regional priorities permit. Thanks for your suggestion and interest in improving the highway system.
t was announced along with a bunch of other freight improvement projects (https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/ny-announces-206m-in-new-freight-related-projects/45896) (first entry for the Mid-Hudson Region).
- $10.1 million toward construction of a new travel lane from the Interstate 90 interchange at Route 78 to Route 33 (Genesee Street) in the town of Cheektowaga (new)
Based on the description, I'm guessing NY 78. NY 33 and Genesee Street are very much separate where they cross the Thruway.t was announced along with a bunch of other freight improvement projects (https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/ny-announces-206m-in-new-freight-related-projects/45896) (first entry for the Mid-Hudson Region).
I know I'm cross posting this from the "NY 17/I-86" thread, but I thought it would be relevant here as well, and just wanted to ask if anyone has any additional info on the below:Quote- $10.1 million toward construction of a new travel lane from the Interstate 90 interchange at Route 78 to Route 33 (Genesee Street) in the town of Cheektowaga (new)
What is this referring to? At first, I assumed it's the Thruway that's getting the new travel lane. But then I realized it could be referring to NY 78. Given the price tag, the fact that it's "freight-related", and my estimation of the priorities in the area, I'm certainly hoping it is indeed the Thruway!
If so, then what is going on with stretch from NY 33 to I-290? It must be westbound only that's getting a new lane? I certainly don't see a need for a sixth eastbound lane, but westbound could certainly use an auxiliary lane between Cleveland Dr. and NY 33 WB, with said lane exiting at NY 33 WB, and the fourth (current rightmost) lane continuing to NY 33 EB.
A suggestion had come up in the "what would you do with 40 lane miles?" thread, regarding I-590 SB, where a through lane from I-490 WB (overtaking the existing lane contributed by I-490 EB) would provide massive relief during the AM peak hour. I had contacted NYSDOT with my suggestion, and below is the response I got, which was certainly not a definite "no"; I found it both positive and eye-opening:Congrats! You're now valued.QuoteThank you for contacting the Department of Transportation regarding the I590/I490 interchange. As part of our project development process, we look for operational improvement opportunities, such as the one you have suggested below. We have reviewed your concept for changing the ramp configuration and estimate it would cost close to $1 Million for highway reconstruction to make the 490 WB ramp its own lane onto 590 SB and create a new ramp lane for 490 EB to 590 SB. Since the interchange has space constraints and Interstate standards (i.e. taper lengths and shoulder widths) must be maintained, this concept would require construction of a new through lane from 490 WB and ramp lane from 490 EB. Furthermore, new embankment retaining structures, drainage and highway lighting relocation, and new guide rail installation would likely be needed.
We currently have a resurfacing project programmed for this interchange in 2021. We will evaluate this and other operational and safety improvements during design of this project and pursue implementing them if funding levels and regional priorities permit. Thanks for your suggestion and interest in improving the highway system.
Based on the description, I'm guessing NY 78. NY 33 and Genesee Street are very much separate where they cross the Thruway.Quote- $10.1 million toward construction of a new travel lane from the Interstate 90 interchange at Route 78 to Route 33 (Genesee Street) in the town of Cheektowaga (new)What is this referring to? At first, I assumed it's the Thruway that's getting the new travel lane. But then I realized it could be referring to NY 78. Given the price tag, the fact that it's "freight-related", and my estimation of the priorities in the area, I'm certainly hoping it is indeed the Thruway!
It's probably part of a wider project. I don't think I've ever heard of a widening being done on its own in NY - typically there's significant rehabilitation/reconstruction accompanying it. Think of Jefferson Road.Based on the description, I'm guessing NY 78. NY 33 and Genesee Street are very much separate where they cross the Thruway.Quote- $10.1 million toward construction of a new travel lane from the Interstate 90 interchange at Route 78 to Route 33 (Genesee Street) in the town of Cheektowaga (new)What is this referring to? At first, I assumed it's the Thruway that's getting the new travel lane. But then I realized it could be referring to NY 78. Given the price tag, the fact that it's "freight-related", and my estimation of the priorities in the area, I'm certainly hoping it is indeed the Thruway!
On the other hand, there's no way a mere 1/2 mile of new pavement could cost $10.1 million. Even $1 million sounds steep for that short stretch of NY 78.
This is going to be a long time from actually happening. There will be lawsuits. Lots of lawsuits. I for one was hoping for the road/rail hybrid.
That said, if it goes through as proposed, there is going to be a ton of traffic headaches.
Sad day for the Buffalo Skyway. NYS has announced it will be transformed into a linear park with no freeway compliment eastward or tunnel to I-190.
$600 million to get rid of the Skyway as a functional road/bridge. Exit 7 on I-190 southbound will cease to exist.Who needs Buffalo when we've got Toronto as the regional economic driver?
Welcome to a world where NY 198 has been neutered and the Skyway will become a park........and no upgrade in public transit.
The I-84 exit for US 9W in Newburgh still bears the number "10".
The street view shows a short section west of the bridge with a dashed line before it becomes a solid line, but whether construction has changed that since, I don't know. Another question would be, what is the rationale for restricting lane changes on the bridge? I could see having that striping for a short distance, but not the whole way across!The I-84 exit for US 9W in Newburgh still bears the number "10".
Speaking of exit 10, ever notice how lane striping doesn’t permit any traffic from east of Beacon to use it? The right lane of the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge is formed by the ramp entering from NY 9D, and has a solid/dashed line that allows merging out of but not into it. West of the bridge it becomes just a solid line, reinforced by “Stay in Lane” signs, until after you pass exit 10S.
So what’s the “official” route for east-of-Beacon traffic bound for Newburgh/US 9W? :-)
iPhone
After Interstate 84's sequential-to-mileage-based exit renumbering is completed, and the Hutchinson River Parkway converts next year, are there any other roads in New York that have a set date for the same conversion? Or do all the rest of the freeways/tollways and parkways in New York State have no conversion date set yet?IMHO, I-684 would be a logical candidate for such.
The I-84 exit for US 9W in Newburgh still bears the number "10".
Speaking of exit 10, ever notice how lane striping doesn’t permit any traffic from east of Beacon to use it? The right lane of the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge is formed by the ramp entering from NY 9D, and has a solid/dashed line that allows merging out of but not into it. West of the bridge it becomes just a solid line, reinforced by “Stay in Lane” signs, until after you pass exit 10S.
So what’s the “official” route for east-of-Beacon traffic bound for Newburgh/US 9W? :-)
iPhone
After Interstate 84's sequential-to-mileage-based exit renumbering is completed, and the Hutchinson River Parkway converts next year, are there any other roads in New York that have a set date for the same conversion? Or do all the rest of the freeways/tollways and parkways in New York State have no conversion date set yet?IMHO, I-684 would be a logical candidate for such.
On the bridge, the right lane is frequently closed. The dashed lines are there to permit Route 9D traffic to get out of the right lane when it is closed. Through traffic could never enter the right lane on the bridge; there was dashed striping just west of the bridge to permit that move.
You say that like people follow the striping when the right lane is open. But since the right lane is only open for the PM rush or when the left lane is closed for something, it's rarely a concern.
After Interstate 84's sequential-to-mileage-based exit renumbering is completed, and the Hutchinson River Parkway converts next year, are there any other roads in New York that have a set date for the same conversion? Or do all the rest of the freeways/tollways and parkways in New York State have no conversion date set yet?IMHO, I-684 would be a logical candidate for such.
I agree. And since Region 8 seems to be taking the lead here, I wouldn't be shocked if that or the Sprain is the next major route to change. But there is no official conversion date for anything else.On the bridge, the right lane is frequently closed. The dashed lines are there to permit Route 9D traffic to get out of the right lane when it is closed. Through traffic could never enter the right lane on the bridge; there was dashed striping just west of the bridge to permit that move.
You say that like people follow the striping when the right lane is open. But since the right lane is only open for the PM rush or when the left lane is closed for something, it's rarely a concern.
An interesting photo in today's Times Union:
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/00/16/66/16838025/3/975x0.jpg
Photo is said to be from 1978. Apparently both directions are on a single span, pavement marking is weird, and speed limit is 40. Is there some work going on on the other span? Is 40 the work zone limit?
Yes, the second bridge can be seen through the fogAn interesting photo in today's Times Union:
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/00/16/66/16838025/3/975x0.jpg
Photo is said to be from 1978. Apparently both directions are on a single span, pavement marking is weird, and speed limit is 40. Is there some work going on on the other span? Is 40 the work zone limit?
Is that the Twin Bridges on the Northway just north of Albany?
Looks like the solid white line is the demarcation between the two temporary lanes, with the weird pavement markings being the permanent lane markings for a normal width 3 lane bridge.
Odd. I think I was looking up on the bluff but had the view impeded by a power line and not closer to the river.
Here's what I would think the Hutch numbering would look like:
Exit 1A: Bruckner Blvd WEST (NB); TO I-95 SOUTH/I-278 WEST Bruckner Blvd (SB)
Exit 1B: East Tremont Ave/Westchester Ave
Exit 2 A-B: Pelham Parkway East/West
Exit 3A (SB ONLY): I-95 SOUTH TO I-695/I-295 Throgs Neck Br//Stillwell Ave
Exit 3B (SB ONLY): Baychester Ave//TO I-95 NORTH New Haven
Exit 4: Shore Rd Orchard Beach/City Island
Exit 5 (NB ONLY): I-95 NORTH New Haven
Exit 6 (6A SB): US 1 Pelham Manor(/New Rochelle SB)
Exit 6B (SB ONLY): Sandford Blvd Pelham Manor/Mt Vernon
Exit 7A: Wolfs Land Mt Vernon/Pelham (NB); East 3rd St Mt Vernon/Pelham (SB)
Exit 7B: East Lincoln Ave Pelham/Mt Vernon
Exit 8A (NB ONLY): Cross County Parkway WEST TO Saw Mill Parkway Yonkers
Exit 8B (NB ONLY): Pelhamdale Ave/New Rochelle Rd New Rochelle
Exit 9 (SB ONLY): Cross County Parkway WEST TO Saw Mill Parkway Yonkers/GW Bridge
Exit 10A: Webster Ave New Rochelle (NB); Mill Rd EAST New Rochelle (SB)
Exit 10B: North Ave New Rochelle/Eastchester (NB); Mill Rd WEST Eastchester (SB)
Exit 11 (SB ONLY): Wilmot Rd
Exit 12: NY 125 Scarsdale/New Rochelle
Exit 13: Mamaroneck Rd Scarsdale/Mamaroneck
Exit 14 A-B: Mamaroneck Ave SOUTH/NORTH
Exit 16: NY 127 White Plains/Harrison
Exit 17A: Westchester Ave EAST//TO I-287 EAST Rye
Exit 17B: Westchester Ave WEST//TO I-287 West Tappan Zee Br (yes, I left the old name)
Exit 17C (NB ONLY): I-684 NORTH Brewster
Exit 18A: NY 120 TO Westchester Co Airport Purchase St
Exit 18B: Lincoln Ave Rye Brook/Harrison
Exit 19: North Ridge St Rye Brook
Exit 20: NY 120A SOUTH Rye Brook/Greenwich (Merritt Exit 27 will be CT Exit 1. GET ON THE BALL CTDOT)
The one for Exit 68 even has an Old Exits 20 S-N supplement sign. Not the standard square tab, but still impressive.Any new pics for the I-84 sign replacement and exit conversion?
Here's Exit 50 (old 15) https://i.imgur.com/JIlIuSL.jpg
And Exit 68 (old 20) https://i.imgur.com/8H41s5J.jpg
The signs are replaced east of the Hudson, haven't been to Newburgh in a few weeks but I imagine it's made its way to Orange County.
They might not be putting them on every sign. If I remember right, when I-395 in CT converted, only the first advance sign got the "old exit XX" tab.Connecticut is placing the "Old Exit" placard on the first advanced guide sign and the exit sign in the ramp gore. As was the case with I-395 and Route 2A, CONNDOT is taking the same approach when it replaces signs and renumbers exits on Route 72 next year.
I saw this morning while bringing my folks to the airport, that the new Northway "exit 3" southbound on ramp is open, and the old exit 4 on ramp is closed. What's the planned finishing timeframe for that mess?Those ramps are open for a week at least. But it will be worse before becoming better. Repavement of main road is apparently being planned, and that will be interesting. Flyover ramp seems to require a bit more work.
Speaking of I-84 (NY), I was in R8 this past weekend and noticed sign posts just past exit 2 eastbound in the median right at a No U Turn location. Any idea what they are for? Obviously a sign install, but I am not sure what kind.Probably a VMS sign. I know more of those are being installed around the state.
I saw this morning while bringing my folks to the airport, that the new Northway "exit 3" southbound on ramp is open, and the old exit 4 on ramp is closed. What's the planned finishing timeframe for that mess?There's more discussion on that project here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24292.0).
There was repaving when the bridges were replaced too, and that wasn't bad. I can't imagine there would be lane closures during rush hour.I saw this morning while bringing my folks to the airport, that the new Northway "exit 3" southbound on ramp is open, and the old exit 4 on ramp is closed. What's the planned finishing timeframe for that mess?Those ramps are open for a week at least. But it will be worse before becoming better. Repavement of main road is apparently being planned, and that will be interesting. Flyover ramp seems to require a bit more work.
I would speculate that southbound portion may be done on 2 -3 weeks, but northbound may go on hold till next season
There was repaving when the bridges were replaced too, and that wasn't bad. I can't imagine there would be lane closures during rush hour.
A lot of the northbound work is probably dependent on how long it takes to finish the sound wall and overhead sign structures. The lane shifts are already gone. Southbound, there are still lane shifts, and grading/paving needs to be done for the new exit 3 and 4 off ramps as well as the exit 5 on ramp (which is only barely visible from NY 155 and not visible from I-87 or the existing exit 4 ramp at all).
I don't know what the timetable is, but it's not unprecedented for NYSDOT to open things as late as December (when I-781 opened).
I didn't say that pavement work wasn't being planned. But southbound still needs a lot of work - grading for the remainder of the exit 3 ramp only began this week after the on ramp was moved, and work can't proceed on the new exit 4 off ramp and exit 5 on ramp until that is open. I also think the resurfacing of the northbound lanes causing carmageddon for several weeks like you seems to be implying is overblown.
There was repaving when the bridges were replaced too, and that wasn't bad. I can't imagine there would be lane closures during rush hour.
A lot of the northbound work is probably dependent on how long it takes to finish the sound wall and overhead sign structures. The lane shifts are already gone. Southbound, there are still lane shifts, and grading/paving needs to be done for the new exit 3 and 4 off ramps as well as the exit 5 on ramp (which is only barely visible from NY 155 and not visible from I-87 or the existing exit 4 ramp at all).
I don't know what the timetable is, but it's not unprecedented for NYSDOT to open things as late as December (when I-781 opened).
There is plenty of heavy machinery on southbound shoulder, some seem to be trucked in in a past few days. There is a lot of gravel being compacted on the shoulder of southbound mainline. An overpass on northbound is milled so that geotextile is sticking out. Pretty good indications of at least some pavement work being planned.
I actually took a drive down there to see what's going on with that. My guess would be to minimize ROW costs for the multi-use path and/or traffic calming. It matches the stretch along the airport parking, so it's less noticeable than I thought it would be.Wait until Monday... It takes no specific reason to have a parking lot on that highway, and with paving.... Maybe I'll be back home by 8, as I usually wait until traffic clears
Meanwhile, NB Northway paving has begun. Contrary to Kalvado's predictions, traffic was flowing freely, no carmageddon in sight.
I actually took a drive down there to see what's going on with that. My guess would be to minimize ROW costs for the multi-use path and/or traffic calming. It matches the stretch along the airport parking, so it's less noticeable than I thought it would be.I don't think the tradeoff for that stupidly wide multiuse path for no shoulder is a good one. They put a curb in, so if a car has issues, they have to just park in the lane. Seems just stupid from a safety standpoint.
Meanwhile, NB Northway paving has begun. Contrary to Kalvado's predictions, traffic was flowing freely, no carmageddon in sight.
While looking at train videos on YouTube a couple nights ago, I came across a few interesting road-related clips.
New signs are up westbound up to the bridge... no new signs observed west of the bridge, but lots of new signposts are up. The ones in the median appear to be for new VMSs, as several new ones are in the median east of the bridge.
Traveled the length of I-84 in New York state today on a trip from CT to Ohio. Sign replacement project on I-84 has reached the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge. New signs are up westbound up to the bridge... no new signs observed west of the bridge, but lots of new signposts are up. The ones in the median appear to be for new VMSs, as several new ones are in the median east of the bridge.
I will be travelling eastbound later in the week and hope to get the pics up by next weekend.
New signs are up westbound up to the bridge... no new signs observed west of the bridge, but lots of new signposts are up. The ones in the median appear to be for new VMSs, as several new ones are in the median east of the bridge.
Several new VMSes are going up across the state. I-87 is getting them up to the Adirondack Park boundary, formerly only portables existed north of Saratoga Springs. I-88 has a bunch of poles/equipment boxes in the median, too.
New signs are up westbound up to the bridge... no new signs observed west of the bridge, but lots of new signposts are up. The ones in the median appear to be for new VMSs, as several new ones are in the median east of the bridge.
Several new VMSes are going up across the state. I-87 is getting them up to the Adirondack Park boundary, formerly only portables existed north of Saratoga Springs. I-88 has a bunch of poles/equipment boxes in the median, too.
Yes, there is another Governor-Initiated project to install VMS and cameras along major corridors throughout upstate to improve communication during snow and ice season. Its a good project to improve our ITS infrastructure, but the upper management's personal interest in everything being complete by Nov 1, is bordering on obsessive. The Chief of Staff is personally driving around to verify installations for some reason so he can report to the Gov's Chamber. The politics have gotten out of control.
Basically, there's a ton of factors that need to be weighed when selecting the type of guide rail (which is apparently two words, you learn something new every day!) to use.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-repository/chapt_10.pdf
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm
New signs are up westbound up to the bridge... no new signs observed west of the bridge, but lots of new signposts are up. The ones in the median appear to be for new VMSs, as several new ones are in the median east of the bridge.
Several new VMSes are going up across the state. I-87 is getting them up to the Adirondack Park boundary, formerly only portables existed north of Saratoga Springs. I-88 has a bunch of poles/equipment boxes in the median, too.
Yes, there is another Governor-Initiated project to install VMS and cameras along major corridors throughout upstate to improve communication during snow and ice season. Its a good project to improve our ITS infrastructure, but the upper management's personal interest in everything being complete by Nov 1, is bordering on obsessive. The Chief of Staff is personally driving around to verify installations for some reason so he can report to the Gov's Chamber. The politics have gotten out of control.
Another type of VMS installation:
On the 4-lane divided section of NY 36 north of Hornell, about a half-mile before I-86 on each side, there are brand-new plain concrete slabs at ground level, for use as (semi-?)permanent parking spots for portable VMS’s. Is this a new NYSDOT thing?
New signs are up westbound up to the bridge... no new signs observed west of the bridge, but lots of new signposts are up. The ones in the median appear to be for new VMSs, as several new ones are in the median east of the bridge.
Several new VMSes are going up across the state. I-87 is getting them up to the Adirondack Park boundary, formerly only portables existed north of Saratoga Springs. I-88 has a bunch of poles/equipment boxes in the median, too.
Yes, there is another Governor-Initiated project to install VMS and cameras along major corridors throughout upstate to improve communication during snow and ice season. Its a good project to improve our ITS infrastructure, but the upper management's personal interest in everything being complete by Nov 1, is bordering on obsessive. The Chief of Staff is personally driving around to verify installations for some reason so he can report to the Gov's Chamber. The politics have gotten out of control.
Another type of VMS installation:
On the 4-lane divided section of NY 36 north of Hornell, about a half-mile before I-86 on each side, there are brand-new plain concrete slabs at ground level, for use as (semi-?)permanent parking spots for portable VMS’s. Is this a new NYSDOT thing?
New signs are up westbound up to the bridge... no new signs observed west of the bridge, but lots of new signposts are up. The ones in the median appear to be for new VMSs, as several new ones are in the median east of the bridge.
Several new VMSes are going up across the state. I-87 is getting them up to the Adirondack Park boundary, formerly only portables existed north of Saratoga Springs. I-88 has a bunch of poles/equipment boxes in the median, too.
Yes, there is another Governor-Initiated project to install VMS and cameras along major corridors throughout upstate to improve communication during snow and ice season. Its a good project to improve our ITS infrastructure, but the upper management's personal interest in everything being complete by Nov 1, is bordering on obsessive. The Chief of Staff is personally driving around to verify installations for some reason so he can report to the Gov's Chamber. The politics have gotten out of control.
Another type of VMS installation:
On the 4-lane divided section of NY 36 north of Hornell, about a half-mile before I-86 on each side, there are brand-new plain concrete slabs at ground level, for use as (semi-?)permanent parking spots for portable VMS’s. Is this a new NYSDOT thing?
On Tuesday I learned that some portable VMSes in NY have cameras.given the proliferation of cameras all over the place, I still have two questions:
1) Don't know.On Tuesday I learned that some portable VMSes in NY have cameras.given the proliferation of cameras all over the place, I still have two questions:
1. Why only some of them?
2. Where can I view those feeds?
Has there been any discussion on other interstates in NY getting their exit numbers converted next year or so? I see MA is finally going to start as of next year.Not on the ones that really matter (I-90/I-87).
Has there been any discussion on other interstates in NY getting their exit numbers converted next year or so? I see MA is finally going to start as of next year.Not on the ones that really matter (I-90/I-87).
Unfortunately, your perception of the majority of NYers is off. As long as I've lived in NY, people see messing with exit numbers as unneeded. Even on the Northway, people use the numbers for navigation (Up at Exit 19...or whatever).
Most drivers don't care.
Unfortunately, your perception of the majority of NYers is off.On the high side or on the low side? :-/
Most people think of the Northway and Thruway as separate roads around here.
I believe Interstate 86/NY 17 could have a sequential-to-milepost conversion without too much trouble (or protest). That would eliminate the first exit being Exit 4 (becoming Exit 1), and would eliminate the need to use the numerous missing exits numbers along the corridor. 1, 2, 3, 5, 22, 55, 85 and 86 (when/if the missing link around Hale Eddy is built), as well as the missing numbers 88, 91, 95, as well as former 117 would all be rendered redundant if the Interstate 86/NY 17 corridor had such a conversion.
Wait until they go all-electronic ORT. Once you don't need tickets, the exit renumbering becomes much easier.Has there been any discussion on other interstates in NY getting their exit numbers converted next year or so? I see MA is finally going to start as of next year.Not on the ones that really matter (I-90/I-87).
Christ. I don't see it being very difficult to do, just time consuming. I think I speak for most NYers when I say I'm sick of having three sets of exit numbers for both highways.
I believe Interstate 86/NY 17 could have a sequential-to-milepost conversion without too much trouble (or protest). That would eliminate the first exit being Exit 4 (becoming Exit 1), and would eliminate the need to use the numerous missing exits numbers along the corridor. 1, 2, 3, 5, 22, 55, 85 and 86 (when/if the missing link around Hale Eddy is built), as well as the missing numbers 88, 91, 95, as well as former 117 would all be rendered redundant if the Interstate 86/NY 17 corridor had such a conversion.
How about New York City's or Long Island's exit numbers? Outside of the Hutchinson River Parkway's proposed conversion, how much resistance would be encountered to renumber all of their routes' exits to mileage-based? I would speculate that it might be easier to renumber exits in upstate New York than in New York City and Long Island. Am I wrong in making such an assumption?
Close, but not quite. The numbers are a continuation of PA's, but why they start at 4 is a mystery - current PA exit 3 was exit 2 back when they were still sequential!
Although I do want NY to switch over to mileage-based exit numbers, I do like the directional suffixes and the weirdo Long Island prefixes.Yeah, I'm gonna miss if they ever get rid of the prefixes. I bet they'll make the argument about having so many freeways in a small space to keep them.
How about New York City's or Long Island's exit numbers? Outside of the Hutchinson River Parkway's proposed conversion, how much resistance would be encountered to renumber all of their routes' exits to mileage-based? I would speculate that it might be easier to renumber exits in upstate New York than in New York City and Long Island. Am I wrong in making such an assumption?
Is it likely that the portion of Interstate 95 between Exits 8C and 22 (which used to be Exits 1 through 13) will ever have their exits renumbered to mileage-based? It's true there would only be minor number adjustments to the corridor if it was done, but I think when they got rid of the previous exits from the Pelham Parkway onward, they should have Interstate 95's exit numbers mileage-based like the portion from the state line to Orchard Beach/City Island.
I think I speak for most NYers when I say I'm sick of having three sets of exit numbers for both highways.
I've heard many.I think I speak for most NYers when I say I'm sick of having three sets of exit numbers for both highways.
Actually, I'm pretty sure you're the only person (New Yorker or otherwise) I've ever heard say so. :-)
I've heard many.I think I speak for most NYers when I say I'm sick of having three sets of exit numbers for both highways.
Actually, I'm pretty sure you're the only person (New Yorker or otherwise) I've ever heard say so. :-)
The NY route 17/32 interchange reconstruction into a diverging diamond seems to be mostly complete. I drove through it tonight and it was a pretty smooth experience. I did note that a chunk of NY Route 17 had been rebuilt from the ground-up with new concrete with what I assume longitudinal tining.Welcome to my part of the world. Yes, we're doing final adjustments to signals and signing, but the DDI is done.
The NY route 17/32 interchange reconstruction into a diverging diamond seems to be mostly complete. I drove through it tonight and it was a pretty smooth experience. I did note that a chunk of NY Route 17 had been rebuilt from the ground-up with new concrete with what I assume longitudinal tining.Welcome to my part of the world. Yes, we're doing final adjustments to signals and signing, but the DDI is done.
From an engineering perspective, no unusual circumstances proffer themselves (large cracks, misaligned joints, etc.) and everything is built to plan. From a public policy perspective, it comes in within budget and on time (and I believe it's actually a little early).The NY route 17/32 interchange reconstruction into a diverging diamond seems to be mostly complete. I drove through it tonight and it was a pretty smooth experience. I did note that a chunk of NY Route 17 had been rebuilt from the ground-up with new concrete with what I assume longitudinal tining.Welcome to my part of the world. Yes, we're doing final adjustments to signals and signing, but the DDI is done.
What would be the criteria used to declare this project a success?
does traffic flow comes into play at any point?From an engineering perspective, no unusual circumstances proffer themselves (large cracks, misaligned joints, etc.) and everything is built to plan. From a public policy perspective, it comes in within budget and on time (and I believe it's actually a little early).The NY route 17/32 interchange reconstruction into a diverging diamond seems to be mostly complete. I drove through it tonight and it was a pretty smooth experience. I did note that a chunk of NY Route 17 had been rebuilt from the ground-up with new concrete with what I assume longitudinal tining.Welcome to my part of the world. Yes, we're doing final adjustments to signals and signing, but the DDI is done.
What would be the criteria used to declare this project a success?
Well before the project hits the ground.does traffic flow comes into play at any point?From an engineering perspective, no unusual circumstances proffer themselves (large cracks, misaligned joints, etc.) and everything is built to plan. From a public policy perspective, it comes in within budget and on time (and I believe it's actually a little early).The NY route 17/32 interchange reconstruction into a diverging diamond seems to be mostly complete. I drove through it tonight and it was a pretty smooth experience. I did note that a chunk of NY Route 17 had been rebuilt from the ground-up with new concrete with what I assume longitudinal tining.Welcome to my part of the world. Yes, we're doing final adjustments to signals and signing, but the DDI is done.
What would be the criteria used to declare this project a success?
We'r about "success" criteria. What if project engineering works great, it is built on time and on budget - but causes new traffic backups and/or crashes. Would that be a success?Well before the project hits the ground.does traffic flow comes into play at any point?From an engineering perspective, no unusual circumstances proffer themselves (large cracks, misaligned joints, etc.) and everything is built to plan. From a public policy perspective, it comes in within budget and on time (and I believe it's actually a little early).The NY route 17/32 interchange reconstruction into a diverging diamond seems to be mostly complete. I drove through it tonight and it was a pretty smooth experience. I did note that a chunk of NY Route 17 had been rebuilt from the ground-up with new concrete with what I assume longitudinal tining.Welcome to my part of the world. Yes, we're doing final adjustments to signals and signing, but the DDI is done.
What would be the criteria used to declare this project a success?
That is a failure in project scope, not a failure of the project itself.We'r about "success" criteria. What if project engineering works great, it is built on time and on budget - but causes new traffic backups and/or crashes. Would that be a success?Well before the project hits the ground.does traffic flow comes into play at any point?From an engineering perspective, no unusual circumstances proffer themselves (large cracks, misaligned joints, etc.) and everything is built to plan. From a public policy perspective, it comes in within budget and on time (and I believe it's actually a little early).The NY route 17/32 interchange reconstruction into a diverging diamond seems to be mostly complete. I drove through it tonight and it was a pretty smooth experience. I did note that a chunk of NY Route 17 had been rebuilt from the ground-up with new concrete with what I assume longitudinal tining.Welcome to my part of the world. Yes, we're doing final adjustments to signals and signing, but the DDI is done.
What would be the criteria used to declare this project a success?
That could be a failure in the traffic engineering aspect of the project.We'r about "success" criteria. What if project engineering works great, it is built on time and on budget - but causes new traffic backups and/or crashes. Would that be a success?That is a failure in project scope, not a failure of the project itself.
Huh. It's unfortunate your tour of I-690 wasn't delayed a little bit. The Bridge Street project supposedly will be all done quite soon (end of this week?)..except I still need to complain about the exit only arrow on the Bridge St sign over the option lane headed EB.It's not live on the road. It's a video recap.
Huh. It's unfortunate your tour of I-690 wasn't delayed a little bit. The Bridge Street project supposedly will be all done quite soon (end of this week?)..except I still need to complain about the exit only arrow on the Bridge St sign over the option lane headed EB.
The footage to be featured in this presentation was documented on/around October 20 of this year; recent enough so that folks get an accurate idea of the system as it stands at this time. Of course there may be minor ongoing projects in some locations but for our purposes, they're not a significant collective obstacle to showcasing each highway in the series.
Due to time constraints, it will not be possible to go through the videos of every highway we profile; the viewers who tune in to the live stream will be able to influence the direction of this element of the broadcast.
...and the ramp from Bridge Street to I-690 east is still closed. Wonder what happened.Isn't I-690 being demolished along with I-81 in downtown Syracuse?
...and the ramp from Bridge Street to I-690 east is still closed. Wonder what happened.Isn't I-690 being demolished along with I-81 in downtown Syracuse?
Is the NY 17/32 interchange done? According to Google Maps, it is. Opinions on it/does it seem to solve the traffic problem?I just went through it. I think the signal timings are a little off still, but from the time I went through, I can't vouch for how well it solves problems. Gotta give it a little time and then ask commuters.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3175718,-74.1371128,16z
Exactly: I-690 stays with even some ramp reconfigurations/additions.Aw, I was hoping that they'd fix the traffic lights at the fair. On a road trip to Niagara Falls in my youth, the fair just happened to be going on, and I was understandably confused.
They have started to fix that as well. This was the last year for that infamous temporary traffic light.Exactly: I-690 stays with even some ramp reconfigurations/additions.Aw, I was hoping that they'd fix the traffic lights at the fair. On a road trip to Niagara Falls in my youth, the fair just happened to be going on, and I was understandably confused.
They have started to fix that as well. This was the last year for that infamous temporary traffic light.Exactly: I-690 stays with even some ramp reconfigurations/additions.Aw, I was hoping that they'd fix the traffic lights at the fair. On a road trip to Niagara Falls in my youth, the fair just happened to be going on, and I was understandably confused.
The first article does not state that "NYSDOT wants to" implement the road diet, although the second does -- I believe incorrectly. Rather, my understanding is that it is actually Onondaga County that is the sponsor of the project while NYSDOT is assisting by implementing it.
(personal opinion expressed)
Huh. It's unfortunate your tour of I-690 wasn't delayed a little bit. The Bridge Street project supposedly will be all done quite soon (end of this week?)..except I still need to complain about the exit only arrow on the Bridge St sign over the option lane headed EB.
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-toll-20191222-ozqq7atcbrexdpwtukrncm5uim-story.html No more free EB travel into Brooklyn.Shameless money grab.
I always thought it was unusual that the MTA's Verrazzano Bridge collected the toll westbound while all of the Port Authority's Hudson River crossings were tolled eastbound. It kind of defeated the purpose for one facility to be the opposite of all the others.The idea was that you weren't soaking people as hard to head from NJ into NY that way - if it's the same cost as every other way, maybe some people will go through the island, buy coffee and a bagel on the way in, pizza on the way out, do some shopping? You won't have that now. This will lighten some of the load on the SIE at least. The open question is what Port Authority will do once they go cashless - it's assumed they'll keep it one way tolling, but will they consider two way? Will they talk to the NYSTA? What about NYSBA?
I always thought it was unusual that the MTA's Verrazzano Bridge collected the toll westbound while all of the Port Authority's Hudson River crossings were tolled eastbound. It kind of defeated the purpose for one facility to be the opposite of all the others.
And Alps, I'm guessing that when the PA goes cashless, they will toll in both directions again, as it will be relatively simple to erect overhead antennas in both directions, right?
I think the article is stating that MTA is getting after WB Shunpikers. Even myself in 1998, used the Gowanus to the Brooklyn Bridge to FDR SB though the underpass to West Street and through the tunnel to NJ to avoid the tolls coming back from Coney Island. The article said others were doing that as well.I just take the George Washington Bridge early in the morning. I don't avoid tolls coming from Queens, but at least I don't have to look at the never-built Todt Hill Interchange while driving on the SIE. And I don't have to put up with the shitty Manhattan and Brooklyn traffic either.
Yeah the never built Richmond Parkway extension that is a shame it never got done. It would make getting from Brooklyn to the Jersey Shore much easier if it had been completed.I think the article is stating that MTA is getting after WB Shunpikers. Even myself in 1998, used the Gowanus to the Brooklyn Bridge to FDR SB though the underpass to West Street and through the tunnel to NJ to avoid the tolls coming back from Coney Island. The article said others were doing that as well.I just take the George Washington Bridge early in the morning. I don't avoid tolls coming from Queens, but at least I don't have to look at the never-built Todt Hill Interchange while driving on the SIE. And I don't have to put up with the shitty Manhattan and Brooklyn traffic either.
I'm guessing that when the PA goes cashless, they will toll in both directions again, as it will be relatively simple to erect overhead antennas in both directions, right?It's possible that the P.A. could do similar to what MassDOT did when it first implemented AET for the Tobin Bridge several years ago. Convert the existing in/citybound toll plaza into an AET gantry than convert such to 2-way tolling (add outbound gantry) later on... when all the remaining tolled-harbor crossings were converted to AET.
Since New York has a controlling interest in all three Hudson River bridge authorities, it's probably going to be an "all or nothing" thing. Either everything over the Hudson will go bidirectional or nothing will (minus the Castleton-On-Hudson Bridge, which is bidirectional but hidden in the ticket system).
New Question; Is Region 10 turning more of Montauk Highway over to Suffolk County, or was that a signage error I saw at the east end of Suffolk CR 50?
1) Don't know.On Tuesday I learned that some portable VMSes in NY have cameras.given the proliferation of cameras all over the place, I still have two questions:
1. Why only some of them?
2. Where can I view those feeds?
2) You can't.
1) Don't know.On Tuesday I learned that some portable VMSes in NY have cameras.given the proliferation of cameras all over the place, I still have two questions:
1. Why only some of them?
2. Where can I view those feeds?
2) You can't.
Seems like the cameras are visible at 511 NY (https://511ny.org/)?
I also believe I saw a new, rather small permanent VMS replacing the portable VMS on I-81 at the NY-PA border. It was dark and there were strong snow squalls, so I'm not 100% positive...
1) Don't know.On Tuesday I learned that some portable VMSes in NY have cameras.given the proliferation of cameras all over the place, I still have two questions:
1. Why only some of them?
2. Where can I view those feeds?
2) You can't.
Seems like the cameras are visible at 511 NY (https://511ny.org/)?
I also believe I saw a new, rather small permanent VMS replacing the portable VMS on I-81 at the NY-PA border. It was dark and there were strong snow squalls, so I'm not 100% positive...
The cameras shown there are not the VMS cameras. All of the cameras here are high-mounted cameras, usually at interchanges.
Right. I was talking about portables.1) Don't know.On Tuesday I learned that some portable VMSes in NY have cameras.given the proliferation of cameras all over the place, I still have two questions:
1. Why only some of them?
2. Where can I view those feeds?
2) You can't.
Seems like the cameras are visible at 511 NY (https://511ny.org/)?
I also believe I saw a new, rather small permanent VMS replacing the portable VMS on I-81 at the NY-PA border. It was dark and there were strong snow squalls, so I'm not 100% positive...
The cameras shown there are not the VMS cameras. All of the cameras here are high-mounted cameras, usually at interchanges.
Oh my mistake. There are a number of VMS-mounted cameras that are up (check out the Binghamton area for some of them), but they're all feeds from permanent VMSes mounted on a truss.
Any chance this might've been a formerly proposed spur to Vineyard Avenue?
QuoteAny chance this might've been a formerly proposed spur to Vineyard Avenue?
This is the only surviving remnant of a temporary access road between 9W and the bridge due to a reconstruction project at this interchange ca. 2010. When the flyover was closed/redone about 10 years ago, a temp roadway was constructed to bring the intersection to a 'T' with a temp signal. When the flyover reopened, the temp roadways were removed; this gore area is all that remains of that.
Slightly OT, since I mentioned the research on the Hudson Valley Rail Trail, can anyone confirm that this caboose was a former New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Caboose?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hudson_Valley_Rail_Trail_depot.jp
Slightly OT, since I mentioned the research on the Hudson Valley Rail Trail, can anyone confirm that this caboose was a former New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Caboose?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hudson_Valley_Rail_Trail_depot.jp
I can't say with absolute certainty, but it is highly likely that this is a former New Haven Railroad NE-2 class caboose. The Pennsylvania's N5 class cabooses were similar, but not identical, in design. If it is a N5, and not a NE-2, the roof should have evidence of mounting points for the PRR induction train antennas originally affixed to the N5s.
New Question; Is Region 10 turning more of Montauk Highway over to Suffolk County, or was that a signage error I saw at the east end of Suffolk CR 50?
Possible (been a while since the last highway inventory came out and I don't have the patience to sort through legislation), but this may just be a case of them disregarding NY 27A EB because it ends less than a mile to the east. 27A dies at Exit 46A.
It said "JCT CR 27A Suffolk."New Question; Is Region 10 turning more of Montauk Highway over to Suffolk County, or was that a signage error I saw at the east end of Suffolk CR 50?
Possible (been a while since the last highway inventory came out and I don't have the patience to sort through legislation), but this may just be a case of them disregarding NY 27A EB because it ends less than a mile to the east. 27A dies at Exit 46A.
What did the signage say? My guess is that it's probably a sign goof. I was past the eastern terminus of NY 27A a few months ago, and at least of then the signage hadn't changed.
It said "JCT CR 27A Suffolk."
Come visit the illustrious Storm King Highway (NY 218) along the Hudson River in the scenic Hudson Valley of New York State. Complete with twists, turns, cliffs and scenic vistas, this is a memorable drive to take.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/storm-king-highway.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/storm-king-highway.html)
The highway gets closed for the season? I don't see a recent notice?
So, by storm or is it a date range?The highway gets closed for the season? I don't see a recent notice?
Yeah, it gets closed any time it needs to be salted or plowed. Full-height gates and everything.
So, by storm or is it a date range?
Not all of it gets closed. The portion south of West Point's Washington Gate remains open. Not sure where the closure point on the Cromwell end is.
Come visit the illustrious Storm King Highway (NY 218) along the Hudson River in the scenic Hudson Valley of New York State. Complete with twists, turns, cliffs and scenic vistas, this is a memorable drive to take.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/storm-king-highway.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/storm-king-highway.html)
In recent weeks, these two have been removed from the NY 30 bridge in Amsterdam:
And not just the panels, the entire assembly except for a small piece of the first, are gone. The first has been replaced by a small group of shields at the exit ramp to NY 5 East, and the second has not been replaced with anything.
It's worth noting that the City of Amsterdam plans to remove NY 5 eastbound and route both directions onto what is currently NY 5 westbound in order to improve access to their waterfront, so the ramp the overhead signs were for won't likely be around much longer.
Removal of Route 5 eastbound spur in downtown (Cost estimate $5 million, undetermined amount of DRI funds sought) "We don't know what amount we're going to do yet. We put in an application to the State Department of Transportation to remove the entirety of that section of Route 5, but we don't know when that's anticipated to come through yet," Bearcroft said.
In recent weeks, these two have been removed from the NY 30 bridge in Amsterdam:
And not just the panels, the entire assembly except for a small piece of the first, are gone. The first has been replaced by a small group of shields at the exit ramp to NY 5 East, and the second has not been replaced with anything.
R2 replacing more overheads with ground mounted signs?
And this is one reason why I scratch my head at MA and their policy of making every single sign overhead.In recent weeks, these two have been removed from the NY 30 bridge in Amsterdam:
And not just the panels, the entire assembly except for a small piece of the first, are gone. The first has been replaced by a small group of shields at the exit ramp to NY 5 East, and the second has not been replaced with anything.
R2 replacing more overheads with ground mounted signs?
Most likely. My last conversation with R2 around all these changes revolved around the structural integrity of the overhead sign installations and the lack of funds to replace them.
Most of these overhead sign bridges in New York have been there for at least 40, and more likely 50, years. Most have a seemingly "flimsy" look, making the case for structural integrity issues. As machias has posted (and has put on his former website), many of the overhead sign installations in the Syracuse area had to be dismantled due to structural integrity issues.What bothers me about it more than anything else is the low-hanging traffic signal sign with the flashing lights.
Maybe if NYSDOT used larger, thicker "arm masts" like Florida has or had a more "boxy" sign bridge, some of the structural integrity issues may not exist.
Most of these overhead sign bridges in New York have been there for at least 40, and more likely 50, years. Most have a seemingly "flimsy" look, making the case for structural integrity issues. As machias has posted (and has put on his former website), many of the overhead sign installations in the Syracuse area had to be dismantled due to structural integrity issues.
Maybe if NYSDOT used larger, thicker "arm masts" like Florida has or had a more "boxy" sign bridge, some of the structural integrity issues may not exist.
I think they finally ran out of the nonreflective crap they had been using. The new 1 mile advance sign for EB exit 25A is reflective.Most of these overhead sign bridges in New York have been there for at least 40, and more likely 50, years. Most have a seemingly "flimsy" look, making the case for structural integrity issues. As machias has posted (and has put on his former website), many of the overhead sign installations in the Syracuse area had to be dismantled due to structural integrity issues.
Maybe if NYSDOT used larger, thicker "arm masts" like Florida has or had a more "boxy" sign bridge, some of the structural integrity issues may not exist.
Actually, many of the overhead sign supports installed in the 60s and 70s in the Utica area were still standing as of three years ago, but the supports installed in the late 1980s were the ones having structural issues. It makes sense if the 60s-70s era supports are starting to fail now, but the ones from the late 1980s seemed a bit premature.
I like what the Thruway Authority has been doing with single arm supports. Now if they could just get sign fabrication material that is actually reflective.
amroad17, I don't know about the upstate regions, but NYSDOT Region-10 on Long Island has been building more substantial looking boxy sign gantries in recent years. Some of them use surprisingly large pipes. Many years ago I was told by a DOT engineer that they build for a higher wind load on Long Island than in most of the state.
Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...The name Southern Tier Expressway pretty well sums it up.
What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?
At best I can think of it as the quick way from Erie to NYC, which seems like a pointless corridor -- for example, going from the Midwest to NYC, you'd take I-80 through PA.
Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...
What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?
Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...The name Southern Tier Expressway pretty well sums it up.
What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?
At best I can think of it as the quick way from Erie to NYC, which seems like a pointless corridor -- for example, going from the Midwest to NYC, you'd take I-80 through PA.
Mainly serves the band of counties along the southern border of the state.
Much of the Southern Tier Expressway (current NY 17 west of Binghamton) was constructed with ADHS funds as Corridor T, but there were proposals to upgrade it pre-ADHS. West of Jamestown was not part of the original plan and was originally a super 2, not being widened to 4 lanes until the late 90s.The ADHS was a big boost to building a 4-lane corridor on that route and getting nearly all done by the 1980s.
Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...
What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?
At best I can think of it as the quick way from Erie to NYC, which seems like a pointless corridor -- for example, going from the Midwest to NYC, you'd take I-80 through PA. Buffalo to Albany could use the Thruway (which does suck but is it worth detouring down to Salamanca to pick up NY 17 to I-88?). At worst it seems to string along local traffic between towns in the Southern Tier and serving as a convenient terminus for US 220 and US 15. I don't doubt that it's the scenic way to NYC from points west, but from a long distance travel perspective it doesn't make much sense to detour to it.
The only timeframe where it might have had utility is the period before I-80 through PA was opened, but at that point little of NY 17 was a freeway. Otherwise, you may as well just take US highways through PA or hedge your bets on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...
What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?
Arguably, this is a more major corridor than US 6 to the south and it would have likely received a US Route designation had New York not been so opposed to US Routes.
Just to scratch the surface on some roads that NY could upgrade to four lane divided highway (and still be way behind other states): NY 14, NY 13, NY 104, NY5/US20, NY 96, US 20A, US 11 north of Watertown, and the list goes on and on.
I drive between Syracuse and Ithaca frequently. NY 13 has never been an issue as is. I suspect this is because the availability of back road routes has helped keep traffic down. I don't see a pressing need to upgrade NY 13.
Just to scratch the surface on some roads that NY could upgrade to four lane divided highway (and still be way behind other states): NY 14, NY 13, NY 104, NY5/US20, NY 96, US 20A, US 11 north of Watertown, and the list goes on and on.NY doesn't have the funding to maintain -- let alone improve -- conditions on its system. Even if it did, I'm not seeing much reason for these upgrades given traffic volumes.
As it is, I think Ithaca-Elmira is a bigger problem than Ithaca-Cortland.
NY 299 east of New Paltz and US 9W Newburgh-Highland definitely stick out, as do the super-2 section of US 6 and NY 35 west of the Taconic, both of which have the ROW for an easy upgrade.
NY 299 east of New Paltz and US 9W Newburgh-Highland definitely stick out, as do the super-2 section of US 6 and NY 35 west of the Taconic, both of which have the ROW for an easy upgrade.
Which super-2 is that? US 6 doesn't have any 2-lane stretches between the Taconic and Peekskill; NY 35 does but they're not "super".
Quote from: webny99As it is, I think Ithaca-Elmira is a bigger problem than Ithaca-Cortland.From a strictly traffic perspective, Ithaca-Cortland has roughly double the volumes of Ithaca-Elmira. And that doesn't take into account what's avoiding 13...
I'm a little biased ofc but I would love to see a dualing of NY79 between Ithaca and Witney Point, looking at AADT it isn't really justified but on days with big movements in or out for breaks etc (would have been making the trek coming back from break today if not for the rona...) 79 really gets slammed because it's the main route between Ithaca and the Tri-State, where a huge chunk of the student population in Ithaca lives, as well as New England. It hasn't been uncommon for me to be stuck below the speed limit the whole stretch because of slow pokes ahead and no opportunity to pass. Perhaps it could be justified as the main corridor to NYC or because of the surge traffic? Or if NY13 to Cortland were dualed and connected directly to 81 perhaps that would become the faster route...
NY 299 east of New Paltz and US 9W Newburgh-Highland definitely stick out, as do the super-2 section of US 6 and NY 35 west of the Taconic, both of which have the ROW for an easy upgrade.
Which super-2 is that? US 6 doesn't have any 2-lane stretches between the Taconic and Peekskill; NY 35 does but they're not "super".
I meant west of the river, which IS mostly super-2 between NY 17 and the Palisades Parkway.
35 was designed with room for the Bear Mountain Parkway to be completed.NY 299 east of New Paltz and US 9W Newburgh-Highland definitely stick out, as do the super-2 section of US 6 and NY 35 west of the Taconic, both of which have the ROW for an easy upgrade.
Which super-2 is that? US 6 doesn't have any 2-lane stretches between the Taconic and Peekskill; NY 35 does but they're not "super".
I meant west of the river, which IS mostly super-2 between NY 17 and the Palisades Parkway.
Ah, yes–I thought you meant just west of the Taconic. But that's just US 6, though; NY 35 doesn't go west of the river.
35 was designed with room for the Bear Mountain Parkway to be completed.NY 299 east of New Paltz and US 9W Newburgh-Highland definitely stick out, as do the super-2 section of US 6 and NY 35 west of the Taconic, both of which have the ROW for an easy upgrade.
Which super-2 is that? US 6 doesn't have any 2-lane stretches between the Taconic and Peekskill; NY 35 does but they're not "super".
I meant west of the river, which IS mostly super-2 between NY 17 and the Palisades Parkway.
Ah, yes–I thought you meant just west of the Taconic. But that's just US 6, though; NY 35 doesn't go west of the river.
"The super-2 section of US 6" and "NY 35 west of the Taconic" were two separate phrases. And yes, NY 35 has preserved ROW for 4 lanes or the Bear Mountain Parkway to be completed.Wait a second; I thought the preserved ROW for the Bear Mountain Parkway was supposed to go around US 202 and NY 35.
"The super-2 section of US 6" and "NY 35 west of the Taconic" were two separate phrases.35 was designed with room for the Bear Mountain Parkway to be completed.Ah, yes–I thought you meant just west of the Taconic. But that's just US 6, though; NY 35 doesn't go west of the river.I meant west of the river, which IS mostly super-2 between NY 17 and the Palisades Parkway.NY 299 east of New Paltz and US 9W Newburgh-Highland definitely stick out, as do the super-2 section of US 6, and NY 35 west of the Taconic, both of which have the ROW for an easy upgrade.Which super-2 is that? US 6 doesn't have any 2-lane stretches between the Taconic and Peekskill; NY 35 does but they're not "super".
"The super-2 section of US 6" and "NY 35 west of the Taconic" were two separate phrases.
And yes, NY 35 has preserved ROW for 4 lanes or the Bear Mountain Parkway to be completed.
Wait a second; I thought the preserved ROW for the Bear Mountain Parkway was supposed to go around US 202 and NY 35.
I still remember a map showing it running south of and parallel to US 202/NY 35. I wish I could find it.Wait a second; I thought the preserved ROW for the Bear Mountain Parkway was supposed to go around US 202 and NY 35.
The unbuilt section is immediately north of, and parallel to, US 202/NY 35, so it's essentially the same corridor there. I am sure the parkway, had it been built, would have been on a separate carriageway, but where the ROW is located would also allow an easy twinning of 202/35.
Anyone notice the sign replacement project for the Hutchinson River Parkway from the Bruckner interchange to the Connecticut Line is next for the mileage-based exit numbers? D263231
link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D264231
Looks like I'll have to adjust the numbers on my signage (my mileage is off by a mile or two). What I don't get is how the NY 120A interchange is numbered northbound. NYSDOT has it numbered as Exit 19 A-B, yet the gore signage for 19B will read "27" because you cross the CT border. Current NYSDOT BGS's for the interchange only include tabs for Exit 30S, with no mention of Exit 30N (or Exit 27 for that matter). This will only confuse things even more. Why not just number the NY exit as plain old 19 and be done with it? At least they did it right southbound by letting CTDOT be responsible for the exit on its side of the border.Notwithstanding the arrow layout, which I'll forgive you since this is a mockup, "NYC Airports" is not a destination. Just use New York City.
And I had a nice APL set up for the Cross County interchange southbound
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49806738843_05601e5cec_w.jpg)
Looks like I'll have to adjust the numbers on my signage (my mileage is off by a mile or two). What I don't get is how the NY 120A interchange is numbered northbound. NYSDOT has it numbered as Exit 19 A-B, yet the gore signage for 19B will read "27" because you cross the CT border. Current NYSDOT BGS's for the interchange only include tabs for Exit 30S, with no mention of Exit 30N (or Exit 27 for that matter). This will only confuse things even more. Why not just number the NY exit as plain old 19 and be done with it? At least they did it right southbound by letting CTDOT be responsible for the exit on its side of the border.Note that the plans have a note for the northbound gore saying "exit gore sign and posts to be replaced by Connecticut DOT". With the current southbound 27S becoming 19A, exit 27 may be going away. Should make the jump to exit 28 easier in any case.
And I had a nice APL set up for the Cross County interchange southbound
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49806738843_05601e5cec_w.jpg)
Re: above posts concerning NYS DOT's non-use of LEFT exit tabs. At least on Long Island they have been using the yellow LEFT box on new signs pretty much since the 2009 Manual mandated it. I can't imagine why they are not shown in the plans for the Hutchinson Pkwy. I suspect someone screwed up. Notice also that some of the signs for the I-684 exit have no exit number tab at all. Ya' have to wonder if NYS DOT doesn't even proof read their own plans.
Also what is their purpose in have the horizontal dividing line separating the street name from the city names?
Notwithstanding the arrow layout, which I'll forgive you since this is a mockup, "NYC Airports" is not a destination. Just use New York City.
I liked the boxed street names. I think using FHWA normal fonts looked weird for street names. The boxed names was/is a good alternative.
Quote from: Alps link=topic=1487.msg2493509#msg2493509Notwithstanding the arrow layout, which I'll forgive you since this is a mockup, "NYC Airports" is not a destination. Just use New York City.
Tell that to the MTA (I think they are responsible for crossing signs). Found on the Whitestone Bridge. This is a relatively recent installation that incorporates the left exit signage found elsewhere in R10
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oXdyQ1EUiyUbqBry9
Quote from: Alps link=topic=1487.msg2493509#msg2493509Notwithstanding the arrow layout, which I'll forgive you since this is a mockup, "NYC Airports" is not a destination. Just use New York City.
Tell that to the MTA (I think they are responsible for crossing signs). Found on the Whitestone Bridge. This is a relatively recent installation that incorporates the left exit signage found elsewhere in R10
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oXdyQ1EUiyUbqBry9
Reason why I used NYC airports here is that NYC is too vague because either option will get you to NYC. Most people get to the Bronx (including Yankee Stadium), and the West Side of Manhattan via the Cross County and either 87 or the Sawmill/Henry Hudson. The Hutch is a better option if you’re going to Queens (LaGuardia and JFK included) or the east side of the Bronx or lower Manhattan (via 278 and the RFK). The Hutch turns into 678, which takes you right in to JFK, but with it being the preferred route to LaGuardia as well, I used “NYC Airports”
Then name the airports. In this case there is no such issue. Sign NYC or at least Queens ahead.Quote from: Alps link=topic=1487.msg2493509#msg2493509Notwithstanding the arrow layout, which I'll forgive you since this is a mockup, "NYC Airports" is not a destination. Just use New York City.
Tell that to the MTA (I think they are responsible for crossing signs). Found on the Whitestone Bridge. This is a relatively recent installation that incorporates the left exit signage found elsewhere in R10
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oXdyQ1EUiyUbqBry9
Reason why I used NYC airports here is that NYC is too vague because either option will get you to NYC. Most people get to the Bronx (including Yankee Stadium), and the West Side of Manhattan via the Cross County and either 87 or the Sawmill/Henry Hudson. The Hutch is a better option if you’re going to Queens (LaGuardia and JFK included) or the east side of the Bronx or lower Manhattan (via 278 and the RFK). The Hutch turns into 678, which takes you right in to JFK, but with it being the preferred route to LaGuardia as well, I used “NYC Airports”
Once again we have collision between MUTCD requirements and what makes sense locally. It's worth noting that within the Borough of Queens NY Airports was used back in the 1960's as a southbound destination on entrance ramps to I-678, the Whitestone Expwy. There really was no place or city name to use at that point as the road terminated at JFK Airport.
Anyone notice the sign replacement project for the Hutchinson River Parkway from the Bruckner interchange to the Connecticut Line is next for the mileage-based exit numbers? D263231Wow, so many Exit 1's in The Bronx. It kind of makes me regret advocating mileage based exit numbers for the Hutch.
link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D264231
Anyone notice the sign replacement project for the Hutchinson River Parkway from the Bruckner interchange to the Connecticut Line is next for the mileage-based exit numbers? D263231
link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D264231 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D264231)
Will the new CT 15 exit numbers start at the state line or continue the numbering from New York?
It's worth noting that the mileposts start at 0 at the NY line, so if the exit numbers were to match they would need to reset. Maybe CT knew NY would be converting the Hutch soon and wanted to wait until that was done before changing CT 15?Will the new CT 15 exit numbers start at the state line or continue the numbering from New York?
No plans are up yet, and probably won't be for a while, for a ConnDOT CT 15 renumbering. But to make them part of a distance-based system, they would most likely start at the NY state line (with #1) and count up. I can't imagine they'd continue the NY numbering again!
IMO, they should have renumbered the exits when signs were replaced a couple years ago.
It doesn't much matter. As per the MUTCD, the exit numbers for the Merritt Pkwy. must start at zero at the state line, so anything New York does on the Hutch is irrelevant to Connecticut.Exit 30/27 (future exit 19) straddles the state border. CT would not be able to change the numbers is one fell swoop without the NY side changing first, or else the exit numbers would be made even worse than they already are. ALL southbound signage (with the exception of one gore sign), as well as one of the northbound gore signs, is in CT.
Vdeane, are you saying that the numbering can start with 1 instead of 0 (zero)? No argument there. But what I was saying was that the exit numbering is required to start at the state line as per Sec.2E-31-11. The southern/western terminus within that state. So Connecticut could not just continue New York's numbering. Though yes, I see that this interchange is a special case right at the state border so some tailoring for that specific location might be needed.Here's the actual text you just cited:
Regardless of whether a mainline route originates within a State or crosses into a State from another State, the southernmost or westernmost terminus within that State shall be the beginning point for interchange numbering.It says "the southernmost or westernmost terminus within that State shall be the beginning point"... it does not say what it should begin at. I-17 in Arizona begins at 194, for example. In any case, the mileage for CT 15 starts at 0 at the border, and I already noted that they would have to reset the numbering to match the mileage before you decided to chime in. As such, I have no idea why you decided to argue the point, especially since I was never arguing that CT should continue continuing NY's numbering in the first place - it was that signs like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0543603,-73.6742121,3a,25.4y,196.69h,99.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sreZrtenLGZh9dI2CwIl2kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) could not have their numbers changed without NY changing first, and since NY's previous renumbering of the Hutch broke the sequence, they couldn't just leave that at exit 27 and change everything else. IMO the correct solution is for that interchange to be numbered exit 19 and only exit 19 and for CT to renumber everything else off CT 15's mileage.
I have long been an advocate for starting the milage and exit numbers for the Hutch/Merritt/Wilbur Cross Pkwy/Berlin Tpke/Wilbur Cross Hwy at the Whitestone Bridge with no reset at the CT border.It's supported by the MUTCD, but only as long as CT re-mileposts the highway to match.
That road network is so historic that I think it might be cool to do the milage and numbering this way.
I have long been an advocate for starting the milage and exit numbers for the Hutch/Merritt/Wilbur Cross Pkwy/Berlin Tpke/Wilbur Cross Hwy at the Whitestone Bridge with no reset at the CT border.It's supported by the MUTCD, but only as long as CT re-mileposts the highway to match.
That road network is so historic that I think it might be cool to do the milage and numbering this way.
Hey, I just discovered an old road in Millwood in Westchester County.
Does anyone know the history behind why the exit numbers on NY 27 start at Exit 38 in Lindenhurst? Wiki shows that interchange as being at mile 35.3 so it's not exactly mile-based, and the exits continue sequentially anyway.
Just saw a new Excelsior license plate on the road for the first time....Oddly enough, I too saw my first about an hour after you posted. I wonder if it was the same one - was yours on a trailer pulled by a vehicle with an Empire Gold plate?
No, some SUV on I-87 without anything being special about it. Right to KDH series, though - apparently they jumped to K in sequence..Just saw a new Excelsior license plate on the road for the first time....Oddly enough, I too saw my first about an hour after you posted. I wonder if it was the same one - was yours on a trailer pulled by a vehicle with an Empire Gold plate?
I'd forgotten all about these new plates. So let me get this straight: New York State in its infinite wisdom will now have three different designs of license plates on the road? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. What was their reason for not staying with the existing orange and blue plates?The official reason: gold and blue doesn't work well with cameras (never heard it elsewhere - but the first iteration of Excelsior plates didn't work at all with ezpass readers, according to some news stories)
The state should automatically replace all the blue and white plates for no charge. At least then we'd only have two different plates for the same state. Many years ago there was never a charge when plates were changed to a new design. When you renewed, DMV simply issued your new plates with only the standard renewal fee.Why "no charge"? I do pay to have registration or license renewed, nothing new about it. Plates have fabrication and distribution costs as well.
So how did they manage years ago when they changed plates every two years back in the 1960's? Just the standard renewal charge, but every year, not two years and the new plates were included. In the off year, they gave you a renewal sticker for the existing plate. And pre-1965 there was no state sales tax either. How did they run the government back then?Without going into politics... It is much easier to bake the price of a simple plate which is only good for a year or two into annual fee.
I prefer the plates with Lady Liberty.You mean the original blue numerals and red Liberty, right?
So, are the new NY plates as ugly in the wild as one would expect?They look as generic as it gets. Nothing really ugly about it. At least, it doesn't look like the car is attached to those bright license plates...
I remember having to pay $25 for new Liberty plates in 1986 when renewing my old blue on gold plates. People didn't get hysterical about the $25 then, it was approximately 13 years since the preceding design had been introduced, and New York still had location-based plate numbers. It's beyond my comprehension as to why NYSDMV can't figure out how to do license plates anymore. The last time we went back east there were way too many peeling license plates observed on the roadways, including a couple where folks had colored in their numbers with paint or a sharpie or something.
I was in back of a car with the brand new plates earlier today. It looks good, but I like the orange plates too. Again I say it's ridiculous for one state to have three different style plates on the road.NJ in the 1990s had old peach, blue, and new yellow.
I prefer the plates with Lady Liberty.
I did too, a year or two back. It was on a campus parking lot, with cops actively involved. It didn't occur to me until quite a bit later that a 25 year historic car can legally carry those plates today. Apparently, whatever the issue was, it was resolved as I saw the same car with same plates a few more times.I prefer the plates with Lady Liberty.
I actually saw a lady liberty plate in the wild in Brooklyn a few weeks ago: Not sure how this is possible but it was quite a throwback haha
Oui.I prefer the plates with Lady Liberty.You mean the original blue numerals and red Liberty, right?
I did too, a year or two back. It was on a campus parking lot, with cops actively involved. It didn't occur to me until quite a bit later that a 25 year historic car can legally carry those plates today. Apparently, whatever the issue was, it was resolved as I saw the same car with same plates a few more times.I prefer the plates with Lady Liberty.
I actually saw a lady liberty plate in the wild in Brooklyn a few weeks ago: Not sure how this is possible but it was quite a throwback haha
I did too, a year or two back. It was on a campus parking lot, with cops actively involved. It didn't occur to me until quite a bit later that a 25 year historic car can legally carry those plates today. Apparently, whatever the issue was, it was resolved as I saw the same car with same plates a few more times.I prefer the plates with Lady Liberty.
I actually saw a lady liberty plate in the wild in Brooklyn a few weeks ago: Not sure how this is possible but it was quite a throwback haha
So the car still had the original plates and got to keep them by renewing the registration all these years? The car I saw was definitely not old enough to have ever had lady liberty plates, maybe an old registration got transferred to another car?
Any motor vehicle manufactured more than 25 years before the current calendar year that is used only as a collector's item or exhibition piece, and not for daily transportation, may be registered with vintage plates from the model year of the vehicle...... To register your vehicle with vintage plates, you must have actual plates that were valid in New York State in the year the vehicle was manufactured.Bulk of those plates were taken off the road during 2001-2002 mandatory exchange program.
I see that I-84 still has duplicate signs west of NY 121:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3835115,-73.5799762,3a,75y,257.92h,100.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swuVVtfJVcuHw_EYyrcelGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3840817,-73.5834026,3a,75y,257.92h,100.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv4PpIvajjCmZ1yq__XkWFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3846854,-73.5853422,3a,75y,264.25h,100.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm6tqLC99KWXsYqKpsLX97Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
What's up with that? An overhead sign gantry, or even an overhead signpost for one lane makes much more sense.
Another puzzler: What was on this sign between 383 and RIT?
https://goo.gl/maps/hi21GCUWEXPsa8iP8
Another puzzler: What was on this sign between 383 and RIT?
https://goo.gl/maps/hi21GCUWEXPsa8iP8
Another puzzler: What was on this sign between 383 and RIT?
https://goo.gl/maps/hi21GCUWEXPsa8iP8
Based on the way NYSDOT Region 4 tends to design sign layouts, are we sure there was anything between the route marker and RIT? R4 always did enjoy their left justified route markers.
That's what the southbund supplemental sign says (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1252448,-77.6546819,3a,17.1y,119.08h,86.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFgkSdVzD8r1jiQcKs1wkfw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DFgkSdVzD8r1jiQcKs1wkfw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D49.74402%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192), at least. The combo stuck out in my head when you posted that as familiar, so it might have.Another puzzler: What was on this sign between 383 and RIT?
https://goo.gl/maps/hi21GCUWEXPsa8iP8
Testing my memory with this one, but I think it used to say "U of R / RIT" before the Exit 16 reconstruction.
Now, signage instead directs you to use NY 15 to reach U of R, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.108088,-77.6163356,3a,15y,304.02h,90.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sG3J6wg5RlP_NA4PlQVq3tg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DG3J6wg5RlP_NA4PlQVq3tg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D295.94565%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).
Machias, are you saying in Region-4, it's standard to have the route shield on the left side of the sign, instead of in the center?
It didn't look like text was there. I didn't really see any scars at all, so I'll go with poor justification.That's what the southbund supplemental sign says (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1252448,-77.6546819,3a,17.1y,119.08h,86.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFgkSdVzD8r1jiQcKs1wkfw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DFgkSdVzD8r1jiQcKs1wkfw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D49.74402%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192), at least. The combo stuck out in my head when you posted that as familiar, so it might have.Another puzzler: What was on this sign between 383 and RIT?
https://goo.gl/maps/hi21GCUWEXPsa8iP8
Testing my memory with this one, but I think it used to say "U of R / RIT" before the Exit 16 reconstruction.
Now, signage instead directs you to use NY 15 to reach U of R, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.108088,-77.6163356,3a,15y,304.02h,90.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sG3J6wg5RlP_NA4PlQVq3tg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DG3J6wg5RlP_NA4PlQVq3tg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D295.94565%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).
I’m pretty sure it was just the left-justified 383 when it opened in 1980. An RIT plaque was added a few years later. The layout of the present sign is just a carbon copy of the old sign.
It wouldn’t have had U of R in this direction – that was always on this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1107494,-77.605473,3a,51.3y,256.78h,100.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szO_VAex7Ef3V6eSq2MuNgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (originally more verbose).
I-490 really needs to be milled and paved between the Can Of Worms and Victor. I drove it yesterday and it's very rough on my Civic's suspension.The holes in the center seam are massive. I don't know how people pass each other without bending up their rims.
The stretch between 390 and 531 is pretty bad also. Especially westbound.I-490 really needs to be milled and paved between the Can Of Worms and Victor. I drove it yesterday and it's very rough on my Civic's suspension.The holes in the center seam are massive. I don't know how people pass each other without bending up their rims.
That area was recently gutted and resurfaced. I think once you go West of NY 531 it gets bad again but I haven't gone that way in a long time.The stretch between 390 and 531 is pretty bad also. Especially westbound.I-490 really needs to be milled and paved between the Can Of Worms and Victor. I drove it yesterday and it's very rough on my Civic's suspension.The holes in the center seam are massive. I don't know how people pass each other without bending up their rims.
It wouldn’t have had U of R in this direction – that was always on this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1107494,-77.605473,3a,51.3y,256.78h,100.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szO_VAex7Ef3V6eSq2MuNgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (originally more verbose).
It wouldn’t have had U of R in this direction – that was always on this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1107494,-77.605473,3a,51.3y,256.78h,100.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szO_VAex7Ef3V6eSq2MuNgg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (originally more verbose).
On the subject of verbosity and these signs, I remember seeing Paula Poundstone in a local appearance years ago. She had a joke about these signs, and specifically about one that read "University of Roch". Can anybody pinpoint where such a sign would have been (probably talking mid-late 90s here)?
Going northbound, the one I posted above, and its twin (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1107959,-77.6031861,3a,75y,295.6h,82.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shBkQyK56fwSbD_hlYAsFAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the end of I-590, have been in their locations since the highways opened in 1980. Until a few years ago, their layout was something like:Monroe Comm College
University of Roch
Strong Mem Hospital
(I am not sure I am abbreviating the correct words, and the lines might have been in a different order)
Going northbound, the one I posted above, and its twin (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1107959,-77.6031861,3a,75y,295.6h,82.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shBkQyK56fwSbD_hlYAsFAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the end of I-590, have been in their locations since the highways opened in 1980. Until a few years ago, their layout was something like:Monroe Comm College
University of Roch
Strong Mem Hospital
(I am not sure I am abbreviating the correct words, and the lines might have been in a different order)
No need to rely on memory for these ones... these were still in place as recently as 2014 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1108079,-77.6032696,3a,75y,265.39h,88.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjJYV_ikdf_KII33aR6VLYQ!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656). They disappeared during the Exit 16 reconstruction, and reappeared in their current form probably sometime in 2017. The line in question actually says "Univ of Rochester" (no "Roch", sadly...) and the second and third lines are swapped. But you still did a much better job remembering that than I would have without the help of Street View! :)
I see that I-84 still has duplicate signs west of NY 121:It's worth noting that prior to the mid(?) 90s; overhead diagrammatic signage were used for the I-684/NY 22 interchange.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3835115,-73.5799762,3a,75y,257.92h,100.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swuVVtfJVcuHw_EYyrcelGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3840817,-73.5834026,3a,75y,257.92h,100.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv4PpIvajjCmZ1yq__XkWFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3846854,-73.5853422,3a,75y,264.25h,100.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm6tqLC99KWXsYqKpsLX97Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
What's up with that? An overhead sign gantry, or even an overhead signpost for one lane makes much more sense.
I see that I-84 still has duplicate signs west of NY 121:It's worth noting that prior to the mid(?) 90s; overhead diagrammatic signage were used for the I-684/NY 22 interchange.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3835115,-73.5799762,3a,75y,257.92h,100.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swuVVtfJVcuHw_EYyrcelGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3840817,-73.5834026,3a,75y,257.92h,100.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv4PpIvajjCmZ1yq__XkWFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3846854,-73.5853422,3a,75y,264.25h,100.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm6tqLC99KWXsYqKpsLX97Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
What's up with that? An overhead sign gantry, or even an overhead signpost for one lane makes much more sense.
The likely reasoning for going with redundant, ground-mounted signs on each side of the road may have been in reaction to motorists missing the exit ramp due to being behind trucks in both lanes (and, hence, not seeing the signs). It's also worth noting that the first advance BGS for I-684/NY 22 is only 3/4 mile from the interchange; so one that is either unfamiliar with the area or not paying attention could easily miss the exit if they're stuck behind semis. With the old overhead signs (guessing 80s-vintage), the first advance notice BGS for I-684/NY 22 was only for a 1/2 mile from the ramp.
While 3/4 mile advance is better than 1/2 mile for a first notice; such IMHO is still too short for a major highway interchange out in the open. Even if a 1-mile or a 2-mile advance signage is located prior to the NY 121 interchange; such would give an unfamiliar/unsuspecting motorist a better heads-up.
I generally think New York does a fine job in advanced interchange signage, but I found it really perplexing that some major interchanges are signed less than a mile from the actual exit gore. For example, the sign for I-99/US 15's exit in Corning is signed only a half mile from the actual exit (around a long curve, too) on I-86 westbound (https://goo.gl/maps/tJ57BryYKQpUPuuc6) and I think it's a half mile on I-86 eastbound as well. I-86 is only signed a half mile from I-99's terminus (https://goo.gl/maps/R3hyTdkKUTF4G3zAA).Generally fine, but most interchanges are lacking.
In comparison, I-86's diversion from I-81 is signed one mile in advance (https://goo.gl/maps/p1CZXHAMximbZfQLA).
I generally think New York does a fine job in advanced interchange signage, but I found it really perplexing that some major interchanges are signed less than a mile from the actual exit gore. For example, the sign for I-99/US 15's exit in Corning is signed only a half mile from the actual exit (around a long curve, too) on I-86 westbound (https://goo.gl/maps/tJ57BryYKQpUPuuc6) and I think it's a half mile on I-86 eastbound as well. I-86 is only signed a half mile from I-99's terminus (https://goo.gl/maps/R3hyTdkKUTF4G3zAA).Generally fine, but most interchanges are lacking.
In comparison, I-86's diversion from I-81 is signed one mile in advance (https://goo.gl/maps/p1CZXHAMximbZfQLA).
Another example - I-87 southbound -> Thruway in Albany.
First advance sign is than 3/4mile from the gore point:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7081159,-73.8291809,3a,75y,220.81h,81.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svPNLL1PwmdDKlZRh4Vip6A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
However, it is not until much later that there is a vague message that only the right lane is going towards Thruway ("Thruway - keep right": https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7014804,-73.8348774,3a,75y,222.69h,76.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spMnRx70hy1hwbGPBnYytZQ!2e0!5s20190901T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
The option lane was removed decades ago.
It is not an academic complain - I do see plenty of drivers getting into the wrong lane as a result. Being forced onto the eastbound road when one needs to go the other way, with no simple U-turn options must be interesting. Driving around a 18-wheeler which has to change a lane within 100 feet of a gore point - priceless! Happens every other week with me..
I generally think New York does a fine job in advanced interchange signage, but I found it really perplexing that some major interchanges are signed less than a mile from the actual exit gore. For example, the sign for I-99/US 15's exit in Corning is signed only a half mile from the actual exit (around a long curve, too) on I-86 westbound (https://goo.gl/maps/tJ57BryYKQpUPuuc6) and I think it's a half mile on I-86 eastbound as well. I-86 is only signed a half mile from I-99's terminus (https://goo.gl/maps/R3hyTdkKUTF4G3zAA).Generally fine, but most interchanges are lacking.
In comparison, I-86's diversion from I-81 is signed one mile in advance (https://goo.gl/maps/p1CZXHAMximbZfQLA).
Another example - I-87 southbound -> Thruway in Albany.
First advance sign is than 3/4mile from the gore point:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7081159,-73.8291809,3a,75y,220.81h,81.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svPNLL1PwmdDKlZRh4Vip6A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
However, it is not until much later that there is a vague message that only the right lane is going towards Thruway ("Thruway - keep right": https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7014804,-73.8348774,3a,75y,222.69h,76.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spMnRx70hy1hwbGPBnYytZQ!2e0!5s20190901T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
The option lane was removed decades ago.
It is not an academic complain - I do see plenty of drivers getting into the wrong lane as a result. Being forced onto the eastbound road when one needs to go the other way, with no simple U-turn options must be interesting. Driving around a 18-wheeler which has to change a lane within 100 feet of a gore point - priceless! Happens every other week with me..
Region 10 doesn’t sign anything more than 1 mile, if I remember correctly most of our signs are 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 mile since everything is so close together. There’s an oddity on ny-135 I believe the sign says 2/10 mileI generally think New York does a fine job in advanced interchange signage, but I found it really perplexing that some major interchanges are signed less than a mile from the actual exit gore. For example, the sign for I-99/US 15's exit in Corning is signed only a half mile from the actual exit (around a long curve, too) on I-86 westbound (https://goo.gl/maps/tJ57BryYKQpUPuuc6) and I think it's a half mile on I-86 eastbound as well. I-86 is only signed a half mile from I-99's terminus (https://goo.gl/maps/R3hyTdkKUTF4G3zAA).Generally fine, but most interchanges are lacking.
In comparison, I-86's diversion from I-81 is signed one mile in advance (https://goo.gl/maps/p1CZXHAMximbZfQLA).
Another example - I-87 southbound -> Thruway in Albany.
First advance sign is than 3/4mile from the gore point:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7081159,-73.8291809,3a,75y,220.81h,81.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svPNLL1PwmdDKlZRh4Vip6A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
However, it is not until much later that there is a vague message that only the right lane is going towards Thruway ("Thruway - keep right": https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7014804,-73.8348774,3a,75y,222.69h,76.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spMnRx70hy1hwbGPBnYytZQ!2e0!5s20190901T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
The option lane was removed decades ago.
It is not an academic complain - I do see plenty of drivers getting into the wrong lane as a result. Being forced onto the eastbound road when one needs to go the other way, with no simple U-turn options must be interesting. Driving around a 18-wheeler which has to change a lane within 100 feet of a gore point - priceless! Happens every other week with me..
Last time I was in New York State I noticed Region 3 has gone with a full implementation of 2 mile advance signs whenever possible, and reducing that to 1 1/2 miles if spacing requires it. I don't know if this is a NYSDOT effort or a Region 3 effort, but it's impressive.
I generally think New York does a fine job in advanced interchange signage, but I found it really perplexing that some major interchanges are signed less than a mile from the actual exit gore. For example, the sign for I-99/US 15's exit in Corning is signed only a half mile from the actual exit (around a long curve, too) on I-86 westbound (https://goo.gl/maps/tJ57BryYKQpUPuuc6) and I think it's a half mile on I-86 eastbound as well. I-86 is only signed a half mile from I-99's terminus (https://goo.gl/maps/R3hyTdkKUTF4G3zAA).There is a 1 MILE advance sign for I-86 just past the gore for EXIT 11 on I-99 NB.
In comparison, I-86's diversion from I-81 is signed one mile in advance (https://goo.gl/maps/p1CZXHAMximbZfQLA).
Kalvado, have you ever contacted NYS DOT re: that signing situation on I-87 approaching the Thruway?Local newspaper did. DOT responded with in-stock bullshit - compliant to regulations, no plans to modify.
Kalvado, have you ever contacted NYS DOT re: that signing situation on I-87 approaching the Thruway?Local newspaper did. DOT responded with in-stock bullshit - compliant to regulations, no plans to modify.
That is one of very poorly designed local spots in general, signage just makes it worse.
Upd. I missed the narrative, bottom line still the same
https://blog.timesunion.com/gettingthere/ramp-to-thruway-a-place-for-near-misses/1511/
I received my new plates in the mail today.New plates don't stand out of typical dark-on-white plates, but I bet there are more of them than we notice.
I haven't seen any of the new plates in the Rochester area thus far so my set could be one of the first ones here.
I received my new plates in the mail today.
(https://i.imgur.com/65zc7Po.jpg)
I haven't seen any of the new plates in the Rochester area thus far so my set could be one of the first ones here.
Can I be the first to say...."eww"?Looks like you are. I like it. Less busy than their recent designs.
I took a look at my new plates again and the letters and numbers are actually dark blue. They certainly do look black in my photo.I received my new plates in the mail today.
[image clipped]
I haven't seen any of the new plates in the Rochester area thus far so my set could be one of the first ones here.
I guess I didn't realize the letters and numbers were black. For some reason I thought they were going to blue like the past two incarnations
Some kind of homage to "Star Trek"??It was adopted as the state motto in 1778... so a bit earlier than Star Trek III. But now I'm imagining people reacting like Scotty and Sulu to the plates.
The reason was supposedly that cameras (red light and toll I assume) could not read the numbers on the blue/orange plate as well as they could dark numbers on a white background. So now NY State in its infinite wisdom has three different plate designs on the road.There was supposed to be a mandatory replacement for plates over 10 years old, which would have taken the white/blue plates out of service. Of course, people in NY tend to react negatively to plate replacements because they cost $25, especially since the blue/gold plates were supposed to be a mandatory replacement for everyone with the rationale being to raise money.
Some kind of homage to "Star Trek"??It was adopted as the state motto in 1778... so a bit earlier than Star Trek III. But now I'm imagining people reacting like Scotty and Sulu to the plates.The reason was supposedly that cameras (red light and toll I assume) could not read the numbers on the blue/orange plate as well as they could dark numbers on a white background. So now NY State in its infinite wisdom has three different plate designs on the road.There was supposed to be a mandatory replacement for plates over 10 years old, which would have taken the white/blue plates out of service. Of course, people in NY tend to react negatively to plate replacements because they cost $25, especially since the blue/gold plates were supposed to be a mandatory replacement for everyone with the rationale being to raise money.
I haven't seen any of the new plates in the Rochester area thus far so my set could be one of the first ones here.
Hopefully! It's one of the worst stretches of concrete roadway I've driven on - although the first few miles of I-88 by Binghamton was equally as bad until it received some asphalt patches and diamond grinding a year or so ago.
The west end of I-88 is being redone right now. That will hopefully put an end to the misery there.
Re: Oneonta - Cobleskill...yeah. It's among the worst remaining sections of state-maintained road in the state. NY 2 over Petersburg Pass and US 219 near the PA line are contenders, the latter of which is original concrete from when it was dualized. The worst of it is apparently being fixed this year, hopefully they'll get to all of it over the next couple years. Cobleskill east has gotten an overlay over the past few years, which has helped significantly.
On the 15th, I saw my first new NY license plate at Wegmans here in Auburn. At first, I thought it was an old Liberty plate since it had dark text on a white background and I couldn't see the top or bottom of it. If I remember right, there was a plate frame that covered the top and bottom. Once I got a closer look at it, I thought it kind of looked like Texas plates do.
I want to see how the state handles the govt/ agency special plates. Example is I work for DOT, plates say NYS department of transportation on left and then two digit year and 4 digit serial no. Yy-xxxx. Also emergency management have the White with red version of the gold plates.. interesting to see how that translates to the govt issued plates.
Also, wonder if they’ll update the regional plates, Long Island never got the update for gold plates. The new plates are starting to pop up everywhere down here on the island and saw a commercial version as well. Definitely looks Better seeing blue “commercial” stamped on. Ottom opposed to the yellow “excelsior” on regular plates. Should have said Empire State.
Or the county name, like several other states.
Can I be the first to say...."eww"?I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by the NYSDMV's proposals before they were carried out.
I want to see how the state handles the govt/ agency special plates. Example is I work for DOT, plates say NYS department of transportation on left and then two digit year and 4 digit serial no. Yy-xxxx. Also emergency management have the White with red version of the gold plates.. interesting to see how that translates to the govt issued plates.MTA Buses look like this left side Metropolitan Transit Authority AU XXXX.
Also, wonder if they’ll update the regional plates, Long Island never got the update for gold plates. The new plates are starting to pop up everywhere down here on the island and saw a commercial version as well. Definitely looks Better seeing blue “commercial” stamped on. Ottom opposed to the yellow “excelsior” on regular plates. Should have said Empire State.
Region 10 doesn’t sign anything more than 1 mile, if I remember correctly most of our signs are 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 mile since everything is so close together.You can say that for Region 11 as well. However, there are segments of the Long Island Expressway where interchanges are spread much further apart between Exits 39 and 40, 68 and 69, and 70 and 71. Occasionally I read about proposals to add new interchanges in between these spaces, and I don't think they should... unless one of those interchanges is the formerly proposed Wantagh Parkway Extension. In that case, I say bring it on.
For anyone that lives or travels in New York: is the state becoming more strict with speed enforcement?
Recently our VMS's have been saying "SPEED LIMIT STRICTLY ENFORCED", I've seen more police out and about and running radar from new spots, and heard reports of people getting pulled over for high 70's on the Thruway which used to be safe.
So I thought I'd ask if it was just me, or is there something else going on? The state trying to make up for lost revenue elsewhere, maybe.
In my opinion, the new NY plates are more difficult to read than the blue/orange or the previous blue/white plates. Probably the best NY plate was the old liberty plates. They had bigger numerals.
For anyone that lives or travels in New York: is the state becoming more strict with speed enforcement?Lost revenue is an obvious factor, but those enforcement campaigns happen once every so often. I doubt it would be a permanent thing, police force is only that big, and crime rates seem to be up. Possibly ticket quotas would go up.
Recently our VMS's have been saying "SPEED LIMIT STRICTLY ENFORCED", I've seen more police out and about and running radar from new spots, and heard reports of people getting pulled over for high 70's on the Thruway which used to be safe.
So I thought I'd ask if it was just me, or is there something else going on? The state trying to make up for lost revenue elsewhere, maybe.
I think so. I was coming back from Ohio and Pennsylvnia at the height of the first wave of COVID and saw no less than 30 or so police over 100 miles between the Pennsylvania state line and Corning NY. I can't remember if I posted about it on here or not. In some areas, there was a cop for every other median opening.For the first few days after lockdown started and state of emergency was declared, state police seemingly went into the standard procedure for the state of emergency - developed, likely, with 9/11 or major hurricane in mind.
It wouldn't surprise me if they're trying to ramp up enforcement. It's been documented in several states that the drop in traffic due to COVID has greatly increased the rate of excessive speeding.I know a guy who enjoyed 90 MPH traffic flow on the Northway (I-87 north of Albany) as police was nowhere to be seen at the peak of NYC spread. Interestingly enough, there seemed to be fewer accidents - which were an almost daily thing on that stretch in better times
For anyone that lives or travels in New York: is the state becoming more strict with speed enforcement?I believe there was a campaign recently, but yes, it does seem to be up. Reminds me of the way things were in the aftermath of the Great Recession.
Recently our VMS's have been saying "SPEED LIMIT STRICTLY ENFORCED", I've seen more police out and about and running radar from new spots, and heard reports of people getting pulled over for high 70's on the Thruway which used to be safe.
So I thought I'd ask if it was just me, or is there something else going on? The state trying to make up for lost revenue elsewhere, maybe.
Must depend on location. Enforcement has been pretty lax recently from my experience. Hell, just today, traffic on the Thruway south of Albany was moving 80+ with few cops to be seen.
Must depend on location. Enforcement has been pretty lax recently from my experience. Hell, just today, traffic on the Thruway south of Albany was moving 80+ with few cops to be seen.
One day during the past week, I think I saw Troopers staked out at three different locations along NY 5S between Ilion and Utica (A notorious speed trap to begin with).
It wouldn't surprise me if they're trying to ramp up enforcement. It's been documented in several states that the drop in traffic due to COVID has greatly increased the rate of excessive speeding.
A friend I met at a camp in Minnesota recently moved from Marshfield, WI, to Pittsford, NY (outside Rochester). Out of curiosity I went on GSV around the area. That led me to this horrific decaying bridge (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.078611,-77.4850733,3a,75y,355.14h,105.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9TPRM-7_o1MOlMXjZApIJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) at his exit (NY-31). Some of the other bridges (Erie Canal) are in bad shape as well, and the median is a flimsy guardrail (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.0770979,-77.4839145,3a,30.6y,164.35h,88.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWxrAt5fKAHGB1AsRaicrsw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) on the fully-asphalted 2-2 roadway. Any plans to widen/repave/expand 490 and replace aging bridges east of Rochester?
Strictly a guess, but I would think those box beams would be strong enough to stop a passenger car or small SUV. So they would be acceptable on parkways with no heavy truck traffic. But on any road with with trucks and busses, I would think the standard W-beam guide rail would be a better choice.Box beam is actually more rigid and requires less deflection space than W beam. From page 10-54 of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual:
One parkway where the box-beam was appropriate when erected in the late 1960's was the Taconic Parkway in Putnam County. Space was very limited so the slimmer guide rail was perfect for that road. When I drove that route again a few years ago, I was surprised to see that very little had changed on the Putnam County segment in the years since that box-beam installation.
10.2.3.4 Box Beam
This railing is a square structural steel tube, 6 inches on a side with a 3/16 inch wall
thickness. The rail is significantly more rigid than a W-beam and must be shop curved for
radii under 720 feet. Details of the system are shown on the Standard Sheets for 606 series
items. The system develops most of its redirective strength through beam action and
therefore does not require anchor blocks. Note that runs must be at least 125 feet in length
(measured as full length of rail, toe to toe, of terminals) for the system to develop its
intended deflection resistance.
The main advantages of box beam guide rail are that:
- It requires less space for deflection than an equivalently supported W-beam.
- Its splice connection detail practically eliminates spearing problems.
- It is less of a visual obstruction than W-beam.
- It has a stronger, more rigid rail element and is therefore better at bridging between
points of support. (When struck, the corrugations in W-beam tend to flatten,
reducing its beam strength and increasing its tendency to fold around objects behind
the rail, rather than supporting itself as a rigid beam against them. This only
becomes an issue when vehicles strike the rail and cause more than the standard
deflection or objects are present within the deflection distance.)
The main disadvantages of box beam guide rail are that:
- It is less forgiving than cable or weak-post W-beam guide rail.
- It is significantly more expensive than cable or weak-post W-beam guide rail (but
only about 20% more expensive than heavy-post blocked-out corrugated rail).
- It is more difficult to repair.
- Significant repair delays may occur if damaged rail must be replaced with sections
shop-curved to the correct radius.
Box beam guide rail may be warranted when either of the following conditions apply:
- The appropriate clear zone width can not be economically obtained and the available
space between any nonremovable hazard and the edge of shoulder is adequate for
box beam but not for cable or W-beam on weak-posts.
- It is necessary to transition to a rigid barrier system.
Casual observation: I saw 3 new plates with general issue ABC-1234 combination transferred from previous plates (first letter other than K). I don't think I saw that many transferred sequences on yellow plates throughout their tenure. I would interpret that as people liking new design enough to willingly replace older plates...Can I be the first to say...."eww"?I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by the NYSDMV's proposals before they were carried out.
Casual observation: I saw 3 new plates with general issue ABC-1234 combination transferred from previous plates (first letter other than K). I don't think I saw that many transferred sequences on yellow plates throughout their tenure. I would interpret that as people liking new design enough to willingly replace older plates...
I wonder how they get them, given that the DMV is still not open for all services. Licence plate replacement is one of the services they are NOT open for.Casual observation: I saw 3 new plates with general issue ABC-1234 combination transferred from previous plates (first letter other than K). I don't think I saw that many transferred sequences on yellow plates throughout their tenure. I would interpret that as people liking new design enough to willingly replace older plates...Can I be the first to say...."eww"?I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by the NYSDMV's proposals before they were carried out.
Online, maybe? Registration renewal is one of those things which easily work by mail. Custom plates arrive by mail anyway.I wonder how they get them, given that the DMV is still not open for all services. Licence plate replacement is one of the services they are NOT open for.Casual observation: I saw 3 new plates with general issue ABC-1234 combination transferred from previous plates (first letter other than K). I don't think I saw that many transferred sequences on yellow plates throughout their tenure. I would interpret that as people liking new design enough to willingly replace older plates...Can I be the first to say...."eww"?I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by the NYSDMV's proposals before they were carried out.
Online, maybe? Registration renewal is one of those things which easily work by mail. Custom plates arrive by mail anyway.I wonder how they get them, given that the DMV is still not open for all services. Licence plate replacement is one of the services they are NOT open for.Casual observation: I saw 3 new plates with general issue ABC-1234 combination transferred from previous plates (first letter other than K). I don't think I saw that many transferred sequences on yellow plates throughout their tenure. I would interpret that as people liking new design enough to willingly replace older plates...Can I be the first to say...."eww"?I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by the NYSDMV's proposals before they were carried out.
I saw commercial, vanity, county (SP-123), and even historical one. I am actually surprised given the situation.Online, maybe? Registration renewal is one of those things which easily work by mail. Custom plates arrive by mail anyway.I wonder how they get them, given that the DMV is still not open for all services. Licence plate replacement is one of the services they are NOT open for.Casual observation: I saw 3 new plates with general issue ABC-1234 combination transferred from previous plates (first letter other than K). I don't think I saw that many transferred sequences on yellow plates throughout their tenure. I would interpret that as people liking new design enough to willingly replace older plates...Can I be the first to say...."eww"?I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by the NYSDMV's proposals before they were carried out.
Probably online...I've renewed our registrations online the last couple of times and you are given three renewal options: Keep your current plate and number, new plate with new number, and new plate with current number. And the turnaround time is usually relatively quick (New documents arrive in about a week).
Also drove down toward Cooperstown and Oneonta this morning and spotted two more pre-Excelsior combos on Excelsior plates (D-series and J-series...Yet to see A, C, G, and H) and also a vanity plate.
When renewing (online or by mail) you can opt to have your old plate number on new plates but will have to pay an extra $20.00 for that in addition to the $25.00 new plate fee. I believe that can be done with vanity plates if you already had them.I saw commercial, vanity, county (SP-123), and even historical one. I am actually surprised given the situation.Online, maybe? Registration renewal is one of those things which easily work by mail. Custom plates arrive by mail anyway.I wonder how they get them, given that the DMV is still not open for all services. Licence plate replacement is one of the services they are NOT open for.Casual observation: I saw 3 new plates with general issue ABC-1234 combination transferred from previous plates (first letter other than K). I don't think I saw that many transferred sequences on yellow plates throughout their tenure. I would interpret that as people liking new design enough to willingly replace older plates...Can I be the first to say...."eww"?I'm pretty sure I was disgusted by the NYSDMV's proposals before they were carried out.
Probably online...I've renewed our registrations online the last couple of times and you are given three renewal options: Keep your current plate and number, new plate with new number, and new plate with current number. And the turnaround time is usually relatively quick (New documents arrive in about a week).
Also drove down toward Cooperstown and Oneonta this morning and spotted two more pre-Excelsior combos on Excelsior plates (D-series and J-series...Yet to see A, C, G, and H) and also a vanity plate.
It's so odd to me that NYSDMV is allowing people to keep the older plate designs. Back in 1986 when we went from the original blue on gold to the Liberty plates there was no choice, and I'm pretty sure we still had to pay extra for the new design. I thought the idea was to get everyone on the same generation of license plates.There was the same idea in 2008 under gov. Patterson - but that was an apparent attempt for money grab in difficult times, public pressure built up and they had to retreat to keeping old design as valid and new as new issue.
New topic, and Steve Alps might want to get in on this;
I was reading his article about the New York State Thruway detour after the Schoharie Creek Bridge disaster (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/detour/), and while I was looking at the page I saw the pylons for the apparent abandoned railroad bridges (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/detour/e4.jpg). I was wondering if anyone has ever looked at Historic Aerials' coverage of that portion of the state?
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=42.9308&lon=-74.2781
Because I see no evidence of any other parallel railroads crossing the creek from those maps. The only other line I see is on the other side of the Mohawk River.
Steve Alps made some errors in his reporting of the piers and bridge abutments. The lone pier in the middle of Schoharie Creek was for a former roadway bridge, which tied into Railroad St in Fort Hunter. This roadway is clearly shown on the 1944 topo map image kalvado posted.Ya know, if you submit this error to me by my handy email posted on my website, I'd fix it (: Keep in mind Historic Aerials didn't exist for a lot of my captions years ago.
The bridge abutment further downstream that he shows in the following photo isn't for a former rail bridge, but instead was for an abandoned section of canal.
On another topic, what's with the awkward interchange with US 9 and US 44/NY 55 in Poughkeepsie? Obviously it's an old interchange with the left exits/merges and short accel lanes, but why choose said design in the first place? It does no favors for US 9 -> Mid Hudson Bridge traffic (US 9 NB competes with exiting SB traffic) and if they were to redesign the interchange it could do with flyovers directly accessing 44/55 WB.
I think the bowtie design was innovative given the space constraints, but the left lane exits and merges are problematic. I wonder if speed reducing measures on US 9 would help matters.On another topic, what's with the awkward interchange with US 9 and US 44/NY 55 in Poughkeepsie? Obviously it's an old interchange with the left exits/merges and short accel lanes, but why choose said design in the first place? It does no favors for US 9 -> Mid Hudson Bridge traffic (US 9 NB competes with exiting SB traffic) and if they were to redesign the interchange it could do with flyovers directly accessing 44/55 WB.
I drove through that interchange daily for about 10 years. I don't think it can be fixed because there's no space on either side. I was surprised when there wasn't someone rear-ended there. Accident rate was 10.97 per million vehicle miles when I asked for accident data
On another topic, what's with the awkward interchange with US 9 and US 44/NY 55 in Poughkeepsie? Obviously it's an old interchange with the left exits/merges and short accel lanes, but why choose said design in the first place? It does no favors for US 9 -> Mid Hudson Bridge traffic (US 9 NB competes with exiting SB traffic) and if they were to redesign the interchange it could do with flyovers directly accessing 44/55 WB.
I'm sorry for asking stupid questions, but what is standard NY parkway signage? A green background with large first letters (like the Taconic State Parkway as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6255425,-73.7741202,3a,20y,75.29h,96.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suo0jg-qS2T9MkMW9TfLmLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/))? A lighthouse in the background with a single large letter (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242699,-73.5374768,3a,19.3y,137.19h,99.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5XmY3HgDtaQ0W8eggVnftA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (like W in Wantagh Parkway)? A Thruway-style circular design (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3634771,-78.0359762,3a,15y,42.29h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSDtitPFflQrFZE8Rb0yftQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (as shown on the Lake Ontario Pkwy)?
I'm fascinated by the NY Parkway system, with so many substandard interchanges and old bridges. I don't know much about NY roads in general, and I'd love to learn more.
The cleanest way to fix it is to make it a SPUI, but I'm sure a free-flowing interchange for all directions is preferred.I think the bowtie design was innovative given the space constraints, but the left lane exits and merges are problematic. I wonder if speed reducing measures on US 9 would help matters.On another topic, what's with the awkward interchange with US 9 and US 44/NY 55 in Poughkeepsie? Obviously it's an old interchange with the left exits/merges and short accel lanes, but why choose said design in the first place? It does no favors for US 9 -> Mid Hudson Bridge traffic (US 9 NB competes with exiting SB traffic) and if they were to redesign the interchange it could do with flyovers directly accessing 44/55 WB.
I drove through that interchange daily for about 10 years. I don't think it can be fixed because there's no space on either side. I was surprised when there wasn't someone rear-ended there. Accident rate was 10.97 per million vehicle miles when I asked for accident data
The cleanest way to fix it is to make it a SPUI, but I'm sure a free-flowing interchange for all directions is preferred.
I'm sorry for asking stupid questions, but what is standard NY parkway signage? A green background with large first letters (like the Taconic State Parkway as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6255425,-73.7741202,3a,20y,75.29h,96.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suo0jg-qS2T9MkMW9TfLmLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/))? A lighthouse in the background with a single large letter (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242699,-73.5374768,3a,19.3y,137.19h,99.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5XmY3HgDtaQ0W8eggVnftA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (like W in Wantagh Parkway)? A Thruway-style circular design (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3634771,-78.0359762,3a,15y,42.29h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSDtitPFflQrFZE8Rb0yftQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (as shown on the Lake Ontario Pkwy)?
I'm fascinated by the NY Parkway system, with so many substandard interchanges and old bridges. I don't know much about NY roads in general, and I'd love to learn more.
I'm sorry for asking stupid questions, but what is standard NY parkway signage? A green background with large first letters (like the Taconic State Parkway as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6255425,-73.7741202,3a,20y,75.29h,96.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suo0jg-qS2T9MkMW9TfLmLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/))? A lighthouse in the background with a single large letter (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242699,-73.5374768,3a,19.3y,137.19h,99.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5XmY3HgDtaQ0W8eggVnftA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (like W in Wantagh Parkway)? A Thruway-style circular design (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3634771,-78.0359762,3a,15y,42.29h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSDtitPFflQrFZE8Rb0yftQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (as shown on the Lake Ontario Pkwy)?
I'm fascinated by the NY Parkway system, with so many substandard interchanges and old bridges. I don't know much about NY roads in general, and I'd love to learn more.
Depends on the region. Historically, there were two main standards: the Long Island Montauk Point Lighthouse shield and the green state route shield with the parkway name. Lake Ontario and Robert Moses/Niagara Scenic always had their own shields.
In recent years, the New York City parkways have slowly been shifting to shields similar to the Long Island parkways. These shields replace the Montauk Point Lighthouse with a symbol representing each parkway. The Jackie Robinson Parkway is a picture of Jackie Robinson (https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/images/infrastructure/jackie-robinson-parkway.jpg), the Grand Central Parkway is the Unisphere, the Henry Hudson Parkway is the Little Red Lighthouse, FDR Drive has 1 WTC and the Brooklyn Bridge. I think the Bronx River Parkway is a boat.
The current Niagara Scenic Parkway shield (and former Robert Moses State Parkway shield) were taller state route shields, but white on green (like the parkway shields).
The green and white Region 8 and beyond parkway shield was around before the ones in Long Island and New York City. Long Island started getting theirs Montauk Point Lighthouse shields in the 1980's and the Grand Central got their own around that time as well. Eventually the "Westchester and beyond" shields started spreading into New York City, until they were replaced by what cl94 describes above.I'm sorry for asking stupid questions, but what is standard NY parkway signage? A green background with large first letters (like the Taconic State Parkway as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6255425,-73.7741202,3a,20y,75.29h,96.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suo0jg-qS2T9MkMW9TfLmLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/))? A lighthouse in the background with a single large letter (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242699,-73.5374768,3a,19.3y,137.19h,99.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5XmY3HgDtaQ0W8eggVnftA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (like W in Wantagh Parkway)? A Thruway-style circular design (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3634771,-78.0359762,3a,15y,42.29h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSDtitPFflQrFZE8Rb0yftQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (as shown on the Lake Ontario Pkwy)?
I'm fascinated by the NY Parkway system, with so many substandard interchanges and old bridges. I don't know much about NY roads in general, and I'd love to learn more.
Depends on the region. Historically, there were two main standards: the Long Island Montauk Point Lighthouse shield and the green state route shield with the parkway name. Lake Ontario and Robert Moses/Niagara Scenic always had their own shields.
In recent years, the New York City parkways have slowly been shifting to shields similar to the Long Island parkways. These shields replace the Montauk Point Lighthouse with a symbol representing each parkway. The Jackie Robinson Parkway is a picture of Jackie Robinson (https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/images/infrastructure/jackie-robinson-parkway.jpg), the Grand Central Parkway is the Unisphere, the Henry Hudson Parkway is the Little Red Lighthouse, FDR Drive has 1 WTC and the Brooklyn Bridge. I think the Bronx River Parkway is a boat.
The current Niagara Scenic Parkway shield (and former Robert Moses State Parkway shield) were taller state route shields, but white on green (like the parkway shields).
Actually curious, is this an NYSDOT region thing? Region 8 does one thing, 10 something else, 11 yet another thing? 11 never really had a super formal thing, the Grand Central Pkwy had its own unique design for a long time and few of the other parkways rally used a unique shield, except for the Belt, which has a version of the LI lighthouse (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5924403,-73.9080239,3a,15y,322.25h,92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn0RVGBUvs45v5UcEFu6j-w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Any updates on if/when more routes may convert to mileage-based exits? The Hutchinson River Parkway was supposed to convert this year, but it looks like that is not going to happen. It looks like New York's conversion will continue at a snail's pace. :-(According the the website, the project is still on: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=881459
*mutters about data system issues and WEPI under his breath...*Any updates on if/when more routes may convert to mileage-based exits? The Hutchinson River Parkway was supposed to convert this year, but it looks like that is not going to happen. It looks like New York's conversion will continue at a snail's pace. :-(According the the website, the project is still on: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=881459
The bridge abutment further downstream that he shows in the following photo isn't for a former rail bridge, but instead was for an abandoned section of canal.I thought that might've been for the Canal. Are there any sections of the canal used for shipping anymore?
Maybe a stupid question, but why can't short parkways just stay sequential? The only time you really need mileage-based exits are on long routes when you want to be able to judge how long you have left. Can't a short parkway like the Hutch keep its numbers as is to avoid confusion?
I'm sorry for asking stupid questions, but what is standard NY parkway signage? A green background with large first letters (like the Taconic State Parkway as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6255425,-73.7741202,3a,20y,75.29h,96.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suo0jg-qS2T9MkMW9TfLmLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/))? A lighthouse in the background with a single large letter (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242699,-73.5374768,3a,19.3y,137.19h,99.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5XmY3HgDtaQ0W8eggVnftA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (like W in Wantagh Parkway)? A Thruway-style circular design (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3634771,-78.0359762,3a,15y,42.29h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSDtitPFflQrFZE8Rb0yftQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (as shown on the Lake Ontario Pkwy)?i know the Parkway signs with the light house are long island parkways and I know the Jackie Robinson has Jackie Robinson swinging a bat
I'm fascinated by the NY Parkway system, with so many substandard interchanges and old bridges. I don't know much about NY roads in general, and I'd love to learn more.
So NYSDOT has released preliminary drawings for the N.Y.-5 Skyway removal/connection, and I have to say that I wish the Skyway would stay, but I get why it's coming down. Nevertheless, it's still exciting to see new highway being constructed in Western NY for the first time since US 219 in 2009.
Naturally, I'm guessing that politicians would prefer the boulevard option, but I'm leaning towards the freeway one myself. I get that people want an all-boulevard connection to Blasdell, but why?
*pics*
So NYSDOT has released preliminary drawings for the N.Y.-5 Skyway removal/connection, and I have to say that I wish the Skyway would stay, but I get why it's coming down. Nevertheless, it's still exciting to see new highway being constructed in Western NY for the first time since US 219 in 2009.
Naturally, I'm guessing that politicians would prefer the boulevard option, but I'm leaning towards the freeway one myself. I get that people want an all-boulevard connection to Blasdell, but why?
*pics*
There doesn't seem to be any mention of it in the report (https://images.radio.com/wben/Project%20Scoping%20Report_August%202020%281%29.pdf), so I wonder how NY 5 would be realigned if either of the above options ends up getting chosen. Seems the easiest option to me would be to have it leave the freeway/boulevard at the lest exit before I-190, then overlap with US 62 north to UB South (at which point it would rejoin its' current routing).
It looks like New York's conversion will continue at a snail's pace. :-(
I'm sorry for asking stupid questions, but what is standard NY parkway signage? A green background with large first letters (like the Taconic State Parkway as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6255425,-73.7741202,3a,20y,75.29h,96.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suo0jg-qS2T9MkMW9TfLmLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/))? A lighthouse in the background with a single large letter (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242699,-73.5374768,3a,19.3y,137.19h,99.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5XmY3HgDtaQ0W8eggVnftA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (like W in Wantagh Parkway)? A Thruway-style circular design (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3634771,-78.0359762,3a,15y,42.29h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSDtitPFflQrFZE8Rb0yftQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) (as shown on the Lake Ontario Pkwy)?
I'm fascinated by the NY Parkway system, with so many substandard interchanges and old bridges. I don't know much about NY roads in general, and I'd love to learn more.
I found some three-section bimodal-arrow FYA signals in (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1221364,-75.2911801,3a,43.1y,214.46h,99.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy_ttrFHlkNpWIC6_wCAfTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) Utica (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1380262,-75.2760884,3a,16.7y,363.17h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7rP4yDNQB681oSN6207EAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/). Any more of these in NY?I’m not always clear on the terminology, but if you mean a 3-section signal R/Y/FYA, yes. In Geneva, on 5 & 20 westbound at Castle St., the right turn signal is one of these. (GSV is too old to show it.)
I found some three-section bimodal-arrow FYA signals in (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1221364,-75.2911801,3a,43.1y,214.46h,99.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy_ttrFHlkNpWIC6_wCAfTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) Utica (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1380262,-75.2760884,3a,16.7y,363.17h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7rP4yDNQB681oSN6207EAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/). Any more of these in NY?I’m not always clear on the terminology, but if you mean a 3-section signal R/Y/FYA, yes. In Geneva, on 5 & 20 westbound at Castle St., the right turn signal is one of these. (GSV is too old to show it.)
The Palisades Parkway has its own brown leaf design with PALISADES/INTERSTATE/PARKWAY at the bottom. There's a modified version (https://goo.gl/maps/vDqJUZh59aAN237h9) with a smaller leaf and bigger Palisades/Interstate/Parkway text in mixed case.
(for example, a restaurant has to serve breakfast)
(for example, a restaurant has to serve breakfast)
Lunch/dinner only places can't be on logo signs?
Those and Tiorati. I've wondered if those are officially parkways or not.The Palisades Parkway has its own brown leaf design with PALISADES/INTERSTATE/PARKWAY at the bottom. There's a modified version (https://goo.gl/maps/vDqJUZh59aAN237h9) with a smaller leaf and bigger Palisades/Interstate/Parkway text in mixed case.
This style is used for all the parkways inside Palisades Interstate Park. Seven Lakes Drive and Lake Welch Drive have this type of signage as well.
For what level of "where" are we talking about? The logo signs are managed by the regional Real Estate offices, with businesses having to adhere to various requirements to have their logo on a sign (for example, a restaurant has to serve breakfast). That said, as in all things, I'm sure there is statewide guidance of some kind.That's very interesting, had no idea about a "breakfast" regulation. However, I feel like in R10 and R11 the logo signs are nowhere to be found. Instead, they're replace with a blue sign with generic icons for gas and food.
Those and Tiorati. I've wondered if those are officially parkways or not.The Palisades Parkway has its own brown leaf design with PALISADES/INTERSTATE/PARKWAY at the bottom. There's a modified version (https://goo.gl/maps/vDqJUZh59aAN237h9) with a smaller leaf and bigger Palisades/Interstate/Parkway text in mixed case.
This style is used for all the parkways inside Palisades Interstate Park. Seven Lakes Drive and Lake Welch Drive have this type of signage as well.
there was a fairly interesting situation regarding one of Albany stores fighting for a spot on services sign. One of the things DOT was bringing up was that services signs are not used within urban areas as there are too many locations to list - and services are available basically in any direction.For what level of "where" are we talking about? The logo signs are managed by the regional Real Estate offices, with businesses having to adhere to various requirements to have their logo on a sign (for example, a restaurant has to serve breakfast). That said, as in all things, I'm sure there is statewide guidance of some kind.That's very interesting, had no idea about a "breakfast" regulation. However, I feel like in R10 and R11 the logo signs are nowhere to be found. Instead, they're replace with a blue sign with generic icons for gas and food.
I see.there was a fairly interesting situation regarding one of Albany stores fighting for a spot on services sign. One of the things DOT was bringing up was that services signs are not used within urban areas as there are too many locations to list - and services are available basically in any direction.For what level of "where" are we talking about? The logo signs are managed by the regional Real Estate offices, with businesses having to adhere to various requirements to have their logo on a sign (for example, a restaurant has to serve breakfast). That said, as in all things, I'm sure there is statewide guidance of some kind.That's very interesting, had no idea about a "breakfast" regulation. However, I feel like in R10 and R11 the logo signs are nowhere to be found. Instead, they're replace with a blue sign with generic icons for gas and food.
If anything, R10 and R11 can use the same reasoning across their entire footprint.
And, to be fair, sending people up US 9 north is kind if silly since you have to drive up through Loudonville to get to the commercial strip.Those arrows were pointing at Northern Boulevard (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.672726,-73.7466536,3a,21.5y,16.62h,92.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBssnMHt6-ky-MDu_eFwSVw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). The gas stations on US 9 north of Loudonville wouldn't even qualify (https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/nys-signs/logo#:~:text=An%20advertised%20facility%20must%20be,%2C%20back%20panels%2C%20and%20signs.).
That just supports the complainant's argument. Having to take US 9 and then turn off again is more complicated than just driving into Arbor Hill.And, to be fair, sending people up US 9 north is kind if silly since you have to drive up through Loudonville to get to the commercial strip.Those arrows were pointing at Northern Boulevard (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.672726,-73.7466536,3a,21.5y,16.62h,92.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBssnMHt6-ky-MDu_eFwSVw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). The gas stations on US 9 north of Loudonville wouldn't even qualify (https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/nys-signs/logo#:~:text=An%20advertised%20facility%20must%20be,%2C%20back%20panels%2C%20and%20signs.).
The only recent debate in Albany I was aware of was an Arbor Hill business claiming racism or classism because the general service signs (not full branded logo signs) only had direction arrows pointing to US 9 north from I-90. And, to be fair, sending people up US 9 north is kind if silly since you have to drive up through Loudonville to get to the commercial strip.Not so fast.
So, NYSDOT made the arrows bidirectional. Case closed.
Under federal guidelines, according to Breen [NYSDOT spokesperson], food signs are used to direct motorists only to rural areas.https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Fork-in-the-road-not-on-the-sign-912035.php
"We expect that in urbanized areas, people will assume that there are food and services there," Breen said.
The only recent debate in Albany I was aware of was an Arbor Hill business claiming racism or classism because the general service signs (not full branded logo signs) only had direction arrows pointing to US 9 north from I-90. And, to be fair, sending people up US 9 north is kind if silly since you have to drive up through Loudonville to get to the commercial strip.Not so fast.
So, NYSDOT made the arrows bidirectional. Case closed.QuoteUnder federal guidelines, according to Breen [NYSDOT spokesperson], food signs are used to direct motorists only to rural areas.https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Fork-in-the-road-not-on-the-sign-912035.php
"We expect that in urbanized areas, people will assume that there are food and services there," Breen said.
Until NYSDOT PR people make up regulations and reasons on the fly (not that I would be surprised if that is the actual case), things were not that simple.
Except you don't even get on US 9. You're still on the ramp from I-90 when that split happens. In fact, there is no access to Northern Boulevard from US 9 north (or access to US 9 south) at all! It LOOKS like a diamond interchange, but it's really a pair of half-diamonds that meet at each other - one to US 9 north/from US 9 south, and one to/from I-90. This side has a nice plaza and a few businesses. On the south side, the only thing with a parking lot is a tiny Stewart's in a bad neighborhood.That just supports the complainant's argument. Having to take US 9 and then turn off again is more complicated than just driving into Arbor Hill.And, to be fair, sending people up US 9 north is kind if silly since you have to drive up through Loudonville to get to the commercial strip.Those arrows were pointing at Northern Boulevard (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.672726,-73.7466536,3a,21.5y,16.62h,92.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBssnMHt6-ky-MDu_eFwSVw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). The gas stations on US 9 north of Loudonville wouldn't even qualify (https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/nys-signs/logo#:~:text=An%20advertised%20facility%20must%20be,%2C%20back%20panels%2C%20and%20signs.).
The complainant, I believe, owned one of the restaurants down through there.Except you don't even get on US 9. You're still on the ramp from I-90 when that split happens. In fact, there is no access to Northern Boulevard from US 9 north (or access to US 9 south) at all! It LOOKS like a diamond interchange, but it's really a pair of half-diamonds that meet at each other - one to US 9 north/from US 9 south, and one to/from I-90. This side has a nice plaza and a few businesses. On the south side, the only thing with a parking lot is a tiny Stewart's in a bad neighborhood.That just supports the complainant's argument. Having to take US 9 and then turn off again is more complicated than just driving into Arbor Hill.And, to be fair, sending people up US 9 north is kind if silly since you have to drive up through Loudonville to get to the commercial strip.Those arrows were pointing at Northern Boulevard (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.672726,-73.7466536,3a,21.5y,16.62h,92.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBssnMHt6-ky-MDu_eFwSVw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). The gas stations on US 9 north of Loudonville wouldn't even qualify (https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/nys-signs/logo#:~:text=An%20advertised%20facility%20must%20be,%2C%20back%20panels%2C%20and%20signs.).
I found some three-section bimodal-arrow FYA signals in (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1221364,-75.2911801,3a,43.1y,214.46h,99.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy_ttrFHlkNpWIC6_wCAfTg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) Utica (https://www.google.pl/maps/@43.1380262,-75.2760884,3a,16.7y,363.17h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7rP4yDNQB681oSN6207EAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/). Any more of these in NY?
Kalvado, have you ever contacted NYS DOT re: that signing situation on I-87 approaching the Thruway?Local newspaper did. DOT responded with in-stock bullshit - compliant to regulations, no plans to modify.
That is one of very poorly designed local spots in general, signage just makes it worse.
Upd. I missed the narrative, bottom line still the same
https://blog.timesunion.com/gettingthere/ramp-to-thruway-a-place-for-near-misses/1511/
This might be a case where even though the signing is technically correct, it does not convey the needed info in an intuitive form for the average driver and could be improved..............And just as I've often said about traffic signal installations, just because it meets minimum standards, that doesn't necessarily make it a good quality design.
One idea that I discussed with a friend of mine who is a professional traffic engineer with his own consulting company is the idea of peer review. Essentially, engineers should take a business trip to an unfamiliar part of the country and drive the roads and try to figure out if everything makes sense. So if you brought an engineer from Mississippi to drive the Northway and he were confronted with the setup to the Thruway, would he think it was intuitive? Would he think that some more signage is necessary, especially as in almost anywhere you would normally keep left to stay on I-87. Would he be able to recommend something appropriate? (In all cases, likely yes).
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be plans to do something like this at all.
Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.Kalvado, have you ever contacted NYS DOT re: that signing situation on I-87 approaching the Thruway?Local newspaper did. DOT responded with in-stock bullshit - compliant to regulations, no plans to modify.
That is one of very poorly designed local spots in general, signage just makes it worse.
Upd. I missed the narrative, bottom line still the same
https://blog.timesunion.com/gettingthere/ramp-to-thruway-a-place-for-near-misses/1511/
This might be a case where even though the signing is technically correct, it does not convey the needed info in an intuitive form for the average driver and could be improved..............And just as I've often said about traffic signal installations, just because it meets minimum standards, that doesn't necessarily make it a good quality design.
Sorry to chime in a little late on this ....
One idea that I discussed with a friend of mine who is a professional traffic engineer with his own consulting company is the idea of peer review. Essentially, engineers should take a business trip to an unfamiliar part of the country and drive the roads and try to figure out if everything makes sense. So if you brought an engineer from Mississippi to drive the Northway and he were confronted with the setup to the Thruway, would he think it was intuitive? Would he think that some more signage is necessary, especially as in almost anywhere you would normally keep left to stay on I-87. Would he be able to recommend something appropriate? (In all cases, likely yes).
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be plans to do something like this at all.
Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.Kalvado, have you ever contacted NYS DOT re: that signing situation on I-87 approaching the Thruway?Local newspaper did. DOT responded with in-stock bullshit - compliant to regulations, no plans to modify.
That is one of very poorly designed local spots in general, signage just makes it worse.
Upd. I missed the narrative, bottom line still the same
https://blog.timesunion.com/gettingthere/ramp-to-thruway-a-place-for-near-misses/1511/
This might be a case where even though the signing is technically correct, it does not convey the needed info in an intuitive form for the average driver and could be improved..............And just as I've often said about traffic signal installations, just because it meets minimum standards, that doesn't necessarily make it a good quality design.
Sorry to chime in a little late on this ....
One idea that I discussed with a friend of mine who is a professional traffic engineer with his own consulting company is the idea of peer review. Essentially, engineers should take a business trip to an unfamiliar part of the country and drive the roads and try to figure out if everything makes sense. So if you brought an engineer from Mississippi to drive the Northway and he were confronted with the setup to the Thruway, would he think it was intuitive? Would he think that some more signage is necessary, especially as in almost anywhere you would normally keep left to stay on I-87. Would he be able to recommend something appropriate? (In all cases, likely yes).
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be plans to do something like this at all.
I still think there is a helicopter parking somewhere by DOT... I just cannot find it.Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.Kalvado, have you ever contacted NYS DOT re: that signing situation on I-87 approaching the Thruway?Local newspaper did. DOT responded with in-stock bullshit - compliant to regulations, no plans to modify.
That is one of very poorly designed local spots in general, signage just makes it worse.
Upd. I missed the narrative, bottom line still the same
https://blog.timesunion.com/gettingthere/ramp-to-thruway-a-place-for-near-misses/1511/
This might be a case where even though the signing is technically correct, it does not convey the needed info in an intuitive form for the average driver and could be improved..............And just as I've often said about traffic signal installations, just because it meets minimum standards, that doesn't necessarily make it a good quality design.
Sorry to chime in a little late on this ....
One idea that I discussed with a friend of mine who is a professional traffic engineer with his own consulting company is the idea of peer review. Essentially, engineers should take a business trip to an unfamiliar part of the country and drive the roads and try to figure out if everything makes sense. So if you brought an engineer from Mississippi to drive the Northway and he were confronted with the setup to the Thruway, would he think it was intuitive? Would he think that some more signage is necessary, especially as in almost anywhere you would normally keep left to stay on I-87. Would he be able to recommend something appropriate? (In all cases, likely yes).
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be plans to do something like this at all.
It was my understanding that NYSDOT had conferences of some sort in the different regions, bringing all of whatever level of management or whatever NYSDOT together in Utica or Buffalo or Albany, depending on the quarter or year. I can’t help but think when a traffic engineer goes to Utica they can’t help but notice the weirdness with To Region 2’s signing practices
Re: the Northway SB at the Thruway, I think a lot of the problems stem from the fact that the stay on I-87 SB traffic is forced into a single lane that splits immediately into two on the ramp. I assume there's some good reason, for the setup, but it doesn't make sense to me. Why not keep the rightmost lane exit only to continue on I-87 SB, and the next lane split at the ramp with the option of continuing to the I-90 EB ramp or taking the I-87 SB ramp? This would especially help with those cars that try to pull in at the last moment to try to get ahead of slow trucks. Maybe someone on here who knows more about the engineering of such things can set me straight and has an idea why the current configuration is better.It had been designed the way you describe. If you look carefully, ramp is wide enough for 2 lanes, and actually did carry 2 lanes. However, it turned out as a high accident rate setup - design speed of 55 MPH turned out to be overly optimistic. Instead of redoing the ramp or finding some other option to slow the traffic, a "temporary" single lane was adopted. Redoing that ramp, per @Rothman, is not even being discussed.
Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.
Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.
I’m just a principal engineer technician but I oversee r10 construction ADA compliance and now training for work zone inspection, I’d love to visit the other 10 regions and see how things are done differently.
Wow, I didn't know NYSDOT doesn't allow engineer's travel. How far can you go from the office without facing penalties - 10 miles? or less?Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.
I’m just a principal engineer technician but I oversee r10 construction ADA compliance and now training for work zone inspection, I’d love to visit the other 10 regions and see how things are done differently.
Wow, I didn't know NYSDOT doesn't allow engineer's travel. How far can you go from the office without facing penalties - 10 miles? or less?Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.
I’m just a principal engineer technician but I oversee r10 construction ADA compliance and now training for work zone inspection, I’d love to visit the other 10 regions and see how things are done differently.
Wow, I didn't know NYSDOT doesn't allow engineer's travel. How far can you go from the office without facing penalties - 10 miles? or less?Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.
I’m just a principal engineer technician but I oversee r10 construction ADA compliance and now training for work zone inspection, I’d love to visit the other 10 regions and see how things are done differently.
My post may have been misleading, engineers definitively travel to other regions especially for state wide meetings and seminars. I’m not high up enough in engineer chain of command or level of importance to go on these work related trips. Essentially my title doesn’t warrant needing to visit other regions, my supervisor may go though. Most intrastate travel has been limited to zoom/ webinar meetings to avoid covid infections this year as well. As far as penalty goes, there’s really no penalty but you better have good reason to travel to other regions. I know upstate the regions are rather large and can take a few hours to traverse compared to r10 of just Nassau and Suffolk. Being from region 10, we really don’t ever have a reason to venture outside of Nassau/ Suffolk except on short spurts of GCP, Belt Pkwy, 495 and few state routes just over the queens border to travel to other locations in Nassau. In my 7.5 years with R10, I’ve only ventured out of R10 once last April to r8 Hawthorne TMC for inspector training (all “new” construction hires from r8,10,11 went to this).My coverage area is all DOT roads from queens/ Nassau border to the East end forks of orient and montauk. In R10, Most people are restricted to the main office building in hauppauge or if In field such as construction or maintenance, they’re limited to the construction contract they’re assigned to or maintenance residency they work out of and the roads they cover; it may be different in the other regions of upstate though.
On the same token.. .Last weekend I passed a maintenance area on a Thruway, just south of Albany (exit 22 or so). There were two green signs prepared for installation: "TAP New York" What those are about??I'm curious about that myself, though I'm not sure they're being prepared for installation... they've been sitting there for YEARS.
Wow, I didn't know NYSDOT doesn't allow engineer's travel. How far can you go from the office without facing penalties - 10 miles? or less?Engineers should just visit other regions in NYS for starters.
I’m just a principal engineer technician but I oversee r10 construction ADA compliance and now training for work zone inspection, I’d love to visit the other 10 regions and see how things are done differently.
My post may have been misleading, engineers definitively travel to other regions especially for state wide meetings and seminars. I’m not high up enough in engineer chain of command or level of importance to go on these work related trips. Essentially my title doesn’t warrant needing to visit other regions, my supervisor may go though. Most intrastate travel has been limited to zoom/ webinar meetings to avoid covid infections this year as well. As far as penalty goes, there’s really no penalty but you better have good reason to travel to other regions. I know upstate the regions are rather large and can take a few hours to traverse compared to r10 of just Nassau and Suffolk. Being from region 10, we really don’t ever have a reason to venture outside of Nassau/ Suffolk except on short spurts of GCP, Belt Pkwy, 495 and few state routes just over the queens border to travel to other locations in Nassau. In my 7.5 years with R10, I’ve only ventured out of R10 once last April to r8 Hawthorne TMC for inspector training (all “new” construction hires from r8,10,11 went to this).My coverage area is all DOT roads from queens/ Nassau border to the East end forks of orient and montauk. In R10, Most people are restricted to the main office building in hauppauge or if In field such as construction or maintenance, they’re limited to the construction contract they’re assigned to or maintenance residency they work out of and the roads they cover; it may be different in the other regions of upstate though.
Thing is, most people on this forum don't see a 100-200 mile trip as something unusual. It is nice when your employer pays for the mileage, but pretty often it is just a fun ride. Looking at road features as you drive by is just another fun part.
On the same token.. .Last weekend I passed a maintenance area on a Thruway, just south of Albany (exit 22 or so). There were two green signs prepared for installation: "TAP New York" What those are about??
There's a new building proposed in Buffalo that would be built within the NY-5 E/I-190 N on-ramp loop... while I think it's an interesting idea, my gut tells me that there will be opposition from the DOT. Any thoughts?I think it's not a smart idea (parking?) Makes me think of the cloverleafs in MA that are horrifically expensive to upgrade, partially due to the fact development goes right up to the ramps.
Also, are there any other examples of projects like this around the US/internationally? I haven't found any.
(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/buffalonews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/11/311bb748-fde2-11ea-aa2d-7b276a7d60cf/5f6bbbe518941.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C803)
I can think of a walkway from the parking/transit going under the ramp. Cheaper than a driveway (but deliveries...)There's a new building proposed in Buffalo that would be built within the NY-5 E/I-190 N on-ramp loop... while I think it's an interesting idea, my gut tells me that there will be opposition from the DOT. Any thoughts?I think it's not a smart idea (parking?) Makes me think of the cloverleafs in MA that are horrifically expensive to upgrade, partially due to the fact development goes right up to the ramps.
Also, are there any other examples of projects like this around the US/internationally? I haven't found any.
(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/buffalonews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/11/311bb748-fde2-11ea-aa2d-7b276a7d60cf/5f6bbbe518941.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C803)
Based on https://www.buffalorising.com/2020/09/big-reveal-douglas-planning-residential-building/ the levels below the onramp will be parking, residential levels are even with the "grass" in the image.Even getting access to a lot within a loop would be a challenge, especially if you need a ramp down to parking.
The city owns the lot - would DOT have to approve?
Based on https://www.buffalorising.com/2020/09/big-reveal-douglas-planning-residential-building/ the levels below the onramp will be parking, residential levels are even with the "grass" in the image.Even getting access to a lot within a loop would be a challenge, especially if you need a ramp down to parking.
The city owns the lot - would DOT have to approve?
literally a SEA of parking lots
literally a SEA of parking lots
A literal sea of parking lots would hold boats, not cars.
they look like cars to me... (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Seattle-Tacoma+International+Airport/@47.4534289,-122.2998028,134m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x5490435542eafefd:0x99d3d9c4c7dc37b7!8m2!3d47.4502499!4d-122.3088165) :awesomeface:literally a SEA of parking lotsA literal sea of parking lots would hold boats, not cars.
Is there a reason why roads flanking the I-88 corridor (including ramps on I-88) have yield signs in lieu of stop signs? Traffic counts are probably lower since nearly every junction off of I-88 are rural, but this is something that's not replicated in other areas of the state. (IMO, yield signs are underappreciated.)
Driving question: I'm driving a cargo van from near Burlington-area to near Buffalo and back later this week- I lived in upstate NY for 7-8 years but never went that particular corridor. Maps are either suggesting taking 8 to 365 to the Thruway or 67 from Malta to Amsterdam. Anyone have experience with either? I'm thinking about driving 8/365 one way and 67 the other, but not sure if 8 is relatively straight/flat like Route 12 or curvy like, say, Route 3 (which would be not super appealing in a cargo van).
My mother grew up in Ballston Spa which you will pass through using 67 so 67 has always been my go-to route between the Northway and the Thruway and I know all the roads. With a car, I’d go I-87 to Exit 13, north on US 9 to Old Post Road and then west until it ends at Malta Ave. (with the van, south on US 9 to Malta Ave. will be better but slightly longer). Reaching Ballston Spa, left on Hyde Blvd. to East High Street, then right (and past the house my mother grew up in). East High St. then becomes NY 67 as you reach the middle of Ballston Spa. 67 will become a little curvy approaching Amsterdam and Amsterdam is always a pain to get through but it’s a good way to go.Driving question: I'm driving a cargo van from near Burlington-area to near Buffalo and back later this week- I lived in upstate NY for 7-8 years but never went that particular corridor. Maps are either suggesting taking 8 to 365 to the Thruway or 67 from Malta to Amsterdam. Anyone have experience with either? I'm thinking about driving 8/365 one way and 67 the other, but not sure if 8 is relatively straight/flat like Route 12 or curvy like, say, Route 3 (which would be not super appealing in a cargo van).
You came to the right place!
I've actually done both routes. NY 8 is not a bad road, definitely not as straight/flat as NY 12, but not as curvy as NY 3 either. It's the more scenic route by far, especially now that we're heading into leaf changing season, but it's going to be slower going and not as much opportunity to make up time. NY 67, on the other hand, is quite a nice road outside of Amsterdam, making it the preferred shortcut between I-87 and I-90. I've also taken NY 29 to NY 30A, but once was enough for that route. I'd vastly prefer NY 67: It's shorter, higher-quality road, fewer slowdowns, and fewer trucks. Just make sure to use Malta Ave/US 9 to connect to/from I-87.
There's a new building proposed in Buffalo that would be built within the NY-5 E/I-190 N on-ramp loop... while I think it's an interesting idea, my gut tells me that there will be opposition from the DOT. Any thoughts?Remember the CHP station in the middle of a loop ramp in "CHiPs?"
Also, are there any other examples of projects like this around the US/internationally? I haven't found any.
(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/buffalonews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/11/311bb748-fde2-11ea-aa2d-7b276a7d60cf/5f6bbbe518941.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C803)
There's a new building proposed in Buffalo that would be built within the NY-5 E/I-190 N on-ramp loop... while I think it's an interesting idea, my gut tells me that there will be opposition from the DOT. Any thoughts?Remember the CHP station in the middle of a loop ramp in "CHiPs?"
Also, are there any other examples of projects like this around the US/internationally? I haven't found any.
(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/buffalonews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/11/311bb748-fde2-11ea-aa2d-7b276a7d60cf/5f6bbbe518941.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C803)
That was a real CHP Station. I saw it myself on a visit to Los Angeles in 1984. It's at the interchange of the I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) and I-110 (Harbor Fwy) in the Downtown area.That's the one. I forgot the location, but I knew it was real. There's no way that's a safe arrangement.
Speaking of real police stations: https://goo.gl/maps/ncCs1vYa5HeSCx4h7That was a real CHP Station. I saw it myself on a visit to Los Angeles in 1984. It's at the interchange of the I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) and I-110 (Harbor Fwy) in the Downtown area.That's the one. I forgot the location, but I knew it was real. There's no way that's a safe arrangement.
Speaking of real police stations: https://goo.gl/maps/ncCs1vYa5HeSCx4h7That was a real CHP Station. I saw it myself on a visit to Los Angeles in 1984. It's at the interchange of the I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) and I-110 (Harbor Fwy) in the Downtown area.That's the one. I forgot the location, but I knew it was real. There's no way that's a safe arrangement.
That was a real CHP Station. I saw it myself on a visit to Los Angeles in 1984. It's at the interchange of the I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) and I-110 (Harbor Fwy) in the Downtown area.That's the one. I forgot the location, but I knew it was real. There's no way that's a safe arrangement.
Yeah. Unlike the Buffalo example (which admittedly has lower traffic), the access isn't at grade with the ramps. The CHP building is fairly nice, with a low profile and decent parking, not clinging to the ramp's edge as a multi-story building like the proposed Buffalo example.That was a real CHP Station. I saw it myself on a visit to Los Angeles in 1984. It's at the interchange of the I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) and I-110 (Harbor Fwy) in the Downtown area.That's the one. I forgot the location, but I knew it was real. There's no way that's a safe arrangement.
Why is that not a safe arrangement? Seems to me it's good use of the space.
The MUTCD specifies rounded corners. It allows the corners to either be actually rounded like NY does, or the sign can be square cornered with a rounded sign face like many states do.
There are also two types of sign construction. The square cornered signs are usually extruded design. The actual rounded signs are usually a flat sheet of metal (aluminum maybe) with stiffeners added to the back to make it more wind resistant.
Is the mileage-based renumbering of I84 complete now? It was mostly done as of January; I'm looking to confirm that 2->4 and 3->15 have happened.roadwaywiz did a livestream recently that included I-84. 3->15 was done and I think 2->4 was as well.
My mother grew up in Ballston Spa which you will pass through using 67 so 67 has always been my go-to route between the Northway and the Thruway and I know all the roads. With a car, I’d go I-87 to Exit 13, north on US 9 to Old Post Road and then west until it ends at Malta Ave. (with the van, south on US 9 to Malta Ave. will be better but slightly longer). Reaching Ballston Spa, left on Hyde Blvd. to East High Street, then right (and past the house my mother grew up in). East High St. then becomes NY 67 as you reach the middle of Ballston Spa. 67 will become a little curvy approaching Amsterdam and Amsterdam is always a pain to get through but it’s a good way to go.Driving question: I'm driving a cargo van from near Burlington-area to near Buffalo and back later this week- I lived in upstate NY for 7-8 years but never went that particular corridor. Maps are either suggesting taking 8 to 365 to the Thruway or 67 from Malta to Amsterdam. Anyone have experience with either? I'm thinking about driving 8/365 one way and 67 the other, but not sure if 8 is relatively straight/flat like Route 12 or curvy like, say, Route 3 (which would be not super appealing in a cargo van).
You came to the right place!
I've actually done both routes. NY 8 is not a bad road, definitely not as straight/flat as NY 12, but not as curvy as NY 3 either. It's the more scenic route by far, especially now that we're heading into leaf changing season, but it's going to be slower going and not as much opportunity to make up time. NY 67, on the other hand, is quite a nice road outside of Amsterdam, making it the preferred shortcut between I-87 and I-90. I've also taken NY 29 to NY 30A, but once was enough for that route. I'd vastly prefer NY 67: It's shorter, higher-quality road, fewer slowdowns, and fewer trucks. Just make sure to use Malta Ave/US 9 to connect to/from I-87.
iPad
The MUTCD specifies rounded corners. It allows the corners to either be actually rounded like NY does, or the sign can be square cornered with a rounded sign face like many states do.
There are also two types of sign construction. The square cornered signs are usually extruded design. The actual rounded signs are usually a flat sheet of metal (aluminum maybe) with stiffeners added to the back to make it more wind resistant.
I believe Virginia and North Carolina use physically rounded corners as well. New York did this for worker safety, I think in the 1950s or 60s.
Does anyone know why the extruded design is becoming more popular? It is definitely more crude looking. You can sometimes see the horizontal lines right thru the sign face. New York DOT's signs look much better with their flat sheet metal and physically rounded corners.What did I ever do to you?
Maybe Alps could shed some light?
Does anyone know why the extruded design is becoming more popular? It is definitely more crude looking. You can sometimes see the horizontal lines right thru the sign face. New York DOT's signs look much better with their flat sheet metal and physically rounded corners.What did I ever do to you?
Maybe Alps could shed some light?
I don't have a great answer here. Different agencies have different preferences based on cost, durability, their specs, their sign supports, and what they're comfortable with.
Alternative concepts for the US 44/NY 55 and US 9 interchange have been posted: https://www.poughkeepsie94455.com/virtual-meeting
Concept B to me looks the best, however it's probably the most expensive :bigass:I like B because it's the weirdest. C just seems too contrived.
Also seems like Concept B will take a single house, I might be wrong
Concept B to me looks the best, however it's probably the most expensive :bigass:I like B because it's the weirdest. C just seems too contrived.
Also seems like Concept B will take a single house, I might be wrong
What's with this shield assembly in Port Jervis? NY 209 should be US 209.
220?What's with this shield assembly in Port Jervis? NY 209 should be US 209.
What US route in New York hasn't been "demoted"?
Concept B to me looks the best, however it's probably the most expensive :bigass:More expensive than building a viaduct over the entire interchange?
Also seems like Concept B will take a single house, I might be wrong
Concept B to me looks the best, however it's probably the most expensive :bigass:More expensive than building a viaduct over the entire interchange?
Also seems like Concept B will take a single house, I might be wrong
These concepts are all so... funky. Is there a reason for keeping the freeway along the north-south arterial versus converting it into say, a 45 MPH boulevard? Weren't those full freeway plans aborted?Traffic volumes could merit it, and perhaps there are enough parallel corridors better suited for multi-modal use such that this doesn't need it.
I wouldn't say it moves the turn movements away from the thru lanes so much as it moves the thru lanes away from the turn movements.
That said, the flyover also appears to be the concept the MPO likes the least, judging by the article I read. Among other things, one thing they don't like about it is that it "wouldn't slow down traffic on US 9".
These concepts are all so... funky. Is there a reason for keeping the freeway along the north-south arterial versus converting it into say, a 45 MPH boulevard? Weren't those full freeway plans aborted?
Why is that not a safe arrangement? Seems to me it's good use of the space.Well, you've got cops coming in and out of a tight area right next to the loop off-ramp. It's a weaving hazard. However as Mr. Matte pointed out in an earlier post...
There's existing streets below the (elevated) loop ramp already. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8803355,-78.8781033,195m/data=!3m1!1e3)So perhaps there is a difference between this and the CHP station between the Santa Monica and Harbor Freeways.
I don't think 220 actually makes it into New York state.220?What's with this shield assembly in Port Jervis? NY 209 should be US 209.
What US route in New York hasn't been "demoted"?
It used to, until quite recently, end at old 17 just inside the border. No shields = no errors.I don't think 220 actually makes it into New York state.220?What's with this shield assembly in Port Jervis? NY 209 should be US 209.
What US route in New York hasn't been "demoted"?
It used to, until quite recently, end at old 17 just inside the border. No shields = no errors.I don't think 220 actually makes it into New York state.220?What's with this shield assembly in Port Jervis? NY 209 should be US 209.
What US route in New York hasn't been "demoted"?
It used to, until quite recently, end at old 17 just inside the border. No shields = no errors.I don't think 220 actually makes it into New York state.220?What's with this shield assembly in Port Jervis? NY 209 should be US 209.
What US route in New York hasn't been "demoted"?
What happened quite recently?
What happened quite recently?
US 220 was formally truncated to end at I-86/NY 17 instead of Chemung St.
Only thing I don't get, the petition says that NY 17C was rescinded "about ten years ago", which would be 2007. But surely 17C was taken off of Chemung Street rather longer ago than that, and certainly it hasn't been rescinded elsewhere?
Agreed. I lived in the area from 1993-2007 and I don't ever recall seeing Chemung St. signed as NY 17C west of NY 34 during that time.
I was just looking forward to my first trip around the Storm King Highway in a few years, and the gates are closed at both ends. There are signs posted well ahead of each of the closures, which makes me wonder if this is long-term. Is this some kind of new normal.
You can still walk it. It is not that far to the overlook.I was just looking forward to my first trip around the Storm King Highway in a few years, and the gates are closed at both ends. There are signs posted well ahead of each of the closures, which makes me wonder if this is long-term. Is this some kind of new normal.
Storm King Highway is not plowed or salted in the winter. Whenever there is a forecast for snow/ice (such as there was on Friday and is for early this week), the road is gated off. Unless there's a decent amount of rockfall, I expect it to be back open by next weekend.
You can still walk it. It is not that far to the overlook.I was just looking forward to my first trip around the Storm King Highway in a few years, and the gates are closed at both ends. There are signs posted well ahead of each of the closures, which makes me wonder if this is long-term. Is this some kind of new normal.
Storm King Highway is not plowed or salted in the winter. Whenever there is a forecast for snow/ice (such as there was on Friday and is for early this week), the road is gated off. Unless there's a decent amount of rockfall, I expect it to be back open by next weekend.
Those lampposts don't exist anymore, but there's an erroneous NY (US) 9 sign at the recently built roundabout there.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4177318,-73.7050069,3a,75y,310.49h,102.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfzsqPm81rtk1VDQaPu2EFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4177318,-73.7050069,3a,75y,310.49h,102.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfzsqPm81rtk1VDQaPu2EFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
And I see I just brought this thread up to 199 pages.
:sombrero:
Sad to see these lamposts gone. Btw, is that Quebec autoroute sign is still there? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4346126,-73.7165343,3a,15y,339.36h,89.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK5eZivHtKbt8KxjV3i5XmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
I always thought that would be the kind of road that gets closed off for military activities from West Point as well.
Looks a little like a Jersey Jughandle.Sad to see these lamposts gone. Btw, is that Quebec autoroute sign is still there? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4346126,-73.7165343,3a,15y,339.36h,89.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK5eZivHtKbt8KxjV3i5XmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
No idea. You'll have to ask somebody who was actually there. And while you're at it, ask them about this mysterious loop just south of the on-ramp.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4344636,-73.7162659,3a,75y,11.37h,85.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMbP1L6s5yExvRB9yHL78nQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Sad to see these lamposts gone. Btw, is that Quebec autoroute sign is still there? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4346126,-73.7165343,3a,15y,339.36h,89.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK5eZivHtKbt8KxjV3i5XmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
No idea. You'll have to ask somebody who was actually there. And while you're at it, ask them about this mysterious loop just south of the on-ramp.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4344636,-73.7162659,3a,75y,11.37h,85.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMbP1L6s5yExvRB9yHL78nQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
acording to the NYSDOT website there is a project which will add a aux lane to eastbound longisland expressway from the clearview expressway to franny lewis blvd this project is scheduled to start fall of next year and take 2 years and wrap up in 2023 here is a link to the project do u think this project will help the traffic on lie east or is it a waste because the existing acell lanes from clearview are from 200-500ft long not adequate for the high volume of traffic that gets on lie at this interchange https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X22869 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X22869)Well, they already have auxiliary lanes between Springfield Boulevard and the Cross Island Parkway, so why not?
Also a new auxiliary lane on the Staten Island Expressway between MLK JR. EXPWY and South Avenue.what did they forget the cluster fu*k on the east bound side on how the left lane merges and a half mile later that 4th lane comes back just extend that 4th lane and connect to existing hov :angry:
https://www.silive.com/news/2020/10/new-auxiliary-lane-coming-to-westbound-staten-island-expressway.html
Sad to see these lamposts gone. Btw, is that Quebec autoroute sign is still there? https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4346126,-73.7165343,3a,15y,339.36h,89.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK5eZivHtKbt8KxjV3i5XmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
No idea. You'll have to ask somebody who was actually there. And while you're at it, ask them about this mysterious loop just south of the on-ramp.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4344636,-73.7162659,3a,75y,11.37h,85.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMbP1L6s5yExvRB9yHL78nQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Maybe a turnaround for a bus route or snowplows?
I was just looking forward to my first trip around the Storm King Highway in a few years, and the gates are closed at both ends. There are signs posted well ahead of each of the closures, which makes me wonder if this is long-term. Is this some kind of new normal.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201101/a8f7780cb30d2aee15ba4b47fb99ae90.jpg)IIRC a lot of those little connector roads there were closed due to COVID.
I was just looking forward to my first trip around the Storm King Highway in a few years, and the gates are closed at both ends. There are signs posted well ahead of each of the closures, which makes me wonder if this is long-term. Is this some kind of new normal.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201101/a8f7780cb30d2aee15ba4b47fb99ae90.jpg)IIRC a lot of those little connector roads there were closed due to COVID.
I drove up Storm King Highway for the first time in a while myself, looking for foliage. This was about 3 weeks ago. There is a new 35 mph speed limit (well, new as of 1-2 years ago) which is fine. This was an unposted 55 mph zone before but it's a narrow winding road.
Have you driven on the Storm King Highway? It's not possible to get up to 55 on that road. Between the curves, parking areas with pedestrians, cliff on one side, and stone guiderail with a dropoff on the other, trying to go 55 there would be inadvisable. I don't remember how fast I was able to top out at when I drove the Storm King Highway as it was many years ago, but I do know that it was WAY below 55.I drove up Storm King Highway for the first time in a while myself, looking for foliage. This was about 3 weeks ago. There is a new 35 mph speed limit (well, new as of 1-2 years ago) which is fine. This was an unposted 55 mph zone before but it's a narrow winding road.
NY setting nanny speed limits, boo. NY used to be one of the best states about setting speed limits based on roadside development, not curves. Lots of 55 zones in rural areas that would be 40s or 45s in most states. But I guess it's starting to fall in line with everyone else. People who know how to drive properly shouldn't be penalized by people who can't (who will probably end up ignoring the speed limit anyways).
Uh...what?I drove up Storm King Highway for the first time in a while myself, looking for foliage. This was about 3 weeks ago. There is a new 35 mph speed limit (well, new as of 1-2 years ago) which is fine. This was an unposted 55 mph zone before but it's a narrow winding road.
NY setting nanny speed limits, boo. NY used to be one of the best states about setting speed limits based on roadside development, not curves. Lots of 55 zones in rural areas that would be 40s or 45s in most states. But I guess it's starting to fall in line with everyone else. People who know how to drive properly shouldn't be penalized by people who can't (who will probably end up ignoring the speed limit anyways).
Speaking of Storm King Hwy, is it still open to the back gate at West Point (from the 9W/218/293 junction), or is that closed too?
Sounds like a fun road to travel one day. But looking at it on GSV, I can't see what's wrong with it being posted at 55. Yeah, it would probably be stupid to do 55. But it's one of those roads where if you crash, it's going to be off the edge, which is your own problem.
...I can't see what's wrong with it being posted at 55. Yeah, it would probably be stupid to do 55....
...I can't see what's wrong with it being posted at 55. Yeah, it would probably be stupid to do 55....
If it's dangerous and stupid to do the speed limit, the limit may be too high. Believe me, I'm very frustrated by speed limits in New York but this is a rare instance where I am fine with lowering it. It's not going to affect anything and the new limit is very reasonable.
...I can't see what's wrong with it being posted at 55. Yeah, it would probably be stupid to do 55....
If it's dangerous and stupid to do the speed limit, the limit may be too high. Believe me, I'm very frustrated by speed limits in New York but this is a rare instance where I am fine with lowering it. It's not going to affect anything and the new limit is very reasonable.
Yeah, the problem is that in this country, people tend to regard speed limits as minimum limits, rather than maximum ones. So if you post something at 55, you have to figure people are going to be thinking 60-65mph as a plan A.
Otherwise, if we were talking about some other countries I've driven in, where driving behavior is governed more by actual road conditions, I'd say ketchup has a point.
So what if it's an unposted default 55? On lots of country roads like this, in the absence of a speed limit sign, people will drive 35 when conditions and geometry demand it and 65 when they allow it. The existence of the sign setting a "benchmark speed" seems to in many cases cause problems. An unposted 55 wouldn't encourage people to go through there at 65, but it would give cops an enforcement mechanism if someone was driving like a madman....I can't see what's wrong with it being posted at 55. Yeah, it would probably be stupid to do 55....
If it's dangerous and stupid to do the speed limit, the limit may be too high. Believe me, I'm very frustrated by speed limits in New York but this is a rare instance where I am fine with lowering it. It's not going to affect anything and the new limit is very reasonable.
Yeah, the problem is that in this country, people tend to regard speed limits as minimum limits, rather than maximum ones. So if you post something at 55, you have to figure people are going to be thinking 60-65mph as a plan A.
Otherwise, if we were talking about some other countries I've driven in, where driving behavior is governed more by actual road conditions, I'd say ketchup has a point.
Keep in mind that roads don't get posted 55 in the state because "we want to let people drive their sports cars real fast", it's because setting a linear speed limit (as opposed to a speed zone - "state speed limit", "city speed limit", "village speed limit", etc. aren't just descriptive - they have legal meaning) requires a speed study and posting lots of signs, and so it's easier to leave a road at 55 if it isn't causing a problem (this is also why we have blanket 30 zones in municipalities - easier to say "city speed limit 30" and be done with it). If there's now a linear 35 limit there, it means a speed study was done, which means there was some issue motivating doing the study in the first place (probably a higher than normal crash rate).Huh, so out of curiosity, if a state highway (posted at 55 on either side of town) goes through a village (with a village limit of 30), will the state highway be at 30 or 55 barring a study?
NY has been moving away from having fully unposted zones, as not everyone knows what "end XX limit" means. Those are usually followed by "state speed limit 55".
Typically they drop to 30 if the village limit is 30, unless the highway bypasses the downtown (in which case they may be doing a speed study).Keep in mind that roads don't get posted 55 in the state because "we want to let people drive their sports cars real fast", it's because setting a linear speed limit (as opposed to a speed zone - "state speed limit", "city speed limit", "village speed limit", etc. aren't just descriptive - they have legal meaning) requires a speed study and posting lots of signs, and so it's easier to leave a road at 55 if it isn't causing a problem (this is also why we have blanket 30 zones in municipalities - easier to say "city speed limit 30" and be done with it). If there's now a linear 35 limit there, it means a speed study was done, which means there was some issue motivating doing the study in the first place (probably a higher than normal crash rate).Huh, so out of curiosity, if a state highway (posted at 55 on either side of town) goes through a village (with a village limit of 30), will the state highway be at 30 or 55 barring a study?
NY has been moving away from having fully unposted zones, as not everyone knows what "end XX limit" means. Those are usually followed by "state speed limit 55".
Keep in mind that roads don't get posted 55 in the state because "we want to let people drive their sports cars real fast", it's because setting a linear speed limit (as opposed to a speed zone - "state speed limit", "city speed limit", "village speed limit", etc. aren't just descriptive - they have legal meaning) requires a speed study and posting lots of signs, and so it's easier to leave a road at 55 if it isn't causing a problem (this is also why we have blanket 30 zones in municipalities - easier to say "city speed limit 30" and be done with it). If there's now a linear 35 limit there, it means a speed study was done, which means there was some issue motivating doing the study in the first place (probably a higher than normal crash rate).
30. Think of the speed zones as nested polygons that apply wherever there isn't a linear speed limit.Keep in mind that roads don't get posted 55 in the state because "we want to let people drive their sports cars real fast", it's because setting a linear speed limit (as opposed to a speed zone - "state speed limit", "city speed limit", "village speed limit", etc. aren't just descriptive - they have legal meaning) requires a speed study and posting lots of signs, and so it's easier to leave a road at 55 if it isn't causing a problem (this is also why we have blanket 30 zones in municipalities - easier to say "city speed limit 30" and be done with it). If there's now a linear 35 limit there, it means a speed study was done, which means there was some issue motivating doing the study in the first place (probably a higher than normal crash rate).Huh, so out of curiosity, if a state highway (posted at 55 on either side of town) goes through a village (with a village limit of 30), will the state highway be at 30 or 55 barring a study?
NY has been moving away from having fully unposted zones, as not everyone knows what "end XX limit" means. Those are usually followed by "state speed limit 55".
So what if it's an unposted default 55? On lots of country roads like this, in the absence of a speed limit sign, people will drive 35 when conditions and geometry demand it and 65 when they allow it.
So what if it's an unposted default 55? On lots of country roads like this, in the absence of a speed limit sign, people will drive 35 when conditions and geometry demand it and 65 when they allow it.
In that case, yeah, I've noticed that people seem to go at whatever speed they last saw posted, or that they feel comfortable with. I don't think the motoring public universally understands it to mean the underlying default speed now applies. (They probably figure someone forgot to put up signs for what the new limit is.)
Keep in mind that roads don't get posted 55 in the state because "we want to let people drive their sports cars real fast", it's because setting a linear speed limit (as opposed to a speed zone - "state speed limit", "city speed limit", "village speed limit", etc. aren't just descriptive - they have legal meaning) requires a speed study and posting lots of signs, and so it's easier to leave a road at 55 if it isn't causing a problem (this is also why we have blanket 30 zones in municipalities - easier to say "city speed limit 30" and be done with it). If there's now a linear 35 limit there, it means a speed study was done, which means there was some issue motivating doing the study in the first place (probably a higher than normal crash rate).
NY has been moving away from having fully unposted zones, as not everyone knows what "end XX limit" means. Those are usually followed by "state speed limit 55".
Keep in mind that roads don't get posted 55 in the state because "we want to let people drive their sports cars real fast", it's because setting a linear speed limit (as opposed to a speed zone - "state speed limit", "city speed limit", "village speed limit", etc. aren't just descriptive - they have legal meaning) requires a speed study and posting lots of signs, and so it's easier to leave a road at 55 if it isn't causing a problem (this is also why we have blanket 30 zones in municipalities - easier to say "city speed limit 30" and be done with it). If there's now a linear 35 limit there, it means a speed study was done, which means there was some issue motivating doing the study in the first place (probably a higher than normal crash rate).
I do really notice it when "Speed Limit 55" is posted instead of "State Speed Limit 55" (NY 8/NY 30 south of Speculator comes to mind).
Keep in mind that roads don't get posted 55 in the state because "we want to let people drive their sports cars real fast", it's because setting a linear speed limit (as opposed to a speed zone - "state speed limit", "city speed limit", "village speed limit", etc. aren't just descriptive - they have legal meaning) requires a speed study and posting lots of signs, and so it's easier to leave a road at 55 if it isn't causing a problem (this is also why we have blanket 30 zones in municipalities - easier to say "city speed limit 30" and be done with it). If there's now a linear 35 limit there, it means a speed study was done, which means there was some issue motivating doing the study in the first place (probably a higher than normal crash rate).
NY has been moving away from having fully unposted zones, as not everyone knows what "end XX limit" means. Those are usually followed by "state speed limit 55".
The municipal 30 mph zones drive me crazy. I don't know why small municipalities get to set speed limits because they don't know what they're talking about and the "area speed limit 30" thing is so entrenched that any local road, of any design and operation, must be 30. Whenever I've complained about a speed limit on a town road, you'd think I was asking them to legalize drag racing. 40? What is this, the autobahn? If you're on any road that clips a village, expect 30 mph even if it's very unwarranted.
NYSDOT also doesn't review their own limits regularly, so it only changes if the local board asks for it (and the only time this happens is when they want it lowered). So this can prevent new speed traps but also entrenches old ones (for example, they widened US 9 near me 10 years ago and replaced a crosswalk with an underpass. Still posted at 30 and the decision to send it to the DOT comes down to one town councilman whose district the road runs through).
I do really notice it when "Speed Limit 55" is posted instead of "State Speed Limit 55" (NY 8/NY 30 south of Speculator comes to mind).
Going to Port Jervis yesterday, I noticed there's no town line signs in Orange County on I-84. Vestiges of Thruway control?That's what I would guess. No reference markers, either.
Going to Port Jervis yesterday, I noticed there's no town line signs in Orange County on I-84. Vestiges of Thruway control?That's what I would guess. No reference markers, either.
Going to Port Jervis yesterday, I noticed there's no town line signs in Orange County on I-84. Vestiges of Thruway control?That's what I would guess. No reference markers, either.
NYSDOT town line signs really depend on the region. Regions 1, 5, and 6 are good with them (3 and 7 may be, not there often enough to remember). Others are not. Region 10 doesn't post them at all, 8 and 9 tend not to.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1138228,-74.1617937,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5CS8MsvP_Y2Jfj65kI_kSg!2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Is this the new New York Welcome to signs or is this just for the NYS Thruway crossings?
This is awful. I like the old Thruway signs or the usual Welcome signs at state highway entrance points.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1138228,-74.1617937,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5CS8MsvP_Y2Jfj65kI_kSg!2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Is this the new New York Welcome to signs or is this just for the NYS Thruway crossings?
This is awful. I like the old Thruway signs or the usual Welcome signs at state highway entrance points.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1138228,-74.1617937,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5CS8MsvP_Y2Jfj65kI_kSg!2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Is this the new New York Welcome to signs or is this just for the NYS Thruway crossings?
This is awful. I like the old Thruway signs or the usual Welcome signs at state highway entrance points.
Come to think of it, the two I linked above were probably only used on the Thruway entrances from state lines. 2-lane roads had the green "Welcome to New York/the Empire State" sign with the state shield. Now I believe all borders, Thruway or not, get the present sign.Historically, that sign was used on all non-Thruway borders, including interstates. Now the present sign is used at Thruway and other interstate/freeway borders, and the surface road borders are a mixed bag of the older sign, the state of opportunity sign, and the newer one.
Also mentioned in the Vermont thread but relevant here: the Essex-Charlotte Ferry on Lake Champlain will be suspended starting next Monday (1/4), due to low usage as a result of COVID.
I can't say I'm surprised, given that everyone who goes to (or returns to) Vermont is required to have a 14 day quarantine. They don't have an exemption for neighboring states like seems to be typical in the other states around here. I'm actually amazed there's as much traffic across the border as there is.
Of course, I'm likely moving there in a couple months...
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.https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1138228,-74.1617937,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5CS8MsvP_Y2Jfj65kI_kSg!2e0!3e11!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Is this the new New York Welcome to signs or is this just for the NYS Thruway crossings?
This is awful. I like the old Thruway signs or the usual Welcome signs at state highway entrance points.
They started putting these up a few years ago. Originally there were four or five signs that followed the "Welcome to NY" sign to advertise apps and websites and stuff. The FHWA withheld money (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/nyregion/new-york-road-signs-feud.html) from the state until the state took most of them down. I think these are the compromise ones at the end of it all. There's even one at the exit of the Lincoln Tunnel onto Dyre Ave in Manhattan (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7568194,-73.995603,3a,82.8y,156.35h,94.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9FFoKjrGL9d6D0XjBafZZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
7 is hit or miss. Most town lines are signed, but many only have local and not DOT signage.
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.
How to take over NY: A comprehensive guide for NJDOT
3. Add black backgrounds to everything
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.
(citation needed)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.
(citation needed)
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.
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.
It looks like there is one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9471581,-73.0694194,3a,57.8y,184.64h,83.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZipNEr41xKSnBpISf1aZXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9471581,-73.0694194,3a,57.8y,184.64h,83.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZipNEr41xKSnBpISf1aZXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).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 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Welcome_to_New_York_Sign_at_NY_25_(Close-Up).JPG)), but I still remember seeing some in Port Jefferson.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.
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
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
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 (http://file:///C:/Users/acami/Documents/WSP.jpg) as seen here its out the merging ***PS "i drew these myself on google earth pro these are not actual plans"
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
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.
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.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
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 interchangeThe 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.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
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
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 happyit 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
Signbacks, streetlights and guide rails being painted brown is only on the Long Island State Parkways, formerly run by the Long Island State Park Commission until about 1976. I assume the reason was to maintain a "park like" appearance on the parkways, to maintain kind of a tradition on those particular roads.
The brown paint is mostly on original fixtures that were done as part of large scale replacement projects. Newer signs, guide rails etc. that replaced damaged ones are usually the standard metal color.
NY seems to be very averse to highway lighting compared to other states. I guess it's sort of a good thing due to reduced light pollution, but it makes driving at night much more unpleasant.
After removing the old incandescent lights on some Long Island Parkways in the 1970's, Region-10 has installed new lights in recent years to restore the old lighting with newer style lamps such as sodium vapor which are still in use. No LED lighting yet but I actually think the S.V. lights are brighter and more effective.
After removing the old incandescent lights on some Long Island Parkways in the 1970's, Region-10 has installed new lights in recent years to restore the old lighting with newer style lamps such as sodium vapor which are still in use. No LED lighting yet but I actually think the S.V. lights are brighter and more effective.
NYSDOT posted the presentation from last night's public meeting on the NY 363/NY 434 interchange project in Binghamton. They've narrowed down to two alternatives.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/363gateway/projectdocuments
I wonder if C1.12 can really handle traffic volumes on 434. I've been there during near-peak times and it's not inconsiderable.
That light? I'm surprised. But I defer to the traffic engineers.I wonder if C1.12 can really handle traffic volumes on 434. I've been there during near-peak times and it's not inconsiderable.
PHV for the movement from 363 to 434 is 460 veh/hr. A double left turn could probably handle that as well as a loop ramp if the phasing is correct.
That light? I'm surprised. But I defer to the traffic engineers.I wonder if C1.12 can really handle traffic volumes on 434. I've been there during near-peak times and it's not inconsiderable.
PHV for the movement from 363 to 434 is 460 veh/hr. A double left turn could probably handle that as well as a loop ramp if the phasing is correct.
Does the LIE have mileage signs along it? Back in 1988 my one and only time on it I remember only one East of the Queens- Nassau Border for Riverhead and nothing eastward. Never been on it west except in Queens near former Shea Stadium and to the Midtown Tunnel and of course none I never saw there.
LIE has no big cities of interest along it may be why, but without mile based numbers on exits makes the 70 plus miles drive very long as no major reference points to note along its way does not help either.
Why does the LIE's exit sequence start at 13? It's not like there would have been 13 exits along the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had that route been built. I understand why the Southern State Parkway starts at Exit 13, since Exits 25 through 36 on the Cross Island Parkway were once numbered 1 though 12, increasing as one went south. The exits on the LIE probably should have been numbered 1-60 (or 3-63 if you include the two exits on the unbuilt MME). If the LIE exits were mileage-based, they would probably be numbered 1A-71.
Why does the LIE's exit sequence start at 13? It's not like there would have been 13 exits along the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had that route been built. I understand why the Southern State Parkway starts at Exit 13, since Exits 25 through 36 on the Cross Island Parkway were once numbered 1 though 12, increasing as one went south. The exits on the LIE probably should have been numbered 1-60 (or 3-63 if you include the two exits on the unbuilt MME). If the LIE exits were mileage-based, they would probably be numbered 1A-71.
The interesting thing is that NJ has never done sequential. Only the Turnpike has. (Okay, and the lettered exits in Atlantic City, but that's a bit different.) 495 would have gotten into the 2s in NJ, so exiting in NY would get you at most 3-4 on the west side of Manhattan. How do you get from 4 to 13?Why does the LIE's exit sequence start at 13? It's not like there would have been 13 exits along the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had that route been built. I understand why the Southern State Parkway starts at Exit 13, since Exits 25 through 36 on the Cross Island Parkway were once numbered 1 though 12, increasing as one went south. The exits on the LIE probably should have been numbered 1-60 (or 3-63 if you include the two exits on the unbuilt MME). If the LIE exits were mileage-based, they would probably be numbered 1A-71.
Does this account for the NJ stretch of 495? The Staten Island Expwy starts at 3 because there are two exits on the NJ stretch before the Goethals. Maybe they were going to do something similar here?
Does the LIE have mileage signs along it? Back in 1988 my one and only time on it I remember only one East of the Queens- Nassau Border for Riverhead and nothing eastward. Never been on it west except in Queens near former Shea Stadium and to the Midtown Tunnel and of course none I never saw there.
LIE has no big cities of interest along it may be why, but without mile based numbers on exits makes the 70 plus miles drive very long as no major reference points to note along its way does not help either.
Please, the LIE doesn't even have mileposts. Region 10 doesn't use them.
The interesting thing is that NJ has never done sequential. Only the Turnpike has. (Okay, and the lettered exits in Atlantic City, but that's a bit different.) 495 would have gotten into the 2s in NJ, so exiting in NY would get you at most 3-4 on the west side of Manhattan. How do you get from 4 to 13?Why does the LIE's exit sequence start at 13? It's not like there would have been 13 exits along the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had that route been built. I understand why the Southern State Parkway starts at Exit 13, since Exits 25 through 36 on the Cross Island Parkway were once numbered 1 though 12, increasing as one went south. The exits on the LIE probably should have been numbered 1-60 (or 3-63 if you include the two exits on the unbuilt MME). If the LIE exits were mileage-based, they would probably be numbered 1A-71.
Does this account for the NJ stretch of 495? The Staten Island Expwy starts at 3 because there are two exits on the NJ stretch before the Goethals. Maybe they were going to do something similar here?
The interesting thing is that NJ has never done sequential. Only the Turnpike has. (Okay, and the lettered exits in Atlantic City, but that's a bit different.) 495 would have gotten into the 2s in NJ, so exiting in NY would get you at most 3-4 on the west side of Manhattan. How do you get from 4 to 13?Why does the LIE's exit sequence start at 13? It's not like there would have been 13 exits along the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had that route been built. I understand why the Southern State Parkway starts at Exit 13, since Exits 25 through 36 on the Cross Island Parkway were once numbered 1 though 12, increasing as one went south. The exits on the LIE probably should have been numbered 1-60 (or 3-63 if you include the two exits on the unbuilt MME). If the LIE exits were mileage-based, they would probably be numbered 1A-71.
Does this account for the NJ stretch of 495? The Staten Island Expwy starts at 3 because there are two exits on the NJ stretch before the Goethals. Maybe they were going to do something similar here?
Wasn't there a plan to extend 495 further west along 3 at one point? That would have given a few extra miles.
I think this is the first time I've 100% agreed with something you posted ;)The interesting thing is that NJ has never done sequential. Only the Turnpike has. (Okay, and the lettered exits in Atlantic City, but that's a bit different.) 495 would have gotten into the 2s in NJ, so exiting in NY would get you at most 3-4 on the west side of Manhattan. How do you get from 4 to 13?Why does the LIE's exit sequence start at 13? It's not like there would have been 13 exits along the Mid-Manhattan Expressway had that route been built. I understand why the Southern State Parkway starts at Exit 13, since Exits 25 through 36 on the Cross Island Parkway were once numbered 1 though 12, increasing as one went south. The exits on the LIE probably should have been numbered 1-60 (or 3-63 if you include the two exits on the unbuilt MME). If the LIE exits were mileage-based, they would probably be numbered 1A-71.
Does this account for the NJ stretch of 495? The Staten Island Expwy starts at 3 because there are two exits on the NJ stretch before the Goethals. Maybe they were going to do something similar here?
Wasn't there a plan to extend 495 further west along 3 at one point? That would have given a few extra miles.
That was changed in favor of I-280. They wanted NJ 3 full interstate, but costs too much. Then I-280 got the honor of that connection west to I-80.
Can't (or shouldn't) be. As per the MUTCD, exit numbers start at the state line.
Does the LIE have mileage signs along it? Back in 1988 my one and only time on it I remember only one East of the Queens- Nassau Border for Riverhead and nothing eastward. Never been on it west except in Queens near former Shea Stadium and to the Midtown Tunnel and of course none I never saw there.
LIE has no big cities of interest along it may be why, but without mile based numbers on exits makes the 70 plus miles drive very long as no major reference points to note along its way does not help either.
Please, the LIE doesn't even have mileposts. Region 10 doesn't use them.
Wow that’s interesting. An interstate without mile posts. Hmmm.
Thought that was required?
Plus it wasn’t an interstate to begin with east of the Clearview. I would think they posted them to get interstate status.
It's been a while since I've driven on it, but I wonder if the LIE has the NYS green mile markers?
Also- the question of "does the LIE have big cities along it" is interesting because so much of LI's population is from unincorporated areas. If the towns of Nassau and western Suffolk incorporated- like, if they functioned like western cities rather than NY towns- they would be well within the top 100 cities by population (with the exception of Smithtown).
Can't (or shouldn't) be. As per the MUTCD, exit numbers start at the state line.
It has an even first digit. Beltways can retain numbers when crossing state lines (although I-495 is not a beltway by any stretch of the imagination, but then, I-470 OH/WV is also a straight line and could reasonably have its numbers continue).
And for the "unincorporated areas" thing...yeah. They're technically "incorporated" but incorporated as towns, not cities, and as such can have a lower level of government, which means they don't end up on the lists of "cities". Hempstead is larger than Seattle in terms of population and would be the third-largest city in the Northeast in terms of population if incorporated as a city instead of a town (behind NYC and Philadelphia).
The Town of Hempstead brags that it is "America's Largest Township".
Not sure what is with unincorporated places, but as far as I know every square foot of NYS soil is a part of either a city, town, or indian reservation. There are some traditional names, some of which USPS keeps - my official home address is in a "postal town" which is a synonym to a zip code 12XXX and doesn't have any political significance. At the same time, we live in a "legal" town, which has a government that provides certain services like snow removal from public roads, manages building permits, has a court and an (unused) authority to levy taxes. The postal town is split between a few legal towns, though, just to make it interesting. But the role of postal town is limited to address.And for the "unincorporated areas" thing...yeah. They're technically "incorporated" but incorporated as towns, not cities, and as such can have a lower level of government, which means they don't end up on the lists of "cities". Hempstead is larger than Seattle in terms of population and would be the third-largest city in the Northeast in terms of population if incorporated as a city instead of a town (behind NYC and Philadelphia).
It is mostly to do with how the census bureau, being the principal authority on populated places, regards them. They are "minor civil divisions"–i.e., subdivisions of counties–which by definition have some degree of legal status as bodies politic. In most cases this means there's a government in place, and in the case of NY's towns, they are quite strong governments, and they can be said to be incorporated insofar as they are municipal corporations with all the powers of same. But because the census distinguishes them from "freestanding" incorporated places–cities and villages–common parlance tends to reflect this.
In several cases, where there is a populous suburban town with no sufficiently distinct settlements within it, the census will create an unincorporated "place" coextensive with the town, so that it can stand alongside incorporated places and be compared to them statistically. But the towns on Long Island are peppered with individual named places that are unincorporated (to say nothing of the many incorporated villages inside the towns), and so it is those places that serve as the "cities" for comparative purposes.
So for the town of Hempstead, the populated places of record would be the villages (like Hempstead, Lynbrook, Rockville Centre) and the unincorporated communities (places like Baldwin and Oceanside). Also, as a practical matter, you can't really double-count the whole of Hempstead town if you're also counting the villages inside of it, so in this regard, the remainder of a NY town outside of its villages is more comparable to the unincorporated area of a western county than it is to incorporated places like cities.The Town of Hempstead brags that it is "America's Largest Township".
To which, of course, I'm sure some place in Pennsylvania or elsewhere takes umbrage, seeing as how we ain't got them thar townships in this'yer state! :-D
The US postal service also considers all the neighborhoods of Queens to be towns unlike Brooklyn, Staten Island, and the Bronx which are cities themselves as New York, NY is only Manhattan in their world.
Simplest reason I can think of is lack of USPS desire to deal with same street names after annexation. After all, USPS only has to ensure delivery, not to acknowledge political changesThe US postal service also considers all the neighborhoods of Queens to be towns unlike Brooklyn, Staten Island, and the Bronx which are cities themselves as New York, NY is only Manhattan in their world.
A similar situation to Los Angeles locations; even though part of L.A. city jurisdiction, many of the outlying areas, most notably the San Fernando Valley, are postally identified by their own local names (North Hollywood, Van Nuys, Woodland Hills, etc.) and individual zip codes rather than as indistinguishable parts of L.A. This also applies to other towns that were eventually annexed by L.A., such as San Pedro and Wilmington.
So I was looking at GSV in Watertown, and came across something a bit weird about US 11's routing there. Coming north from the southern city limits, US 11 seems to be signed on the following route:
Washington --> R on Public Square --> L on Mill --> merge with Leray (https://goo.gl/maps/WLKNK2jL6ZgXGhQY7)
However, doing the route in reverse, US 11 is signed on:
(starting from merge point with Mill) Leray --> becomes Massey --> slight L on Holcomb --> L on Paddock --> R on Washington (https://goo.gl/maps/QxeFwrsXMTcFqBa46)
So you might be thinking "big deal - one way couplet", right? But no! Both legs are signed as N/S US 11, both with reassurance shields on the route (except for Mill St north of the Black River) and on intersecting state routes. This leads to some weirdness where if you drive on NY 3 (Arsenal Street) eastbound, you see two (https://goo.gl/maps/CYtmwiGSSWjkw4pK9) fully separate (https://goo.gl/maps/uJ1V2vPEv4ncVwYZ8) intersections for US 11 North/South in under 1/2 mile. Oddly, both sets of sign assemblies look newer, and the GSV images are both from September 2018.
The NYSDOT inventory log lists the first routing I listed (along Mill) as the official route of US 11. While I haven't confirmed with reliable sources, it seems that US 11 may have originally been routed on Paddock, and then realigned at some point. Unfortunately, nobody bothered fixing the southbound routing at the junction, and perhaps in-kind assembly replacements (or poor city maintenance) led to this mess. Oddly, old GSV images seem to indicate that this dual US 11 signing has been around since at least 2008...
Anyone have any idea what's going on here??
Not sure what is with unincorporated places, but as far as I know every square foot of NYS soil is a part of either a city, town, or indian reservation.
if they were gonna go to the cross island i think they would go with a HOV3+ lane and extend that to JFK airport on the belt parkwayWell 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
Lots of new blackplates here in Region 2 in the Utica/Rome area. Seen many new ones the past few weeks.
Mainly on single signals at intersections and nothing on the doghouses just yet.
R5 has gone backplate and FYA crazy. Taking time, but it's good that they are finally doing this.
R5 has gone backplate and FYA crazy. Taking time, but it's good that they are finally doing this.
Not sure about R5 though I have seen at least one instance there, but it seems that more and more new FYA installs around here are of the three section variety (RA-YA-Bimodal FYA/GA).
I want to say R2 is New York's testbed for three section FYAs. They were also one of the first regions to install a decent number of FYAs in general; NY 5S in Mohawk was the first place I ever saw them.
They repaved the last concrete segment of I-684 near Katonah and parts of the Saw Mill Pkway, but the button copy signs remain. Aren't their replacement part of the project?Probably early 1980's as New York used a text form throughout the 1970's (the right sign would have "N.Y. 35" instead of the shield). I say this because when the Camillus bypass was completed in 1979, the BGS's at the western freeway terminus had one with N.Y. 174 SOUTH/Camillus and the other with N.Y. 5 EAST/Syracuse without shields.
Any idea how old these are?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51034978453_224388716e_c.jpg)
They repaved the last concrete segment of I-684 near Katonah and parts of the Saw Mill Pkway, but the button copy signs remain. Aren't their replacement part of the project?
Any idea how old these are?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51034978453_224388716e_c.jpg)
They repaved the last concrete segment of I-684 near Katonah and parts of the Saw Mill Pkway, but the button copy signs remain. Aren't their replacement part of the project?Probably early 1980's as New York used a text form throughout the 1970's (the right sign would have "N.Y. 35" instead of the shield).
Any idea how old these are?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51034978453_224388716e_c.jpg)
I drove thru there in both directions on GCP in the last two months. It's still a mess but it looks like it is progressing. Among other things, the Union Tpk. westbound overpass with the arches appears to be gone, I'm sorry to say. And both directions on GCP is an awkward drive.yeah i saw that to the last time i drove through there that overpass reminds me of when we used to drive to LGA but these improvements are needed here is a link to the video of the improvements if ur interested https://youtu.be/pvmGYA-wQj4 (https://youtu.be/pvmGYA-wQj4)
When did NYS stop using button copy interstate shields?I've only seen them myself in the NYC area, which suggests it's a region by region approach. Those signs could very well be original to the 1960s completions of the freeway network.
ixnay
When did NYS stop using button copy interstate shields?I've only seen them myself in the NYC area, which suggests it's a region by region approach. Those signs could very well be original to the 1960s completions of the freeway network.
ixnay
Very unusual for NYSDOT to have the route shield next to the destination instead of above it. Used to be common in California, but not here.
Two things of interest on that photo. First, the more things change, the more they stay the same...note the colors on the license plate.
Second, is that a 40 or 45 MPH speed limit attached to the 2nd overhead gantry?
(http://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/backup/assets/81hist1.jpg)the funny thing is those look like the signs they use on the Belt Pkwy and the BQE like the very square styling and the color
1973 or so in Syracuse. Interestingly the northbound overhead signs at Exit 32 with the same design (replacing “Cortland” with “Watertown” ) did not have a button copy interstate marker, and it was put up around the same time. Unfortunately I don’t have a photo of that assembly.
Photo taken in 1976.
Oh, we had them on Long Island too. Of course, they started replacing most of them in the 1970's.When did NYS stop using button copy interstate shields?I've only seen them myself in the NYC area, which suggests it's a region by region approach. Those signs could very well be original to the 1960s completions of the freeway network.
ixnay
I was out in Orleans County last week and had occasion to drive on NY-279. I understand that it is under county maintenance, but there was absolutely no signage (reassurance or reference markers) between NY-104 and NY-18.
I contacted Region 4 and got this response:
“ Route 279 between Route 104 and Route 18 is owned, maintained, and operated by the Orleans County DPW. This portion of the highway includes the segment you are referring to. It was a State road but had been transferred to the County as part of a jurisdictional transfer many years ago. If you would like to speak with someone at the County regarding this, they can be contacted at (585) 589-6145.”
Does this mean that it’s decommissioned? In my experience most county-maintained segments still have reference markers and reassurance shields. I can’t imagine Orleans County would post these.
I would guess that it's not decommissioned unless it's something that happened very recently - but there are a few folks on here with more subject knowledge than me, so I'll defer to them.
NY 279 has been signed like crap along the route itself for years. There were only a couple shields along the county-maintained segment itself when I drove it in 2017, but it was signed well from both 104 and 18. I'll believe it's gone when signs are removed along both 104 and 18.
move it to the New York portion of the Bennington Bypass.
Nah. NYSDOT MO moved from the State Office Campus because Building 4 was falling apart. 50 Wolf Road was simply convenient.Anybody know why I-690 ramp to SYR from thompson and also exit 16N is closed? I saw them ripping it apart. :banghead:
Same reason the ramps on the other side were closed a year ago...bridge project...Nah. NYSDOT MO moved from the State Office Campus because Building 4 was falling apart. 50 Wolf Road was simply convenient.Anybody know why I-690 ramp to SYR from thompson and also exit 16N is closed? I saw them ripping it apart. :banghead:
^ According to the NYSDOT STIP, they're replacing the bridge decks on Thompson over 690 and the railroad.Thanks froggie!
[Rep Brian Higgins and State Sen Tim Kennedy] want to also see a new on-ramp at Lake Avenue to take Southtowns residents to the 90 to connect to the 190, and a Thruway turning lane at Milestrip Road.
According to the Buffalo News, state planners have decided that NY-5/Skyway should be converted into a 40-MPH "boulevard" rather than a 55-MPH expressway. I don't agree with this at all, mostly because this road goes through a predominantly industrial area with a connection to another freeway. I am not sure what they are envisioning this area to look like, because in other cities with similar highway setups, I don't think they would completely downgrade their expressways like this. I'm not understanding the rationale to do this. I also don't think they actually talked to the people who use this road everyday... that was me for a few years.
Ironically, the I-190 in South Buffalo actually cuts neighborhoods off... I'm not sure why they don't push to remove that highway as well, because the Skyway only cuts on the Canalside district. In addition, it's been reported that even if the Skyway is removed, they will still keep a portion of the deck and piers around for a pedestrian park. I thought the goal was to increase development space at Canalside. I don't understand who is planning these projects.
I originally disagreed with the Skyway removal, but now it looks like there might still be a freeway connection to I-190. Is the new purple route a full freeway? If so, then I don't have so much of an issue with the removal.
Ironically, the I-190 in South Buffalo actually cuts neighborhoods off... I'm not sure why they don't push to remove that highway as well, because the Skyway only cuts on the Canalside district. In addition, it's been reported that even if the Skyway is removed, they will still keep a portion of the deck and piers around for a pedestrian park. I thought the goal was to increase development space at Canalside. I don't understand who is planning these projects.My understanding is that there's a developer that wants to build in the space around the I-190 interchange, but they need that part of the Skyway and the associated ramps gone to move forward. As for I-190... don't give them ideas!
Considering that NYSDOT went ahead and removed the eastern end of the Inner Loop, I have no doubt they will lobby for it here.
Granted, Ive never seen the Inner Loop busy enough to warrant it's existence and they basically let it crumble for the last 20 years.
I originally disagreed with the Skyway removal, but now it looks like there might still be a freeway connection to I-190. Is the new purple route a full freeway? If so, then I don't have so much of an issue with the removal.
Surface road.
If they're constructing seven new bridges and a new roadway anyways you'd think it would be at least expressway grade.I originally disagreed with the Skyway removal, but now it looks like there might still be a freeway connection to I-190. Is the new purple route a full freeway? If so, then I don't have so much of an issue with the removal.
Surface road.
Considering that NYSDOT went ahead and removed the eastern end of the Inner Loop, I have no doubt they will lobby for it here.
Granted, Ive never seen the Inner Loop busy enough to warrant it's existence and they basically let it crumble for the last 20 years.
What's the deal with I-87.1. No, it'll reset at each state line (VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY).
1. Is it ever going to have one uniform set of exit numbers?
2. Why is it as part of the Thruway it is mostly 2 lanes south of I-90 despite being so close to Albany with little traffic, yet as soon as I-87 leaves the Thruway it adds a 3rd lane and has a lot more traffic than anywhere else (even the area right outside Albany) up to Lake George?
I-87 is in those states?What's the deal with I-87.1. No, it'll reset at each state line (VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY).
1. Is it ever going to have one uniform set of exit numbers?
2. Why is it as part of the Thruway it is mostly 2 lanes south of I-90 despite being so close to Albany with little traffic, yet as soon as I-87 leaves the Thruway it adds a 3rd lane and has a lot more traffic than anywhere else (even the area right outside Albany) up to Lake George?
2. Because people hate tolls.
2. Not just that. Tolls don't prevent heavy travel between Albany and Schenectady.What's the deal with I-87.1. No, it'll reset at each state line (VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY).
1. Is it ever going to have one uniform set of exit numbers?
2. Why is it as part of the Thruway it is mostly 2 lanes south of I-90 despite being so close to Albany with little traffic, yet as soon as I-87 leaves the Thruway it adds a 3rd lane and has a lot more traffic than anywhere else (even the area right outside Albany) up to Lake George?
2. Because people hate tolls.
Not quite. I-87 is in NC but is future in VA. MD doesn't have I87, nor DE!I-87 is in those states?What's the deal with I-87.1. No, it'll reset at each state line (VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY).
1. Is it ever going to have one uniform set of exit numbers?
2. Why is it as part of the Thruway it is mostly 2 lanes south of I-90 despite being so close to Albany with little traffic, yet as soon as I-87 leaves the Thruway it adds a 3rd lane and has a lot more traffic than anywhere else (even the area right outside Albany) up to Lake George?
2. Because people hate tolls.
Ah, but the intent, you see...Not quite. I-87 is in NC but is future in VA. MD doesn't have I87, nor DE!I-87 is in those states?What's the deal with I-87.1. No, it'll reset at each state line (VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY).
1. Is it ever going to have one uniform set of exit numbers?
2. Why is it as part of the Thruway it is mostly 2 lanes south of I-90 despite being so close to Albany with little traffic, yet as soon as I-87 leaves the Thruway it adds a 3rd lane and has a lot more traffic than anywhere else (even the area right outside Albany) up to Lake George?
2. Because people hate tolls.
I love this:
“ For years we have been working on a solution to transform the obsolete and poorly designed I-81 viaduct in Syracuse into a modern transportation corridor”
Which is reverting it back to an a road with at grade crossings. That is comedy.
Another thing to keep in mind that Albany is a major intersection of corridors. There's I-87 to the north and south, I-90 to the east and west, and I-88 to the southwest (there's also NY 7/VT 9 to the northeast). Traffic from the south, west, east, and southwest then goes north of I-87 to Lake George/Saratoga/the Adirondacks.
I-87 up north and I-88 are fairly empty most of the time. there are 3 busy roads out of Albany - going to Boston, NYC and Buffalo. Buffalo-Boston (Hartford) is probably the only traffic stream transiting through Albany area. NYC-Boston and NYC-Syracuse(Buffalo) don't need to go through Albany.Another thing to keep in mind that Albany is a major intersection of corridors. There's I-87 to the north and south, I-90 to the east and west, and I-88 to the southwest (there's also NY 7/VT 9 to the northeast). Traffic from the south, west, east, and southwest then goes north of I-87 to Lake George/Saratoga/the Adirondacks.
Don't forget Montreal.
Depends on how expansive you define the "Albany area". In normal times, there's lots of out of state traffic going up the Northway to Saratoga/Lake George, though this is, of course, seasonal.I-87 up north and I-88 are fairly empty most of the time. there are 3 busy roads out of Albany - going to Boston, NYC and Buffalo. Buffalo-Boston (Hartford) is probably the only traffic stream transiting through Albany area. NYC-Boston and NYC-Syracuse(Buffalo) don't need to go through Albany.Another thing to keep in mind that Albany is a major intersection of corridors. There's I-87 to the north and south, I-90 to the east and west, and I-88 to the southwest (there's also NY 7/VT 9 to the northeast). Traffic from the south, west, east, and southwest then goes north of I-87 to Lake George/Saratoga/the Adirondacks.
Don't forget Montreal.
Canal was a big transit route, but no longer is.
I suspect the Urbanists consider the entire concept of a freeway to be outdated. They want to replace all urban freeways with boulevards, bikes, and transit, and all rural freeways with trains. Make no mistake, that's the endgame.I love this:
“ For years we have been working on a solution to transform the obsolete and poorly designed I-81 viaduct in Syracuse into a modern transportation corridor”
Which is reverting it back to an a road with at grade crossings. That is comedy.
Yeah, like how "modern" art was all the rage in the early 20th century. Then it was superseded by all this wacky stuff a few decades later–and now look at which of the two still draws crowds in a museum! :-D
I suspect the Urbanists consider the entire concept of a freeway to be outdated. They want to replace all urban freeways with boulevards, bikes, and transit, and all rural freeways with trains. Make no mistake, that's the endgame.
(personal opinion)
What next? Turning the Harlem River Drive back into a speedway for horse traffic only? Taking a page out of The Netherlands's book and making the Thruway a bicycle highway? Just think of all the trees we'll be saving! :bigass:
According to the Buffalo News, state planners have decided that NY-5/Skyway should be converted into a 40-MPH "boulevard" rather than a 55-MPH expressway. I don't agree with this at all, mostly because this road goes through a predominantly industrial area with a connection to another freeway. I am not sure what they are envisioning this area to look like, because in other cities with similar highway setups, I don't think they would completely downgrade their expressways like this. I'm not understanding the rationale to do this. I also don't think they actually talked to the people who use this road everyday... that was me for a few years.
Ironically, the I-190 in South Buffalo actually cuts neighborhoods off... I'm not sure why they don't push to remove that highway as well, because the Skyway only cuts on the Canalside district. In addition, it's been reported that even if the Skyway is removed, they will still keep a portion of the deck and piers around for a pedestrian park. I thought the goal was to increase development space at Canalside. I don't understand who is planning these projects.
Edit: Are these the "planners?" This is whack!Quote[Rep Brian Higgins and State Sen Tim Kennedy] want to also see a new on-ramp at Lake Avenue to take Southtowns residents to the 90 to connect to the 190, and a Thruway turning lane at Milestrip Road.
(https://i.imgur.com/znVindol.jpg)
(https://bloximages-chicago2-vip-townnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/buffalonews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/b6/db686732-931a-11eb-883e-0b1e4571f182/606615c89b97d.image.png?resize=1024%2C700)
https://buffalonews.com/news/local/weve-got-to-get-it-right-boulevard-option-gains-favor-as-skyway-review-moves-ahead/article_c8e65f06-873f-11eb-b8a7-979504e370e7.html
One thing to keep in mind: that petition advocates work around NY 198 and NY 33 that could include freeway removals. The NY 33 proposal was originally to cap it, but nobody wants the exhaust vents, so I wouldn't rule out a full removal being considered at some point. Also, a good chunk of the "keep the Skyway" crowd wants to keep it as a pedestrian-only Cloudwalk (which would no longer exist in the area around I-190 and would have a giant elevator built instead), not as a freeway.
(personal opinion)
So you're suggesting that they leave everything the way it is now for the couple of decades it will take for electric cars to become pervasive enough to not need exhaust vents? Good luck with that...
Try decades. Next.So you're suggesting that they leave everything the way it is now for the couple of decades it will take for electric cars to become pervasive enough to not need exhaust vents? Good luck with that...
Decades? Try years.
In the places that set a date for outlawing ICE cars, that date tends to be in the 2030-2040 time range. Then you need to add another decade on top of that for the ICE cars on the road when that happens to age out of the fleet. So yes, decades. Given that electric cars take a long time to charge and aren't as good on roadtrips for that reason, with no credible evidence that such will change (the battery industry has been trying to figure out fast charging of big batteries for over 20 years now and, despite many promising attempts, has failed to do so every time, so any claim that they will is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence), adoption is going to be limited to people who are willing to put up with the more frequent/longer stops to charge and/or people who are willing to just use it to drive around town and have (or rent) a separate car for trips for a while, perhaps up until people are forced by government mandate. Most people want a car that can handle all their needs, not just the most common ones and end up needing a second car or to rent for the others.So you're suggesting that they leave everything the way it is now for the couple of decades it will take for electric cars to become pervasive enough to not need exhaust vents? Good luck with that...
Decades? Try years.
This thread is supposed to be about NY...
No place has outlawed ICE car ownership or usage. A select few are setting mandates for forcing the sale of -new- electric-only vehicles. As it is, you can purchase a very cheap ICE car; battery-only vehicles are still very expensive and unattainable to all but the upper class.That's what I meant about the ICE cars aging out of the fleet. Even after the date where the sale of new ICE cars is reached, all the existing ones will still be on the road, and the last holdouts to electric may well hold onto the cars longer than they otherwise would, so it would probably be 15-20 years after that for the vast majority of them to be gone.
Lithium ion battery costs have fallen 97% (https://news.mit.edu/2021/lithium-ion-battery-costs-0323) since 1991.You're the first person to bring up cost here and you're not doing much to address any of our other points. The only one you even bothered to bring up is range, and those stated ranges for vehicles tend to be in ideal conditions with a fully charged battery - and getting to fully charged takes a LONG time. Realistically, the range on a battery charged to 80% driven the way normal people drive on normal terrain in average conditions is lower, especially when the battery is no longer new. And even if it isn't, the fact that charging takes a lot longer even only going to 80% means that roadtrips will take longer.
And based on the continued breakthroughs coming out of research labs all over the world, this progress is not going to stop any time soon. And these advances are being commercialized. Chevrolet is bringing out an electric Silverado pickup truck in 2023 with 400 miles of range. And trucks and buses, which make up a disproportionate share of harmful emissions, will probably go electric sooner as operators are more willing to pay higher upfront costs in exchange for lower fuel and maintenance bills. I think that the electric age is close enough to justify not permanently dismantling a freeway out of air pollution concerns.
Yes. Let's all go back to talking about New York, everybody! Any other off-topic material (such as the ICE car vs. electric car debate) should be confined to the Off-Topic Board.This whole thing started because kernals12 decided that electric cars mean that all the people who objected to the plan to cap the Kensington Expressway can be ignored.
Eh, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some people out there who see high-speed rail as a replacement for the interstate system. And actually, there is a trail following a similar route to the Thruway (https://empiretrail.ny.gov/)!
A bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump
Would be interesting to see how this turns out! 55 cents per gallon is approximately what the total gas tax in NY is right now, so this would double the tax.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Cost-of-cleaner-air-could-be-another-55-16098181.phpQuoteA bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump
Would be interesting to see how this turns out! 55 cents per gallon is approximately what the total gas tax in NY is right now, so this would double the tax.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Cost-of-cleaner-air-could-be-another-55-16098181.phpQuoteA bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump
Would be interesting to see how this turns out! 55 cents per gallon is approximately what the total gas tax in NY is right now, so this would double the tax.Pfft. NY Legislature has the ability to do most of its work behind closed doors (which is why the vast majority of bills pass when they get to the vote). I think this bill will die therein.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Cost-of-cleaner-air-could-be-another-55-16098181.phpQuoteA bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump
You never know. I said pretty much the same about Tappan Zee renaming... It was rubber-stamped within a week!Would be interesting to see how this turns out! 55 cents per gallon is approximately what the total gas tax in NY is right now, so this would double the tax.Pfft. NY Legislature has the ability to do most of its work behind closed doors (which is why the vast majority of bills pass when they get to the vote). I think this bill will die therein.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Cost-of-cleaner-air-could-be-another-55-16098181.phpQuoteA bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump
That one was more understandable.You never know. I said pretty much the same about Tappan Zee renaming... It was rubber-stamped within a week!Would be interesting to see how this turns out! 55 cents per gallon is approximately what the total gas tax in NY is right now, so this would double the tax.Pfft. NY Legislature has the ability to do most of its work behind closed doors (which is why the vast majority of bills pass when they get to the vote). I think this bill will die therein.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Cost-of-cleaner-air-could-be-another-55-16098181.phpQuoteA bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump
I suspect any measure to bring more revenue would be fairly understandable these days.That one was more understandable.You never know. I said pretty much the same about Tappan Zee renaming... It was rubber-stamped within a week!Would be interesting to see how this turns out! 55 cents per gallon is approximately what the total gas tax in NY is right now, so this would double the tax.Pfft. NY Legislature has the ability to do most of its work behind closed doors (which is why the vast majority of bills pass when they get to the vote). I think this bill will die therein.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Cost-of-cleaner-air-could-be-another-55-16098181.phpQuoteA bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump
Yeah, keep in mind that the reason why the budget was late was because they were working out what tax increases to have, even though the latest stimulus bill combined with the $5 billion that randomly got found more than plugged the hole. I'm not going to let myself be optimistic about this dying, and yes, it would almost certainly lead to more upstate secession threats and the government flipping to the GOP next year.I suspect any measure to bring more revenue would be fairly understandable these days.That one was more understandable.You never know. I said pretty much the same about Tappan Zee renaming... It was rubber-stamped within a week!Would be interesting to see how this turns out! 55 cents per gallon is approximately what the total gas tax in NY is right now, so this would double the tax.Pfft. NY Legislature has the ability to do most of its work behind closed doors (which is why the vast majority of bills pass when they get to the vote). I think this bill will die therein.
https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Cost-of-cleaner-air-could-be-another-55-16098181.phpQuoteA bill in the state Senate that would impose a carbon tax to help the state meet its green energy goals could cost New York motorists an extra 55 cents per gallon at the pump
Eeeeesh.....Normally, I'd expect something like that to happen to parkway interchanges, not an interstate highway like the Adirondack Northway. Although there are a few bridges over the Long Island Expressway that are unexpectedly low.
https://www.news10.com/news/nysp-truck-hit-a-northway-overpass-traffic-being-diverted/
That beam is nearly ripped into two.
Eeeeesh.....Yeah, I had to deal with some backroads today.
https://www.news10.com/news/nysp-truck-hit-a-northway-overpass-traffic-being-diverted/
That beam is nearly ripped into two.
That bridge isn't reopening anytime soon. They're going to need to completely replace the west span. 3 stringers an a pier are compromised. At this point, don't expect the Northway to reopen until they can demolish that span.That is beyond "it suck"....
I really hope the driver of the truck has a large insurance policy, because that's gonna be a pricey fine.
That was a relatively low bridge at 14'4" - and they hit the bridge exactly below the sign. Well, if there will be a replacement - it will surely be up to the standard (pun intended).Eeeeesh.....Normally, I'd expect something like that to happen to parkway interchanges, not an interstate highway like the Adirondack Northway. Although there are a few bridges over the Long Island Expressway that are unexpectedly low.
https://www.news10.com/news/nysp-truck-hit-a-northway-overpass-traffic-being-diverted/
That beam is nearly ripped into two.
That bridge isn't reopening anytime soon. They're going to need to completely replace the west span. 3 stringers an a pier are compromised. At this point, don't expect the Northway to reopen until they can demolish that span.Word is one lane will reopen, would take 3 weeks for repairs before things are back to normal. Exit 9 will remain closed - to keep traffic off overloaded 146 in Clifton park, I assume.
I really hope the driver of the truck has a large insurance policy, because that's gonna be a pricey fine.
That bridge isn't reopening anytime soon. They're going to need to completely replace the west span. 3 stringers an a pier are compromised. At this point, don't expect the Northway to reopen until they can demolish that span.Word is one lane will reopen, would take 3 weeks for repairs before things are back to normal. Exit 9 will remain closed - to keep traffic off overloaded 146 in Clifton park, I assume.
I really hope the driver of the truck has a large insurance policy, because that's gonna be a pricey fine.
WOuld be a total collapse before covid, downgraded to a huge cluster-f with today's reduced traffic.
That bridge isn't reopening anytime soon. They're going to need to completely replace the west span. 3 stringers an a pier are compromised. At this point, don't expect the Northway to reopen until they can demolish that span.Word is one lane will reopen, would take 3 weeks for repairs before things are back to normal. Exit 9 will remain closed - to keep traffic off overloaded 146 in Clifton park, I assume.
I really hope the driver of the truck has a large insurance policy, because that's gonna be a pricey fine.
WOuld be a total collapse before covid, downgraded to a huge cluster-f with today's reduced traffic.
Wow, what a disaster. US 9 looks like a nightmare, and Grooms Rd. not much better. I find the decision to detour traffic at Exit 10 and keep Exit 9 closed really interesting. You'd think traffic would disseminate a bit better by using the Exit 9 ramps, but then again, that does put an incredible strain on 146.
Curious what the locals thoughts are as to the best alternate. US 4, maybe?
That was a relatively low bridge at 14'4" - and they hit the bridge exactly below the sign. Well, if there will be a replacement - it will surely be up to the standard (pun intended).Eeeeesh.....Normally, I'd expect something like that to happen to parkway interchanges, not an interstate highway like the Adirondack Northway. Although there are a few bridges over the Long Island Expressway that are unexpectedly low.
https://www.news10.com/news/nysp-truck-hit-a-northway-overpass-traffic-being-diverted/
That beam is nearly ripped into two.
Eeeeesh.....Normally, I'd expect something like that to happen to parkway interchanges, not an interstate highway like the Adirondack Northway. Although there are a few bridges over the Long Island Expressway that are unexpectedly low.
https://www.news10.com/news/nysp-truck-hit-a-northway-overpass-traffic-being-diverted/
That beam is nearly ripped into two.
I just went through affected area of I-87. Traffic situation is nowhere close to the total collapse we feared.And the latest update: https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/After-crash-section-of-bridge-over-Northway-to-16118979.php
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.
This sort of thing may happen on NY 390 in Rochester one day. This bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1915682,-77.6830971,3a,75y,175.5h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHoTnKoTKVUu3icOL6_8arw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0) on SB NY 390 is marked at 12 ft. 11 in. clearance in the left lane. This is in an industrial area with a lot of truck traffic.Eeeeesh.....Normally, I'd expect something like that to happen to parkway interchanges, not an interstate highway like the Adirondack Northway. Although there are a few bridges over the Long Island Expressway that are unexpectedly low.
https://www.news10.com/news/nysp-truck-hit-a-northway-overpass-traffic-being-diverted/
That beam is nearly ripped into two.
Crazeenydriver needs to make a video on this!
In other NY news, construction has begun at NY 286 and Five Mile Line Rd in Penfield, an intersection I've grumbled about in the past because of the lack of turning lanes and rush hour backups. It was originally under study for a roundabout, but they're ultimately going with the more sensible option of just adding turning lanes on all four approaches, including a southbound right turn lane. Diagram here:It's about time. This needed to be done 20 years ago.
(https://imgur.com/FU5sH0V.jpg)
Most sections of the Taconic have been rebuilt to modern standards. The notable exception is thru Putnam County where it's still the original four-lane road with later installed guide-rail in the middle. That is unless changes have been made in the last few years.To widen the Taconic south of I-84 would just be horrifically expensive given you would have to cut into the hill more. It's a short section, so just take a deep breath, white-knuckle it and it's all over in about a minute.
Most sections of the Taconic have been rebuilt to modern standards. The notable exception is thru Putnam County where it's still the original four-lane road with later installed guide-rail in the middle. That is unless changes have been made in the last few years.To widen the Taconic south of I-84 would just be horrifically expensive given you would have to cut into the hill more. It's a short section, so just take a deep breath, white-knuckle it and it's all over in about a minute.
I'm amazed that area doesn't have enough crashes to outweigh the costs. Not sure those are even 10' lanes. It's expensive but likely environmental is a bigger headache.Most sections of the Taconic have been rebuilt to modern standards. The notable exception is thru Putnam County where it's still the original four-lane road with later installed guide-rail in the middle. That is unless changes have been made in the last few years.To widen the Taconic south of I-84 would just be horrifically expensive given you would have to cut into the hill more. It's a short section, so just take a deep breath, white-knuckle it and it's all over in about a minute.
I just traveled on the Taconic State Parkway for the first time. Beautiful road, but seems a bit overbuilt up north in Columbia County.
Most sections of the Taconic have been rebuilt to modern standards. The notable exception is thru Putnam County where it's still the original four-lane road with later installed guide-rail in the middle. That is unless changes have been made in the last few years.
I'm amazed that area doesn't have enough crashes to outweigh the costs. Not sure those are even 10' lanes. It's expensive but likely environmental is a bigger headache.
How is US 9 a better route? It's a mess in Ossining and Tarrytown.I just traveled on the Taconic State Parkway for the first time. Beautiful road, but seems a bit overbuilt up north in Columbia County.
In what way?Most sections of the Taconic have been rebuilt to modern standards. The notable exception is thru Putnam County where it's still the original four-lane road with later installed guide-rail in the middle. That is unless changes have been made in the last few years.
Nothing recently, aside from Pudding Street, but that doesn't alter that character much. The next newest section is the Miller Hill Road interchange, just to the north in Dutchess County.I'm amazed that area doesn't have enough crashes to outweigh the costs. Not sure those are even 10' lanes. It's expensive but likely environmental is a bigger headache.
I wouldn't be surprised if it does, but I'd rather see the focus placed on encouraging traffic to use US 9 instead. For many, it's already the better route; for enough others, it's enough better that it might not be hard to tip the scales.
How is US 9 a better route? It's a mess in Ossining and Tarrytown.
The only extended section of the Taconic that has been upgraded is between the Sprain and US 6. This section was widened to modern standards between the 70s and 2000s. Putnam County is hard because, in many cases, parkland is right up to the ROW line.Eh, not sure there's enough of a benefit.
Upgrades north of US 6 are as follows (may not be an exhaustive list):
- Pudding Street
- Small NB realignment just south of NY 301
- Miller Hill Road interchange
- Hosner Mountain Road bridge
- Beekman Road Interchange
- Arthursburg Road RIRO and Noxon Road ramp
- Several full crossings converted to RIROs from Todd Hill Road north
- Double trumpet stubs removed at Exit B2
In a few of these cases (the new interchanges), the parkway was widened/upgraded around the location. In others, such as most/all of the RIROs, there were minimal changes to the parkway itself.
How is US 9 a better route? It's a mess in Ossining and Tarrytown.
US 9 north of Ossining is fine. Use the Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway (3 lights) to make the jump from the Sprain/Taconic to US 9. 9 north of there is full freeway to the Bear Mountain Parkway and generally flows well to 84.
How is US 9 a better route? It's a mess in Ossining and Tarrytown.
Eh, not sure there's enough of a benefit.
There's also US 202 to connect between US 9 and the Taconic. Not sure how viable that is, though.
I shall see what Google Maps has to say about this. :D
As a result, the straightest route usually is also the quickest. And if the straightest route is the Taconic, the next-straightest route isn't so much slower that it's unlikely to outweigh the challenges of the parkway.
As a result, the straightest route usually is also the quickest. And if the straightest route is the Taconic, the next-straightest route isn't so much slower that it's unlikely to outweigh the challenges of the parkway.
This is my current assumption.
What next? Turning the Harlem River Drive back into a speedway for horse traffic only? Taking a page out of The Netherlands's book and making the Thruway a bicycle highway? Just think of all the trees we'll be saving! :bigass:I take it from your sarcasm you don't like the I-81 removal?
Similar comment, though: To fix all that by straightening the road out more and upgrading the Peekskill Hollow interchange, would be extremely expensive. Although NYSDOT upgraded Pudding Street, that was a relatively easier place to fix up (top of a flat hill) than in a ravine.
Haven't had a chance to mention this, but the guide signs along NY 5S inside the Utica city limits were replaced this past week. No more boxed signs except for EB at Dyke Rd. The Herkimer County signs have not been replaced as of yet but given recent sign projects that I have noticed along NY 5 (Utica line to Lock 19), NY 5S (east of Mohawk to at least Washington St.), and NY 28 (south of Mohawk to the Otsego County line), I would suspect the guide signs will be replaced later this summer.
On a semi-related note, the NY 5S reconstruction project in downtown Utica (the focal point for last summer's meet) is nearing completion as crews have been spending the past week on landscaping and finishing touches.
I don't want to hotlink a Facebook image but I posted this to my page, which is publicly viewable - anyone have an idea what the top sign once read? SA something, but not SAT-SUN. It was at the far western end of La Grange Rd. in Binghamton where it enters the cemetery.
Definitely not an I after the "SA". (Or SN, or SW, or...)I don't want to hotlink a Facebook image but I posted this to my page, which is publicly viewable - anyone have an idea what the top sign once read? SA something, but not SAT-SUN. It was at the far western end of La Grange Rd. in Binghamton where it enters the cemetery.
"Saint Mary's Cemetery"?
You’re lucky to find a Binghamtonian here!Yes! Thanks! BINGHAMTON NO PARKING... and it's at city limits.
I’m almost positive what you thought to be “S” is part of the “B” in Binghamton, and the “A” being the left side and slant of the first “N” . This appears to be an older style of the red signs with parking regulations that are posted at the city limits. I can’t find a photo online of the ones I’m thinking of but if I happen to spot one remaining when I’m out, I’ll get a photo. Most of them have been replaced with different signs that don’t have “BINGHAMTON” on them anymore.
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.
The fastest route from NYC to Binghamton is 80-380-81, but by that point NY 17 is the fastest route.Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.
Binghamton isn't used much until you get to I-84, but I'm not sure why. I'd use both Binghamton and Harriman.
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.
The fastest route from NYC to Binghamton is 80-380-81, but by that point NY 17 is the fastest route.Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.
Binghamton isn't used much until you get to I-84, but I'm not sure why. I'd use both Binghamton and Harriman.
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.
Because you're on the Thruway and the Thruway traditionally didn't really use control cities. Rather, they signed exits for the local cities the exit serves. They seem to be getting better but for those of us old enough to the old "Thruway blue" exit signs (before they then went to dark green but still in the same Thruway layout style and now to largely conforming green signs), they, AFAIK, always only listed local cities. I suspect back then the goal was to make the signs largely match the exit description on the toll ticket.
They sign control cities for I-87 (Montreal)?Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.
Because you're on the Thruway and the Thruway traditionally didn't really use control cities. Rather, they signed exits for the local cities the exit serves. They seem to be getting better but for those of us old enough to the old "Thruway blue" exit signs (before they then went to dark green but still in the same Thruway layout style and now to largely conforming green signs), they, AFAIK, always only listed local cities. I suspect back then the goal was to make the signs largely match the exit description on the toll ticket.
They sign control cities for I-87 (Montreal)?Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.
Because you're on the Thruway and the Thruway traditionally didn't really use control cities. Rather, they signed exits for the local cities the exit serves. They seem to be getting better but for those of us old enough to the old "Thruway blue" exit signs (before they then went to dark green but still in the same Thruway layout style and now to largely conforming green signs), they, AFAIK, always only listed local cities. I suspect back then the goal was to make the signs largely match the exit description on the toll ticket.
Albany is for I-90 east.They sign control cities for I-87 (Montreal)?Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.
Because you're on the Thruway and the Thruway traditionally didn't really use control cities. Rather, they signed exits for the local cities the exit serves. They seem to be getting better but for those of us old enough to the old "Thruway blue" exit signs (before they then went to dark green but still in the same Thruway layout style and now to largely conforming green signs), they, AFAIK, always only listed local cities. I suspect back then the goal was to make the signs largely match the exit description on the toll ticket.
It's Albany/Montreal: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6795999,-73.8455831,3a,75y,349.2h,85.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6zDqWbuTx4w5x1_KW5CH0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6795999,-73.8455831,3a,75y,349.2h,85.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6zDqWbuTx4w5x1_KW5CH0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Albany is for I-90 east.They sign control cities for I-87 (Montreal)?
It's Albany/Montreal: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6795999,-73.8455831,3a,75y,349.2h,85.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6zDqWbuTx4w5x1_KW5CH0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6795999,-73.8455831,3a,75y,349.2h,85.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6zDqWbuTx4w5x1_KW5CH0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.
Because you're on the Thruway and the Thruway traditionally didn't really use control cities. Rather, they signed exits for the local cities the exit serves. They seem to be getting better but for those of us old enough to the old "Thruway blue" exit signs (before they then went to dark green but still in the same Thruway layout style and now to largely conforming green signs), they, AFAIK, always only listed local cities. I suspect back then the goal was to make the signs largely match the exit description on the toll ticket.
Interesting. I suspect this mostly applies to non-interstates, because there are cases like I-390 (Corning) and I-81 (Watertown) where the control city for the route is used... although maybe those weren't used historically either, I'm not sure.
UPD: got it, they just display some random number next to the road, you have to click to get the traffic info. Simplified design™
Why isn't Binghamton a control city for NY 17 at the I-87 exit? Only Harriman is used.
Because you're on the Thruway and the Thruway traditionally didn't really use control cities. Rather, they signed exits for the local cities the exit serves. They seem to be getting better but for those of us old enough to the old "Thruway blue" exit signs (before they then went to dark green but still in the same Thruway layout style and now to largely conforming green signs), they, AFAIK, always only listed local cities. I suspect back then the goal was to make the signs largely match the exit description on the toll ticket.
Interesting. I suspect this mostly applies to non-interstates, because there are cases like I-390 (Corning) and I-81 (Watertown) where the control city for the route is used... although maybe those weren't used historically either, I'm not sure.
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 trafficI just went through affected area of I-87. Traffic situation is nowhere close to the total collapse we feared.And the latest update: https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/After-crash-section-of-bridge-over-Northway-to-16118979.php
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.
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...
Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.Guess on my part; such is still 55 due to its relatively close proximity to Danbury, CT as well as the traffic loads east of I-684. IMHO, the stretch from the CT border to I-684 should be widened to 6-lanes. If such were to happen maybe that stretch would receive a 65 mph limit.
Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.Guess on my part; such is still 55 due to its relatively close proximity to Danbury, CT as well as the traffic loads east of I-684. IMHO, the stretch from the CT border to I-684 should be widened to 6-lanes. If such were to happen maybe that stretch would receive a 65 mph limit.
That would likely the reasoning for not doing such then; but not necessarily now.Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.Guess on my part; such is still 55 due to its relatively close proximity to Danbury, CT as well as the traffic loads east of I-684. IMHO, the stretch from the CT border to I-684 should be widened to 6-lanes. If such were to happen maybe that stretch would receive a 65 mph limit.
Does it have to do with the fact that 84 used to be maintained by the Thruway Authority even though it wasn't one of their toll roads? I know they're more conservative about using 65MPH speed limits than NYSDOT is.
The City of Troy and the City of Watervliet just did a study to re-imagine the area around the Congress Street Bridge. The study imagines a road diet with a bike/ped path on the bridge, returning Ferry Street to two-way traffic, and other changes around the area. It will be interesting to watch this area in the coming years.I have some - or maybe a lot - of doubt there will be a lot of foot-bike traffic in tthose cool lanes. Trees on the bridge seem to be another case of DUI - design under influence.
https://www.troyny.gov/departments/planning-department/city-projects/congress-street-bridge-study/
The City of Troy and the City of Watervliet just did a study to re-imagine the area around the Congress Street Bridge. The study imagines a road diet with a bike/ped path on the bridge, returning Ferry Street to two-way traffic, and other changes around the area. It will be interesting to watch this area in the coming years.
https://www.troyny.gov/departments/planning-department/city-projects/congress-street-bridge-study/
My bigger concern though is that Troy is acting like a firewall, throttling through traffic towards VT, without a good way to bypass city grid.
I'd be more okay with the proposed Congress Street Bridge diet if they didn't want to diet the Green Island Bridge at the same time. Both being done would cut cross-river capacity by a LOT.I sort of understand that 7 is an out of place thing. I just don't see good options being available or discussed. With Cohoes throttling 787, and Waterford apparently not interested in any future d.3velopment as well, this is a tough situation overall.My bigger concern though is that Troy is acting like a firewall, throttling through traffic towards VT, without a good way to bypass city grid.
Oh, there are people in Troy who want to diet 7, too.
That would likely the reasoning for not doing such then; but not necessarily now.Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.Guess on my part; such is still 55 due to its relatively close proximity to Danbury, CT as well as the traffic loads east of I-684. IMHO, the stretch from the CT border to I-684 should be widened to 6-lanes. If such were to happen maybe that stretch would receive a 65 mph limit.
Does it have to do with the fact that 84 used to be maintained by the Thruway Authority even though it wasn't one of their toll roads? I know they're more conservative about using 65MPH speed limits than NYSDOT is.
84 should be 65 all the way across NY.That would likely the reasoning for not doing such then; but not necessarily now.Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.Guess on my part; such is still 55 due to its relatively close proximity to Danbury, CT as well as the traffic loads east of I-684. IMHO, the stretch from the CT border to I-684 should be widened to 6-lanes. If such were to happen maybe that stretch would receive a 65 mph limit.
Does it have to do with the fact that 84 used to be maintained by the Thruway Authority even though it wasn't one of their toll roads? I know they're more conservative about using 65MPH speed limits than NYSDOT is.
The speed limit on the CT side of the border is 55, so it really doesn't make sense to raise the limit between 684 and the border to 65 when it will drop back to 55 within 2 miles (and 50 a couple miles later near the US 7 junction). And it drops to 55 near MP 65 because 684 is a major junction (as it does through the Newburgh area and over the bridge).
I'd be more okay with the proposed Congress Street Bridge diet if they didn't want to diet the Green Island Bridge at the same time. Both being done would cut cross-river capacity by a LOT.The AADT on Green Island is 13k. Congress Street, 15k. Hoosick Street... yeah, that's a bit much for a road diet. It's worth nothing, however, that in my experience NY 7 feels like it moves much better in Troy than in Brunswick.My bigger concern though is that Troy is acting like a firewall, throttling through traffic towards VT, without a good way to bypass city grid.
Oh, there are people in Troy who want to diet 7, too.
The AADT on Green Island is 13k. Congress Street, 15k. Hoosick Street... yeah, that's a bit much for a road diet. It's worth nothing, however, that in my experience NY 7 feels like it moves much better in Troy than in Brunswick.My bigger concern though is that Troy is acting like a firewall, throttling through traffic towards VT, without a good way to bypass city grid.
Oh, there are people in Troy who want to diet 7, too.
Oh, there are people in Troy who want to diet 7, too.
Are there any long term plans to address NY 7 in Brunswick? The section just beyond the Troy city limits reminds me a lot of NY 404 in Webster - a major commercial corridor with too much traffic for two lanes, even with the TWLTL. At a certain point, intersection improvements just won't cut it and a full-on widening is the only answer (see NY 404 and Five Mile Line Rd, which got new right turn lanes on all approaches and still backs up).
The two biggest issues by far with 7 along Hoosick St are the lack of left turn lanes above 10th St (NY 40) and the abhorrent signal timing.
Are there any long term plans to address NY 7 in Brunswick? ...
Not worth it because you'd create additional bottleneck stress with the Troy segment. ...
Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.Guess on my part; such is still 55 due to its relatively close proximity to Danbury, CT as well as the traffic loads east of I-684. IMHO, the stretch from the CT border to I-684 should be widened to 6-lanes. If such were to happen maybe that stretch would receive a 65 mph limit.
Does it have to do with the fact that 84 used to be maintained by the Thruway Authority even though it wasn't one of their toll roads? I know they're more conservative about using 65MPH speed limits than NYSDOT is.
You're all talking about 65 vs. 55 as if anyone enforces below 75 in either case.On NY 85 they enforced over 70 in the 55.
I am talking about I-84, not the Albany area. The general DC-Boston corridor seems to allow traffic to flow at 75-80.You're all talking about 65 vs. 55 as if anyone enforces below 75 in either case.On NY 85 they enforced over 70 in the 55.
NYSTA is more liberal with 65 than NYSDOT in my experience. The entire Thruway system Upstate aside from the free section of 90, 190 through Buffalo, and the Grand Island Bridges is 65. Thruway mainline north of the Garden State Parkway is entirely 65 aside from that aforementioned free section through Buffalo. NYSDOT wouldn't post the Castleton Bridge or a few other things at 65. The Thruway through Albany probably wouldn't be 65 if it were a NYSDOT road given how speed limits are set in Region 1.
the design speed is accually 65 on the LIE but it was lowered during the oil crisis and now its kept at 55 for a margin of errorNYSTA is more liberal with 65 than NYSDOT in my experience. The entire Thruway system Upstate aside from the free section of 90, 190 through Buffalo, and the Grand Island Bridges is 65. Thruway mainline north of the Garden State Parkway is entirely 65 aside from that aforementioned free section through Buffalo. NYSDOT wouldn't post the Castleton Bridge or a few other things at 65. The Thruway through Albany probably wouldn't be 65 if it were a NYSDOT road given how speed limits are set in Region 1.
Tell me about it. Why NYSDOT keeps the eastern portion of the LIE at 55, especially beyond Farmingville, is beyond me.
Margin of error? What? Is there a 10 mph margin of error?the design speed is accually 65 on the LIE but it was lowered during the oil crisis and now its kept at 55 for a margin of errorNYSTA is more liberal with 65 than NYSDOT in my experience. The entire Thruway system Upstate aside from the free section of 90, 190 through Buffalo, and the Grand Island Bridges is 65. Thruway mainline north of the Garden State Parkway is entirely 65 aside from that aforementioned free section through Buffalo. NYSDOT wouldn't post the Castleton Bridge or a few other things at 65. The Thruway through Albany probably wouldn't be 65 if it were a NYSDOT road given how speed limits are set in Region 1.
Tell me about it. Why NYSDOT keeps the eastern portion of the LIE at 55, especially beyond Farmingville, is beyond me.
the travel speed is accually 85 on the LIEthe design speed is accually 65 on the LIE but it was lowered during the oil crisis and now its kept at 55 for a margin of errorNYSTA is more liberal with 65 than NYSDOT in my experience. The entire Thruway system Upstate aside from the free section of 90, 190 through Buffalo, and the Grand Island Bridges is 65. Thruway mainline north of the Garden State Parkway is entirely 65 aside from that aforementioned free section through Buffalo. NYSDOT wouldn't post the Castleton Bridge or a few other things at 65. The Thruway through Albany probably wouldn't be 65 if it were a NYSDOT road given how speed limits are set in Region 1.
Tell me about it. Why NYSDOT keeps the eastern portion of the LIE at 55, especially beyond Farmingville, is beyond me.
Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.
What is the 85th percentile speed on that part of I-84?Why is the speed limit still 55 on part of I-84 in New York? Most rural freeways in New York are 65.
Well, guess what? Up until 10-20 years ago, the speed limit on I-84 east of Newburgh was 55 MPH the whole way to CT. Then at some point post NYSTA-control, it was raised to 65. We used to joke, saying you had to pay to go 65 MPH in New York (at the time, I-684 was also 55). What they kept as 55 is from the Thruway mainline to the east side of the bridge in Beacon and a couple miles in Brewster around I-684.
As others have stated, the amount of traffic and congestion around the I-84/I-684 interchange, and the roadway geometry/traffic around the NBB warrant these areas to be 55 MPH. Ideally, we'd have a continuous 3 lanes on I-84 from I-684 east to Danbury (and continuing to Waterbury), and the speed limit could be 65. Theoretically, you could raise it right now from Exit 1-3 but it really doesn't make sense for only a couple miles.
It was sometime in the much less than 20 year timeframe (probably closer to the 10-15 year mark) when the Thruway upped the speed limit from Suffern to the GSP to 65, as prior to that, the 65 MPH zone started just north of the Suffern/NY 17 exit (15A).
It was sometime in the much less than 20 year timeframe (probably closer to the 10-15 year mark) when the Thruway upped the speed limit from Suffern to the GSP to 65, as prior to that, the 65 MPH zone started just north of the Suffern/NY 17 exit (15A).Interesting. I wonder what that means for the I-287 speed limit between the Thruway mainline and NJ. I always assumed it was 65 on the NY side and dropped to 55 at the state line, but now I'm wondering if it's actually 55 all the way until I-87. There isn't a speed limit sign on the NY side in either direction, and it could be it was just not thought of when the Thruway mainline was raised (after all, it's treated as an exit by NYSTA).
It was sometime in the much less than 20 year timeframe (probably closer to the 10-15 year mark) when the Thruway upped the speed limit from Suffern to the GSP to 65, as prior to that, the 65 MPH zone started just north of the Suffern/NY 17 exit (15A).Interesting. I wonder what that means for the I-287 speed limit between the Thruway mainline and NJ. I always assumed it was 65 on the NY side and dropped to 55 at the state line, but now I'm wondering if it's actually 55 all the way until I-87. There isn't a speed limit sign on the NY side in either direction, and it could be it was just not thought of when the Thruway mainline was raised (after all, it's treated as an exit by NYSTA).
NYSDOT may have controlled the ramps between the Hillburn Bypass and NJ, but those merged with the Thruway access right at the state line.
You're all talking about 65 vs. 55 as if anyone enforces below 75 in either case.
Don't get me going on NY 5S and the revenue generators in Frankfort.
Don't get me going on NY 5S and the revenue generators in Frankfort.
Ha! They’ve got it down alright. If you go to court, they’ll plead it down to a $100 parking ticket. You get no points on your license, it costs you a little less money, they keep it all and beat the state out of the surcharges.
Why doesnt the State DOT fix the Cluster F**k on the Cross bronx at the Major Deegan even the smallest thing as to Allowing trucks to use the lower level of the George Washington bridge to prevent trucks from weaving across three lanes of traffic they could also stripe a solid line in the middle of the Washington bridge to guide vehicles coming from the major deegan weaving across 3 lanes and squeezing on the upper level
Don't get me going on NY 5S and the revenue generators in Frankfort.
Ha! They’ve got it down alright. If you go to court, they’ll plead it down to a $100 parking ticket. You get no points on your license, it costs you a little less money, they keep it all and beat the state out of the surcharges.
Don't get me going on NY 5S and the revenue generators in Frankfort.
Ha! They’ve got it down alright. If you go to court, they’ll plead it down to a $100 parking ticket. You get no points on your license, it costs you a little less money, they keep it all and beat the state out of the surcharges.
Oh yeah, this is a thing in most of Upstate. Tickets with points have a portion that goes to the state, tickets without points stay local. So if you're willing to go to court, they're very happy to plead it down to something with no points and potentially a smaller fine because the town comes out ahead.
well i know that what im talking about is the Bridge at the Highbridge interchangeWhy doesnt the State DOT fix the Cluster F**k on the Cross bronx at the Major Deegan even the smallest thing as to Allowing trucks to use the lower level of the George Washington bridge to prevent trucks from weaving across three lanes of traffic they could also stripe a solid line in the middle of the Washington bridge to guide vehicles coming from the major deegan weaving across 3 lanes and squeezing on the upper level
Primarily because the state DOT doesn't manage the George Washington Bridge.
And speaking of NY 5, the last time I was pulled over, I was doing 60 in the 40 MPH speed trap zone at 5 AM. The Lackawanna police gave me the option to do just that.
Reuters recently released an article (https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-BIDEN/INFRASTRUCTURE-FREEWAYS/qzjpqbzzyvx/) regarding Interstate 81 through Rochester. It's an interesting read and I assume I-81 will be rerouted around the city if the plans mention are done.
Regardless, I think it could be 65 mph no problem. But NY just doesn't seem to see Long Island as "rural". I struggle to see it that way myself at times.
Lol what a dumbass.Regardless, I think it could be 65 mph no problem. But NY just doesn't seem to see Long Island as "rural". I struggle to see it that way myself at times.I asked NYSDOT about it, TL;DR Long Island is too densely populated: https://i.imgur.com/j32xRdC.png
And speaking of NY 5, the last time I was pulled over, I was doing 60 in the 40 MPH speed trap zone at 5 AM. The Lackawanna police gave me the option to do just that.
Woodlawn is good for that. Dirtiest speed trap in the county.
well i know that what im talking about is the Bridge at the Highbridge interchangeWhy doesnt the State DOT fix the Cluster F**k on the Cross bronx at the Major Deegan even the smallest thing as to Allowing trucks to use the lower level of the George Washington bridge to prevent trucks from weaving across three lanes of traffic they could also stripe a solid line in the middle of the Washington bridge to guide vehicles coming from the major deegan weaving across 3 lanes and squeezing on the upper level
Primarily because the state DOT doesn't manage the George Washington Bridge.
yeah ik that but why doesnt the state allow trucks on the lower level of the GWB which would stop the weaving on the alexander hamilton bridge where u have the choice of going to the upperlevel and lower lvl being that we have better security nowwell i know that what im talking about is the Bridge at the Highbridge interchangeWhy doesnt the State DOT fix the Cluster F**k on the Cross bronx at the Major Deegan even the smallest thing as to Allowing trucks to use the lower level of the George Washington bridge to prevent trucks from weaving across three lanes of traffic they could also stripe a solid line in the middle of the Washington bridge to guide vehicles coming from the major deegan weaving across 3 lanes and squeezing on the upper level
Primarily because the state DOT doesn't manage the George Washington Bridge.
The Alexander Hamilton Bridge? That doesn't have an upper and lower level.
yeah ik that but why doesnt the state allow trucks on the lower level of the GWB which would stop the weaving on the alexander hamilton bridge where u have the choice of going to the upperlevel and lower lvl being that we have better security nowwell i know that what im talking about is the Bridge at the Highbridge interchangeWhy doesnt the State DOT fix the Cluster F**k on the Cross bronx at the Major Deegan even the smallest thing as to Allowing trucks to use the lower level of the George Washington bridge to prevent trucks from weaving across three lanes of traffic they could also stripe a solid line in the middle of the Washington bridge to guide vehicles coming from the major deegan weaving across 3 lanes and squeezing on the upper level
Primarily because the state DOT doesn't manage the George Washington Bridge.
The Alexander Hamilton Bridge? That doesn't have an upper and lower level.
I believe trucks used to be allowed on the lower level. The restriction is a post 9/11 thing if I'm not mistaken.
There are ... "entering Catskill Park" signs on US 209 and NY 28 heading west crossing the Thruway.
On page 94 of the Thruway thread vdeane stated that...There are ... "entering Catskill Park" signs on US 209 and NY 28 heading west crossing the Thruway.
vdeane or anyone, can I find them using Google Street View? What if I start from a point heading WB on the NY 28 bridge over the NYST? Are they before or after the 28/209 clover leaf heading WB on 28/SB on 209?
ixnay
On page 94 of the Thruway thread vdeane stated that...There are ... "entering Catskill Park" signs on US 209 and NY 28 heading west crossing the Thruway.
vdeane or anyone, can I find them using Google Street View? What if I start from a point heading WB on the NY 28 bridge over the NYST? Are they before or after the 28/209 clover leaf heading WB on 28/SB on 209?
ixnay
NY 28 (https://goo.gl/maps/Ltb3Vtao48tSDrez6), US 209 (https://goo.gl/maps/HuWRrnJj5XXqRMFS7)
Thanks. I was envisioning NYSDOT signs.
Thanks. I was envisioning NYSDOT signs.
This is the standard sign used at park boundaries and, like the similar Adirondack Park sign, it is only used along state routes. Any metal signs you see at park boundaries are one-offs and nonstandard.
yeah ik that but why doesnt the state allow trucks on the lower level of the GWB which would stop the weaving on the alexander hamilton bridge where u have the choice of going to the upperlevel and lower lvl being that we have better security nowwell i know that what im talking about is the Bridge at the Highbridge interchangeWhy doesnt the State DOT fix the Cluster F**k on the Cross bronx at the Major Deegan even the smallest thing as to Allowing trucks to use the lower level of the George Washington bridge to prevent trucks from weaving across three lanes of traffic they could also stripe a solid line in the middle of the Washington bridge to guide vehicles coming from the major deegan weaving across 3 lanes and squeezing on the upper leveltrucks have more than enough clearence they were allowed on there until 9/11
Primarily because the state DOT doesn't manage the George Washington Bridge.
The Alexander Hamilton Bridge? That doesn't have an upper and lower level.
Does the lower level even have enough clearance to fit trucks? It looks too low to me...
I have two questions about this intersection on US 9 in Fishkill (Dutchess Co, just north of I-84): https://goo.gl/maps/4ue9B5n1X463UsV98
The ground-mounted NTOR sign says NO RIGHT ON RED whereas the overhead one says NO TURN ON RED. Was "No Right on Red" ever the standard or is this just a strange one-off sign?
Second, why is there an unlit red ball above the red right turn arrows?
I have two questions about this intersection on US 9 in Fishkill (Dutchess Co, just north of I-84): https://goo.gl/maps/4ue9B5n1X463UsV98Not here, but NO RIGHT ON RED does make sense in a state that allows lefts on red if the latter is allowed at a particular intersection.
The ground-mounted NTOR sign says NO RIGHT ON RED whereas the overhead one says NO TURN ON RED. Was "No Right on Red" ever the standard or is this just a strange one-off sign?
Second, why is there an unlit red ball above the red right turn arrows?
I have two questions about this intersection on US 9 in Fishkill (Dutchess Co, just north of I-84): https://goo.gl/maps/4ue9B5n1X463UsV98In the photo, the straight and left turn both are green.
The ground-mounted NTOR sign says NO RIGHT ON RED whereas the overhead one says NO TURN ON RED. Was "No Right on Red" ever the standard or is this just a strange one-off sign?
Second, why is there an unlit red ball above the red right turn arrows?
I have two questions about this intersection on US 9 in Fishkill (Dutchess Co, just north of I-84): https://goo.gl/maps/4ue9B5n1X463UsV98
The ground-mounted NTOR sign says NO RIGHT ON RED whereas the overhead one says NO TURN ON RED. Was "No Right on Red" ever the standard or is this just a strange one-off sign?
Second, why is there an unlit red ball above the red right turn arrows?
I have two questions about this intersection on US 9 in Fishkill (Dutchess Co, just north of I-84): https://goo.gl/maps/4ue9B5n1X463UsV98In the photo, the straight and left turn both are green.
The ground-mounted NTOR sign says NO RIGHT ON RED whereas the overhead one says NO TURN ON RED. Was "No Right on Red" ever the standard or is this just a strange one-off sign?
Second, why is there an unlit red ball above the red right turn arrows?
My guesses are:
Right turn on red while straight and left are green are to protect the crosswalk and potential pedestrians.
When the left turn and straight movements are red, I'll guess that the red ball is lit above and instead of the right arrow red.
Does anyone have details about the Albany Post Road?
From what I can glean on Wikipedia, it began in the Kingsbridge neighborhood of the Bronx, and ends at an extinct ferry at Rensselaer. It split from the Boston Post Road in Kingsbridge...even though the Boston Post Road ends at Third Avenue in the South Bronx.
Broadway is apparently its replacement, so any "Post Road" alignments are probably old Broadway alignments (but probably not US 9, since we're talking the 18th century here).
Here's my best guess of its route based on Google Maps:
-Independent alignment in Riverdale, The Bronx. Starts near the 242nd Street Station, runs up until West 260th Street. Interrupted by the HHP and a school. Can't find any traces in Yonkers, though US 9 and Post Road in the Bronx do line up
-US 9 from Yonkers to Crotonville (before it becomes the Croton Expressway). Broadway name ends in or south of Ossining.
-Independent through Croton-on-Hudson; cut off by the Croton River. Continues as NY 9A to its end in Peekskill
-Sprout Brook Road north of Peekskill. Independent, unimproved alignment from Sprout Brook to US 9 (south of NY 301)
-US 9 from south of NY 301 to NY 9H. Goes through Wappinger Falls and Poughkeepsie on main streets.
-NY 9H from US 9 to Kinderhook. Independent alignment through Kinderhook.
-US 9 from north of Kinderhook to NY 150. Independent alignment from NY 150 to US 9, goes around I-90 exit 11.
-US 9/US 20 to Rensselaer. No clue nor trace of any ferry in Rensselaer.
-Sprout Brook Road north of Peekskill. Independent, unimproved alignment from Sprout Brook to US 9 (south of NY 301)
Still can't believe after the recent sign replacements in the area, the I-287 mainline and I-684 signs weren't replaced.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51276906741_36bf8d9460_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51276369229_ae85506e4b_z.jpg)
Not sure how we haven't noticed this for so long, but last week concepts for the removal of some or all (depending of the concept) of the remainder of the Inner Loop were revealed. A lot of these go so far as to remove I-490 exit 13, and all of them eliminate the connection from University Avenue to the (likely soon to be former) Inner Loop. Some even have the replacement road as only two lanes wide (total), which is going to be interesting as the Inner Loop has an AADT of 47,364 over the river and 30,745 in the sunken portion. Now our senators are looking to get money to do this as part of the infrastructure package.
So what was the overarching excuse to delete the Inner Loop? If its the "r" word, I don't find that to be a valid excuse for removing a vital corridor.
Does it serve any purpose in its current form? Might as well fill it in. City needs more than development in that area as is. Just built a beautiful new Amtrak station nearby.I'm pretty sure it serves a purpose for the 30-47k people that use it everyday. I didn't even add in the AADT of the side roads. That's going to be quite a bit of traffic to fit on the two-lane road in some concepts. Even the four-lane might have issues in sections during heavier traffic times.
Who here is familiar with Valley Stream State Park along Southern State Parkway? Because if you are, you know about the park road running parallel to the eastbound lanes between parking lots 1 and 2, as well as the on-ramp from Henry Street. So my question is how do you access parking lot number 2? Because all the signs I see leading to that parking lot read "Do Not Enter." You'd think that the one from the park road would have an entrance, but it doesn't.
Who here is familiar with Valley Stream State Park along Southern State Parkway? Because if you are, you know about the park road running parallel to the eastbound lanes between parking lots 1 and 2, as well as the on-ramp from Henry Street. So my question is how do you access parking lot number 2? Because all the signs I see leading to that parking lot read "Do Not Enter." You'd think that the one from the park road would have an entrance, but it doesn't.
Does it serve any purpose in its current form? Might as well fill it in. City needs more than development in that area as is. Just built a beautiful new Amtrak station nearby.
It should be noted that most surface streets inside the Inner Loop are well under capacity. Remove the exit for the Inner Loop and people will use University/Andrews, Broad, and the Clinton/St Paul-South one way pair, all of which can handle increased traffic.You still have to somehow get to those streets from I-490, though. To/from the east there's exit 14, but how will I-490 flow with so much more traffic using that exit (particularly getting on; the exit 13 on ramp currently adds a lane). To/from the west, there wouldn't be good access at all, as the only downtown exits on I-490 in that direction are the current/former Inner Loop ones.
It should be noted that most surface streets inside the Inner Loop are well under capacity. Remove the exit for the Inner Loop and people will use University/Andrews, Broad, and the Clinton/St Paul-South one way pair, all of which can handle increased traffic.
You get in from the park road, but you have to get there through field 1. That "do not enter" sign from the park road on GSV flips when field 2 is open.Ahh, I was hoping that was the case. Thanks for the info. Now I have to update a certain image of the sign.
I tried searching here but does anyone know why the NY 27 freeway (Lindenhurst to Shinnecock Hills) starts at Exit 37? Were there theoretical exit numbers assigned to an unbuilt freeway? Exit 37 is at mile 35 (according to Wiki) so that couldn't be it either.
I did once write to NYSDOT R11 asking if 27 will ever get mile-based exits. I was told there is no such project in the works, but when the time comes, they probably will be mile-based (R8 told me the same thing about the Palisades Parkway).
Governor Cuomo Announces Dedication of New Park Space along Niagara Gorge Rim in Niagara Falls, Created Through Removal of Segment of Former Expressway (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-dedication-new-park-space-along-niagara-gorge-rim-niagara-falls?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery)Did they spent anything on better restrooms over that decade?
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced the dedication of a major project that removed an underutilized, two-mile stretch of the former Robert Moses Parkway - now called the Niagara Scenic Parkway - in the City of Niagara Falls and created a stunning new area in Niagara Falls State Park called "Gorgeview," which provides unimpeded access to the Niagara Gorge and improved recreational opportunities for residents and visitors alike. The project removed the segment of the parkway from Main Street to Findlay Drive and replaced it with new green space that features picnic areas, scenic overlooks with majestic views and a network of recreational trails. Additionally, the New York State Department of Transportation completed a full-depth reconstruction of Whirlpool Street and a segment of Third Street to accommodate local vehicular access, from the parkway and adjoining city streets. New street lighting, landscaping, traffic control devices, pedestrian crosswalks, on-street parking areas, drainage improvements and upgrades to entrance drives and park trolley paths around the Niagara Gorge Discovery Center also were among the improvements.
[...]
NYPA built the parkway in stages between 1958 and 1967 as part of the construction of the nearby Niagara Power Project. It was then viewed as necessary to both enhance tourism to compete with the Canadian side of the Falls, and to also dramatically reduce commuting times in the area. A section of the parkway that ran through the State Park and the Falls was removed in the 1980s. By 2013, after a pilot project and a number of planning studies called for reconfiguration or removal of segments of the expressway to allow full enjoyment of the Niagara Gorge's great resources, Governor Cuomo announced two removal projects, first the "Riverway" completed in 2017, which removed a mile of the parkway on the Upper Niagara River, followed by the current Niagara Gorge Project, which removed an additional two miles along the gorge rim. These efforts join a number of similar completed and planned expressway removal projects across the United States targeted to remove physical barriers to full access in urban neighborhoods.
--
I knew that part of the original Moses Parkway went through the state park, whose remnants are slowly being erased with each improvement project to the state park - I just didn't realize that it had been removed back in the 1980s. I also remembered visiting the park as a kid - when it was quite run-down and worn out. The park has received significant investments over the past decade and it looks remarkably cleaner and more maintained.
Governor Cuomo Announces Dedication of New Park Space along Niagara Gorge Rim in Niagara Falls, Created Through Removal of Segment of Former Expressway (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-dedication-new-park-space-along-niagara-gorge-rim-niagara-falls?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery)I'm going to puke.
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced the dedication of a major project that removed an underutilized, two-mile stretch of the former Robert Moses Parkway - now called the Niagara Scenic Parkway - in the City of Niagara Falls and created a stunning new area in Niagara Falls State Park called "Gorgeview," which provides unimpeded access to the Niagara Gorge and improved recreational opportunities for residents and visitors alike. The project removed the segment of the parkway from Main Street to Findlay Drive and replaced it with new green space that features picnic areas, scenic overlooks with majestic views and a network of recreational trails. Additionally, the New York State Department of Transportation completed a full-depth reconstruction of Whirlpool Street and a segment of Third Street to accommodate local vehicular access, from the parkway and adjoining city streets. New street lighting, landscaping, traffic control devices, pedestrian crosswalks, on-street parking areas, drainage improvements and upgrades to entrance drives and park trolley paths around the Niagara Gorge Discovery Center also were among the improvements.
[...]
NYPA built the parkway in stages between 1958 and 1967 as part of the construction of the nearby Niagara Power Project. It was then viewed as necessary to both enhance tourism to compete with the Canadian side of the Falls, and to also dramatically reduce commuting times in the area. A section of the parkway that ran through the State Park and the Falls was removed in the 1980s. By 2013, after a pilot project and a number of planning studies called for reconfiguration or removal of segments of the expressway to allow full enjoyment of the Niagara Gorge's great resources, Governor Cuomo announced two removal projects, first the "Riverway" completed in 2017, which removed a mile of the parkway on the Upper Niagara River, followed by the current Niagara Gorge Project, which removed an additional two miles along the gorge rim. These efforts join a number of similar completed and planned expressway removal projects across the United States targeted to remove physical barriers to full access in urban neighborhoods.
--
I knew that part of the original Moses Parkway went through the state park, whose remnants are slowly being erased with each improvement project to the state park - I just didn't realize that it had been removed back in the 1980s. I also remembered visiting the park as a kid - when it was quite run-down and worn out. The park has received significant investments over the past decade and it looks remarkably cleaner and more maintained.
It should be noted that most surface streets inside the Inner Loop are well under capacity. Remove the exit for the Inner Loop and people will use University/Andrews, Broad, and the Clinton/St Paul-South one way pair, all of which can handle increased traffic.You still have to somehow get to those streets from I-490, though. To/from the east there's exit 14, but how will I-490 flow with so much more traffic using that exit (particularly getting on; the exit 13 on ramp currently adds a lane). To/from the west, there wouldn't be good access at all, as the only downtown exits on I-490 in that direction are the current/former Inner Loop ones.
I think most people would consider having quiet surface streets to be a good thing.
It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.
The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.
It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.
The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.
I still need to post my photos of the parkway north of the new Gorgeview section. I was completing aerials for a client up there and you could practically stand in the middle of the roadway and not get hit by traffic for minutes at a time in the middle of a weekday.
It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.
It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..
You'd still also have the former streets, Allen and Cumberland and Central. Exit 13 would certainly remain as access to Plymouth Ave., a counterpart to exit 14. That gets you to Andrews/University, as well as the Central Ave bridge (and thereby to Clinton/St. Paul–but note that these are not a one-way pair anymore!). And these exits already serve Broad St. as well.Two of the six concepts, and one of the alternatives for a third, remove exit 13 completely. And, of course, those streets aren't a straight shot through - you have to shimmy over to them.
Or, yes–you can retain the Inner Loop to serve the traffic it currently has. What you don't want to do is just bring that traffic up to the surface in place; even now, the new Union St. is a bit too much of a thoroughfare, though not as bad as it might have been.
Yeah, Canada is where you go if you want to take a picture of the signature view or to make a vacation weekend with the kids. If you want to enjoy the green space, that's what the US side is for.It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..
Niagara is a whole lot better than it used to be. The only issues I have with it are the constantly overwhelmed parking and the ugly elevator down to Maid of the Mist. The ugly Americana has been kept out of the park. Other than that, I think the State Park has actually done a good job at preserving the green space given the crowds.
If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara as a tourist destination.You'd still also have the former streets, Allen and Cumberland and Central. Exit 13 would certainly remain as access to Plymouth Ave., a counterpart to exit 14. That gets you to Andrews/University, as well as the Central Ave bridge (and thereby to Clinton/St. Paul–but note that these are not a one-way pair anymore!). And these exits already serve Broad St. as well.Two of the six concepts, and one of the alternatives for a third, remove exit 13 completely. And, of course, those streets aren't a straight shot through - you have to shimmy over to them.
Or, yes–you can retain the Inner Loop to serve the traffic it currently has. What you don't want to do is just bring that traffic up to the surface in place; even now, the new Union St. is a bit too much of a thoroughfare, though not as bad as it might have been.Yeah, Canada is where you go if you want to take a picture of the signature view or to make a vacation weekend with the kids. If you want to enjoy the green space, that's what the US side is for.It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..
Niagara is a whole lot better than it used to be. The only issues I have with it are the constantly overwhelmed parking and the ugly elevator down to Maid of the Mist. The ugly Americana has been kept out of the park. Other than that, I think the State Park has actually done a good job at preserving the green space given the crowds.
But people are there to see the falls...If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara as a tourist destination.You'd still also have the former streets, Allen and Cumberland and Central. Exit 13 would certainly remain as access to Plymouth Ave., a counterpart to exit 14. That gets you to Andrews/University, as well as the Central Ave bridge (and thereby to Clinton/St. Paul–but note that these are not a one-way pair anymore!). And these exits already serve Broad St. as well.Two of the six concepts, and one of the alternatives for a third, remove exit 13 completely. And, of course, those streets aren't a straight shot through - you have to shimmy over to them.
Or, yes–you can retain the Inner Loop to serve the traffic it currently has. What you don't want to do is just bring that traffic up to the surface in place; even now, the new Union St. is a bit too much of a thoroughfare, though not as bad as it might have been.Yeah, Canada is where you go if you want to take a picture of the signature view or to make a vacation weekend with the kids. If you want to enjoy the green space, that's what the US side is for.It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..
Niagara is a whole lot better than it used to be. The only issues I have with it are the constantly overwhelmed parking and the ugly elevator down to Maid of the Mist. The ugly Americana has been kept out of the park. Other than that, I think the State Park has actually done a good job at preserving the green space given the crowds.
If we're talking in the context of Moses Parkway, then green space in the area of Devil's Hole and Whirlpool have some remote relation to the falls themselves, do not really offer falls views - and are totally unfriendly to non-locals. My bladder almost exploded after Devil's hole hike (and unlike larger parks, stepping into more wooded area wasn't a real option). The main argument for removing Moses Parkway is to make green area more accessible to _locals_But people are there to see the falls...If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara as a tourist destination.You'd still also have the former streets, Allen and Cumberland and Central. Exit 13 would certainly remain as access to Plymouth Ave., a counterpart to exit 14. That gets you to Andrews/University, as well as the Central Ave bridge (and thereby to Clinton/St. Paul–but note that these are not a one-way pair anymore!). And these exits already serve Broad St. as well.Two of the six concepts, and one of the alternatives for a third, remove exit 13 completely. And, of course, those streets aren't a straight shot through - you have to shimmy over to them.
Or, yes–you can retain the Inner Loop to serve the traffic it currently has. What you don't want to do is just bring that traffic up to the surface in place; even now, the new Union St. is a bit too much of a thoroughfare, though not as bad as it might have been.Yeah, Canada is where you go if you want to take a picture of the signature view or to make a vacation weekend with the kids. If you want to enjoy the green space, that's what the US side is for.It hasn't served any reasonable purpose in years. As is I have no idea what they'll do with the section north of Devils Hole. My guess is it's just going to sit around for a while still.Niagara Falls is supposed to be a world-class attraction - but the way things are set up, it is a third world-class mess.
The other issue with the section is the bridge at 182/Whirlpool Rapids. They weren't going to replace it anyway. Might as well take it down now. Saves money later.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..
Niagara is a whole lot better than it used to be. The only issues I have with it are the constantly overwhelmed parking and the ugly elevator down to Maid of the Mist. The ugly Americana has been kept out of the park. Other than that, I think the State Park has actually done a good job at preserving the green space given the crowds.
The NY side feels like a park. The Canadian side feels like a glitzy tourist trap with a nice view.^This.
There are plenty of restaurants in the area, including Top of the Falls in the Goat Island portion of the park.
Two of the six concepts, and one of the alternatives for a third, remove exit 13 completely.
And, of course, those streets aren't a straight shot through - you have to shimmy over to them.
Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..
If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara as a tourist destination.
If we're talking seeing the falls themselves, then Canadian side wins without much competition, with Maid of the Mist ride being very remote second.
So I don't really see the point of discussion. NY doesn't want tourist dollars - that's OK, there are other options.
Double-posting because of the two divergent topics of conversation, but please merge if preferred.Well, in no way I suggest chopping trees and paving entire Goat island. I am more talking about organizing a high throughput pipeline for tourists.Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..
Of course in the real world, it's nowhere near such a binary choice (and I realize you're aware of this and just stating it so for emphasis, but for clarity's sake…)–for one thing, not every trip to Niagara Falls allows the option of crossing the border. And, as we see below, we're dealing with different sides of the same coin, so the two are not simply interchangeable.If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara as a tourist destination.
But this is the very character of the New York side: it is more about experiencing the falls as a part of their environment (the natural environment, primarily, but also the industrial). That's why (or because) you have Goat Island, the Cave of the Winds, the geological museum, etc. It's distinct from the Canadian side, which is more built around the "touristy" experience.If we're talking seeing the falls themselves, then Canadian side wins without much competition, with Maid of the Mist ride being very remote second.
So I don't really see the point of discussion. NY doesn't want tourist dollars - that's OK, there are other options.
Well, that right there is the point of it: it doesn't come down to the dark side/light side dichotomy you've framed it as; there's more to the equation than you envision. And it doesn't boil down to a "winner" or otherwise, nor does the success or failure of the New York side center on whether the parkway exists and is used as a centerpiece of development. As you pointed out, this could be one option, but it isn't the only possibility. However, the only other option is not, as you also pointed out, to cede all possible benefit to our neighbours across the river.
The parkway had those stops.Double-posting because of the two divergent topics of conversation, but please merge if preferred.Well, in no way I suggest chopping trees and paving entire Goat island. I am more talking about organizing a high throughput pipeline for tourists.Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..
Of course in the real world, it's nowhere near such a binary choice (and I realize you're aware of this and just stating it so for emphasis, but for clarity's sake…)–for one thing, not every trip to Niagara Falls allows the option of crossing the border. And, as we see below, we're dealing with different sides of the same coin, so the two are not simply interchangeable.If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara as a tourist destination.
But this is the very character of the New York side: it is more about experiencing the falls as a part of their environment (the natural environment, primarily, but also the industrial). That's why (or because) you have Goat Island, the Cave of the Winds, the geological museum, etc. It's distinct from the Canadian side, which is more built around the "touristy" experience.If we're talking seeing the falls themselves, then Canadian side wins without much competition, with Maid of the Mist ride being very remote second.
So I don't really see the point of discussion. NY doesn't want tourist dollars - that's OK, there are other options.
Well, that right there is the point of it: it doesn't come down to the dark side/light side dichotomy you've framed it as; there's more to the equation than you envision. And it doesn't boil down to a "winner" or otherwise, nor does the success or failure of the New York side center on whether the parkway exists and is used as a centerpiece of development. As you pointed out, this could be one option, but it isn't the only possibility. However, the only other option is not, as you also pointed out, to cede all possible benefit to our neighbours across the river.
What parkway could help accomplish is setting up the flow with multiple stops and multiple points of interest. Whirpool, maybe power plants, ridge trails - not as great as falls, but still worthwhile, and those could take pressure off the prime spot. E.g. offer services which don't have to be in a prime spot. Such arrangement would increase comfort big time, and allow for better crowd handling. I have South rim in mind as an example.
Right now, going to downstream points of interest means little, if any services...
Stops - and little more than that. A food truck selling just bottled water, and no restrooms available can be hardly called "services".The parkway had those stops.Double-posting because of the two divergent topics of conversation, but please merge if preferred.Well, in no way I suggest chopping trees and paving entire Goat island. I am more talking about organizing a high throughput pipeline for tourists.Expanding infrastructure based on the parkway could be one development option. Removing access and rerouting tourist traffic to Canada is the other one..
Of course in the real world, it's nowhere near such a binary choice (and I realize you're aware of this and just stating it so for emphasis, but for clarity's sake…)–for one thing, not every trip to Niagara Falls allows the option of crossing the border. And, as we see below, we're dealing with different sides of the same coin, so the two are not simply interchangeable.If you want t to enjoy the green space, there is little reason to get shoulder to shoulder with tons of tourists who came there to see the falls. There at least 6 state parks within 20 miles of Niagara Falls, which are not associated with Niagara as a tourist destination.
But this is the very character of the New York side: it is more about experiencing the falls as a part of their environment (the natural environment, primarily, but also the industrial). That's why (or because) you have Goat Island, the Cave of the Winds, the geological museum, etc. It's distinct from the Canadian side, which is more built around the "touristy" experience.If we're talking seeing the falls themselves, then Canadian side wins without much competition, with Maid of the Mist ride being very remote second.
So I don't really see the point of discussion. NY doesn't want tourist dollars - that's OK, there are other options.
Well, that right there is the point of it: it doesn't come down to the dark side/light side dichotomy you've framed it as; there's more to the equation than you envision. And it doesn't boil down to a "winner" or otherwise, nor does the success or failure of the New York side center on whether the parkway exists and is used as a centerpiece of development. As you pointed out, this could be one option, but it isn't the only possibility. However, the only other option is not, as you also pointed out, to cede all possible benefit to our neighbours across the river.
What parkway could help accomplish is setting up the flow with multiple stops and multiple points of interest. Whirpool, maybe power plants, ridge trails - not as great as falls, but still worthwhile, and those could take pressure off the prime spot. E.g. offer services which don't have to be in a prime spot. Such arrangement would increase comfort big time, and allow for better crowd handling. I have South rim in mind as an example.
Right now, going to downstream points of interest means little, if any services...
Because you can't drive 55 MPH through the park? Or because they took out a vastly underutilized expressway along the river?More like because they created a gap that should've been filled and then downgraded it, like with the Bear Mountain State Parkway and the Nassau Expressway.
You literally need all of 2 lanes. This stuff was built for a different time period compared to now.if 190 was six lanes maybe
There is no need for half the parkway/expressway network in Niagara Falls. Literally just 190 would be sufficient.
Pre-COVID, there was no demand leading to major backups. The casino and US side don't generate enough traffic.
You literally need all of 2 lanes. This stuff was built for a different time period compared to now.I seem to remember a significant backup approaching the roundabout on the Parkway during the 2015 Buffalo meet. Turns out sending a parkway that's two lanes each way into a single-lane roundabout is much less efficient than an interchange. Honestly, if it were me, the Riverway would be two-way (one lane each way) or the roundabout would have the U turn movement for John Daly Boulevard removed and two lanes come in from the parkway, with the right going to the city and the left to the Riverway.
There is no need for half the parkway/expressway network in Niagara Falls. Literally just 190 would be sufficient.
Pre-COVID, there was no demand leading to major backups. The casino and US side don't generate enough traffic.
I've not seen traffic into that roundabout since 2015. The demand is just not there. The only people crying foul are the ones who want freeways to exist because they exist. Sometimes the logic of reverting some things back is important too. It costs more to maintain a low-use parkway, especially one that had a bridge that would eventually need to be replaced, than to tear it out and convert it into a mixed-use pathway. It takes <5 minutes to get from 104 to Whirlpool Street in most cases, even on city streets, especially if you hit the lights well.Well, that backup was pretty memorable. Google also shows a fairly decent line (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0806465,-79.0501243,3a,90y,78.71h,76.47t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUQ5Q46JxeIdFfVGq3NDe6A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DUQ5Q46JxeIdFfVGq3NDe6A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D107.31105%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) in 2017. Still, if it's better now than it was, that's fairly interesting. The AADT seems to be stable - if anything, it's actually slightly higher now - so I can only assume that people have caught on to the fact that the chance of needing to yield entering the roundabout from the Parkway is close to zero.
The LaSalle should come out next. It was a better idea when the beltway was an idea. Now it's a freeway stub to nowhere.
Stops - and little more than that. A food truck selling just bottled water, and no restrooms available can be hardly called "services".What parkway could help accomplish is setting up the flow with multiple stops and multiple points of interest. Whirpool, maybe power plants, ridge trails - not as great as falls, but still worthwhile, and those could take pressure off the prime spot. E.g. offer services which don't have to be in a prime spot. Such arrangement would increase comfort big time, and allow for better crowd handling. I have South rim in mind as an example.The parkway had those stops.
Right now, going to downstream points of interest means little, if any services...
That's what I am saying - parkway could be used for a profit, but state paid for the demolition instead.
Let me shift the perspective a little bit, away from the road and towards a bit higher level:Stops - and little more than that. A food truck selling just bottled water, and no restrooms available can be hardly called "services".What parkway could help accomplish is setting up the flow with multiple stops and multiple points of interest. Whirpool, maybe power plants, ridge trails - not as great as falls, but still worthwhile, and those could take pressure off the prime spot. E.g. offer services which don't have to be in a prime spot. Such arrangement would increase comfort big time, and allow for better crowd handling. I have South rim in mind as an example.The parkway had those stops.
Right now, going to downstream points of interest means little, if any services...
That's what I am saying - parkway could be used for a profit, but state paid for the demolition instead.
Well, sure, they could have tried maybe going the other way with that, but they chose a direction that was more in keeping with the existing character of the U.S. side–and, let's face it, cheaper.
But what you're saying is that the only other possible option they had, short of trying your idea, was to give up altogether and just concede the entire tourist industry to Canada. Now of course, I realize you're saying that hyperbolically, but for those who might take you at your word, I'm just introducing for discussion the notion that things are obviously more nuanced than that.
(And part of that nuance is that the money that "pays" for demolition isn't a binary choice taken against the money that could have been "made" in profit. That's just not really how public expenditures work; it's similar to the idea that one shouldn't have to "pay" for the public schools if one doesn't have students enrolled in them, or for public roads if one doesn't own a car to drive on them, whereas of course the monies that come from the general public are meant for the greater benefit of the entire public. Likewise, the expenditure of funds to downgrade a parkway can realize a public benefit if the overall vitality of the area is improved, even if there isn't a directly quantifiable entry on the black side of the ledger.)
NPS would never have allowed a 55 MPH freeway to be built through the center of the park. As others have noted, the "parkway" had been severed by the 1970s, proving that the freeway did not meet its original or revised objectives. Nothing is permanent. For all of the boulevards and freeways and parkways that cut through Niagara Falls (NY), none have really aided locals. Partly because of its over-industrialization and forever-ruined super-polluted lands, the city has been declining economically and demographically for decades. And it has infrastructure that doesn't match reality or expectations.Well, 55 is not really an objective, especially if the road is 6 miles long and would be clogged with tourist traffic. And AZ64 is 45 MPH within the park: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0034017,-111.9190434,3a,75y,50.3h,68.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFpIL_EC6asBaumfUkmoCbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
If the goal is to revitalize the core of the city, expand greenspace, and offer full mobility (for pedestrians and cyclists), then modifying or removing the "parkway" should part of that goal. Subtracting the segment that was removed through the center of the park decades ago, the more recent projects have had negligible effects on overall traffic patterns. There is no more congestion through the city than before, and I-190 isn't any worse off.
I do agree, though, that Niagara Falls should have long ago been a national park. It would have had many more resources at its disposal, and I suspect that the entirety of the gorge would have been preserved. Now it's segmented off into multiple entities and reserves that have some cohesion but no unified branding or funding source. (BTW - the gorges are amazing to hike through)
The idea that the NPS swaggers around with money billowing from its pockets goes against the reality that it is actually cash-strapped, does not have the funds to keep up with its huge maintenance backlog, increasingly relies upon unpaid volunteers -- including for law enforcement, and has to deal with a Congress that keeps throwing additional sites at it, but without adequate funding (up to something like 423 sites now).Advantage of handing over to NPS would be similar to handing over busy road from the Village of Middle of Nowhere to NYSDOT. While later is also cash strapped, just fixing the mess with signage, turning lanes etc. can be a big deal.
NY's done a good job partially reversing the original damage done by opportunists at Niagara. Yes, the elevator for Maid of the Mist is an eyesore and I wonder if the site would be improved if the operation was shut down (of course, the outrage would be deafening). I don't see the advantage of handing it over to the NPS.
NY State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation manages mostly "lakefront, grill, and hike" local parks, Niagara may be the only national and world class location they operats. Adirondak and Catskills are under DEC jurisdiction.Letchworth, Watkins Glen...
That's exactly the problem - dealing with 10M visitors location similar to sub-1M places.NY State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation manages mostly "lakefront, grill, and hike" local parks, Niagara may be the only national and world class location they operats. Adirondak and Catskills are under DEC jurisdiction.Letchworth, Watkins Glen...
I guess I am not seeing the issue with the current level of management, outside of some less-than-ideal crowd management.That's exactly the problem - dealing with 10M visitors location similar to sub-1M places.NY State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation manages mostly "lakefront, grill, and hike" local parks, Niagara may be the only national and world class location they operats. Adirondak and Catskills are under DEC jurisdiction.Letchworth, Watkins Glen...
on to be roadgeeky... there is a difference between I-87 bridge over Mohawk and NY-67 bridge over Hudson. One over the Hudson should be more important!
Letchworth, Watkins Glen...
NY State Parks management is generally fine.They're still world class and fairly famous attractions, though. Letchworth in particular is know as the Grand Canyon of the East.Letchworth, Watkins Glen...
Neither of those has topped 1 million in the past 20 years. The only Upstate parks that have seen those numbers are Niagara, Saratoga, Green Lakes, and Thacher. Downstate parks hit those numbers routinely, most of which are beaches or under the jurisdiction of PIPC.
Niagara Falls downtown is: the Seneca Niagara Casino, the falls and ___________________________.
The Price is Right has at least twice offered a trip to Niagara Falls, New York in Season 49 due to COVID limits (no trips off the North American continent due to COVID). I've giggled more than a couple times, how are they going to spend 6 nights there, especially with the border closed? You can do Niagara Falls in a day. Like, there's so little to offer. They aren't going to spend 6 nights at the Casino I presume? (the trips were to stay at The Butler House Bed & Breakfast on Park Place).
Niagara Falls on the NY side, with the border closed doesn't provide enough to justify a lot of things, let alone a parkway that had been overbuilt and would never see the right kind of traffic unless it was connected to the Lake Ontario State Parkway. At least then you'd have a shunpiking route people would use, even if I don't think many would do that. Instead you have two parkways that don't connect, and one is coming out. The AADT numbers are worse than NY 17 in Hale Eddy, and you know I am very opposed to NYSDOT doing anything about that.
Letchworth and Watkins Glen are different completely because they are nowheresville and the biggest thing Watkins Glen has is Watkins Glen International, which brings much bigger audiences than the park will ever bring.
Niagara Falls has a lot of work to do to restore itself to anywhere near a strong city, and it's going to take a lot of things, besides tearing up two limited access roads. Not every road has to stay.
- From its southern terminus, the parkway carries 20571 VPD close to I-190
- North of downtown, the parkway carries 3021 VPD
- North of the tracks, 4084 VPD
- North of I-190, 4943 VPD
- By Youngstown, 4808 VPD
- The massively overbuilt Fort Niagara interchange carries... a whopping 852 VPD
- And at its northern terminus, a whopping... 1043 VPD
Are there any more sequential-to-mileage-based exit numbering conversions in the near future? I know the Thruway will be converted the-day-after-never, but what about all the other roads in New York State?
Westchester DPW replaced the signs on the Bronx River Parkway at the Cross-County, so these abominations are gone:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9175149,-73.8477215,3a,75y,35.44h,84.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjHslUJH7zOG5PLVxjt530w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9228893,-73.8451635,3a,75y,42.38h,88.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb2EU112NcLM1r0MaLdCgpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Any reason why I-390 has NY 245 reference markers near Dansville? It ends nowhere near the interstate and I'm not sure why it would use I-390 if it ever ended at a major route like NY 36.It was once part of NY 245 before it became I-390. New York often doesn’t change the reference route number even if the touring route number changes.
Any reason why I-390 has NY 245 reference markers near Dansville? It ends nowhere near the interstate and I'm not sure why it would use I-390 if it ever ended at a major route like NY 36.It was once part of NY 245 before it became I-390. New York often doesn’t change the reference route number even if the touring route number changes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_245
The history adds up - it looks like NY 36 once bypassed Dansville but was returned to downtown when I-390 was designated (1970-72 I guess, according to Wikipedia). Was Region 6 simply too lazy to change the markers from 245 to 390I, considering Region 4 did?Any reason why I-390 has NY 245 reference markers near Dansville? It ends nowhere near the interstate and I'm not sure why it would use I-390 if it ever ended at a major route like NY 36.It was once part of NY 245 before it became I-390. New York often doesn’t change the reference route number even if the touring route number changes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_245
Region 4 changed all the reference markers on I-390 in Livingston County to 390I in the late 1970s as the sections north of Dansville were starting to open up. The 245 reference markers are in Steuben County (Region 6).
NY 245 overlapped NY 21 between Naples and Wayland, (originally) NY 63 to Dansville, then west along current NY 436 through Nunda and Portageville. When the first section of the Genesee Expressway opened between Wayland and Dansville, 245 was moved onto it, exiting at what is now Exit 4, and continued west. The expressway between Exit 4 and the Exit 5 area carried NY 36, with 36 reference markers.
Westchester DPW replaced the signs on the Bronx River Parkway at the Cross-County, so these abominations are gone:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9175149,-73.8477215,3a,75y,35.44h,84.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjHslUJH7zOG5PLVxjt530w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9228893,-73.8451635,3a,75y,42.38h,88.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb2EU112NcLM1r0MaLdCgpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
And these have been replaced, too:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9370963,-73.8369638,3a,39.4y,326.49h,90.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQNhtM68nVSi_0wA_jPTvgQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
^^ That one now has just Sprain Brook Pkwy (no reference to the Taconic/Albany) with down arrows over all three lanes (never understood why the right lane has a solid white line). I guess the Sprain sign could technically have a Left Exit # like it does when you're on the southbound Taconic, but it always looked weird to me.
The history adds up - it looks like NY 36 once bypassed Dansville but was returned to downtown when I-390 was designated (1970-72 I guess, according to Wikipedia). Was Region 6 simply too lazy to change the markers from 245 to 390I, considering Region 4 did?Any reason why I-390 has NY 245 reference markers near Dansville? It ends nowhere near the interstate and I'm not sure why it would use I-390 if it ever ended at a major route like NY 36.It was once part of NY 245 before it became I-390. New York often doesn’t change the reference route number even if the touring route number changes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Route_245
Region 4 changed all the reference markers on I-390 in Livingston County to 390I in the late 1970s as the sections north of Dansville were starting to open up. The 245 reference markers are in Steuben County (Region 6).
NY 245 overlapped NY 21 between Naples and Wayland, (originally) NY 63 to Dansville, then west along current NY 436 through Nunda and Portageville. When the first section of the Genesee Expressway opened between Wayland and Dansville, 245 was moved onto it, exiting at what is now Exit 4, and continued west. The expressway between Exit 4 and the Exit 5 area carried NY 36, with 36 reference markers.
Also, it seems confusing that NYSDOT would still inventory this as NY 245 when the rest of the road is I-390 (or 390I). There's no real reason to do so, and I don't think anyone at NYSDOT remembers when or why it was NY 245.
R5 is replace as is.
At one time, it was NYSDOT policy to leave reference markers as installed, and not update with new route numbers. This has varied between the regions over the years. I can think of plenty of places where the reference marker doesn't match the signed route anymore in Regions 2 and 5, not sure about 4. Region 3 seems to update their reference markers, not sure about Region 9.
R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.
R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.
Interesting. I was basing my observation on former NY 57, which on the 370 and 481 parts no longer has 57 reference markers.
R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.
Interesting. I was basing my observation on former NY 57, which on the 370 and 481 parts no longer has 57 reference markers.
Well, the keyword there is "former." NYSDOT isn't going to keep RMs on a county route.
An example of what I am talking about are NY 90 RMs being still in place on current NY 392.
Well...yeah. In R3, someone didn't like the gap left over.R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.
Interesting. I was basing my observation on former NY 57, which on the 370 and 481 parts no longer has 57 reference markers.
Well, the keyword there is "former." NYSDOT isn't going to keep RMs on a county route.
An example of what I am talking about are NY 90 RMs being still in place on current NY 392.
What I was trying to convey was...
On NY 291 in Region 2, the part which used to be NY 12C still (for the most part) say 12C, there's a couple stragglers that were changed.
On NY 430 in Region 5, the part which used to be NY 17J still say 17J.
On NY 370 in Region 3, the part which used to be NY 57, the RMs were all changed to 370.
On NY 481 in Region 3, the part which used to be NY 57, the were all changed to 481.
IDK, perhaps the Niagra SP/RMSP situation would be different if the LOSP were completed out to Porter.I could see keeping I-190 to NY 104 if it were modified to have the NSP southbound feed into the I-190 interchange. That said, given the AADT, it might not be worth having north of I-190 either. It would probably be cheaper to just have the state take over Church Street/Blairville Road and give that a number than to do significant rehabilitation/reconstruction work on the NSP.
It also makes no sense to me to have the NSP parallel to NY 104 from the Center St. exit to the split at Devil's Hole State Park. Just get rid of it and add a median to NY 104 and raise the speed limit to 65.
There's plenty of thru E-W streets connecting to I-190 to handle tourist traffic.
I would honestly demolish the whole thing south of I-190.
Also, it seems confusing that NYSDOT would still inventory this as NY 245 when the rest of the road is I-390 (or 390I). There's no real reason to do so, and I don't think anyone at NYSDOT remembers when or why it was NY 245.
I don't quite understand what you're saying. As stated earlier, the markers are used for crash statistics, projects, and identification...but are not meant to be used for inventory purposes. Then what's the point in having them? If the road (or rather a specific point) is identified as its old number - with this number also being used for stats and projects - but inventoried as another number, doesn't that lead to confusion?Also, it seems confusing that NYSDOT would still inventory this as NY 245 when the rest of the road is I-390 (or 390I). There's no real reason to do so, and I don't think anyone at NYSDOT remembers when or why it was NY 245.
They don't, it's inventoried as I-390. While touring route numbers are used as an element of the reference marker legend when it's devised, the markers themselves do not establish what the route number is. Rather, they serve to uniquely identify a point along the state highway system, so as long as there's no other identical marker somewhere, then there's no reason to change the legend. (If you did, then you'd have two different marker legends identifying the same unique location, which is contrary to the intent.)
I don't quite understand what you're saying. As stated earlier, the markers are used for crash statistics, projects, and identification...but are not meant to be used for inventory purposes. Then what's the point in having them?
If the road (or rather a specific point) is identified as its old number - with this number also being used for stats and projects - but inventoried as another number, doesn't that lead to confusion?
I'm guessing that the NYSDOT inventory and reference markers are two entirely separate ways of identifying roads - one (the inventory) probably stored in a digital database in Albany for the IT people (and probably referenced when compiling AADT data), the other (markers) for the construction crews (who need physical signs that detail the scope of a project).
There's also a case of two reference markers together (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7586619,-74.6020939,3a,15y,64.41h,84.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sq2KrAtQm-NpVqjBGJqzBNg!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192) - I usually don't see both routes reflected on a multiplex, and I'm not sure why this is a special case (NY 42/NY 52 have a very short multiplex, but that's about it).
R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.
Interesting. I was basing my observation on former NY 57, which on the 370 and 481 parts no longer has 57 reference markers.
Well, the keyword there is "former." NYSDOT isn't going to keep RMs on a county route.
An example of what I am talking about are NY 90 RMs being still in place on current NY 392.
I've got the official ArcGIS file that states differently.R3 still has markers up reflecting old designations.
Interesting. I was basing my observation on former NY 57, which on the 370 and 481 parts no longer has 57 reference markers.
Well, the keyword there is "former." NYSDOT isn't going to keep RMs on a county route.
An example of what I am talking about are NY 90 RMs being still in place on current NY 392.
I didn’t think there were any NY-90 markers on NY-392, and confirmed that today. Nor NY-215, for that matter. The only evidence remaining that NY-90 extended south of its current terminus is a couple of rogue shields on US-11/NY-41 in Homer.
I've got the official ArcGIS file that states differently.
To add to the confusion, there seems to be a discrepancy between theoretical marker locations (which can be seen e.g. in NYSDOT's GIS datasets) and actual sign legends.
I've got the official ArcGIS file that states differently.
I was going to say something, but it looks like someone else already said it...To add to the confusion, there seems to be a discrepancy between theoretical marker locations (which can be seen e.g. in NYSDOT's GIS datasets) and actual sign legends.
I have found quite a few cases where the GIS files differ from what exists in the field. Should it happen? No, but it definitely happens.
I've got the official ArcGIS file that states differently.
I was going to say something, but it looks like someone else already said it...To add to the confusion, there seems to be a discrepancy between theoretical marker locations (which can be seen e.g. in NYSDOT's GIS datasets) and actual sign legends.
I have found quite a few cases where the GIS files differ from what exists in the field. Should it happen? No, but it definitely happens.
Yup, that's it. I've got that same official file (or one just like it) and it's got loads of markers that don't exist in physical reality.
^ If NYSDOT wants to hire me, I'll fix that on the spot... :nod:Ok.
Any reason why the LIE is in such a poor state of road maintenance?
Any plans to re-pave?
Any reason why the LIE is in such a poor state of road maintenance?
Any plans to re-pave?
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?Yeah. It'll become the Jack Courtney Bridge.
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?Tappan Zee Bridge sounds like a good choice.
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?
Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?Tappan Zee Bridge sounds like a good choice.
Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
I was ready to look for this issue on the bridge as soon as I heard Cuomo was resigning. It also made me wonder about any other potential projects and how they're going to be impacted.September 30th is the day for PANYNJ board meeting with the vote for final approval of LGA Airtrain being scheduled. May be a big one in that respect
I was ready to look for this issue on the bridge as soon as I heard Cuomo was resigning. It also made me wonder about any other potential projects and how they're going to be impacted.
Mario Cuomo is not Andrew Cuomo, so it's silly. That name change was completed and is therefore in the past.Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Not so silly when you consider that the naming seems to have been pushed (complete with insistence that only the full "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" name be used and it never be shortened to the "Cuomo Bridge") by his now disgraced son. The name is inexorably tied to Andrew. I've even derisively referred to it as "Daddy's Bridge". I suspect NYS will proceed to attempt to rid itself of anything that ties to Andrew.
Right. Fact of the matter is that projects in progress will be stripped of Andrew Cuomo's name and replaced with Hochul's. That's the extent of name changes that will happen.I was ready to look for this issue on the bridge as soon as I heard Cuomo was resigning. It also made me wonder about any other potential projects and how they're going to be impacted.
For comparison, note that Donald J. Trump State Park is still so named.
Nameing was completed in about a week, without any public input.Mario Cuomo is not Andrew Cuomo, so it's silly. That name change was completed and is therefore in the past.Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Not so silly when you consider that the naming seems to have been pushed (complete with insistence that only the full "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" name be used and it never be shortened to the "Cuomo Bridge") by his now disgraced son. The name is inexorably tied to Andrew. I've even derisively referred to it as "Daddy's Bridge". I suspect NYS will proceed to attempt to rid itself of anything that ties to Andrew.
Oh. Okay. NY hears you and the name is staying.Nameing was completed in about a week, without any public input.Mario Cuomo is not Andrew Cuomo, so it's silly. That name change was completed and is therefore in the past.Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Not so silly when you consider that the naming seems to have been pushed (complete with insistence that only the full "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" name be used and it never be shortened to the "Cuomo Bridge") by his now disgraced son. The name is inexorably tied to Andrew. I've even derisively referred to it as "Daddy's Bridge". I suspect NYS will proceed to attempt to rid itself of anything that ties to Andrew.
Since state of NY, as well as entire USA, is supposed to be a democracy (as in governed by entire population, not as in governed single-handedly by a governor running under D designation), I don't see anything wrong with listening to some public opinion for a change
Would be wise for Hochul to do a name change under "message of necessity" protocol, though.Oh. Okay. NY hears you and the name is staying.Nameing was completed in about a week, without any public input.Mario Cuomo is not Andrew Cuomo, so it's silly. That name change was completed and is therefore in the past.Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Not so silly when you consider that the naming seems to have been pushed (complete with insistence that only the full "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" name be used and it never be shortened to the "Cuomo Bridge") by his now disgraced son. The name is inexorably tied to Andrew. I've even derisively referred to it as "Daddy's Bridge". I suspect NYS will proceed to attempt to rid itself of anything that ties to Andrew.
Since state of NY, as well as entire USA, is supposed to be a democracy (as in governed by entire population, not as in governed single-handedly by a governor running under D designation), I don't see anything wrong with listening to some public opinion for a change
Better let her know that.Would be wise for Hochul to do a name change under "message of necessity" protocol, though.Oh. Okay. NY hears you and the name is staying.Nameing was completed in about a week, without any public input.Mario Cuomo is not Andrew Cuomo, so it's silly. That name change was completed and is therefore in the past.Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Not so silly when you consider that the naming seems to have been pushed (complete with insistence that only the full "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" name be used and it never be shortened to the "Cuomo Bridge") by his now disgraced son. The name is inexorably tied to Andrew. I've even derisively referred to it as "Daddy's Bridge". I suspect NYS will proceed to attempt to rid itself of anything that ties to Andrew.
Since state of NY, as well as entire USA, is supposed to be a democracy (as in governed by entire population, not as in governed single-handedly by a governor running under D designation), I don't see anything wrong with listening to some public opinion for a change
Well, we will see.Better let her know that.Would be wise for Hochul to do a name change under "message of necessity" protocol, though.Oh. Okay. NY hears you and the name is staying.Nameing was completed in about a week, without any public input.Mario Cuomo is not Andrew Cuomo, so it's silly. That name change was completed and is therefore in the past.Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Not so silly when you consider that the naming seems to have been pushed (complete with insistence that only the full "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" name be used and it never be shortened to the "Cuomo Bridge") by his now disgraced son. The name is inexorably tied to Andrew. I've even derisively referred to it as "Daddy's Bridge". I suspect NYS will proceed to attempt to rid itself of anything that ties to Andrew.
Since state of NY, as well as entire USA, is supposed to be a democracy (as in governed by entire population, not as in governed single-handedly by a governor running under D designation), I don't see anything wrong with listening to some public opinion for a change
Since state of NY, as well as entire USA, is supposed to be a democracy (as in governed by entire population, not as in governed single-handedly by a governor running under D designation), I don't see anything wrong with listening to some public opinion for a change
Regarding the Tappan Zee Bridge: like many others who have commented, I tend to see how it is named and how that name is signed as separate issues. I don't object to its being named after Mario Cuomo, but I do vigorously object to the name--complete with title and middle initial--being used on pull-through signs.Official name of the old Tappan Zee bridge included the name of 1940s governor - but that was only used on memorial plaque on the bridge.
I have been told that a return to the Tappan Zee Bridge name is administratively impossible since "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" has been established in state law as the sole official name of the facility. However, I don't know the specifics of how this prohibits "Tappan Zee Bridge" as a control point for pull-through signs with the Cuomo name on white-on-brown memorial signing somewhere in the corridor, as provided for in the MUTCD.
insist his middle initial be used with his title.
As for state law... Easy come, easy go.
Mario Cuomo is not Andrew Cuomo, so it's silly. That name change was completed and is therefore in the past.Yeah, these calls for reversion now that Cuomo the Younger is resigning seem silly.Any chance for a name change for the Mario M. Cuomo bridge?I don't recall any disgrace around that former governor so doubtful.
Not so silly when you consider that the naming seems to have been pushed (complete with insistence that only the full "Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge" name be used and it never be shortened to the "Cuomo Bridge") by his now disgraced son. The name is inexorably tied to Andrew. I've even derisively referred to it as "Daddy's Bridge". I suspect NYS will proceed to attempt to rid itself of anything that ties to Andrew.
How about they go back to calling it the "Tappan Zee Bridge" on guide signs, but put up a sign at the bridge that says "Gov Mario M Cuomo Tappan Zee Bridge". After all, the old bridge was the "Gov Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge".The way Cuomo bridge was slapped to the bridge caused a lot of indigestion. Cleanup is a good idea to prove that certain tricks should never work.
How about they go back to calling it the "Tappan Zee Bridge" on guide signs, but put up a sign at the bridge that says "Gov Mario M Cuomo Tappan Zee Bridge". After all, the old bridge was the "Gov Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge".
...
the Five Twenty-eight.
...
the four oh eight
...
Noticed Google Maps is not doing trip routing onto the loop ramp from EB NY 5/12 to WB NY 840 in Utica. Is that loop ramp closed?
Noticed Google Maps is not doing trip routing onto the loop ramp from EB NY 5/12 to WB NY 840 in Utica. Is that loop ramp closed?
Yes. Bridge replacement at that interchange has most of the loop ramps closed.
With the incoming governor hailing from Hamburg, I wonder if we might see renewed activity in a US 219 extension, AKA "Continental One".I really wonder if she has developed a personal agenda. I would think she's having a hard enough time getting on top of what's going on to start pursuing new initiatives...yet.
Or is it still a pipe dream?
US 219 is sitting in the same limbo as I-86. The long-ago projects were all lumped together as "Statewide Significant" projects that were all put on hold as NYSDOT shifted to Preservation First.and I-86 seems to be the slowest of all highway projects to be completed.
Are the Seneca on record as being opposed?
Are the Seneca on record as being opposed?
Among other things. The reason there are no tenth mile markers on I-86 through the reservation is because they got annoyed with the fact that the agreement to build the road says "route 17", not I-86, even though it's the same road. There's still the dispute over having the Thruway pay them a toll for every car passing through the reservation (which makes zero sense; basically, they just think they took a bad deal and can just get out of it because they don't like it, much like the Shinnecock do with treating Sunrise Highway as if it passes through their reservation, even though it doesn't). And the money they're supposed to pay to Niagara Falls for their casino (apparently they really, really don't know how contracts work under US law...). And state taxes on cigarettes. And they don't like how NY abandoned former NY 17 through the reservation and want the state to pay to replace a bridge that they use but which has been technically closed for decades. And they want all road work and whatnot to be done by their people, not the state's, even for things that we'd normally use in-house crews for. And probably even more things than I can think of. And they're happy to re-open negotiations on all of it whenever anything comes up, which is why re-paving the Thruway took so long; the state wanted a narrow agreement pertaining to that one project and only that one project, and the Seneca Nation wanted a broad agreement covering everything transportation-related that they ever had a grievance over, even things far outside the Thruway's jurisdiction.Are the Seneca on record as being opposed?
On record? I dunno. That being said, knowing their relationship with the state, there is a very low chance of it happening. Remember how long it took to reconstruct 17 and the Thruway through their territory. They're still quite annoyed that the state broke their casino monopoly.
Isn't part of the problem with the Red House Bridge that the Seneca want the state to take over the old alignment and rebuild the bridge, but tack on a thru traffic restriction?I have no idea what the current demands are.
A gold-on-brown reference marker?
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.1502246,-73.7675845,3a,15y,338.84h,77.05t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sYNkg4KvHd-qIDfqTlNDCuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40
Are the gold on brown signs staying, or is that now a bygone era?Why would they go anywhere?
Why would they go anywhere?
Haven't heard anything like that.Why would they go anywhere?
I thought they were becoming a bit of a controversy and that we wouldn't be seeing much of them anymore. Personally, I like them and are a good reminder that you're inside the blue line.
Are the gold on brown signs staying, or is that now a bygone era?They're staying in the Adirondacks, though I don't think they're being used for everything they used to be (such as hospital signs). They're gone in the Catskills, replaced with white on brown.
The Catskills use white on brown. This was part of the compromise with FHWA over the gold on brown signs.What's this about? Got a link I can read up on?
From the 2009 thread: https://web.archive.org/web/20100219041442/http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/511311.html%3Fnav=5008The Catskills use white on brown. This was part of the compromise with FHWA over the gold on brown signs.What's this about? Got a link I can read up on?
It appears that I-87/I-287 is closed in Rockland County from NY 59 to NY 303? Curious if this is related to the storm moving through the area or if something else is going on. Thruway website has this to say:Storm-related. NYC is hurting.
(https://imgur.com/zdlazcG.jpg)
Will my trip to NYS be affected by this storm? Going next week.It appears that I-87/I-287 is closed in Rockland County from NY 59 to NY 303? Curious if this is related to the storm moving through the area or if something else is going on. Thruway website has this to say:Storm-related. NYC is hurting.
(https://imgur.com/zdlazcG.jpg)
Will my trip to NYS be affected by this storm? Going next week.It appears that I-87/I-287 is closed in Rockland County from NY 59 to NY 303? Curious if this is related to the storm moving through the area or if something else is going on. Thruway website has this to say:Storm-related. NYC is hurting.
(https://imgur.com/zdlazcG.jpg)
My trip is now cancelled due to delta.Will my trip to NYS be affected by this storm? Going next week.It appears that I-87/I-287 is closed in Rockland County from NY 59 to NY 303? Curious if this is related to the storm moving through the area or if something else is going on. Thruway website has this to say:Storm-related. NYC is hurting.
(https://imgur.com/zdlazcG.jpg)
Check 511ny.org as you get closer to your trip.
There's a lot of water. From my house I can hear Fishkill Creek crashing and thrashing through Beacon, almost half a mile away. Never heard that before!
I was driving on the Deegan yesterday, and lots of seemingly abandoned cars on the cobblestone shoulder.Both sides. The NB ones had glass smashed in. All were covered in dirt. Definitely abandoned cars from the storm and were causing significant gawking delays.
NYS just found another revenue source.MD law is similar.
Gov. Hochul just signed a bill which allows implementing speed violation monitoring systems in work zones by means of photo devices.
In general, that is not a bad idea - until you realize that NY defines work area as an area where work zone signs are posted, regardless of actual work being done; and allows those signs to stay up for months with no actual work being done.
I assume those abandoned work zones will become prime enforcement targets...
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4682/amendment/b
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Hochul-signs-4-bills-on-Labor-Day-16438762.php
NYS just found another revenue source.MD law is similar.
Gov. Hochul just signed a bill which allows implementing speed violation monitoring systems in work zones by means of photo devices.
In general, that is not a bad idea - until you realize that NY defines work area as an area where work zone signs are posted, regardless of actual work being done; and allows those signs to stay up for months with no actual work being done.
I assume those abandoned work zones will become prime enforcement targets...
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4682/amendment/b
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Hochul-signs-4-bills-on-Labor-Day-16438762.php
Work zone speed limits apply even if no work is actively being performed. It's stupid.
https://patch.com/new-york/peekskill/cashless-tolling-come-bear-mountain-bridge
The Bear Mountain Bridge will be the next one going cashless sometime in October. All of the New York State Bridge Authority's bridges will be going cashless by March 2022.
https://patch.com/new-york/peekskill/cashless-tolling-come-bear-mountain-bridge
The Bear Mountain Bridge will be the next one going cashless sometime in October. All of the New York State Bridge Authority's bridges will be going cashless by March 2022.
I assume (though perhaps I should not) that the tollgate here will be retained, as it is historic. It also serves as a gateway into the interstate park complex. Can the cashless tolling equipment be incorporated into it?
https://patch.com/new-york/peekskill/cashless-tolling-come-bear-mountain-bridge
The Bear Mountain Bridge will be the next one going cashless sometime in October. All of the New York State Bridge Authority's bridges will be going cashless by March 2022.
I assume (though perhaps I should not) that the tollgate here will be retained, as it is historic. It also serves as a gateway into the interstate park complex. Can the cashless tolling equipment be incorporated into it?
Existing tollhouse at Bear Mountain is a replica, so it will not be retained. The original is on display along 6/202 north of Peekskill.
NYS just found another revenue source.I noticed people on the Taconic slowing way down at posted work zones. I did not. I think this may find surprisingly little opposition (nonzero but less).
Gov. Hochul just signed a bill which allows implementing speed violation monitoring systems in work zones by means of photo devices.
In general, that is not a bad idea - until you realize that NY defines work area as an area where work zone signs are posted, regardless of actual work being done; and allows those signs to stay up for months with no actual work being done.
I assume those abandoned work zones will become prime enforcement targets...
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4682/amendment/b
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Hochul-signs-4-bills-on-Labor-Day-16438762.php
I slow down for work zones because of the annual NYSDOT memorial for employees that were killed during the year.NYS just found another revenue source.I noticed people on the Taconic slowing way down at posted work zones. I did not. I think this may find surprisingly little opposition (nonzero but less).
Gov. Hochul just signed a bill which allows implementing speed violation monitoring systems in work zones by means of photo devices.
In general, that is not a bad idea - until you realize that NY defines work area as an area where work zone signs are posted, regardless of actual work being done; and allows those signs to stay up for months with no actual work being done.
I assume those abandoned work zones will become prime enforcement targets...
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4682/amendment/b
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Hochul-signs-4-bills-on-Labor-Day-16438762.php
it would really help if "work zone" signs were actually a sign that some work is being done. So far, best one I saw was a full setup rotting on Washington ave. ext in Albany over the winter in order for work to be resumed in spring.I slow down for work zones because of the annual NYSDOT memorial for employees that were killed during the year.NYS just found another revenue source.I noticed people on the Taconic slowing way down at posted work zones. I did not. I think this may find surprisingly little opposition (nonzero but less).
Gov. Hochul just signed a bill which allows implementing speed violation monitoring systems in work zones by means of photo devices.
In general, that is not a bad idea - until you realize that NY defines work area as an area where work zone signs are posted, regardless of actual work being done; and allows those signs to stay up for months with no actual work being done.
I assume those abandoned work zones will become prime enforcement targets...
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4682/amendment/b
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Hochul-signs-4-bills-on-Labor-Day-16438762.php
hard to kill people in an empty 12-mile work zoneI slow down for work zones because of the annual NYSDOT memorial for employees that were killed during the year.NYS just found another revenue source.I noticed people on the Taconic slowing way down at posted work zones. I did not. I think this may find surprisingly little opposition (nonzero but less).
Gov. Hochul just signed a bill which allows implementing speed violation monitoring systems in work zones by means of photo devices.
In general, that is not a bad idea - until you realize that NY defines work area as an area where work zone signs are posted, regardless of actual work being done; and allows those signs to stay up for months with no actual work being done.
I assume those abandoned work zones will become prime enforcement targets...
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4682/amendment/b
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Hochul-signs-4-bills-on-Labor-Day-16438762.php
hard to kill people in an empty 12-mile work zoneI slow down for work zones because of the annual NYSDOT memorial for employees that were killed during the year.NYS just found another revenue source.I noticed people on the Taconic slowing way down at posted work zones. I did not. I think this may find surprisingly little opposition (nonzero but less).
Gov. Hochul just signed a bill which allows implementing speed violation monitoring systems in work zones by means of photo devices.
In general, that is not a bad idea - until you realize that NY defines work area as an area where work zone signs are posted, regardless of actual work being done; and allows those signs to stay up for months with no actual work being done.
I assume those abandoned work zones will become prime enforcement targets...
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s4682/amendment/b
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Hochul-signs-4-bills-on-Labor-Day-16438762.php
hard to kill people in an empty 12-mile work zone
FOr schools there are some reasonable assumptions. Certain hours, 5 days a week except holidays will cover most of it. Some override for flashing lights from the office on top. that would be reasonable one to follow.hard to kill people in an empty 12-mile work zone
It's reminiscent of school zones, too. How does one accurately and definitively determine whether children, or workers, are present?
FOr schools there are some reasonable assumptions. Certain hours, 5 days a week except holidays will cover most of it.
In New York State at least the hours are well defined, if not the days. 7am to 6pm as posted on the School Zone signs.
So back to the work zone question, how might one establish that workers are not present–as opposed to present, but on break, or just working away from the roadway–and thus the speed limit not in effect?The speed limit should only be in effect when work vehicles are active or you see workers. Opinion.
So back to the work zone question, how might one establish that workers are not present–as opposed to present, but on break, or just working away from the roadway–and thus the speed limit not in effect?The speed limit should only be in effect when work vehicles are active or you see workers. Opinion.
It's active if it shows any sign of moving or lights flashing or being occupied. It's not active if it's just sitting there doing nothing. And if you don't observe a worker, that is entirely your fault anyway and signs won't stop you.So back to the work zone question, how might one establish that workers are not present–as opposed to present, but on break, or just working away from the roadway–and thus the speed limit not in effect?The speed limit should only be in effect when work vehicles are active or you see workers. Opinion.
Well, that's what I mean–how do you determine, by observation, that a work vehicle is active? And what about those with in interest in the case who aren't present to observe anything? I mean…suppose you hit a worker because you didn't see him?
(Mind you, I'm not arguing in favor of speed limits at empty work zones. I'm just trying to visualize how something that seems so subjective could be applied fairly and evenly–and effectively.)
It's active if it shows any sign of moving or lights flashing or being occupied. It's not active if it's just sitting there doing nothing. And if you don't observe a worker, that is entirely your fault anyway and signs won't stop you.So back to the work zone question, how might one establish that workers are not present–as opposed to present, but on break, or just working away from the roadway–and thus the speed limit not in effect?The speed limit should only be in effect when work vehicles are active or you see workers. Opinion.
Well, that's what I mean–how do you determine, by observation, that a work vehicle is active? And what about those with in interest in the case who aren't present to observe anything? I mean…suppose you hit a worker because you didn't see him?
(Mind you, I'm not arguing in favor of speed limits at empty work zones. I'm just trying to visualize how something that seems so subjective could be applied fairly and evenly–and effectively.)
The question is what are we trying to achieve with these speed limits.It's active if it shows any sign of moving or lights flashing or being occupied. It's not active if it's just sitting there doing nothing. And if you don't observe a worker, that is entirely your fault anyway and signs won't stop you.So back to the work zone question, how might one establish that workers are not present–as opposed to present, but on break, or just working away from the roadway–and thus the speed limit not in effect?The speed limit should only be in effect when work vehicles are active or you see workers. Opinion.
Well, that's what I mean–how do you determine, by observation, that a work vehicle is active? And what about those with in interest in the case who aren't present to observe anything? I mean…suppose you hit a worker because you didn't see him?
(Mind you, I'm not arguing in favor of speed limits at empty work zones. I'm just trying to visualize how something that seems so subjective could be applied fairly and evenly–and effectively.)
Yeah, so…that's probably why this isn't how they determine it. Those criteria are fine and all, but simply too subjective to hang a broad regulation on–with such judgment calls as you describe, you'd be talking about reckless driving, or too fast for conditions, that sort of citation. And if that is the preference, perhaps the better solution is to forgo the concept of a work zone speed limit altogether.
NY typical hypocrycy, of course, means safety is an afterthought and actual fine receipts are the true thing. Then a most obscure and meaningless definition would be violated the most.
It also ignores NY's stringent work zone safety practices (e.g., I have seen shirtless guys leaning on shovels and the like in Maine -- that would result in a work zone shutdown in NY).
It also ignores NY's stringent work zone safety practices (e.g., I have seen shirtless guys leaning on shovels and the like in Maine -- that would result in a work zone shutdown in NY).
Why would that be, just because they aren't wearing a high-vis vest?
Active Work Zones:
Posting of active work zones. Active work zones must be designated as such to notify motorists when they enter and leave the work zone. A white flashing light attached to the "Active Work Zone When Flashing" sign will indicate an active work zone. The flashing light will only be activated when workers are present and turned off when workers are not present.
Fifteen-day loss of license for driving dangerously. Motorists caught driving 11 miles per hour or more above the posted speed limit in an active work zone, or who are involved in a crash in an active work zone and are convicted for failing to drive at a safe speed, automatically will lose their license for 15 days.
Fines doubled/jail time increased. Fines for certain traffic violations – including speeding, driving under the influence, and failure to obey traffic devices – are doubled for active work zones. Also, the law provides for up to five years of additional jail time for individuals convicted of homicide by vehicle for a crash that occurred in an active work zone.
In 2014, 377 suspensions were imposed on motorists for work zone violations.
I don't believe speed limit per se is helping. 55MPH crash vs 75 MPH crash is the same if hardhat and vest are the main protective equipment. If anything, driver awareness of workers and equipment should matter. Of course, that should include speed adjustment that appropriate for the conditions - I wonder if most drivers would do that regardless of signage. Any driver would hate to be involved in a fatal or injury crash - both personally and from the consequences standpoint.NY typical hypocrycy, of course, means safety is an afterthought and actual fine receipts are the true thing. Then a most obscure and meaningless definition would be violated the most.
Not sure how you came to this conclusion given the previous statements. It also ignores NY's stringent work zone safety practices (e.g., I have seen shirtless guys leaning on shovels and the like in Maine -- that would result in a work zone shutdown in NY).
Work zone speed limits are only one tool in trying to ensure safety of the work crews.
Work Zone Fatalities, 2018:
Texas: 157
Florida: 80
California: 71
Georgia: 58
Alabama: 27
PA: 23
...
NY: 5 (31 out of 50 states; I'd imagine even lower, if normalized per VMT)
The question is what are we trying to achieve with these speed limits.
If actual safety is at stake, most work zones I see have trucks with flashing lights parked a bit upstream. Since workers typically do not just walk into the work site, they typically arrive in one of those vehicles equipped with lights and what not. So active equipment definition would work just fine.
PA changed its work zone laws back in 2014. the "ACTIVE WORK ZONE WHEN FLASHING" sign was introduced with a little white light at the top.
I'd imagine speed is a significant factor in how far a vehicle can intrude into a work zone and thus be a danger to workers.Still, you touched a pretty interesting topic which I am digging a bit into.
Truth be told, I don't know how I feel about the new pilot camera enforcement, other than I know it has been allowed in other states and therefore legal arguments against it are pretty moot. It also sounds like the next step in evolution from NY's Operation Hard Hats (targeted work zone enforcement by State Police). Devil will always be in the details.
...
Most times, the use of the white light seems accurate. Not always. I don't know how widespread these are being used now, however.
More like "reduce unnecessary slowing". even then there are two factors - slowing for people and harsh fines for endangering workers and slow down to road conditions.The question is what are we trying to achieve with these speed limits.
In this case, we're just trying to achieve a regulation that doesn't require unnecessary slowing for work zones when they are not being used to do work.
There were vast swaths (+10 miles) of I-88 signed for 55 MPH because of "construction" for about two weeks when no work was being performed except for at the approaches to a bridge. They were finally doing work after on rehabilitating the concrete pavement but... this would have been a good candidate for the "work zone when flashing" signs with variable speed limits.
And effect of such on true work zones was first described around 580 BC by Aesop who published a work entitled "A Boy Who Cried Wolf"There were vast swaths (+10 miles) of I-88 signed for 55 MPH because of "construction" for about two weeks when no work was being performed except for at the approaches to a bridge. They were finally doing work after on rehabilitating the concrete pavement but... this would have been a good candidate for the "work zone when flashing" signs with variable speed limits.
I got stuck in that 10 mile long work zone on the Taconic as well as miles of 55 on 684 where there wasn't even construction equipment on site.
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safariHeh. Brian gets an A for effort, there. Poor guy having to tow the party line and not bring up the fact FHWA's pressure was behind the conversion in the places where it has happened.
My X button can only take so much.
I don't see consistency. I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.
A more interesting part is how much they would need to pay for that.https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safariHeh. Brian gets an A for effort, there. Poor guy having to tow the party line and not bring up the fact FHWA's pressure was behind the conversion in the places where it has happened.
My X button can only take so much.
I don't see consistency. I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.
It will be a great day in NY when people can tell how far they need to go on the Thruway just by simple subtraction.
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
My X button can only take so much.
I don't see consistency. I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.
PA changed its work zone laws back in 2014. the "ACTIVE WORK ZONE WHEN FLASHING" sign was introduced with a little white light at the top.
Per PennDOT:QuoteActive Work Zones:
Posting of active work zones. Active work zones must be designated as such to notify motorists when they enter and leave the work zone. A white flashing light attached to the "Active Work Zone When Flashing" sign will indicate an active work zone. The flashing light will only be activated when workers are present and turned off when workers are not present.
Fifteen-day loss of license for driving dangerously. Motorists caught driving 11 miles per hour or more above the posted speed limit in an active work zone, or who are involved in a crash in an active work zone and are convicted for failing to drive at a safe speed, automatically will lose their license for 15 days.
Fines doubled/jail time increased. Fines for certain traffic violations – including speeding, driving under the influence, and failure to obey traffic devices – are doubled for active work zones. Also, the law provides for up to five years of additional jail time for individuals convicted of homicide by vehicle for a crash that occurred in an active work zone.
In 2014, 377 suspensions were imposed on motorists for work zone violations.
Most times, the use of the white light seems accurate. Not always. I don't know how widespread these are being used now, however.
^ Does Pennsylvania have a minimum over-speed at which the speed camera will trigger? Maryland does. Outside Montgomery County, Maryland's speed cameras only trigger when the vehicle is going 12+ MPH over the limit.
Plus he's Region 1, and I don't believe Region 1 has had any large-scale guide sign rehabs since mile-based became required (at least not on a road with exit numbers; all the signs on NY 85 and half of them on NY 7 got replaced as part of other projects). Additionally, I-890 is already mile-based, and I-787 is like those MassDOT roads that got left alone, so it might just be the Northway, free 90, and I-88 for us.https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safariHeh. Brian gets an A for effort, there. Poor guy having to tow the party line and not bring up the fact FHWA's pressure was behind the conversion in the places where it has happened.
My X button can only take so much.
I don't see consistency. I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.
It will be a great day in NY when people can tell how far they need to go on the Thruway just by simple subtraction.
I'm curious how it will be here. The NYC school cameras are also 11 over, so I imagine it would be the same for consistency, but it would be nice to see that confirmed.^ Does Pennsylvania have a minimum over-speed at which the speed camera will trigger? Maryland does. Outside Montgomery County, Maryland's speed cameras only trigger when the vehicle is going 12+ MPH over the limit.
Yes, it is 11 over the speed limit. First violation is a warning. There are some in the legislature who think that is too lenient, but it still seems to be reducing repeat offenders.
Plus he's Region 1, and I don't believe Region 1 has had any large-scale guide sign rehabs since mile-based became required (at least not on a road with exit numbers; all the signs on NY 85 and half of them on NY 7 got replaced as part of other projects). Additionally, I-890 is already mile-based, and I-787 is like those MassDOT roads that got left alone, so it might just be the Northway, free 90, and I-88 for us.https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safariHeh. Brian gets an A for effort, there. Poor guy having to tow the party line and not bring up the fact FHWA's pressure was behind the conversion in the places where it has happened.
My X button can only take so much.
I don't see consistency. I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.
It will be a great day in NY when people can tell how far they need to go on the Thruway just by simple subtraction.
TU is a local newspaper, which likely always contacted local office.Plus he's Region 1, and I don't believe Region 1 has had any large-scale guide sign rehabs since mile-based became required (at least not on a road with exit numbers; all the signs on NY 85 and half of them on NY 7 got replaced as part of other projects). Additionally, I-890 is already mile-based, and I-787 is like those MassDOT roads that got left alone, so it might just be the Northway, free 90, and I-88 for us.https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safariHeh. Brian gets an A for effort, there. Poor guy having to tow the party line and not bring up the fact FHWA's pressure was behind the conversion in the places where it has happened.
My X button can only take so much.
I don't see consistency. I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.
It will be a great day in NY when people can tell how far they need to go on the Thruway just by simple subtraction.
Huh. Weird that a Region 1 public relations guy got that assignment for a statewide question. I suppose he was in the MO at one point, though.
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Getting-There-Will-New-York-change-its-highway-16488756.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
My X button can only take so much.
I don't see consistency. I hear a lot of drivers looking for Exit 23 on I-87 to get to Albany, only to find themselves in Warrensburg.
That, however, is due to different exit sequences under different authorities, rather than a mixture of different numbering schemes.
... Boston ... they all handle suffixed exits just fine.
The "urban areas" issue NYSDOT is always spouting about when defending sequential numbers is irritating. Chicago does just fine at I-94 MP 51 at the Jane Byrne Interchange (exits 51 A-J). No one is driving off the road in confusion. Kansas City has plenty of suffixes without an issue. Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Phoenix, they all handle suffixed exits just fine. There is nothing special about the five boroughs. It's just a weak excuse.I suspect it basically boils down to "we don't want to convert NYC".
Wasn't I-95 in the Bronx (Cross Bronx Expwy.& Bruckner Expwy.) re-signed with mileage based numbers? I know I saw a lot of suffixed exits just east of the G.W. Bridge.
The NYSDOT portions of I-95 were always mileage-based, part of an experiment in the 70s that would have led to conversion had NYSDOT not gotten cold feet at the prospect of changing things again when it was believed the US would switch to metric. As was mentioned, for whatever reason it was decided in the 2000s to convert I-95 to sequential even though this would break continuity with the Thruway. This was eventually abandoned and the numbers switched back, but the Port Authority never went along with that, thus beginning their trend of nonsensical exit numbers that they continued with I-278 in NJ.You got a problem with exits 1-2-3-3?
And yet again I find myself thinking that sometimes exit numbering creates more problems than it solves. If the State of California was able to manage without exit numbers for as long as they did until the FHWA forced them to comply, then I don't know why we really need them especially in urban areas.
Don't GPS units give exit numbers as part of their directions? I would think that would make exit numbers more important rather than less, especially as GPS directions can sometimes be phrased in a confusing way relative to what a driver is seeing, especially if there are a lot of ramps close together.
Don't GPS units give exit numbers as part of their directions? I would think that would make exit numbers more important rather than less, especially as GPS directions can sometimes be phrased in a confusing way relative to what a driver is seeing, especially if there are a lot of ramps close together.
They do. And it depends on the app of course, but they also give pretty specific indications of which lane to be in and which direction to go, along with detailed sign legends, so even if there weren't exit numbers you'd still have plenty of points of reference.
It still makes sense to have visual labels. And - just for the sake of some brain gymnastics - I would argue that very dissimilar labels could be preferred. Like streets often having different names, and jay street would be distinctive from bluebird street just by the length of the sign. 41, 42 and 43d streets, or n.elmer and w.elmer streets are less functional for navigation.Don't GPS units give exit numbers as part of their directions? I would think that would make exit numbers more important rather than less, especially as GPS directions can sometimes be phrased in a confusing way relative to what a driver is seeing, especially if there are a lot of ramps close together.
They do. And it depends on the app of course, but they also give pretty specific indications of which lane to be in and which direction to go, along with detailed sign legends, so even if there weren't exit numbers you'd still have plenty of points of reference.
And yet again I find myself thinking that sometimes exit numbering creates more problems than it solves. If the State of California was able to manage without exit numbers for as long as they did until the FHWA forced them to comply, then I don't know why we really need them especially in urban areas.
And yet again I find myself thinking that sometimes exit numbering creates more problems than it solves. If the State of California was able to manage without exit numbers for as long as they did until the FHWA forced them to comply, then I don't know why we really need them especially in urban areas.As someone non-native, it's a problem in CA. Some highways interchange multiple roads with similar or same names.
Don't GPS units give exit numbers as part of their directions? I would think that would make exit numbers more important rather than less, especially as GPS directions can sometimes be phrased in a confusing way relative to what a driver is seeing, especially if there are a lot of ramps close together.
They do. And it depends on the app of course, but they also give pretty specific indications of which lane to be in and which direction to go, along with detailed sign legends, so even if there weren't exit numbers you'd still have plenty of points of reference.
This is true, but it makes a lot more sense to hear the GPS say "use the right lane to take Exit 9", see Exit 9 on the sign you're driving past, and know you're going the right way. To me, it makes no sense to get rid of them.
So row, row, row your boat, gently down the freeway?
The Bear Mountain Bridge is going cashless starting tonight at midnight.Backups have gotten really bad there on weekends with lines through the cash booth, and then when the gate arm doesn't go up on the EZPass booth (don't get me started on gate arms), so this is exciting! It will also result in backups on the far end when people can't turn left onto 9D and suddenly you've got a full demand backing up there instead of at the toll plaza.
...and then you have the paltry parking for the Appalachian Trail due to the terrain causing its own issues.The Bear Mountain Bridge is going cashless starting tonight at midnight.Backups have gotten really bad there on weekends with lines through the cash booth, and then when the gate arm doesn't go up on the EZPass booth (don't get me started on gate arms), so this is exciting! It will also result in backups on the far end when people can't turn left onto 9D and suddenly you've got a full demand backing up there instead of at the toll plaza.
The Bear Mountain Bridge is going cashless starting tonight at midnight.Aww, crap! Now I'll never get any shots of the toll plaza!
I thought they were leaving the old booths in due to their aesthetic appearance.The Bear Mountain Bridge is going cashless starting tonight at midnight.Aww, crap! Now I'll never get any shots of the toll plaza!
...and then you have the paltry parking for the Appalachian Trail due to the terrain causing its own issues.
I thought they were leaving the old booths in due to their aesthetic appearance.
Ah, right. I had it backwards....and then you have the paltry parking for the Appalachian Trail due to the terrain causing its own issues.
I'm actually attending a group hike there tomorrow. Knowing the parking situation, my plan is to arrive early, park at Bear Mountain and walk over to the trailhead in Putchester.I thought they were leaving the old booths in due to their aesthetic appearance.
That's what I'd hoped, but somebody here said they are to be removed. (There would still be the NYSBA building itself, which provides much of the aesthetic character.)
And yet again I find myself thinking that sometimes exit numbering creates more problems than it solves. If the State of California was able to manage without exit numbers for as long as they did until the FHWA forced them to comply, then I don't know why we really need them especially in urban areas.As someone non-native, it's a problem in CA. Some highways interchange multiple roads with similar or same names.
Maine didn't bother renumbering exits on I-295 in Portland when they converted, to avoid "alphabet soup".Fictional: Milepost exits for "classic" I-295 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30286)
The I-390 reconstruction south of the Thruway is also taking forever. Northbound is finally wrapping up, but southbound hasn't been touched, so it's on track to be a two-year project.I-88 sees your two years and deems you a promising amateur.
The I-390 reconstruction south of the Thruway is also taking forever. Northbound is finally wrapping up, but southbound hasn't been touched, so it's on track to be a two-year project.I-88 sees your two years and deems you a promising amateur.
The I-390 reconstruction south of the Thruway is also taking forever. Northbound is finally wrapping up, but southbound hasn't been touched, so it's on track to be a two-year project.Two years is pretty standard for that type of project. The mainline part of 490 Gateway took 2-3 years (throwing in the Troup-Howell Bridge and the bridges over 490, and it easily took more than half a decade). I-490 from Bushnell's Basin to Fairport took 2 years. Exits 39-40 on the Thruway took 3. I don't remember how long NY 104 took (I couldn't have been older than 5) but I imagine it was similar.
88 has been reconstructed in segments for the better part of 20 years now. Some segments have seen very little work since the road was built in the 70s and 80s. It'll easily be another 5-10 years before the rest is done. Everything that has not yet been reconstructed is scheduled to be and it's mostly (if not entirely) in Otsego and Schoharie Counties.Not sure how much more there is. The public site shows two contracts for I-88 in that area; the bridge/resurfacing job shows a completion date a year from now and the rehab contract throws a 404 not found error. Otego has been done. Belden hill has been done. Exits 1-2 has been done. There was a diamond grind around Cobleskill. Exit 22-Region 1 has been done, and Schenectady County has been done. What else does that leave?
I-490 from Bushnell's Basin to Fairport took 2 years. ... I don't remember how long NY 104 took (I couldn't have been older than 5) but I imagine it was similar.
The Bear Mountain Bridge is going cashless starting tonight at midnight.Backups have gotten really bad there on weekends with lines through the cash booth, and then when the gate arm doesn't go up on the EZPass booth (don't get me started on gate arms), so this is exciting! It will also result in backups on the far end when people can't turn left onto 9D and suddenly you've got a full demand backing up there instead of at the toll plaza.
couldnt they put a traffic light at the end of the bridge to prevent the backups for people wanting to turn left onto 9D? or a roundabout?
Whops, I meant Bushnell's Basin to Victor. We must be talking about Bushnell's Basin to Fairport so often that I typed it on autopiliot.I-490 from Bushnell's Basin to Fairport took 2 years. ... I don't remember how long NY 104 took (I couldn't have been older than 5) but I imagine it was similar.
I-490 from Bushnells to Fairport was reconstructed? When was that? Also, what part of NY 104 was reconstructed?
I-490 from Bushnells to Fairport was reconstructed? When was that? Also, what part of NY 104 was reconstructed?Whops, I meant Bushnell's Basin to Victor. We must be talking about Bushnell's Basin to Fairport so often that I typed it on autopiliot.
I was very young when NY 104 was done, but I feel like was the whole freeway, or at least the part west of Five Mile Line Road (which is older than the part east of there). That's when westbound the parking area/rest area just before the Bay Bridge was closed. It became a construction staging area and never reopened.
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.couldnt they put a traffic light at the end of the bridge to prevent the backups for people wanting to turn left onto 9D? or a roundabout?
No room for a roundabout, and a traffic light would likely lead to objectionable backups on the Goat Trail (Peekskill) approach. Usually there isn't a whole lot of demand for NY 9D compared to the through route of US 6/202, so the need for this may turn out to be limited.
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.
And now Hochul basically derailed the Airtrain. I wonder if I-81 in Syracuse is next for review?I was ready to look for this issue on the bridge as soon as I heard Cuomo was resigning. It also made me wonder about any other potential projects and how they're going to be impacted.September 30th is the day for PANYNJ board meeting with the vote for final approval of LGA Airtrain being scheduled. May be a big one in that respect
And now Hochul basically derailed the Airtrain. I wonder if I-81 in Syracuse is next for review?
“We must ensure that our transportation projects are bold, visionary, and serve the needs of New Yorkers. I remain committed to working expeditiously to rebuild our infrastructure for the 21st century ..."
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.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.
For the last time, this is why you do the study.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 didn't say you specifically. This is why NYSDOT does the analysis. I'm done here.QuoteYou 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.
For the last time, this is why you do the study.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.QuoteI didn't say you specifically. This is why NYSDOT does the analysis. I'm done here.QuoteYou 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.
For the last time, this is why you do the study.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.QuoteI didn't say you specifically. This is why NYSDOT does the analysis. I'm done here.QuoteYou 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.
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! :confused:
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.
Sweet, let's move on and remember this happened as a colloquial anecdote.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. :-)
And yet another update: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 trafficI just went through affected area of I-87. Traffic situation is nowhere close to the total collapse we feared.And the latest update: https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/After-crash-section-of-bridge-over-Northway-to-16118979.php
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.
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...
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.
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 (https://gisportalny.dot.ny.gov/portalny/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=28537cbc8b5941e19cf8e959b16797b4); 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8954564,-73.2641872,3a,27.4y,333.05h,81.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sefdJZ00awl6exNDjfhy8Ag!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). There's also a "parkway ends" sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8793657,-73.2758049,3a,75y,55.11h,78.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHp5PxBSLT6soQ_C7GjIjSg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DHp5PxBSLT6soQ_C7GjIjSg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D134.02095%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) more than a mile south of NY 25A. Newer signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.895552,-73.2643854,3a,23.1y,354.93h,87.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st_yNTmFpLED7FTYTRM3aQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), however, muddies the water (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.896289,-73.2652467,3a,28.5y,156.19h,88.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssOYf_sFCMAOWn1bDiKe6wA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5960363,-73.5423223,3a,23.2y,182.27h,92.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6UI88vU8Wh4AByta8BRKlQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). 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?
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 (https://gisportalny.dot.ny.gov/portalny/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=28537cbc8b5941e19cf8e959b16797b4); 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8954564,-73.2641872,3a,27.4y,333.05h,81.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sefdJZ00awl6exNDjfhy8Ag!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). There's also a "parkway ends" sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8793657,-73.2758049,3a,75y,55.11h,78.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHp5PxBSLT6soQ_C7GjIjSg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DHp5PxBSLT6soQ_C7GjIjSg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D134.02095%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) more than a mile south of NY 25A. Newer signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.895552,-73.2643854,3a,23.1y,354.93h,87.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st_yNTmFpLED7FTYTRM3aQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), however, muddies the water (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.896289,-73.2652467,3a,28.5y,156.19h,88.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssOYf_sFCMAOWn1bDiKe6wA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5960363,-73.5423223,3a,23.2y,182.27h,92.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6UI88vU8Wh4AByta8BRKlQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). 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'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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51577549286_ac9454cd84_z.jpg)
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).
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.
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.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.
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
Note that signs along the surface west of that point have rarely indicated that it was NY 24I saw a lot of TO NY24 in GMSV.
Sounds like hey need to get hip to some of those End State Maintenance signs like they have in TX & NE.QuoteNote that signs along the surface west of that point have rarely indicated that it was NY 24I saw a lot of TO NY24 in GMSV.
Sounds like hey need to get hip to some of those End State Maintenance signs like they have in TX & NE.QuoteNote that signs along the surface west of that point have rarely indicated that it was NY 24I saw a lot of TO NY24 in GMSV.
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.
https://danburycountry.com/mid-hudson-bridge-will-soon-say-goodbye-to-toll-booths-heres-when/Well, it's no Bear Mountain toll booth, but I wouldn't mind if somebody got a pic of that and posted it in Wikimedia Commons.
So, the next bridge to convert to cashless tolling on the New York State Bridge Authority (NYSBA) system will be the Rip-Van Winkle bridge, which is set to go live on November 1st.
After that, the next one to convert to cashless tolling will be the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge, which construction of the toll gantry is underway, and it's expected to go live sometime in December.
The final one to convert to cashless tolling will be the Mid-Hudson Bridge, which is set to go live sometime in March 2022.
So is I-86 from the state line to I-81 now officially I-86 the whole length? I was getting mixed signals today taking I-86 on the way out to Michigan. I saw some plain I-86 signs, a TO I-86 sign near Vestal, and some only NY 17 signs randomly between Vestal and Waverly.No. It's officially I-86 between I-90 and US 220 and I-81 though NY 79. There's still one project that needs to happen just west of Binghamton before we can have a Grand Unified I-86 (presuming nothing gets designated as a result of the current widening effort before that gets done).
If you are referring to the at-grade section east of NY 8, then that is east of Binghampton.So is I-86 from the state line to I-81 now officially I-86 the whole length? I was getting mixed signals today taking I-86 on the way out to Michigan. I saw some plain I-86 signs, a TO I-86 sign near Vestal, and some only NY 17 signs randomly between Vestal and Waverly.No. It's officially I-86 between I-90 and US 220 and I-81 though NY 79. There's still one project that needs to happen just west of Binghamton before we can have a Grand Unified I-86 (presuming nothing gets designated as a result of the current widening effort before that gets done).
If you are referring to the at-grade section east of NY 8, then that is east of Binghampton.So is I-86 from the state line to I-81 now officially I-86 the whole length? I was getting mixed signals today taking I-86 on the way out to Michigan. I saw some plain I-86 signs, a TO I-86 sign near Vestal, and some only NY 17 signs randomly between Vestal and Waverly.No. It's officially I-86 between I-90 and US 220 and I-81 though NY 79. There's still one project that needs to happen just west of Binghamton before we can have a Grand Unified I-86 (presuming nothing gets designated as a result of the current widening effort before that gets done).
That appears to be the last at-grade section left.
If you are referring to the at-grade section east of NY 8, then that is east of Binghampton.So is I-86 from the state line to I-81 now officially I-86 the whole length? I was getting mixed signals today taking I-86 on the way out to Michigan. I saw some plain I-86 signs, a TO I-86 sign near Vestal, and some only NY 17 signs randomly between Vestal and Waverly.No. It's officially I-86 between I-90 and US 220 and I-81 though NY 79. There's still one project that needs to happen just west of Binghamton before we can have a Grand Unified I-86 (presuming nothing gets designated as a result of the current widening effort before that gets done).
That appears to be the last at-grade section left.
No, I believe there are still a few minor issues west of Binghamton - no at-grade intersections, but a few things that keep it from being interstate-standard, including substandard shoulder widths.
I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Don't you know the answer?I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
The I-390 reconstruction south of the Thruway is also taking forever. Northbound is finally wrapping up, but southbound hasn't been touched, so it's on track to be a two-year project.I-88 sees your two years and deems you a promising amateur.
There are lots of little things that keep the rest of NY 17 from being I-86 - not just at-grades. West of I-81, there's still one more project left. There's been speculation on what that could be on the I-86 thread, but it is known to be somewhere in the vicinity of exit 68. East of I-81, it's a lot of those little things (shoulder width, acceleration/deceleration lanes, interchange geometry, sight distance, etc.) that keep the upgrade from happening. That's why I mentioned the widening study - if I widening project were to result from that, a good chunk of the remaining work would get done (at the very least Middletown-Harriman, possibly Monticello-Harriman), and if that happened before the remaining project west of Binghamton (which doesn't appear to have any momentum, unlike the widening study), we could have a third section of I-86 designated. There are even covered signs around Middletown, the paperwork just wasn't submitted to sign it for whatever reason.If you are referring to the at-grade section east of NY 8, then that is east of Binghampton.So is I-86 from the state line to I-81 now officially I-86 the whole length? I was getting mixed signals today taking I-86 on the way out to Michigan. I saw some plain I-86 signs, a TO I-86 sign near Vestal, and some only NY 17 signs randomly between Vestal and Waverly.No. It's officially I-86 between I-90 and US 220 and I-81 though NY 79. There's still one project that needs to happen just west of Binghamton before we can have a Grand Unified I-86 (presuming nothing gets designated as a result of the current widening effort before that gets done).
That appears to be the last at-grade section left.
No need to speculate. A long time ago, I posted the remaining projects for I-86 somewhere on here. :DThere are lots of little things that keep the rest of NY 17 from being I-86 - not just at-grades. West of I-81, there's still one more project left. There's been speculation on what that could be on the I-86 thread, but it is known to be somewhere in the vicinity of exit 68. East of I-81, it's a lot of those little things (shoulder width, acceleration/deceleration lanes, interchange geometry, sight distance, etc.) that keep the upgrade from happening. That's why I mentioned the widening study - if I widening project were to result from that, a good chunk of the remaining work would get done (at the very least Middletown-Harriman, possibly Monticello-Harriman), and if that happened before the remaining project west of Binghamton (which doesn't appear to have any momentum, unlike the widening study), we could have a third section of I-86 designated. There are even covered signs around Middletown, the paperwork just wasn't submitted to sign it for whatever reason.If you are referring to the at-grade section east of NY 8, then that is east of Binghampton.So is I-86 from the state line to I-81 now officially I-86 the whole length? I was getting mixed signals today taking I-86 on the way out to Michigan. I saw some plain I-86 signs, a TO I-86 sign near Vestal, and some only NY 17 signs randomly between Vestal and Waverly.No. It's officially I-86 between I-90 and US 220 and I-81 though NY 79. There's still one project that needs to happen just west of Binghamton before we can have a Grand Unified I-86 (presuming nothing gets designated as a result of the current widening effort before that gets done).
That appears to be the last at-grade section left.
No need to speculate. A long time ago, I posted the remaining projects for I-86 somewhere on here. :DI believe the description of that one was "Upgrade of deficient features between Tioga County and the Binghamton city line".
Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.Don't you know the answer?I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.Don't you know the answer?I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.Don't you know the answer?I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
But IMHO, it's a broken promise. It was originally billed as an EZ-Pass is an EZ-Pass and you just needed one. But quickly morphed into not all EZ-Passes are the same and where yours was issued affects what you pay. I would not be surprised if some people get multiple ones so they can get the various state discounts and change them as they move from one state to another. At least Illinois, where I live, extends the EZ/I-Pass rate to all EZ-Passes but it's the exception these days.
I got my Maryland one away back when they did not charge service fees (they do now) I did have a MTA toll tag but I can’t find it plus I used to live in NJ so the replenish amount was almost around $300 I ended up paying in cash or getting billed by plate.Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.Don't you know the answer?I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
But IMHO, it's a broken promise. It was originally billed as an EZ-Pass is an EZ-Pass and you just needed one. But quickly morphed into not all EZ-Passes are the same and where yours was issued affects what you pay. I would not be surprised if some people get multiple ones so they can get the various state discounts and change them as they move from one state to another. At least Illinois, where I live, extends the EZ/I-Pass rate to all EZ-Passes but it's the exception these days.
Which will likely change the next time ISTHA needs more revenue for capital projects or there's a severe shortfall for operations. It did last for quite a while that you paid the discounted EZPass rate wherever you went. That mostly went out the window when agencies started moving to cashless tolling options, because I think the original idea baked into the discount is "we pay for fewer toll takers since fewer lanes are manned". I do also find it annoying, but that is the way of the world and there's little anyone can do about it. I fully expect that the next phase will be for state residency requirements for transponder service centers, so you'll suddenly have a lot of NJ residents who got NYS transponders to get tolling discounts for MTABT tolls and the like (since PANYNJ doesn't have any transponder discrimination, and even if they started that, given the bi-state nature of the agency, I imagine they'd include both NJCSC and the various NY agencies that issue transponders to continue to get discounted rate) be stuck having to pay the full tolls because they're not NYS residents.
I got my Maryland one away back when they did not charge service fees (they do now) I did have a MTA toll tag but I can’t find it plus I used to live in NJ so the replenish amount was almost around $300 I ended up paying in cash or getting billed by plate.Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.Don't you know the answer?I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
But IMHO, it's a broken promise. It was originally billed as an EZ-Pass is an EZ-Pass and you just needed one. But quickly morphed into not all EZ-Passes are the same and where yours was issued affects what you pay. I would not be surprised if some people get multiple ones so they can get the various state discounts and change them as they move from one state to another. At least Illinois, where I live, extends the EZ/I-Pass rate to all EZ-Passes but it's the exception these days.
Which will likely change the next time ISTHA needs more revenue for capital projects or there's a severe shortfall for operations. It did last for quite a while that you paid the discounted EZPass rate wherever you went. That mostly went out the window when agencies started moving to cashless tolling options, because I think the original idea baked into the discount is "we pay for fewer toll takers since fewer lanes are manned". I do also find it annoying, but that is the way of the world and there's little anyone can do about it. I fully expect that the next phase will be for state residency requirements for transponder service centers, so you'll suddenly have a lot of NJ residents who got NYS transponders to get tolling discounts for MTABT tolls and the like (since PANYNJ doesn't have any transponder discrimination, and even if they started that, given the bi-state nature of the agency, I imagine they'd include both NJCSC and the various NY agencies that issue transponders to continue to get discounted rate) be stuck having to pay the full tolls because they're not NYS residents.
The bridges between Exits 68 and 70 appear to be substandard and lack a shoulder. There is only a guard rail median in the vic. of Exit 69. Perhaps they want to replace it with a concrete barrier. Maybe they also want to close Exit 68? The unnumbered exit on NY 26 reaches the same area as Exit 68.There are lots of little things that keep the rest of NY 17 from being I-86 - not just at-grades. West of I-81, there's still one more project left. There's been speculation on what that could be on the I-86 thread, but it is known to be somewhere in the vicinity of exit 68. East of I-81, it's a lot of those little things (shoulder width, acceleration/deceleration lanes, interchange geometry, sight distance, etc.) that keep the upgrade from happening. That's why I mentioned the widening study - if I widening project were to result from that, a good chunk of the remaining work would get done (at the very least Middletown-Harriman, possibly Monticello-Harriman), and if that happened before the remaining project west of Binghamton (which doesn't appear to have any momentum, unlike the widening study), we could have a third section of I-86 designated. There are even covered signs around Middletown, the paperwork just wasn't submitted to sign it for whatever reason.If you are referring to the at-grade section east of NY 8, then that is east of Binghampton.So is I-86 from the state line to I-81 now officially I-86 the whole length? I was getting mixed signals today taking I-86 on the way out to Michigan. I saw some plain I-86 signs, a TO I-86 sign near Vestal, and some only NY 17 signs randomly between Vestal and Waverly.No. It's officially I-86 between I-90 and US 220 and I-81 though NY 79. There's still one project that needs to happen just west of Binghamton before we can have a Grand Unified I-86 (presuming nothing gets designated as a result of the current widening effort before that gets done).
That appears to be the last at-grade section left.
Yeah I’m thinking about using my MTA ezpass again since I’m mostly in NJ and NYI got my Maryland one away back when they did not charge service fees (they do now) I did have a MTA toll tag but I can’t find it plus I used to live in NJ so the replenish amount was almost around $300 I ended up paying in cash or getting billed by plate.Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.Don't you know the answer?I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
But IMHO, it's a broken promise. It was originally billed as an EZ-Pass is an EZ-Pass and you just needed one. But quickly morphed into not all EZ-Passes are the same and where yours was issued affects what you pay. I would not be surprised if some people get multiple ones so they can get the various state discounts and change them as they move from one state to another. At least Illinois, where I live, extends the EZ/I-Pass rate to all EZ-Passes but it's the exception these days.
Which will likely change the next time ISTHA needs more revenue for capital projects or there's a severe shortfall for operations. It did last for quite a while that you paid the discounted EZPass rate wherever you went. That mostly went out the window when agencies started moving to cashless tolling options, because I think the original idea baked into the discount is "we pay for fewer toll takers since fewer lanes are manned". I do also find it annoying, but that is the way of the world and there's little anyone can do about it. I fully expect that the next phase will be for state residency requirements for transponder service centers, so you'll suddenly have a lot of NJ residents who got NYS transponders to get tolling discounts for MTABT tolls and the like (since PANYNJ doesn't have any transponder discrimination, and even if they started that, given the bi-state nature of the agency, I imagine they'd include both NJCSC and the various NY agencies that issue transponders to continue to get discounted rate) be stuck having to pay the full tolls because they're not NYS residents.
When I first moved to Maryland, I also had a MD pass. I also dropped it when they started imposing the monthly fee. I was able to get a MTA tag, which doesn't charge a monthly fee. [That is usually hard to get as an out-of-state resident, since they try to push the PANYNJ tags which do charge a monthly fee. I was able to get one by using my sister's NY address and then later changing it to my billing address.]
Once Larry Hogan became governor of MD, he put in place several motorist friendly provisions like reducing tolls and ending the monthly fee on EZ-Pass by executive order. Even though MD's EZ-Pass is now free of the monthly fee, I decided to keep my MTA pass, since it is easy for a new governor to simply re-impose the fee in MD, but in NY the fee cannot be imposed without new legislation. I do take advantage of the lower fees with a NY EZ-Pass when I am in the NY area, but I have to pay the out-of-state rates when crossing the toll bridges in MD.
https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-items/e-zpass-everyone
I was watching the Capital District (really Albany/Rensselaer) meet and the bits about the Southside Route reignited some questions in my head. It seems to be conventional opinion that I-87 was supposed to follow the Southside Route to exit 23, but I'm not sure that's true. The proposed interchange (http://www.capitalhighways.mysite.com/cgi-bin/i/highways/m-ca/map.jpg) to tie into I-787 and the Mid-Crosstown appears to have no provisions at all for connecting it to the Thruway. Moreover, the Ultimate Highway Network map (https://nysroads.com/planned.php) (bottom of page) uses the same design and has the Thruway labeled as I-87, and doesn't show anything else that would tie the route in, except via the overlap with I-90 that exists in real life, unless perhaps something would have been worked into the Southside/NY 85 interchange (not depicted for whatever reason). Does anyone know anything more about how this would have fit together?Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Are they still planning to downgrade Interstate 787 into an at-grade boulevard, or removing a portion of it? If Interstate 787 is maintained, I would suggest modifying the southern terminus so Interstate 787 doesn't have to exit to access the Interstate 87/New York State Thruway.787 is not going anywhere at this point, but there is a rabid urbanist crowd blaming all the city problems on 787.
Are they still planning to downgrade Interstate 787 into an at-grade boulevard, or removing a portion of it? If Interstate 787 is maintained, I would suggest modifying the southern terminus so Interstate 787 doesn't have to exit to access the Interstate 87/New York State Thruway.
2019 AADT through downtown was in the area of 40-45k, a large portion of that being commuters to the various state office complexes or trucks serving the port. There's also the little issue of an elevated rail line running down the median and 787 being part of the city's flood protection system. Note that 787 through downtown was built on a railyard and port facilities.
I'm still waiting for the ramp park to be built in the I-787/US 9 interchange.I-787/US 9 could probably be downgraded to a diamond interchange (or variant thereof) and free up some nice land.
I don't think there is such thing as nice land in Albany - or in city centers of nearby cities.I'm still waiting for the ramp park to be built in the I-787/US 9 interchange.I-787/US 9 could probably be downgraded to a diamond interchange (or variant thereof) and free up some nice land.
Oh, and one thing to keep in mind about that interchange:I'm still waiting for the ramp park to be built in the I-787/US 9 interchange.I-787/US 9 could probably be downgraded to a diamond interchange (or variant thereof) and free up some nice land.
Oh, and one thing to keep in mind about that interchange:
Hudson is a navigable river at that point, so Dunn bridge (Rt. 9) has 60' vertical clearance above the channel (in high tide, I assume, and yes - Hudson is tidal in Albany)
if you look at the other side of the river, there is seemingly meaningless 360 deg ramp to the bridge. It is actually a descent ramp.
It is, and in a sense I mentioned that when I referred to tides in Albany. but I believe the legal name for that body of water is still "Hudson River".Oh, and one thing to keep in mind about that interchange:
Hudson is a navigable river at that point, so Dunn bridge (Rt. 9) has 60' vertical clearance above the channel (in high tide, I assume, and yes - Hudson is tidal in Albany)
if you look at the other side of the river, there is seemingly meaningless 360 deg ramp to the bridge. It is actually a descent ramp.
I believe technically, it's not a river south of Troy, it's a tidal estuary (as is the East River which is even less of a river). More specifically, it appears to be a "drowned river valley" type of estuary.
I am talking about the northern interchange at Clinton Ave.Oh, and one thing to keep in mind about that interchange:I'm still waiting for the ramp park to be built in the I-787/US 9 interchange.I-787/US 9 could probably be downgraded to a diamond interchange (or variant thereof) and free up some nice land.
Hudson is a navigable river at that point, so Dunn bridge (Rt. 9) has 60' vertical clearance above the channel (in high tide, I assume, and yes - Hudson is tidal in Albany)
if you look at the other side of the river, there is seemingly meaningless 360 deg ramp to the bridge. It is actually a descent ramp.
It is, and in a sense I mentioned that when I referred to tides in Albany. but I believe the legal name for that body of water is still "Hudson River".
Ya know, I was thinking of US 9/I-90. Don't mind me.Oh, and one thing to keep in mind about that interchange:I'm still waiting for the ramp park to be built in the I-787/US 9 interchange.I-787/US 9 could probably be downgraded to a diamond interchange (or variant thereof) and free up some nice land.
Hudson is a navigable river at that point, so Dunn bridge (Rt. 9) has 60' vertical clearance above the channel (in high tide, I assume, and yes - Hudson is tidal in Albany)
if you look at the other side of the river, there is seemingly meaningless 360 deg ramp to the bridge. It is actually a descent ramp.
I got my Maryland one away back when they did not charge service fees (they do now) I did have a MTA toll tag but I can’t find it plus I used to live in NJ so the replenish amount was almost around $300 I ended up paying in cash or getting billed by plate.Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.Don't you know the answer?I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
But IMHO, it's a broken promise. It was originally billed as an EZ-Pass is an EZ-Pass and you just needed one. But quickly morphed into not all EZ-Passes are the same and where yours was issued affects what you pay. I would not be surprised if some people get multiple ones so they can get the various state discounts and change them as they move from one state to another. At least Illinois, where I live, extends the EZ/I-Pass rate to all EZ-Passes but it's the exception these days.
Which will likely change the next time ISTHA needs more revenue for capital projects or there's a severe shortfall for operations. It did last for quite a while that you paid the discounted EZPass rate wherever you went. That mostly went out the window when agencies started moving to cashless tolling options, because I think the original idea baked into the discount is "we pay for fewer toll takers since fewer lanes are manned". I do also find it annoying, but that is the way of the world and there's little anyone can do about it. I fully expect that the next phase will be for state residency requirements for transponder service centers, so you'll suddenly have a lot of NJ residents who got NYS transponders to get tolling discounts for MTABT tolls and the like (since PANYNJ doesn't have any transponder discrimination, and even if they started that, given the bi-state nature of the agency, I imagine they'd include both NJCSC and the various NY agencies that issue transponders to continue to get discounted rate) be stuck having to pay the full tolls because they're not NYS residents.
When I first moved to Maryland, I also had a MD pass. I also dropped it when they started imposing the monthly fee. I was able to get a MTA tag, which doesn't charge a monthly fee. [That is usually hard to get as an out-of-state resident, since they try to push the PANYNJ tags which do charge a monthly fee. I was able to get one by using my sister's NY address and then later changing it to my billing address.]
Once Larry Hogan became governor of MD, he put in place several motorist friendly provisions like reducing tolls and ending the monthly fee on EZ-Pass by executive order. Even though MD's EZ-Pass is now free of the monthly fee, I decided to keep my MTA pass, since it is easy for a new governor to simply re-impose the fee in MD, but in NY the fee cannot be imposed without new legislation. I do take advantage of the lower fees with a NY EZ-Pass when I am in the NY area, but I have to pay the out-of-state rates when crossing the toll bridges in MD.
https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-items/e-zpass-everyone
I got my Maryland one away back when they did not charge service fees (they do now) I did have a MTA toll tag but I can’t find it plus I used to live in NJ so the replenish amount was almost around $300 I ended up paying in cash or getting billed by plate.Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.Don't you know the answer?I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
But IMHO, it's a broken promise. It was originally billed as an EZ-Pass is an EZ-Pass and you just needed one. But quickly morphed into not all EZ-Passes are the same and where yours was issued affects what you pay. I would not be surprised if some people get multiple ones so they can get the various state discounts and change them as they move from one state to another. At least Illinois, where I live, extends the EZ/I-Pass rate to all EZ-Passes but it's the exception these days.
Which will likely change the next time ISTHA needs more revenue for capital projects or there's a severe shortfall for operations. It did last for quite a while that you paid the discounted EZPass rate wherever you went. That mostly went out the window when agencies started moving to cashless tolling options, because I think the original idea baked into the discount is "we pay for fewer toll takers since fewer lanes are manned". I do also find it annoying, but that is the way of the world and there's little anyone can do about it. I fully expect that the next phase will be for state residency requirements for transponder service centers, so you'll suddenly have a lot of NJ residents who got NYS transponders to get tolling discounts for MTABT tolls and the like (since PANYNJ doesn't have any transponder discrimination, and even if they started that, given the bi-state nature of the agency, I imagine they'd include both NJCSC and the various NY agencies that issue transponders to continue to get discounted rate) be stuck having to pay the full tolls because they're not NYS residents.
When I first moved to Maryland, I also had a MD pass. I also dropped it when they started imposing the monthly fee. I was able to get a MTA tag, which doesn't charge a monthly fee. [That is usually hard to get as an out-of-state resident, since they try to push the PANYNJ tags which do charge a monthly fee. I was able to get one by using my sister's NY address and then later changing it to my billing address.]
Once Larry Hogan became governor of MD, he put in place several motorist friendly provisions like reducing tolls and ending the monthly fee on EZ-Pass by executive order. Even though MD's EZ-Pass is now free of the monthly fee, I decided to keep my MTA pass, since it is easy for a new governor to simply re-impose the fee in MD, but in NY the fee cannot be imposed without new legislation. I do take advantage of the lower fees with a NY EZ-Pass when I am in the NY area, but I have to pay the out-of-state rates when crossing the toll bridges in MD.
https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-items/e-zpass-everyone
Maryland's E-ZPass still has a monthly fee if you don't have a MD address and don't have 3 Maryland toll transactions in a month. I have the Hatem Bridge E-ZPass ($20/yr, only works on that bridge) on top of my New York one, because that crossing is the largest single toll on my drive between Baltimore/DC and Philadelphia.
Cross-posting this from another thread, regarding the intersection of NY 286 and Five Mile Line Road in Penfield:I was in that area today. Looks really nice there.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.
Doesn't the Hatem have a good commuter plan that makes it significantly cheaper than I-95 for frequent travelers?Maryland's E-ZPass still has a monthly fee if you don't have a MD address and don't have 3 Maryland toll transactions in a month. I have the Hatem Bridge E-ZPass ($20/yr, only works on that bridge) on top of my New York one, because that crossing is the largest single toll on my drive between Baltimore/DC and Philadelphia.Why do you have to take the Hatem?
Is it $20/yr for unlimited use? I suppose as long as you drive up that way at least three times a year, it's a deal with a time cost.Doesn't the Hatem have a good commuter plan that makes it significantly cheaper than I-95 for frequent travelers?Maryland's E-ZPass still has a monthly fee if you don't have a MD address and don't have 3 Maryland toll transactions in a month. I have the Hatem Bridge E-ZPass ($20/yr, only works on that bridge) on top of my New York one, because that crossing is the largest single toll on my drive between Baltimore/DC and Philadelphia.Why do you have to take the Hatem?
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.
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.Cross-posting this from another thread, regarding the intersection of NY 286 and Five Mile Line Road in Penfield:I was in that area today. Looks really nice there.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.
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.Cross-posting this from another thread, regarding the intersection of NY 286 and Five Mile Line Road in Penfield:I was in that area today. Looks really nice there.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.Uptown state office campus is still there...
https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php
https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/
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/
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.
Wut?Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.Uptown state office campus is still there...
https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php
https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/
I am talking about shifting state offices to the uptown campus as they were before Cuomo. Nice access to 90 and 85.Wut?Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.Uptown state office campus is still there...
https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php
https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/
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.
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.I am talking about shifting state offices to the uptown campus as they were before Cuomo. Nice access to 90 and 85.Wut?Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.Uptown state office campus is still there...
https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php
https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/
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 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?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.I am talking about shifting state offices to the uptown campus as they were before Cuomo. Nice access to 90 and 85.Wut?Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.Uptown state office campus is still there...
https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php
https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/
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.
How does the campus tie into the proposal for I-787?
I don't think so. I am sure access to downtown will be preserved somehow of this thing actually happens.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?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.I am talking about shifting state offices to the uptown campus as they were before Cuomo. Nice access to 90 and 85.Wut?Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.Uptown state office campus is still there...
https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php
https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/
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.
How does the campus tie into the proposal for I-787?
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
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.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 don't think so. I am sure access to downtown will be preserved somehow of this thing actually happens.
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
Makes me wonder about the Port, though, and the more industrial sector in the south end. I'd imagine they'd be against it.
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/
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.
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.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.I am talking about shifting state offices to the uptown campus as they were before Cuomo. Nice access to 90 and 85.Wut?Looks like the efforts to remove I-787 are gaining momentum.Uptown state office campus is still there...
https://www.timesunion.com/churchill/article/Churchill-A-possible-beginning-to-787-s-end-16628814.php
https://www.albanyriverfrontcollaborative.com/
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.
How does the campus tie into the proposal for I-787?
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.
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:
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.
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;
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.
I misunderstood. Thanks.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.
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?
That was actually looked at as part of the Skyway project. For whatever reason the City of Albany didn't want US 9 to move there, so US 9 NB snakes along Quay Street, Water Street, Orange Street, and Broadway instead.QuoteHonestly, 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.
Hopefully 787 is kept but I don’t see why removing the circle would make that much of a difference if it is kept.The complaints are basically about the circle stack and wanting more connections to the park. South of there is the Port of Albany. Not much demand to walk or bike there. It's worth noting however that the proposal does indeed rip out the freeway south of the circle too; there's a light at Green Street.
Edit: I haven’t even been to Albany so I’m not familiar with how useful this road is but why keep it an interstate all the way to the circle and then downgrade it to a boulevard north of it?
Question, I pass by this interchange a lot, why not slap a 684 shield on here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1074535,-73.7990098,3a,18.1y,322.38h,92.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sREsmA_5BmuYt0ZVurPAFeQ!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192
I found another example today of Region-10 eliminating overhead sign gantries and replacing with (in this case) really cheezy looking ground mounted signs more suitable for local roads than a six-lane divided state highway with signalized intersections. NY 25, Jericho Tpk in Old Westbury, westbound at the NY 25B split.Sounds like a temporary sign that was put down because the overhead sign structure failed inspection (you really don't want those falling onto traffic).
Overhead signs there for the last fifty years now gone. The original button-copy signs from the 1968 road widening had been replaced some years ago, but I believe it was a fifty-year old triangular-truss gantry.
I figure it'll take about one winter season for all the new ground-mounted signs to get knocked down. They're only built on thin metal stanchions, not the beams usually used for large BGS's. NYS DOT at their short-sighted best, just like with their traffic-signal back-plates that fall away after a few years.
Exploring one of the rural roads in Upstate New York with a very interesting history, the Pre-Emption Road in places like Yates and Ontario Counties. It's not often that you come across a random road based on an 18th Century surveying line.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/finding-pre-emption-road-of-new-york.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/finding-pre-emption-road-of-new-york.html)
Question, I pass by this interchange a lot, why not slap a 684 shield on here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1074535,-73.7990098,3a,18.1y,322.38h,92.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sREsmA_5BmuYt0ZVurPAFeQ!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Too easy😄 :wave: :bigass:Question, I pass by this interchange a lot, why not slap a 684 shield on here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1074535,-73.7990098,3a,18.1y,322.38h,92.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sREsmA_5BmuYt0ZVurPAFeQ!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Good question. Amazing to view 50-55 year old concrete pavements, guard rail, and center rail still present, and in use.
Exploring one of the rural roads in Upstate New York with a very interesting history, the Pre-Emption Road in places like Yates and Ontario Counties. It's not often that you come across a random road based on an 18th Century surveying line.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/finding-pre-emption-road-of-new-york.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/finding-pre-emption-road-of-new-york.html)
Yeah, that's a quirky one. Now do Transit Road!
Question, I pass by this interchange a lot, why not slap a 684 shield on here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1074535,-73.7990098,3a,18.1y,322.38h,92.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sREsmA_5BmuYt0ZVurPAFeQ!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Good question. Amazing to view 50-55 year old concrete pavements, guard rail, and center rail still present, and in use.
Thought you guys might get a kick out of this, a few days ago, I noticed NYSDOT installed a FREEWAY ENTRANCE sign getting on I-84 West from US 9 North in Fishkill. Or is it "the" 84 now? Lol. I noticed a similar PARKWAY ENTRANCE sign getting on the Saw Mill north from 9A near Hawthorneeither the image has been taken down or i'm hated by google
Can tell you now it's not just a region 8 thing. Have seen similar signs at I-990/North French Rd and NY 400/NY 277 within the past month or so.Yep. NYSDOT is installing them around the entire state.
Speaking of signs on NYS roads, this 2-yo article may be of interest (I don't have time to read the whole thing now)...Those signs actually have their own thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19147.0), though there hasn't been a post in that thread in the two years since the signs were modified under the terms of an agreement with FHWA to authorize them on an experimental basis. The large signs were modified to change the "welcome to" font and replace the website and app with the region name and retained where they were in most locations. The small signs were removed from the roads and relocated to welcome centers, rest areas, service areas, etc. The Mohawk Valley and North Country regions are "control" regions; Mohawk Valley only has signs on the borders, and North Country has no signs at all.
https://thegate.boardingarea.com/why-this-highway-sign-in-new-york-was-controversial/
Have those signs been replaced?
Yes, freeway/expressway/parkway entrace signs are going up around the state, though locations like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1214716,-77.6496547,3a,34.1y,44.31h,87.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJojZwInmRpBoem1p7pmsYg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (which had "expressway entrance" signs installed after Google went through) are being prioritized.Region 5 is also using expressway from what I noticed over Thanksgiving weekend.
Whether "freeway" or "expressway" is used seems to depend on Region. Region 1 uses "freeway". Region 2 used "expressway" initially (https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=ny49&state=NY&file=102_1250.JPG), but now seems to use "freeway" per street view (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1495638,-75.2931338,3a,15.1y,339.72h,89.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sU94aHEvW1ADxfezzTh-c0w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DU94aHEvW1ADxfezzTh-c0w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D170.38211%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192). Region 4 uses "expressway". I haven't observed the ones in other regions.
Darn, I don't mind the signs, but it would have been nice to see either "freeway" or "expressway" used consistently statewide. I'd prefer freeway personally, but value consistency over term.I don't like the signs. Trailblazers do well enough.
Darn, I don't mind the signs, but it would have been nice to see either "freeway" or "expressway" used consistently statewide. I'd prefer freeway personally, but value consistency over term.I don't like the signs. Trailblazers do well enough.
Darn, I don't mind the signs, but it would have been nice to see either "freeway" or "expressway" used consistently statewide. I'd prefer freeway personally, but value consistency over term.
An expressway is defined in the Manual as a divided highway with partial control of access. (Sec. 1A-13, page 14) So Rockaway Freeway and Nassau Expressway are decidedly mis-named as both are really boulevards. LOL
The Irondequoit Bay Outlet Bridge (or IBOB for short) is a bobtail swing truss bridge and is located at the north end of Irondequoit Bay, just outside of Rochester, New York. Yes, I blogged about it and uncovered more than I could have imagined.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/irondequoit-bay-outlet-bridge-monroe.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/irondequoit-bay-outlet-bridge-monroe.html)
What was this building on US 219 near I-86/NY 17? '
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1510828,-78.7071389,3a,75y,259.04h,101.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spPQbrwGq5zzO7gpY-6oJxQ!2e0!5s20090801T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1510828,-78.7071389,3a,75y,259.04h,101.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spPQbrwGq5zzO7gpY-6oJxQ!2e0!5s20090801T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)
Was it transpotation related, or Allegheney State Park
Sign error on NY 22 in Patterson Township:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4930161,-73.5789152,3a,75y,243.89h,83.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc-ZCmEI8M_Y-pacgsctxvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4930161,-73.5789152,3a,75y,243.89h,83.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc-ZCmEI8M_Y-pacgsctxvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
Isn't there another thread for this?
what makes it even more confusing is you have the Nassau Expressway which isnt limited access like the others. Then theres the strange "Rockaway Freeway" down here in Queens.Nassau Expressway was supposed to be entirely a limited-access highway, but too many people forgot about this and they let developers build structures that got in the way of potential upgrades.
this is true
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0566955,-73.7660377,3a,42.3y,180.81h,96.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRdmsGTiFEaZho0l7z98BJA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DRdmsGTiFEaZho0l7z98BJA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D200.4863%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
they need to do something about the really bad weaving and merge of 95 and Pelham Parkway and Hutchison Parkway in The Bronx. If they used the extra room within the ROW of the pelham cloverleaf they could do those braided ramps you see in other states.
they need to do something about the really bad weaving and merge of 95 and Pelham Parkway and Hutchison Parkway in The Bronx. If they used the extra room within the ROW of the pelham cloverleaf they could do those braided ramps you see in other states.
The only thing I've heard about it....https://www.bxtimes.com/state-reveals-backup-plan-i-95-north-improvements-to-end-bottleneck/
Some Newsday readers, like this June 15th, 1966 letter to Newsday provided by Art's Kleiner's Korner, even went so far to complain about the 'destruction of century-old trees [along Jericho]' and claim it to be 'another pork barrel for labor unions, contractors, and politicians'Um, didn't they also destroy "century old trees" to make Motor Parkway? Also, if the Long Island Expressway hadn't been built traffic would've been even worse, not better. The same goes for the widening of NY 25. And why is it "pork barrel for labor unions, contractors, and politicians" when these roads are built, but not when Motor Parkway was built?
they need to do something about the really bad weaving and merge of 95 and Pelham Parkway and Hutchison Parkway in The Bronx. If they used the extra room within the ROW of the pelham cloverleaf they could do those braided ramps you see in other states.
The only thing I've heard about it....https://www.bxtimes.com/state-reveals-backup-plan-i-95-north-improvements-to-end-bottleneck/
Historic Aerials has some evidence of NY 22B continuing past NY 3 in Morrisonville into Plattsburg towards NY 22. Anybody have any more details about this?
I got my Maryland one away back when they did not charge service fees (they do now) I did have a MTA toll tag but I can’t find it plus I used to live in NJ so the replenish amount was almost around $300 I ended up paying in cash or getting billed by plate.Well that also is a factor in it but how can they keep saying it’s faster when pretty much most states don’t have toll booths as well. I understand some may forget or never get the toll by mail but I guess any extra money no matter the means is extra income.Don't you know the answer?I wish MTA would stop the transponder discrimination, but I'll probably start using the Verrazano both ways now every time.This right here… when in the hell did this start? I’ve had a MD ez pass for over 15 years why do I need to pay the cash rate? If that’s the case why use my ez pass at all?
Because you don't vote here, and we need money. EZpass is about convenience as much as it is about rates. With AET you would pay cash rate + overhead anyway.
But IMHO, it's a broken promise. It was originally billed as an EZ-Pass is an EZ-Pass and you just needed one. But quickly morphed into not all EZ-Passes are the same and where yours was issued affects what you pay. I would not be surprised if some people get multiple ones so they can get the various state discounts and change them as they move from one state to another. At least Illinois, where I live, extends the EZ/I-Pass rate to all EZ-Passes but it's the exception these days.
Which will likely change the next time ISTHA needs more revenue for capital projects or there's a severe shortfall for operations. It did last for quite a while that you paid the discounted EZPass rate wherever you went. That mostly went out the window when agencies started moving to cashless tolling options, because I think the original idea baked into the discount is "we pay for fewer toll takers since fewer lanes are manned". I do also find it annoying, but that is the way of the world and there's little anyone can do about it. I fully expect that the next phase will be for state residency requirements for transponder service centers, so you'll suddenly have a lot of NJ residents who got NYS transponders to get tolling discounts for MTABT tolls and the like (since PANYNJ doesn't have any transponder discrimination, and even if they started that, given the bi-state nature of the agency, I imagine they'd include both NJCSC and the various NY agencies that issue transponders to continue to get discounted rate) be stuck having to pay the full tolls because they're not NYS residents.
When I first moved to Maryland, I also had a MD pass. I also dropped it when they started imposing the monthly fee. I was able to get a MTA tag, which doesn't charge a monthly fee. [That is usually hard to get as an out-of-state resident, since they try to push the PANYNJ tags which do charge a monthly fee. I was able to get one by using my sister's NY address and then later changing it to my billing address.]
Once Larry Hogan became governor of MD, he put in place several motorist friendly provisions like reducing tolls and ending the monthly fee on EZ-Pass by executive order. Even though MD's EZ-Pass is now free of the monthly fee, I decided to keep my MTA pass, since it is easy for a new governor to simply re-impose the fee in MD, but in NY the fee cannot be imposed without new legislation. I do take advantage of the lower fees with a NY EZ-Pass when I am in the NY area, but I have to pay the out-of-state rates when crossing the toll bridges in MD.
https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-items/e-zpass-everyone
Maryland's E-ZPass still has a monthly fee if you don't have a MD address and don't have 3 Maryland toll transactions in a month. I have the Hatem Bridge E-ZPass ($20/yr, only works on that bridge) on top of my New York one, because that crossing is the largest single toll on my drive between Baltimore/DC and Philadelphia.
The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it. I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx
The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it. I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:As part of a group which spent quite a few hours discussing 3 lines from that policy book, I wonder how much of it is a carryover from Cuomo and reflects what was going on under his rule.
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx
The Skyway basically lost all support other than Cuomo between when he talked about it and now. It's safe for now, but I wouldn't be surprised if it came up again the next time it needs major maintenance.The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it. I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx
It sounds like the Skyway, the Kensington, and the Scajaquada are all going to stay.
No mention of the BQE though.
This is interesting, Cortlandt's Master Plan (https://www.townofcortlandt.com/documents/2016_mp/cortlandt%20master%20plan_40423_final_web%20march%2015%202016%20adopted.pdf) calls for the completion of the Bear Mountain Parkway
[2016] RecommendationAnyone know if that's still in play?
- Extending the parkway and completing the original plan of a limited access connection directly to the Taconic State Parkway–There is an existing undeveloped parkway right-of-way owned by New York State that extends from the eastern terminus of the parkway at Route 35/202, eastward to the Taconic Parkway. At this time, the NYSDOT is studying alternatives for connecting the Bear Mountain Parkway with the Taconic State Parkway as part of the Sustainable Development Study of the Route 6, Bear Mountain Parkway and the Route 35/202 corridors which involves the Towns of Cortlandt and Yorktown, the City of Peekskill, the Westchester County Planning Department, and the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council.
This is interesting, Cortlandt's Master Plan (https://www.townofcortlandt.com/documents/2016_mp/cortlandt%20master%20plan_40423_final_web%20march%2015%202016%20adopted.pdf) calls for the completion of the Bear Mountain ParkwayQuote[2016] RecommendationAnyone know if that's still in play?
- Extending the parkway and completing the original plan of a limited access connection directly to the Taconic State Parkway–There is an existing undeveloped parkway right-of-way owned by New York State that extends from the eastern terminus of the parkway at Route 35/202, eastward to the Taconic Parkway. At this time, the NYSDOT is studying alternatives for connecting the Bear Mountain Parkway with the Taconic State Parkway as part of the Sustainable Development Study of the Route 6, Bear Mountain Parkway and the Route 35/202 corridors which involves the Towns of Cortlandt and Yorktown, the City of Peekskill, the Westchester County Planning Department, and the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council.
At this point, just extend the 35/202 widening west to the western segment of the parkway and call it a day.
The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it. I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:As part of a group which spent quite a few hours discussing 3 lines from that policy book, I wonder how much of it is a carryover from Cuomo and reflects what was going on under his rule.
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx
As a matter of fact, LGA airtrain - a hot topic, suspended after Cuomo fall - is not even mentioned.
Yeah, Cuomo isn't what NYC need. Robert Moses, city really needs you back!The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it. I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:As part of a group which spent quite a few hours discussing 3 lines from that policy book, I wonder how much of it is a carryover from Cuomo and reflects what was going on under his rule.
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx
As a matter of fact, LGA airtrain - a hot topic, suspended after Cuomo fall - is not even mentioned.
The LGA air train was always a Cuomo strong-arm thing to make some of his political cronies happy and do nothing useful for getting mass transit service to the airport. A reverse legged thing that hooked up to the LIRR instead of the Subway was always dumb. The JFK AirTrain was not a perfect thing, but it hooked up with both and took a mostly direct route to and from the airport. Honestly it would be nice for them to just really move the needle on getting the BMT Astoria line extended out to the airport and telling the Astoria NIMBYs where to shove it.
Minus the racism, I’d love to have a Moses back. I do like the Midtown Expressway but I wish he could have built it around or through the Empire State building and not have it torn down. Thankfully it wasn’t. I wish we could build a tolled elevated freeway through New York like Tokyo has.Yeah, Cuomo isn't what NYC need. Robert Moses, city really needs you back!The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it. I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:As part of a group which spent quite a few hours discussing 3 lines from that policy book, I wonder how much of it is a carryover from Cuomo and reflects what was going on under his rule.
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx
As a matter of fact, LGA airtrain - a hot topic, suspended after Cuomo fall - is not even mentioned.
The LGA air train was always a Cuomo strong-arm thing to make some of his political cronies happy and do nothing useful for getting mass transit service to the airport. A reverse legged thing that hooked up to the LIRR instead of the Subway was always dumb. The JFK AirTrain was not a perfect thing, but it hooked up with both and took a mostly direct route to and from the airport. Honestly it would be nice for them to just really move the needle on getting the BMT Astoria line extended out to the airport and telling the Astoria NIMBYs where to shove it.
Minus the racism, I’d love to have a Moses back. I do like the Midtown Expressway but I wish he could have built it around or through the Empire State building and not have it torn down. Thankfully it wasn’t. I wish we could build a tolled elevated freeway through New York like Tokyo has.Yeah, Cuomo isn't what NYC need. Robert Moses, city really needs you back!The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it. I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:As part of a group which spent quite a few hours discussing 3 lines from that policy book, I wonder how much of it is a carryover from Cuomo and reflects what was going on under his rule.
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx
As a matter of fact, LGA airtrain - a hot topic, suspended after Cuomo fall - is not even mentioned.
The LGA air train was always a Cuomo strong-arm thing to make some of his political cronies happy and do nothing useful for getting mass transit service to the airport. A reverse legged thing that hooked up to the LIRR instead of the Subway was always dumb. The JFK AirTrain was not a perfect thing, but it hooked up with both and took a mostly direct route to and from the airport. Honestly it would be nice for them to just really move the needle on getting the BMT Astoria line extended out to the airport and telling the Astoria NIMBYs where to shove it.
We don't need Robert Moses back. We also don't need more cars in NYC. We need to look at car reduction. I for one would rather start with canning the taxi service in Manhattan to open streets and increase subway usage.The man of La Mancha rides again.
We don't need Robert Moses back. We also don't need more cars in NYC. We need to look at car reduction. I for one would rather start with canning the taxi service in Manhattan to open streets and increase subway usage.The man of La Mancha rides again.
Whatever people are proposing - "correct" LGA train, through highway, new rail, improvement of this and that - would need an astronomical amount of money and a harsh war with affected people. SO it would either be a deep compromise, or things will never happen (even with compromise, I'm afraid precious little would change in foreseeable future)We don't need Robert Moses back. We also don't need more cars in NYC. We need to look at car reduction. I for one would rather start with canning the taxi service in Manhattan to open streets and increase subway usage.The man of La Mancha rides again.
More realistic than some of the Robert Moses projects people are proposing in this thread.
We don't need Robert Moses back. We also don't need more cars in NYC. We need to look at car reduction. I for one would rather start with canning the taxi service in Manhattan to open streets and increase subway usage.
We don't need Robert Moses back. We also don't need more cars in NYC. We need to look at car reduction. I for one would rather start with canning the taxi service in Manhattan to open streets and increase subway usage.I’d rather eliminate all bus and bike lanes and build an elevated viaduct over every road for freeways. Checkmate.
We don't need Robert Moses back. We also don't need more cars in NYC. We need to look at car reduction. I for one would rather start with canning the taxi service in Manhattan to open streets and increase subway usage.I’d rather eliminate all bus and bike lanes and build an elevated viaduct over every road for freeways. Checkmate.
Bus and bike lanes are necessary in the situation we're in. We don't need more freeways in NYC. We already have too many congested roads in the city. Eliminating taxis will eliminate a lot of traffic on the streets including much of the worst drivers.And how will that convenient point-to-point mode of transportation be replaced? By crowding unreliable public trans even further?
Bus and bike lanes are necessary in the situation we're in. We don't need more freeways in NYC. We already have too many congested roads in the city. Eliminating taxis will eliminate a lot of traffic on the streets including much of the worst drivers.And how will that convenient point-to-point mode of transportation be replaced? By crowding unreliable public trans even further?
If the cab drivers in Manhattan are anything like the cab drivers in DC, then yes for the sake of ALL transpo modes get rid of them...
So, there is a significant number of taxies, and they run with descent load factor. You suggest to replace them with Uber - OK, but do you think that would mean fewer cars? Or you assume that Uber drivers are born in a different manner compared to taxi folks? My bet taxies would just be repainted, with same cohort driving them..Bus and bike lanes are necessary in the situation we're in. We don't need more freeways in NYC. We already have too many congested roads in the city. Eliminating taxis will eliminate a lot of traffic on the streets including much of the worst drivers.And how will that convenient point-to-point mode of transportation be replaced? By crowding unreliable public trans even further?
You can open streets to streetcars or more buses. I also didn't leave out the idea of for-hires like Uber and Lyft, which usually are not as terrible drivers. The idea though is to get rid of more cars (not eliminate them) and leave private owned cars as the main ones on the road, along with trucks. With less cars on the streets, you can make delivery via trucks faster, making it healthier on the environment cause trucks won't be idling in the streets in massive traffic all the time trying to get to their destination.
Usually older people tend to recall how much better everything was back then - including sex...If the cab drivers in Manhattan are anything like the cab drivers in DC, then yes for the sake of ALL transpo modes get rid of them...
Oh they are, if not worse. They went from being some of the best drivers on the road to some of the worst in the span of 30-40 years.
So, there is a significant number of taxies, and they run with descent load factor. You suggest to replace them with Uber - OK, but do you think that would mean fewer cars? Or you assume that Uber drivers are born in a different manner compared to taxi folks? My bet taxies would just be repainted, with same cohort driving them..Bus and bike lanes are necessary in the situation we're in. We don't need more freeways in NYC. We already have too many congested roads in the city. Eliminating taxis will eliminate a lot of traffic on the streets including much of the worst drivers.And how will that convenient point-to-point mode of transportation be replaced? By crowding unreliable public trans even further?
You can open streets to streetcars or more buses. I also didn't leave out the idea of for-hires like Uber and Lyft, which usually are not as terrible drivers. The idea though is to get rid of more cars (not eliminate them) and leave private owned cars as the main ones on the road, along with trucks. With less cars on the streets, you can make delivery via trucks faster, making it healthier on the environment cause trucks won't be idling in the streets in massive traffic all the time trying to get to their destination.
Outlaw it for people. Yeah... just what happened with "we, the people"....So, there is a significant number of taxies, and they run with descent load factor. You suggest to replace them with Uber - OK, but do you think that would mean fewer cars? Or you assume that Uber drivers are born in a different manner compared to taxi folks? My bet taxies would just be repainted, with same cohort driving them..Bus and bike lanes are necessary in the situation we're in. We don't need more freeways in NYC. We already have too many congested roads in the city. Eliminating taxis will eliminate a lot of traffic on the streets including much of the worst drivers.And how will that convenient point-to-point mode of transportation be replaced? By crowding unreliable public trans even further?
You can open streets to streetcars or more buses. I also didn't leave out the idea of for-hires like Uber and Lyft, which usually are not as terrible drivers. The idea though is to get rid of more cars (not eliminate them) and leave private owned cars as the main ones on the road, along with trucks. With less cars on the streets, you can make delivery via trucks faster, making it healthier on the environment cause trucks won't be idling in the streets in massive traffic all the time trying to get to their destination.
I was assuming different manner, but regardless, again, you can outlaw that too. People will have to live without direct to home service.
Anyone know where this is? It's supposedly around an hour north of New York City. (Sorry about the small thumbnail. I had trouble getting it to upload at all.)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/rcmRLtT-HgdOvebbsWjo11G4iqsFKesZ_k5QY6siDbAhXsAS9t90sTGR-OyTO3v709qw5uc=s135)
Edited to add: OK, never mind, I think I found it–looks to be along this road (https://goo.gl/maps/rPGg4AYwyVzqKTxh6) seen here on Google Maps (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4289619,-73.6971824,931m/data=!3m1!1e3).
So, there is a significant number of taxies, and they run with descent load factor. You suggest to replace them with Uber - OK, but do you think that would mean fewer cars? Or you assume that Uber drivers are born in a different manner compared to taxi folks? My bet taxies would just be repainted, with same cohort driving them..Bus and bike lanes are necessary in the situation we're in. We don't need more freeways in NYC. We already have too many congested roads in the city. Eliminating taxis will eliminate a lot of traffic on the streets including much of the worst drivers.And how will that convenient point-to-point mode of transportation be replaced? By crowding unreliable public trans even further?
You can open streets to streetcars or more buses. I also didn't leave out the idea of for-hires like Uber and Lyft, which usually are not as terrible drivers. The idea though is to get rid of more cars (not eliminate them) and leave private owned cars as the main ones on the road, along with trucks. With less cars on the streets, you can make delivery via trucks faster, making it healthier on the environment cause trucks won't be idling in the streets in massive traffic all the time trying to get to their destination.
I was assuming different manner, but regardless, again, you can outlaw that too. People will have to live without direct to home service.
A reverse legged thing that hooked up to the LIRR instead of the Subway was always dumb.
You're not wrong.A reverse legged thing that hooked up to the LIRR instead of the Subway was always dumb.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the LGA AirTrain was set to hook up with the LIRR and the 7 at Mets-Willets Pt.
Minus the racism, I’d love to have a Moses back. I do like the Midtown Expressway but I wish he could have built it around or through the Empire State building and not have it torn down. Thankfully it wasn’t.A lot more than just the Midtown Manhattan Expressway, although not everything that was being proposed. Even during the debate over construction of the AirTrainJFK, which I didn't disagree with, I still felt the Clearview Expressway should've been revived. As far as I was concerned, the Van Wyck and the AirTrain to JFK weren't enough.
Minus the racism, I’d love to have a Moses back. I do like the Midtown Expressway but I wish he could have built it around or through the Empire State building and not have it torn down. Thankfully it wasn’t. I wish we could build a tolled elevated freeway through New York like Tokyo has.Yeah, Cuomo isn't what NYC need. Robert Moses, city really needs you back!The governor gave the state of the state recently and released a policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) along with it. I took a quick look, and while a lot of the plans are projects already underway, there are a few new things:As part of a group which spent quite a few hours discussing 3 lines from that policy book, I wonder how much of it is a carryover from Cuomo and reflects what was going on under his rule.
-Replace the Livingston Avenue rail bridge
-Resume the I-86 project in Sullivan and Orange Counties (basically, everything from Roscoe east)
-Reconfigure the Oakdale Merge on NY 27
-Elevate Annsville Circle (US 6/US 9/US 202) in Westchester County
-Remove the remainder of the Inner Loop
-Cover a portion of NY 33 in Buffalo
-Cover a portion of the Cross-Bronx
As a matter of fact, LGA airtrain - a hot topic, suspended after Cuomo fall - is not even mentioned.
The LGA air train was always a Cuomo strong-arm thing to make some of his political cronies happy and do nothing useful for getting mass transit service to the airport. A reverse legged thing that hooked up to the LIRR instead of the Subway was always dumb. The JFK AirTrain was not a perfect thing, but it hooked up with both and took a mostly direct route to and from the airport. Honestly it would be nice for them to just really move the needle on getting the BMT Astoria line extended out to the airport and telling the Astoria NIMBYs where to shove it.
The last thing Manhattan needs is an elevated highway bisecting through the heart of it. If the tech was more there, a tunneled route across midtown from tunnel to tunnel would have served very well.
^^^ the best alternative is an elevated freeway. Seriously put it 30 stories high like some science fiction movie and it wouldn’t impact a thing. Retrofit skyscrapers. It’s money stopping us. Not it being fiction.
Big reason to talk about that is a link to long island.^^^ the best alternative is an elevated freeway. Seriously put it 30 stories high like some science fiction movie and it wouldn’t impact a thing. Retrofit skyscrapers. It’s money stopping us. Not it being fiction.
through Midtown? Most buildings are at least 40 stories...
I think the truth is there's no easy way to put a freeway across Midtown, and there doesn't need to be. Different modes of transportation have different advantages, and freeways don't have the advantage in a super dense environment like Manhattan.
Big reason to talk about that is a link to long island.^^^ the best alternative is an elevated freeway. Seriously put it 30 stories high like some science fiction movie and it wouldn’t impact a thing. Retrofit skyscrapers. It’s money stopping us. Not it being fiction.
through Midtown? Most buildings are at least 40 stories...
I think the truth is there's no easy way to put a freeway across Midtown, and there doesn't need to be. Different modes of transportation have different advantages, and freeways don't have the advantage in a super dense environment like Manhattan.
The Town Seat of Oyster Bay does not speak for the rest of Long Island.Big reason to talk about that is a link to long island.^^^ the best alternative is an elevated freeway. Seriously put it 30 stories high like some science fiction movie and it wouldn’t impact a thing. Retrofit skyscrapers. It’s money stopping us. Not it being fiction.
through Midtown? Most buildings are at least 40 stories...
I think the truth is there's no easy way to put a freeway across Midtown, and there doesn't need to be. Different modes of transportation have different advantages, and freeways don't have the advantage in a super dense environment like Manhattan.
Long Island shot themselves in the foot when they opposed Oyster Bay-Rye. I have no sympathy for them, nor is it NYC's responsibility to ensure they have a link.
If they want a link, they can build their own.
Okay. another NY 22 question.Looking at the topos on HistoricAerials, it looks like the side roads are angled to not have to travel straight up & down the incline.
What's up with the intersections of Corbin Road and Reservoir Road in the Town of Pawling?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.574881,-73.5925452,809m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Okay. another NY 22 question.Looking at the topos on HistoricAerials, it looks like the side roads are angled to not have to travel straight up & down the incline.
What's up with the intersections of Corbin Road and Reservoir Road in the Town of Pawling?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.574881,-73.5925452,809m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Highways are almost always canceled due to cost, not NIMBYism. I don't think a few rich people in Oyster Bay could override the support for the Bridge that would've come from countless interest groups.
The ultimate issue was that Long Island grew far less than anticipated after 1970. They had been expecting LI to rival NYC in population by 2020. That didn't happen. Fewer people means less toll revenue to pay for the bridge
Highways are almost always canceled due to cost, not NIMBYism. I don't think a few rich people in Oyster Bay could override the support for the Bridge that would've come from countless interest groups.
The ultimate issue was that Long Island grew far less than anticipated after 1970. They had been expecting LI to rival NYC in population by 2020. That didn't happen. Fewer people means less toll revenue to pay for the bridge
Kernals12, I think you are mistaken about the politics of the Oyster Bay-Rye Bridge (or tunnel). More than a few rich people on the North Shore of Long Island have great influence with our politicians who control the purse strings. And yes they probably do wield enough juice to greatly influence whether projects like this ever get built.
Also if that bridge were built there would surely be lots of toll revenue to pay for the project. Long Island, especially Suffolk County has grown far more than you think since 1970. As an example the busiest traffic spot on the Long Island Expwy. in 1970 was at the Queens-Nassau County Line. Today the busiest spot is at the interchange of NY Rt. 135, just west of the Nassau-Suffolk Line.
I guess you haven't driven on Long Island recently.
New York's 1968 demographic forecast estimated 6.7 million for both (https://archive.org/details/demographicproje00newy/page/n9/mode/2up) by 2020. In reality, it was less than half that.
New York's 1968 demographic forecast estimated 6.7 million for both (https://archive.org/details/demographicproje00newy/page/n9/mode/2up) by 2020. In reality, it was less than half that.
This sounds like a nationwide miss. 1968 was in the baby boom (although on the tail end), and they might have expected it to continue.
Long Island isn't even capable of building sanitary sewer. There seems to be no political interest in accommodating growth or improving infrastructure at all. So I don't care about their highway woes. Cost is a big factor but if there's no push to build anything or stand up to NIMBYs, you will definitely get nothing.
(EDIT): found an article (https://www.observertoday.com/news/page-one/2020/08/widening-portions-of-rt-60-begins/) on the project. They built a ~1/2mi long passing lane in each direction near Sinclairville. The northbound lane begins just north of the Cassadaga Valley Central School (2021 GMSV of the beginning (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2592504,-79.2843215,3a,59.6y,298.89h,87.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa8zVzLbyg-4MoynvRbaVHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)), while the southbound lane is between Moon Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2833008,-79.2957551,3a,29.8y,184.06h,92.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVab8lC3aAppnWTEEmZtbng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and Charlotte Hill Rd.
(EDIT): found an article (https://www.observertoday.com/news/page-one/2020/08/widening-portions-of-rt-60-begins/) on the project. They built a ~1/2mi long passing lane in each direction near Sinclairville. The northbound lane begins just north of the Cassadaga Valley Central School (2021 GMSV of the beginning (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2592504,-79.2843215,3a,59.6y,298.89h,87.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa8zVzLbyg-4MoynvRbaVHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)), while the southbound lane is between Moon Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2833008,-79.2957551,3a,29.8y,184.06h,92.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVab8lC3aAppnWTEEmZtbng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and Charlotte Hill Rd.
That's interesting, thanks! I'd like to see more passing lanes in other areas of the state, so hopefully this is a positive indicator.
I noticed something else interesting while browsing that area: "End divided highway (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2576417,-79.2805106,3a,19.7y,109.68h,87.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXhv1XgqKRLFER6BGN7ccBg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)" signs in use at the end of a turning lane. Never seen that before.
Has anyone else noticed that some of the signs in the NYC area are peeling badly? I noticed a rather jarring example the other day going upstate when we got on the Van Wyck and the first thing I see is a nearly blank sign for Exits 1W-2, and that's bad considering that's the exit leading to the road to New Jersey... I noticed a couple of other examples on the way up as well.
Long Island isn't even capable of building sanitary sewer. There seems to be no political interest in accommodating growth or improving infrastructure at all. So I don't care about their highway woes. Cost is a big factor but if there's no push to build anything or stand up to NIMBYs, you will definitely get nothing.Heaven forbid, but if some civil emergency occurred in the future where an evacuation of Long Island was necessary, and people died because the infrastructure couldn't handle the evacuation, maybe then you would get something.
I've been doing a little research on Jones Beach and Tobay Beach, since I took pictures of both on my November 2021 road trip, and to my surprise Bay Parkway was originally split between the Meadowbrook-Ocean Parkway termini. The segment at the West End Beach was originally a RIRO configuration, and the segment east of that point had a south to west flyunder ramp beneath the west-to-north lane of Ocean-Meadowbrook with U-Turns on both sides.Interesting. I guess that explains why the state reference route for the Bay Parkway only goes between the Meandowbrook and Wantagh without a stub to the fee booths like the other parkways have; the remainder is inventoried like a local road extending it.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=15&lat=40.61107&lon=-73.42985
This should be added to the Wikipedia article.
NYS DOT may be trying to call attention to the bridge heights. The last couple of years there is an increasing problem of large trucks illegally getting on the parkways and ripping off their roofs trying to go under the bridges. It's become way too common. It seems like every day the troopers are escorting big trucks off the parkways and presumably ticketing the drivers.
A project is in the works to addess Onondaga Lake Parkway. Detailed design due this FFY.NYS DOT may be trying to call attention to the bridge heights. The last couple of years there is an increasing problem of large trucks illegally getting on the parkways and ripping off their roofs trying to go under the bridges. It's become way too common. It seems like every day the troopers are escorting big trucks off the parkways and presumably ticketing the drivers.
Bridge strikes have been a growing issue nationwide. Blame drivers blindly following GPS and phone directions that do not include truck restrictions.
Upstate, there are at least 2 bridges notorious for frequent strikes (one each near Albany and Syracuse), and the Albany-area one has received far more signs in recent months.
Long Island isn't even capable of building sanitary sewer. There seems to be no political interest in accommodating growth or improving infrastructure at all. So I don't care about their highway woes. Cost is a big factor but if there's no push to build anything or stand up to NIMBYs, you will definitely get nothing.Heaven forbid, but if some civil emergency occurred in the future where an evacuation of Long Island was necessary, and people died because the infrastructure couldn't handle the evacuation, maybe then you would get something.
How does the MUTCD allow for this?
https://goo.gl/maps/C5bHbtgpKQULzFPC8
https://goo.gl/maps/ciJ9ekXVgwnNcviE6
How does the MUTCD allow for this?
https://goo.gl/maps/C5bHbtgpKQULzFPC8
https://goo.gl/maps/ciJ9ekXVgwnNcviE6
To be honest I'm surprised that still exists. That intersection doesn't really warrant a signal and could be an all way stop instead. I guess they keep it for historical reasons.How does the MUTCD allow for this?
https://goo.gl/maps/C5bHbtgpKQULzFPC8
https://goo.gl/maps/ciJ9ekXVgwnNcviE6
It’s been that way for many, many decades. It’s pretty much reached landmark status. It’s not going to be changed. Every time it’s been changed, it’s been vandalized.
IMO 4 way Stops are worse than reversed colors, though I guess for those who are red-green colorblind this could be a serious issue.To be honest I'm surprised that still exists. That intersection doesn't really warrant a signal and could be an all way stop instead. I guess they keep it for historical reasons.How does the MUTCD allow for this?
https://goo.gl/maps/C5bHbtgpKQULzFPC8
https://goo.gl/maps/ciJ9ekXVgwnNcviE6
It’s been that way for many, many decades. It’s pretty much reached landmark status. It’s not going to be changed. Every time it’s been changed, it’s been vandalized.
Interestingly, normal red on top signals are used in Ireland itself.
If they are that colorblind, then they probably have a host of other issues on the road.IMO 4 way Stops are worse than reversed colors, though I guess for those who are red-green colorblind this could be a serious issue.To be honest I'm surprised that still exists. That intersection doesn't really warrant a signal and could be an all way stop instead. I guess they keep it for historical reasons.How does the MUTCD allow for this?
https://goo.gl/maps/C5bHbtgpKQULzFPC8
https://goo.gl/maps/ciJ9ekXVgwnNcviE6
It’s been that way for many, many decades. It’s pretty much reached landmark status. It’s not going to be changed. Every time it’s been changed, it’s been vandalized.
Interestingly, normal red on top signals are used in Ireland itself.
If they are that colorblind, then they probably have a host of other issues on the road.IMO 4 way Stops are worse than reversed colors, though I guess for those who are red-green colorblind this could be a serious issue.To be honest I'm surprised that still exists. That intersection doesn't really warrant a signal and could be an all way stop instead. I guess they keep it for historical reasons.How does the MUTCD allow for this?
https://goo.gl/maps/C5bHbtgpKQULzFPC8
https://goo.gl/maps/ciJ9ekXVgwnNcviE6
It’s been that way for many, many decades. It’s pretty much reached landmark status. It’s not going to be changed. Every time it’s been changed, it’s been vandalized.
Interestingly, normal red on top signals are used in Ireland itself.
I'm red-green colorblind. No problems here.
I do think that some dumb drivers would assume that the position of the lights would mean stop or go, rather than the color...colorblind or not.
I need some transportation engineers here. Back in November I drove the entirety of Jones Beach Island, and despite not being a Town of Oyster Bay resident, I stopped at Tobay Beach. In the center pedestrian path between the parking lot and the Atlantic Ocean, I saw some exposed wire mesh beneath the bridges of Ocean Parkway.I would think that orange spray lines on top and bottom image outline the scale of planned work. Lines are pretty faded - looks like things were planned but put on a back burner for some reason.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-1.jpg/640px-Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-1.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-2.jpg/640px-Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-2.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-3.jpg/640px-Exposed_wire_mesh_under_Tobay_Beach_Underpass-3.jpg)
So will this require some concrete patches, or some more extensive reconstruction?
I would think that orange spray lines on top and bottom image outline the scale of planned work. Lines are pretty faded - looks like things were planned but put on a back burner for some reason.
Drove by this this morning, it's kind of interesting. NY 113 in Poughkeepsie. If you turn right off Wilbur Blvd onto 113 west, you get an added lane. No "added lane" signage, but they do get a right-turn green arrow though: https://goo.gl/maps/tFoV5a7jK4wNE84N9Before I looked at that, I was trying to find the reason for the 5 ton weight limit a mile ahead along Wilbur Boulevard, but I couldn't see it.
Drove by this this morning, it's kind of interesting. NY 113 in Poughkeepsie. If you turn right off Wilbur Blvd onto 113 west, you get an added lane. No "added lane" signage, but they do get a right-turn green arrow though: https://goo.gl/maps/tFoV5a7jK4wNE84N9Before I looked at that, I was trying to find the reason for the 5 ton weight limit a mile ahead along Wilbur Boulevard, but I couldn't see it.
Drove by this this morning, it's kind of interesting. NY 113 in Poughkeepsie. If you turn right off Wilbur Blvd onto 113 west, you get an added lane. No "added lane" signage, but they do get a right-turn green arrow though: https://goo.gl/maps/tFoV5a7jK4wNE84N9Yeah I really wish they would let drivers turning right know they could proceed without stopping, as inevitably every other person stops, even with the green arrow. It seems to be a plague at this intersection.
I took a quick look as well, and found nothing. Most of the residential streets in the area have weight limits posted, but I am not sure if there are specific laws in any nearby municipality either.Drove by this this morning, it's kind of interesting. NY 113 in Poughkeepsie. If you turn right off Wilbur Blvd onto 113 west, you get an added lane. No "added lane" signage, but they do get a right-turn green arrow though: https://goo.gl/maps/tFoV5a7jK4wNE84N9Before I looked at that, I was trying to find the reason for the 5 ton weight limit a mile ahead along Wilbur Boulevard, but I couldn't see it.
It's the city of Poughkeepsie border. I tried to find the weight limit in the city code but I couldn't see it. Either they've hidden it somewhere or just decided to put the signs up illegally. And I doubt there is a "reason" for the limit besides residents complaining about truck traffic.
Spotted something interesting today: someone has put up a hand-written sign here (https://goo.gl/maps/z7xwbqiswdhdFk8Y8) reminding drivers that travel is prohibited on the shoulder. (It goes on to say that it can sometimes be fatal, and to please obey the traffic signal, so it presumably refers to a specific accident.)I do that all the time, but it's legal to do so in my state
Indeed, illegal use of the shoulder is rampant throughout this part of the state–and I don't mean carefully creeping around someone waiting to turn left in heavy traffic when you're obviously going to be there a while. I mean aiming straight for the shoulder by default, without even breaking speed, as soon as someone turns on their blinker on even a completely clear road. (It's also not unusual, though less common, to see drivers cross a sold yellow line to pass someone turning right. In general, drivers tend not to have a Plan B for if someone ahead of them makes a turn…)
The most striking thing about this sign, to me, was that there's a second person in the world who's even aware of this rule! :-)
I do that all the time, but it's legal to do so in my state
It’s illegal in Massachusetts to pass on the shoulder. Though it is legal to pass in the shoulder on I-93 at certain times.
I took a quick look as well, and found nothing. Most of the residential streets in the area have weight limits posted, but I am not sure if there are specific laws in any nearby municipality either.Oh. I just thought there might've been some weak bridge along that road or something like that there.
How many of you are familiar with the old restaurants on Saw Mill River Parkway? I took pictures of the old Leighton's/Woodlands Lake/La Cantina Restaurant in V.E. Macy Park back in November 2021, and I'm now trying to expand the Wikipedia article on Woodlands Lake which is in that park. But I just found out about Dugan's restaurant, and I can't find out where it was.So, still no answers on this question yet?
The GSV link given was for a surface road, not a freeway.
That said, I'm not finding the sign in that link...
The GSV link given was for a surface road, not a freeway.
That said, I'm not finding the sign in that link...
No, it only just appeared. I tried to snap a photo of it today, but it didn't come out.
Close as I can recall, it reads:
"Driving on the shoulder is a VIOLATION and can be fatal. Please obey the signal."
It's stuck in the narrow grass strip between the sidewalk and the curb. Funny enough, not ten seconds after I took the photo, a car ahead of me veered onto the shoulder to get around a car making an unimpeded left turn in front of it. It really is an almost universally ignored statute.
Yeah, there are no bridges on Wilbur Blvd. I am sure that it is simply people not wanting trucks on their residential roads.I took a quick look as well, and found nothing. Most of the residential streets in the area have weight limits posted, but I am not sure if there are specific laws in any nearby municipality either.Oh. I just thought there might've been some weak bridge along that road or something like that there.
That's the job of law enforcement, not NYSDOT.The GSV link given was for a surface road, not a freeway.
That said, I'm not finding the sign in that link...
No, it only just appeared. I tried to snap a photo of it today, but it didn't come out.
Close as I can recall, it reads:
"Driving on the shoulder is a VIOLATION and can be fatal. Please obey the signal."
It's stuck in the narrow grass strip between the sidewalk and the curb. Funny enough, not ten seconds after I took the photo, a car ahead of me veered onto the shoulder to get around a car making an unimpeded left turn in front of it. It really is an almost universally ignored statute.
Interesting. I agree it must have been in response to a specific incident, because not driving on the shoulder is so universally ignored. What is the sign made of/supported by?
As for passing on the shoulder, take NY 286 for just one example:
1) Tree Brook Dr (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1535577,-77.4903015,3a,37.5y,104.3h,84.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5td1m6v4HItFXQ8eSWaIhQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) - note the potholes that have developed from the shoulder being used so heavily (and rightly so - traffic can back up badly if people don't)
2) Five Mile Line Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1535003,-77.4760123,3a,75y,91.56h,86.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFQpFpkAkRK5PeqZvHmSATw!2e0!5s20180901T000000!7i13312!8i6656) - note again the heavily used shoulder, previously used by almost all through traffic (although this one has gotten much better with the new turn lane)
3) Baird Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1598692,-77.4636644,3a,37.5y,226.08h,85.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8OH_BGi8iJftY63RpomZdQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) - shoulder has been intentionally widened to allow for passing on the shoulder
4) Millford Crossing (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1603853,-77.4557512,3a,37.5y,80.07h,86.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4LWBm2csGhqAHScRTBoFfg!2e0!5s20120601T000000!7i13312!8i6656) - again, intentional widening to allow for passing
Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)
Interesting. I agree it must have been in response to a specific incident, because not driving on the shoulder is so universally ignored. What is the sign made of/supported by?
Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)
Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)That's the job of law enforcement, not NYSDOT.
The state could go a little bit further and officially sanction them like Indiana does: https://goo.gl/maps/KhTf7w75QGdr41ox9
Around here, I've noticed no especial encouragement. Either the shoulders are already wide enough to accommodate travel, or the motorists are perfectly willing to run into the ditch to save–well, no time, actually. Indeed, the really glaring examples (and probably the most common) are those where there's no need at all. I don't think anybody minds, as I said, creeping around somebody turning left when there's a huge lineup. It's the bypassing at top speed, not even bothering to adjust for a turning vehicle ahead of you, that likely prompted this sign, because if you're not adjusting for the turning vehicle, you're also probably not adjusting for the pedestrians or crossing traffic (such as an opposing left turn) that might be in the shoulder you're heading for.
Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)That's the job of law enforcement, not NYSDOT.
Why would law enforcement enforce something that NYSDOT doesn't care about? The short answer is they don't.
Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)That's the job of law enforcement, not NYSDOT.
Why would law enforcement enforce something that NYSDOT doesn't care about? The short answer is they don't.
Because it's the law.
A lack of enforcement of traffic regulations is not any DOT's problem.Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)That's the job of law enforcement, not NYSDOT.
Why would law enforcement enforce something that NYSDOT doesn't care about? The short answer is they don't.
Because it's the law.
I can see this is going nowhere. We all know it's not enforced, even though it technically could be.
A lack of enforcement of traffic regulations is not any DOT's problem.Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)That's the job of law enforcement, not NYSDOT.
Why would law enforcement enforce something that NYSDOT doesn't care about? The short answer is they don't.
Because it's the law.
I can see this is going nowhere. We all know it's not enforced, even though it technically could be.
DOTs control the purse strings and there is some oversight/enforcement along those lines, but once a project is built, it is squarely the job of law enforcement to enforce the law.
Not sure why law enforcement doesn't. Ticket revenue is ticket revenue.A lack of enforcement of traffic regulations is not any DOT's problem.Given all that, it appears to me that NYSDOT is not only not actively discouraging use of the shoulder, but instead actively encouraging it (and investing zero resources to provide a better solution also counts as encouraging the use of the shoulder, as traffic benefits from using the shoulder to avoid delays)That's the job of law enforcement, not NYSDOT.
Why would law enforcement enforce something that NYSDOT doesn't care about? The short answer is they don't.
Because it's the law.
I can see this is going nowhere. We all know it's not enforced, even though it technically could be.
DOTs control the purse strings and there is some oversight/enforcement along those lines, but once a project is built, it is squarely the job of law enforcement to enforce the law.
Yes, and I'm not disagreeing with that. My point is that neither NYSDOT nor law enforcement cares or has any incentive to care about people driving on the shoulder.
Indeed, illegal use of the shoulder is rampant throughout this part of the state–and I don't mean carefully creeping around someone waiting to turn left in heavy traffic when you're obviously going to be there a while. I mean aiming straight for the shoulder by default, without even breaking speed, as soon as someone turns on their blinker on even a completely clear road.Combine that with a salmoning cyclist. :ded:
Actually, most of the examples that I can think of are at side streets. Most signalized intersections don't have shoulders wide enough for passing at high speeds, and those that do are usually used by traffic turning right, not going straight. Your Newburgh example is a bit unique in that regard because it also doesn't have a left turn lane.
The part I'm most curious about regarding the sign is the inclusion of "please obey the signal" at the end. I can't think of a scenario where using the shoulder would also mean ignoring the signal.
Yes, and I'm not disagreeing with that. My point is that neither NYSDOT nor law enforcement cares or has any incentive to care about people driving on the shoulder.
Not sure why law enforcement doesn't. Ticket revenue is ticket revenue.
It's been almost five years since I last drove in New York and I have never studied the Vehicle and Traffic Law before doing so, but Empirestate's example--a signalized intersection on NY 32 in an urban area--doesn't strike me as a safe location to use the shoulder as a bypass because of the potential for one vehicle waiting to turn left to hide another also waiting to do the same thing.
Not sure why law enforcement doesn't. Ticket revenue is ticket revenue.
Certainly, it has to be the single most frequent violation I see on a daily basis, if you exclude commonplace excesses of the speed limit. The only other thing I see with comparable frequency is not burning headlights in the rain, but that's not a daily occurrence. So it would be easy to collect a lot of revenue, if that were the aim.
Is it illegal?
The NY State Driver’s Manual says specifically “You can pass on the right when a vehicle ahead makes a left turn”
It does say you can’t “drive” on the shoulder in its discussion of passing on the right in general, but then gives a left-turning vehicle as an example of when passing on the right is permitted.
That’s not to say you should pass three cars stopped waiting for one car to turn left, but maybe that’s why you don’t see enforcement.
Well, I think the whole takeaway here is that, according to whoever put up this sign, there is indeed (or should be) such an incentive, even if we haven't figured out exactly what. My assumption would be a conflict between a vehicle and a pedestrian using the shoulder. It is easy to imagine how an accident might unfold from those circumstances, but again, you often see this scenario away from intersections, and where there aren't also sidewalks, and so again, the location here remains curious.There are certainly some arguments about "traffic calming", "enhanced safety" etc. Little, if anything about safety, just the letter of the law.
Is it illegal?
The NY State Driver’s Manual says specifically “You can pass on the right when a vehicle ahead makes a left turn”
It does say you can’t “drive” on the shoulder in its discussion of passing on the right in general, but then gives a left-turning vehicle as an example of when passing on the right is permitted.
Perhaps the biggest question - bigger even than whether it should be enforced - is how, exactly, it would be enforced. Using the shoulder for "driving" is so vague that it leaves a lot of room for argument. I can't see ticketing people for clipping the white line going over well; it would really need to reach the level of clearly dangerous/unsafe to be worth pursuing IMO, and that definitely still happens, but a lot less frequently.
I must confess that I have probably used the shoulder if there is a line to turn left and the first and last cars in line are clearly turning left. If someone in the middle of that mess is going straight, well, oops, but that's kind of their problem :-P
I guess a lot of these things are location-specific. Not sure what is the fraction of commuter/local resident traffic in that particular location, my two "favorite" spots are mostly local traffic well aware of road conditions. in both cases, failure to use shoulder as a turn lane may easily lead to backups extending to nearest intersection (which happen to be a highway interchange). So it may be collectively understood that following the law is against common good.Is it illegal?
The NY State Driver’s Manual says specifically “You can pass on the right when a vehicle ahead makes a left turn”
It does say you can’t “drive” on the shoulder in its discussion of passing on the right in general, but then gives a left-turning vehicle as an example of when passing on the right is permitted.
That all seems to agree. You can pass on the right sometimes, and while doing so you can't drive on the shoulder. (It would be the same for passing on the left.) The VAT codifies this in section 1123(b).
The VAT does give NYSDOT the right to permit–and post–passing on the shoulder in specific locations, including for turns at signalized intersections. (I have never seen this done.) Otherwise, it's prohibited overall on controlled-access highways by section 1131. The NYS MUTCD supplement provides for signage to remind drivers of these two sections, plus section 1120 (which basically refers to 1131).Perhaps the biggest question - bigger even than whether it should be enforced - is how, exactly, it would be enforced. Using the shoulder for "driving" is so vague that it leaves a lot of room for argument. I can't see ticketing people for clipping the white line going over well; it would really need to reach the level of clearly dangerous/unsafe to be worth pursuing IMO, and that definitely still happens, but a lot less frequently.
In my observation, what can make it dangerous is less about use of the shoulder per se, and more about the lack of a "plan B". It will not always be necessary to overtake a turning vehicle at all, since you can always fall back a little, keep a proper distance, and just let the car make its turn before you even get there. But quite a lot of drivers will just maintain speed, steer directly towards the shoulder, and keep going. I've even had people veer onto my neighbor's lawn when I'm turning into my own driveway, and it's very common to see someone go through the gravel slope at a T-intersection, rather than wait for a left-turning vehicle to clear a single oncoming car or two.QuoteI must confess that I have probably used the shoulder if there is a line to turn left and the first and last cars in line are clearly turning left. If someone in the middle of that mess is going straight, well, oops, but that's kind of their problem :-P
Well, yes, I mean this is downstate NY, so you will always have a few of "those" drivers. :-P
But I guess my point is that, with respect to this particular rule, it goes beyond just the occasional jerk just trying to get around everyone else, and is understood to be the accepted, appropriate maneuver by the general driving public–in other words, something that everyone does, not just the jerks.
For example, I've seen drivers mount the sidewalk on very rare occasions to do the same thing, which is equally prohibited and in the same general spirit of the shoulder law. But the vast majority of drivers would never think of doing this.
Locally, NYSDOT seem to be unwilling to use land grab for a turning lane - their preferred solution is a roundabout. Which, apparently, requires much more land...
I guess a lot of these things are location-specific. Not sure what is the fraction of commuter/local resident traffic in that particular location, my two "favorite" spots are mostly local traffic well aware of road conditions. in both cases, failure to use shoulder as a turn lane may easily lead to backups extending to nearest intersection (which happen to be a highway interchange). So it may be collectively understood that following the law is against common good.
Or it could be a driver who believes in the letter of the law, who ended up in a situation " I don't do it because it is illegal, but someone behind me still did AND ENDED UP AHEAD OF ME!!!111"I guess a lot of these things are location-specific. Not sure what is the fraction of commuter/local resident traffic in that particular location, my two "favorite" spots are mostly local traffic well aware of road conditions. in both cases, failure to use shoulder as a turn lane may easily lead to backups extending to nearest intersection (which happen to be a highway interchange). So it may be collectively understood that following the law is against common good.
Well, again, I think it's much less about the "what" than the "how". As I mentioned before, I don't think there'd be widespread opposition to carefully creeping around some turning vehicles in heavy traffic, when the clear alternative is a long delay for many people. I've certainly done this, although at least in some cases I do it because I know that if I don't, someone behind me will, leading to a possible conflict when the car in front of me clears while the person on the shoulder is trying to merge into me from the right.
But that's quite different than doing it every time, whether necessary or not, and without attempting first to adjust to conditions in the prescribed way. I'd be willing to wager that whatever prompted the handmade sign, it was something in the second category rather than the first.
And it's probably that many, if not most, of the instances of this are due to simply lack of awareness of this rule; otherwise, you'd expect to see a comparable frequency of people driving on the sidewalk or median. The fact that the rule is not universal among states would also lend credence to this.
And it's probably that many, if not most, of the instances of this are due to simply lack of awareness of this rule; otherwise, you'd expect to see a comparable frequency of people driving on the sidewalk or median. The fact that the rule is not universal among states would also lend credence to this.The fact that rule is not universal among the states tells me there is no unconditional upfront hazard associated with the situation.
Or it could be a driver who believes in the letter of the law, who ended up in a situation " I don't do it because it is illegal, but someone behind me still did AND ENDED UP AHEAD OF ME!!!111"
I don't have too much faith in people who have enough time and energy to create and put these handmade signs...
The fact that rule is not universal among the states tells me there is no unconditional upfront hazard associated with the situation.
Pedestrians walking the shoulder could be an apparent issue, but there is a decent sidewalk in that particular location, so scratch that.
Overall, this looks like a location where one must pass left-turning car on a shoulder to avoid issues, not the other way around .
Without knowing your specific location first hand, I am thinking about a different spot, which to me is a prime example of "must use shoulder" condition. I can post google maps link, but my impression is there were some changes compared to last google image. I'll try to make some pictures when I drove there tomorrow morning.Or it could be a driver who believes in the letter of the law, who ended up in a situation " I don't do it because it is illegal, but someone behind me still did AND ENDED UP AHEAD OF ME!!!111"
I…guess?? But I think the conversation will make better sense if we limit our examples to what we can observe.QuoteI don't have too much faith in people who have enough time and energy to create and put these handmade signs...
Can you say more about why? That's kind of what brought this on–what does this person know that led them to observe this? If you have experience with the person, what might that be?The fact that rule is not universal among the states tells me there is no unconditional upfront hazard associated with the situation.
On the other hand, observing the hazard directly can tell you that it does. The truth, of course, is broader than both–neither statement alone is dispositive.QuotePedestrians walking the shoulder could be an apparent issue, but there is a decent sidewalk in that particular location, so scratch that.
Right, you'll recall that we're trying to guess the connection to this location, if any. So we're looking at other places where this occurs, where the shoulder is the appropriate place for pedestrians, and which also happen to be where I've observed shoulder use to be more likely.QuoteOverall, this looks like a location where one must pass left-turning car on a shoulder to avoid issues, not the other way around .
The other way around being what, passing in the intersection? Or just not passing at all?
Without knowing your specific location first hand, I am thinking about a different spot, which to me is a prime example of "must use shoulder" condition. I can post google maps link, but my impression is there were some changes compared to last google image. I'll try to make some pictures when I drove there tomorrow morning.
Unlike spot you show, that is a T, not a full X intersection; so there is no "pass in the intersection" option, only "wait" or "shoulder".
"Intersection" option in X one also depends on what turning driver does. I clearly remember that 20 years ago NY driver manual said "must move into intersection", and that is no longer the case. There was some discussion here - "move past stop line" is not universally accepted thing as well, so driver of turning car may choose to stay at the stop line, eliminating "in the intersection" option as well. So, legally, a single turning car may block the road for multiple traffic light cycles if oncoming traffic is heavy - until drivers behind turning car choose to break the law. Which is... counterproductive way of thinking.
As for the sign you discuss... You assume someone had a reason to put that up due to unusual - or uncommon - hazard associated with that particular location. A hazard which a responsible adult driver would recognize as an unusual one for the condition. On the contrary - I assume that there is someone which too much time to spare who doesn't like the fact that people are "breaking the rules". Same cohort likes complaining that "people are driving like crazy, going 65 in 55 MPH zone". A very observable behavior on many forums. Since there is no way to actually find out, my guess is as good as yours.
I don't see any specific hazard associated with discussed behavior beyond hitting something/someone on a shoulder.
As a side note, oncoming traffic in your location has a dedicated right turn lane - so I would assume volume of traffic turning to Gidney ave. warrants that, and - speculating - there is significant left turn traffic into Gidney in the direction we discuss to cause delays. Very possibly that makes this int6ersection a "must drive around" location.
Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17? I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now. Is there bridge repair going on or something?
EDIT: I found it. Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals. I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.
https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf
Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17? I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now. Is there bridge repair going on or something?
EDIT: I found it. Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals. I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.
https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf
Wouldn't it be much too busy for roundabouts? I'm curious what the problem was with the cloverleaf configuration.
A roundabout would have been considered for this location. Someone can contact Region 1 and find out why it was not pursued in the end, but it was definitely considered as part of NYSDOT policy.Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17? I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now. Is there bridge repair going on or something?
EDIT: I found it. Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals. I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.
https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf
Wouldn't it be much too busy for roundabouts? I'm curious what the problem was with the cloverleaf configuration.
I didn't think there was an issue either, but I guess it was "too much weaving" for someone.
A roundabout would have been considered for this location. Someone can contact Region 1 and find out why it was not pursued in the end, but it was definitely considered as part of NYSDOT policy.Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17? I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now. Is there bridge repair going on or something?
EDIT: I found it. Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals. I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.
https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf
Wouldn't it be much too busy for roundabouts? I'm curious what the problem was with the cloverleaf configuration.
I didn't think there was an issue either, but I guess it was "too much weaving" for someone.
Well, no. The preferred alternative is the design they're carrying forward.A roundabout would have been considered for this location. Someone can contact Region 1 and find out why it was not pursued in the end, but it was definitely considered as part of NYSDOT policy.Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17? I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now. Is there bridge repair going on or something?
EDIT: I found it. Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals. I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.
https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf
Wouldn't it be much too busy for roundabouts? I'm curious what the problem was with the cloverleaf configuration.
I didn't think there was an issue either, but I guess it was "too much weaving" for someone.
Do you think roundabouts would have been a preferred option? Its not surprising given how much a lot of people out there just don't like them and many more don't even know how to properly negotiate one.
Well, no. The preferred alternative is the design they're carrying forward.A roundabout would have been considered for this location. Someone can contact Region 1 and find out why it was not pursued in the end, but it was definitely considered as part of NYSDOT policy.Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17? I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now. Is there bridge repair going on or something?
EDIT: I found it. Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals. I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.
https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf
Wouldn't it be much too busy for roundabouts? I'm curious what the problem was with the cloverleaf configuration.
I didn't think there was an issue either, but I guess it was "too much weaving" for someone.
Do you think roundabouts would have been a preferred option? Its not surprising given how much a lot of people out there just don't like them and many more don't even know how to properly negotiate one.
You'd have to ask them.Well, no. The preferred alternative is the design they're carrying forward.A roundabout would have been considered for this location. Someone can contact Region 1 and find out why it was not pursued in the end, but it was definitely considered as part of NYSDOT policy.Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17? I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now. Is there bridge repair going on or something?
EDIT: I found it. Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals. I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.
https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf
Wouldn't it be much too busy for roundabouts? I'm curious what the problem was with the cloverleaf configuration.
I didn't think there was an issue either, but I guess it was "too much weaving" for someone.
Do you think roundabouts would have been a preferred option? Its not surprising given how much a lot of people out there just don't like them and many more don't even know how to properly negotiate one.
I think @webny99 had the right question.... what was the problem with the existing configuration? (aside from the obvious weaving problem, which wasn't a horrible issue before lanes were taken out)
And I have another "what exactly is going on"... with NY 251? There's a short (approx. 1/2 mile) segment closed in Mendon, NY that doesn't have any apparent bridges or anything that might be undergoing reconstruction. It took me by surprise during my attempted clinch of NY 251 on Saturday, so I just followed the rather long posted detour, which is NY 15A south to Sibley Rd to NY 65 north, picking up a new section of NY 15A in the process.Nothing apparent there, but my policy on this is I only count it as clinched if I can see the same closure point from both sides (so either see the other side, or from both sides I can see the midpoint). You should have headed back west on 251 from Junction Rd. and U-turned. P.S. i think it's in Rush, not Mendon.
But based on the posted mileages ("CLOSED 2-3/4 MILES AHEAD" from NY 15A and "CLOSED 3/4 MILE AHEAD" ahead from NY 65) I was pretty sure it must be a short closure that I could probably get around with a much shorter detour. My curiosity got the better of me today, so I tried again, following NY 251 eastbound as far as I could (and going past 2 more "road closed ahead - local traffic only" signs) before I finally got to the actual closure, which started at Plains Rd (exactly what I was hoping for!). There did appear to be significant construction equipment and signs of activity, but it was almost 6PM so, unsurprisingly, no active work was going on. I then took Plains Rd to Junction Rd back to NY 251 and found I was past the other end of the closure, so I continued on to NY 65 as planned to "complete" my clinch of NY 251. (I am going to call it clinched given that I (a) followed the posted detour and (b) went as far as possible on both ends. Plus it's such a short closure that I have been on over 90% of the 3.07 mile "NY15A <-> StoLonRd" segment in Travel Mapping, and I've logged much more egregious segments for the purposes of tracking what routes I've been on.)
I can obviously see why NYSDOT can't use the detour I used as their posted detour - there's an 8 ton weight limit on Plains Rd and there would be significant traffic concerns on both roads - but still, it seems like a very long detour for such a short closure, and just a strange closure in general. I can usually find something from either a Google search or NYSDOT's site, but I'm coming up empty there too. Any insight from vdeane, rothman or others would certainly be of interest/appreciated!
Nothing apparent there, but my policy on this is I only count it as clinched if I can see the same closure point from both sides (so either see the other side, or from both sides I can see the midpoint). You should have headed back west on 251 from Junction Rd. and U-turned. P.S. i think it's in Rush, not Mendon.
Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17? I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now. Is there bridge repair going on or something?There were concerns regarding the transition from a high-speed interchange to a corridor with traffic lights and increasing development. The project improves safety and reconfigures the interchange to be more in line with how US 9 functions today. The new bridge will also have wider shoulders, meaning that it should be possible to ride a bike to/from Moreau Lake State Park.
EDIT: I found it. Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals. I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.
https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf
Over the past several years, projects have been completed by the Department of Transportation to further upgrade sections of Route 17, including reconstruction of the interchange at Exit 131, where Route 17 meets Interstate 87 and Route 32 (Woodbury Common) and reconstruction of Exits 122 and 125 (Legoland) to meet interstate standards. Up to $1 billion of the capital plan will be used to accelerate the conversion of the Route 17 corridor in Orange and Sullivan counties to Interstate 86, fueling transformative levels of economic growth in the region and improving quality of life by alleviating congestion.
Hale Eddy is the most visible barrier, but I remember Rothman saying that the majority of the remaining cost was in Orange County. The sections needing work in the two counties mostly corresponds to the area studied for widening; there are a couple interchanges to the west around Liberty, then everything should meet standards to Roscoe, barring surprises like what was mentioned around Middletown.QuoteOver the past several years, projects have been completed by the Department of Transportation to further upgrade sections of Route 17, including reconstruction of the interchange at Exit 131, where Route 17 meets Interstate 87 and Route 32 (Woodbury Common) and reconstruction of Exits 122 and 125 (Legoland) to meet interstate standards. Up to $1 billion of the capital plan will be used to accelerate the conversion of the Route 17 corridor in Orange and Sullivan counties to Interstate 86, fueling transformative levels of economic growth in the region and improving quality of life by alleviating congestion.
Interestingly, this push to upgrade NY 17 to I-86 is specific to Orange and Sullivan counties, while the biggest barrier to conversion (the at-grades near Hale Eddy) is actually in Delaware County. Maybe it will end up being designated as far as Liberty or Roscoe, with "Future I-86" posted on the remaining section.
I would imagine ROW costs are more in Orange County than in Delaware County, plus I would imagine that the freeway was constructed generally east to west, meaning that the sections in Orange County are older and in more need of some help. Plus, traffic counts are around 6x higher in Orange than Delaware, so it would make sense to prioritize the segments with more traffic, which would also benefit more from upgrades IMO. If it were up to me, I would certainly prioritize upgrades where the LOS borders on abysmal during rush hour as opposed to a segment that operates at LOS A 24/7/365 barring a whiteout or major accident.Hale Eddy is the most visible barrier, but I remember Rothman saying that the majority of the remaining cost was in Orange County. The sections needing work in the two counties mostly corresponds to the area studied for widening; there are a couple interchanges to the west around Liberty, then everything should meet standards to Roscoe, barring surprises like what was mentioned around Middletown.QuoteOver the past several years, projects have been completed by the Department of Transportation to further upgrade sections of Route 17, including reconstruction of the interchange at Exit 131, where Route 17 meets Interstate 87 and Route 32 (Woodbury Common) and reconstruction of Exits 122 and 125 (Legoland) to meet interstate standards. Up to $1 billion of the capital plan will be used to accelerate the conversion of the Route 17 corridor in Orange and Sullivan counties to Interstate 86, fueling transformative levels of economic growth in the region and improving quality of life by alleviating congestion.
Interestingly, this push to upgrade NY 17 to I-86 is specific to Orange and Sullivan counties, while the biggest barrier to conversion (the at-grades near Hale Eddy) is actually in Delaware County. Maybe it will end up being designated as far as Liberty or Roscoe, with "Future I-86" posted on the remaining section.
Personally, I'm not a fan of what North Carolina did regarding future I-26, and I feel like that signage basically acts as a permission slip to delay the upgrade project as often as they like. As such, were future I-86 to receive such signage, the chances of it ever being completed in full would probably sink even lower.
With regards to "future" signage, I'd actually be OK with it on that short segment as long as everything else is signed as I-86. I think if it gets to a point where it's just Hale Eddy remaining, it will get done eventually even if it's not right away.But if it's already signed like an interstate, to the point where only a roadgeek would be able to tell the difference, that wouldn't give whoever the governor is whenever Hale Eddy is the last piece standing the big ribbon cutting moment that would be the only motivating factor to actually do the project. This is especially true because NYSDOT is in preservation mode, so there's only so much money available for beyond preservation projects - and a good chunk of that is used up just with things like bridge replacements.
Might have been said earlier on here, but what exactly is going on at the Northway exit 17? I see they've made it just one exit for both directions on US 9 for now. Is there bridge repair going on or something?There were concerns regarding the transition from a high-speed interchange to a corridor with traffic lights and increasing development. The project improves safety and reconfigures the interchange to be more in line with how US 9 functions today. The new bridge will also have wider shoulders, meaning that it should be possible to ride a bike to/from Moreau Lake State Park.
EDIT: I found it. Bridge replacement and making the ramps terminate to a T with signals. I'm actually shocked that there was no mention of roundabouts for this.
https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf
Maybe it's just the part of New York that I grew up in, but I'm not used to seeing "Bridge Out" signs anywhere in the State of New York:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3907623,-73.6165434,3a,75y,312.68h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5WaD4mFldFBTrAp9oXKZag!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D5WaD4mFldFBTrAp9oXKZag%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D320.8732%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Normally, I'd think most highway departments would find "Road Closed" would be a sufficient enough sign.
The U.S. 219 extension to Interstate 86 was dropped. It's in today's Federal Register.
Rescission of the Notice of Intent for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Erie and Cattaraugus Counties, NY (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/04/14/2022-07981/rescission-of-the-notice-of-intent-for-a-supplemental-environmental-impact-statement-erie-and)Heh. 'Bout time.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that we are rescinding the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the highway improvement project: US Route 219 Springville to Salamanca, NY Route 39 to NY Route 17 (Interstate 86), Erie and Cattaraugus Counties, New York [New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Project Identification Number 5101.84].
Does this mean that the US 219 Southern Expressway will have a permanent southern terminus at Peters Rd.?If by "permanent" you mean, "for at least a generation," yes.
Does this mean that the US 219 Southern Expressway will have a permanent southern terminus at Peters Rd.?
Only thing 219 needs at this point is exit numbers.
Only thing 219 needs at this point is exit numbers.
I've never understood NYSDOT's hesitation to put exit numbers in Western New York on the freeway portions of US 219, NY 33, and NY 400. NY Route 33 has more interchanges than I-290, yet 33 doesn't get exit numbers. It's such an outdated practice.
There's no demand or heavy enough traffic. As someone who uses the 219/Southern Expressway regularly, there is rarely any traffic south of New Armor Duells Road (NY 952J) and even less traffic south of Creekside/391. There is no demand for the rest to be finished, maybe.maybe....maybe with a bypass of Ellicottville. Otherwise, there's no way anything's being built south of Cattaraugus CR 101 (Peters Road). Not to mention Ashford Hollow is a speed trap the NY State Police use to their advantage (speaking from experience).I personally find US 219 to be quite not fun to drive between I-86 and Peters Road. Being stuck behind slowpokes is rather common.
Only thing 219 needs at this point is exit numbers.
I suspect much of the 219 truck traffic would simply go to I-79 or US 15.
There's no demand or heavy enough traffic. As someone who uses the 219/Southern Expressway regularly, there is rarely any traffic south of New Armor Duells Road (NY 952J) and even less traffic south of Creekside/391. There is no demand for the rest to be finished, maybe.maybe....maybe with a bypass of Ellicottville. Otherwise, there's no way anything's being built south of Cattaraugus CR 101 (Peters Road). Not to mention Ashford Hollow is a speed trap the NY State Police use to their advantage (speaking from experience).I personally find US 219 to be quite not fun to drive between I-86 and Peters Road. Being stuck behind slowpokes is rather common.
Only thing 219 needs at this point is exit numbers.
And to think that, 15 years ago, the next section to Snake Run Road was under design and scheduled to be finished well before now. Things sure have changed!
Another Saw Mill River Parkway question;
Was this the site of the old Worthington New York and Putnam Railroad station?
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=12&lat=40.991111&lon=-73.874167
Bewcause the New York State Thruway interchange is there now.
Does this mean that the US 219 Southern Expressway will have a permanent southern terminus at Peters Rd.?
This article explains WNY’s challenges well. US 219 is mentioned.
https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-challenges-of-being-buffalo-in-todays-new-york-state/
Couldn't get a picture, but I-84 at the state borders and on either side of the Taconic Parkway exit has new signs warning of low bridges. Standard black text on white background stating something to the effect of "No Trucks, Trailers, RVs on Parkways" with a black text on yellow banner below saying "Low Bridges". These have been put up within the last month, I assume in response to all the recent bridge strikes.
That's exclusionary. RVs are prohibited? What about van conversions? Those are not commercial in nature.
(a) bicycles;Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.
(b) buses;
(c) commercial;
(d) golf carts;
(e) hearses, except those operated by or for a licensed funeral director or undertaker while traveling to or from a funeral, interment, cremation, place of death or other destination for the acceptance and shipment of the body or remains of a deceased person;
(f) house coaches;
(g) motor-driven cycles;
(h) school buses;
(i) semitrailers;
(j) snowmobiles;
(k) tractors;
(l) trailers;
(m) trucks.
The full list of prohibited vehicles is:Quote(a) bicycles;Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.
(b) buses;
(c) commercial;
(d) golf carts;
(e) hearses, except those operated by or for a licensed funeral director or undertaker while traveling to or from a funeral, interment, cremation, place of death or other destination for the acceptance and shipment of the body or remains of a deceased person;
(f) house coaches;
(g) motor-driven cycles;
(h) school buses;
(i) semitrailers;
(j) snowmobiles;
(k) tractors;
(l) trailers;
(m) trucks.
The full list of prohibited vehicles is:I've witnessed e) on the lower Taconic as part of a procession!Quote(a) bicycles;Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.
(b) buses;
(c) commercial;
(d) golf carts;
(e) hearses, except those operated by or for a licensed funeral director or undertaker while traveling to or from a funeral, interment, cremation, place of death or other destination for the acceptance and shipment of the body or remains of a deceased person;
(f) house coaches;
(g) motor-driven cycles;
(h) school buses;
(i) semitrailers;
(j) snowmobiles;
(k) tractors;
(l) trailers;
(m) trucks.
The full list of prohibited vehicles is:Quote(g) motor-driven cycles;Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.
The full list of prohibited vehicles is:Quote(g) motor-driven cycles;Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.
In most states, as near as I can tell, a motorcycle and a motor-driven cycle are not the same thing. Motor-driven cycles are things like powered scooters.
DittoThe full list of prohibited vehicles is:I've witnessed e) on the lower Taconic as part of a procession!Quote(a) bicycles;Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.
(b) buses;
(c) commercial;
(d) golf carts;
(e) hearses, except those operated by or for a licensed funeral director or undertaker while traveling to or from a funeral, interment, cremation, place of death or other destination for the acceptance and shipment of the body or remains of a deceased person;
(f) house coaches;
(g) motor-driven cycles;
(h) school buses;
(i) semitrailers;
(j) snowmobiles;
(k) tractors;
(l) trailers;
(m) trucks.
How would something like a Can-Am Spyder or Polaris Slingshot be classified? And does Connecticut DOT restrict such vehicles on their parkways?The full list of prohibited vehicles is:Quote(g) motor-driven cycles;Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.
In most states, as near as I can tell, a motorcycle and a motor-driven cycle are not the same thing. Motor-driven cycles are things like powered scooters.
Motor-driven cycles are mopeds and the like. Motorcycles are generally considered to be equivalent to "passenger cars" in this state.
"A fool and their money are soon parted."How would something like a Can-Am Spyder or Polaris Slingshot be classified? And does Connecticut DOT restrict such vehicles on their parkways?The full list of prohibited vehicles is:Quote(g) motor-driven cycles;Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.
In most states, as near as I can tell, a motorcycle and a motor-driven cycle are not the same thing. Motor-driven cycles are things like powered scooters.
Motor-driven cycles are mopeds and the like. Motorcycles are generally considered to be equivalent to "passenger cars" in this state.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Can-Am_Spyder
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Polaris_Slingshot
Those links are for anybody who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
For the cop patrolling the parkway, it will boil down to what is the plate registration class. Motorcycle, passenger and commercial plates are well distingwishable in NY. That is an equally difficult question, but it is fully answered by the time vehicle is on the road.How would something like a Can-Am Spyder or Polaris Slingshot be classified? And does Connecticut DOT restrict such vehicles on their parkways?The full list of prohibited vehicles is:Quote(g) motor-driven cycles;Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.
In most states, as near as I can tell, a motorcycle and a motor-driven cycle are not the same thing. Motor-driven cycles are things like powered scooters.
Motor-driven cycles are mopeds and the like. Motorcycles are generally considered to be equivalent to "passenger cars" in this state.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Can-Am_Spyder
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Polaris_Slingshot
Those links are for anybody who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
Tons of light trucks (and vans, for that matter) have commercial plates but are used as personal cars. I highly doubt that's ever stopped any owner of any such vehicle from driving it on a NY parkway.
This would be a really big BGS:Tons of light trucks (and vans, for that matter) have commercial plates but are used as personal cars. I highly doubt that's ever stopped any owner of any such vehicle from driving it on a NY parkway.
I'm sure it's stopped at least one, somewhere, sometime. :-) But would it have stopped many more if these vehicles were listed on big signs along with RVs and such?
(a) bicycles;
(b) buses;
(c) commercial;
(d) golf carts;
(e) hearses, except those operated by or for a licensed funeral director or undertaker while traveling to or from a funeral, interment, cremation, place of death or other destination for the acceptance and shipment of the body or remains of a deceased person;
(f) house coaches;
(g) motor-driven cycles;
(h) school buses;
(i) semitrailers;
(j) snowmobiles;
(k) tractors;
(l) trailers;
(m) trucks.
Couldn't get a picture, but I-84 at the state borders and on either side of the Taconic Parkway exit has new signs warning of low bridges. Standard black text on white background stating something to the effect of "No Trucks, Trailers, RVs on Parkways" with a black text on yellow banner below saying "Low Bridges". These have been put up within the last month, I assume in response to all the recent bridge strikes.
NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.
Tons of light trucks (and vans, for that matter) have commercial plates but are used as personal cars. I highly doubt that's ever stopped any owner of any such vehicle from driving it on a NY parkway.There were some stories on this very site - probably in this very thread - about people ticketed for pizza delivery in their personal car on a parkway as well as about buziness owner driving in their own car without any marks, but with stack of business printed material on the back seat...
I mean, my dad's stepfather was pulled over on one of the parkways in the 80s for having a box of catalogs for his used book store on the back seat. Using the parkway for commercial purposes. So if they're gonna be that strict, they can pull over anyone delivering anything.
This would be a really big BGS:Quote(a) bicycles;
(b) buses;
(c) commercial;
(d) golf carts;
(e) hearses, except those operated by or for a licensed funeral director or undertaker while traveling to or from a funeral, interment, cremation, place of death or other destination for the acceptance and shipment of the body or remains of a deceased person;
(f) house coaches;
(g) motor-driven cycles;
(h) school buses;
(i) semitrailers;
(j) snowmobiles;
(k) tractors;
(l) trailers;
(m) trucks.
I don't THINK that's right legally - I _think_ that once you have a full DL from any state, you're good in any state.NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.
As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.
Wonder how other states handle NY's junior DLs. Probably illegal to drive with them.I don't THINK that's right legally - I _think_ that once you have a full DL from any state, you're good in any state.NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.
As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.
- A road test area (not sure how this can be enforced)
The Fishkill test site only has this measly little blue sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5289239,-73.9181455,3a,37.6y,153.61h,81.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smYmWplMnbiUjzySUqBuu0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the start point. I never knew where people actually went from there until I did it myself.
- A road test area (not sure how this can be enforced)
When you're in a road test area, there are signs telling you so and saying that practicing there is prohibited.
Wonder how other states handle NY's junior DLs. Probably illegal to drive with them.I don't THINK that's right legally - I _think_ that once you have a full DL from any state, you're good in any state.NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.
As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.
Keep in mind I was talking about almost 50 years ago. There was no such thing as junior licenses back then (at least in NJ although 17 was the driving age there).Wonder how other states handle NY's junior DLs. Probably illegal to drive with them.I don't THINK that's right legally - I _think_ that once you have a full DL from any state, you're good in any state.NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.
As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.
I was told I couldn't drive in other states or Canada until I had my full license, but it probably depends on the state.
I hate that set up. Just doesn't make sense to me to restrict kids like that.
The Fishkill test site only has this measly little blue sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5289239,-73.9181455,3a,37.6y,153.61h,81.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smYmWplMnbiUjzySUqBuu0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the start point. I never knew where people actually went from there until I did it myself.
- A road test area (not sure how this can be enforced)
When you're in a road test area, there are signs telling you so and saying that practicing there is prohibited.
Yeah me too. Junior License is not something I know of. Provisional License is what NJ now has from 17-18 so I assume that has restrictions too.Keep in mind I was talking about almost 50 years ago. There was no such thing as junior licenses back then (at least in NJ although 17 was the driving age there).Wonder how other states handle NY's junior DLs. Probably illegal to drive with them.I don't THINK that's right legally - I _think_ that once you have a full DL from any state, you're good in any state.NYC and LI have many restrictions for drivers under 18. Eg, in NYC, the supervising driver must have an instructor's brake and has to be a teacher or parent (not just "a licensed driver over 21"). If you pass your road test and get a "junior" DL, you're then not allowed to drive in NYC at all until you get your full Class D.
As does (or at least did - this was in the 1970s) NYS itself. I grew up in NJ but spent summers in the Adirondacks and IIRC, until I was 18, could not drive at night in NYS even though I had a NJ DL.
I was told I couldn't drive in other states or Canada until I had my full license, but it probably depends on the state.
iPhone
I'd like to see those too. I was recently looking on the CDOT's Merritt Parkway website, and I found a slightly more elaborate version of their truck restrictions site.Couldn't get a picture, but I-84 at the state borders and on either side of the Taconic Parkway exit has new signs warning of low bridges. Standard black text on white background stating something to the effect of "No Trucks, Trailers, RVs on Parkways" with a black text on yellow banner below saying "Low Bridges". These have been put up within the last month, I assume in response to all the recent bridge strikes.
I'll have to keep an eye out for these. As an incidental observation, this is a non-exhaustive list of prohibited vehicles on the parkways (and of reasons for the prohibition). It is probably no coincidence that the unmentioned vehicles and reasons coincide with those less known by many motorists.
I'd like to see those too. I was recently looking on the CDOT's Merritt Parkway website, and I found a slightly more elaborate version of their truck restrictions site.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Commissions/STC/Connecticut-Parkways
(https://portal.ct.gov/lib/dot/images/istc/passvehonly.jpg)
This is the image from what looks like as NYSDOT official material:I'd like to see those too. I was recently looking on the CDOT's Merritt Parkway website, and I found a slightly more elaborate version of their truck restrictions site.
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Commissions/STC/Connecticut-Parkways
( image removed )
Sort of a mirror case to the New York question–not ALL passenger vehicles are permitted, surely (or are they?), but do some people mentally make that leap in CT?
Nonrestricted vehicles, except taxicabs and vehicles owned and operated by governmental agencies, having any name, insignia or sign painted or displayed thereon are prohibited within the parkway system, except for identification purposesSo contractors using cars (I just saw "the maids" cleaning services well-decorated one) would not be allowed.
As for the law,QuoteNonrestricted vehicles, except taxicabs and vehicles owned and operated by governmental agencies, having any name, insignia or sign painted or displayed thereon are prohibited within the parkway system, except for identification purposesSo contractors using cars (I just saw "the maids" cleaning services well-decorated one) would not be allowed.
A better question is if that should be a violation to begin with. Just looking at the roads around me, small commercial trucks and cars are only a small %% of traffic. I am not one of those with aesthetic hypertrophy, and don't get insulted whith minor things like cables in the air or business signage on cars (and only mildly irritated with piss-yellow NY license plates).As for the law,QuoteNonrestricted vehicles, except taxicabs and vehicles owned and operated by governmental agencies, having any name, insignia or sign painted or displayed thereon are prohibited within the parkway system, except for identification purposesSo contractors using cars (I just saw "the maids" cleaning services well-decorated one) would not be allowed.
Yeah, that's probably the most common violation, by far. (However, there is a carve-out for name and address only, not exceeding a certain size lettering.)
If there were (and always had been) giant signs saying "No cars with your business name on them", would these violations almost completely disappear? Or would most of the same people use the parkways anyway, because they know they won't strike any bridges?
A better question is if that should be a violation to begin with. Just looking at the roads around me, small commercial trucks and cars are only a small %% of traffic. I am not one of those with aesthetic hypertrophy, and don't get insulted whith minor things like cables in the air or business signage on cars (and only mildly irritated with piss-yellow NY license plates).
If purely recreational nature of parkways needs to be enforced, commute and shopping trips should be banned as well. As they are not, I see no point in focusing on business name stickers.
Please don't get me wrong. I am not suppressing any conversations, and actual tickets handed out do deserve attention.A better question is if that should be a violation to begin with. Just looking at the roads around me, small commercial trucks and cars are only a small %% of traffic. I am not one of those with aesthetic hypertrophy, and don't get insulted whith minor things like cables in the air or business signage on cars (and only mildly irritated with piss-yellow NY license plates).
If purely recreational nature of parkways needs to be enforced, commute and shopping trips should be banned as well. As they are not, I see no point in focusing on business name stickers.
I wouldn't consider that question better than mine, as it has a wholly different purpose. Yours goes into what the policy is or should be, whereas mine is an observation/exploration of information and messaging (and I guess human behavior).
To me the better option would be to simply have both conversations, rather than supplant one with the other.
Please don't get me wrong. I am not suppressing any conversations, and actual tickets handed out do deserve attention.
My strong feeling, though, is that original policy IS wrong, and that is a bigger issue - hence "better question". It doesn't cancel "would I get a ticket?" one. I am sorry if my choice of words is confusing...
Is there a specific reason why the rim of the Kenisco Dam in White Plains is not open to motor vehicles? I noticed that bicycles and pedestrians are only allowed to use the once public road between NY 22 and the west side of the reservoir and even GSV has no caption of it other than submitted still photos at both sides of the dam.I believe it has to do with 9/11 security concerns.
Is there a specific reason why the rim of the Kenisco Dam in White Plains is not open to motor vehicles?I believe it has to do with 9/11 security concerns.
Yes, from where the dam is situated it is a perfect way to wipe out White Plains as blowing up that particular structure would wash away the Bronx River Valley below it. White Plains is along the lower River valley and so would other Westchester communities as well.
However, considering that one hell bent on destruction will go for it any way possible, why not allow us to enjoy the beauty of the dam from above as well.
Of course, causing a dam failure would be ridiculously difficult. This security theater is just that -- lip service to a public that has been manipulated into thinking a threat is much more likely than it is...by those that profit from such.Yes, from where the dam is situated it is a perfect way to wipe out White Plains as blowing up that particular structure would wash away the Bronx River Valley below it. White Plains is along the lower River valley and so would other Westchester communities as well.
However, considering that one hell bent on destruction will go for it any way possible, why not allow us to enjoy the beauty of the dam from above as well.
Kensico is probably the single most important dam in the NYC water supply system. That's where all the water from the other aqueducts is dumped before being sent down to the City. And yes, a dam failure would wipe out anything below it along the Bronx River.
The full list of prohibited vehicles is:IIRC "motor-driven" cycles refers to traditional bicycles that have had a motor attached to them, not motorcycles as colloquially known.Quote(a) bicycles;Motorcycles is surprising to me. I've never seen that enforced.
(b) buses;
(c) commercial;
(d) golf carts;
(e) hearses, except those operated by or for a licensed funeral director or undertaker while traveling to or from a funeral, interment, cremation, place of death or other destination for the acceptance and shipment of the body or remains of a deceased person;
(f) house coaches;
(g) motor-driven cycles;
(h) school buses;
(i) semitrailers;
(j) snowmobiles;
(k) tractors;
(l) trailers;
(m) trucks.
Just wondering about NY. If NY was allowed to post speed limits higher than 65, do you think any roads could be signed higher than 65? I think the Thruway could easily be 70 for the most part. What other roads do you think could be signed higher? If so, what do you think it could be signed at?I-87 Northway has come up because of how remote it is. I-81 between cities would be another, and I've done I-88 at enough speed to recommend it for anything you'd like.
Just wondering about NY. If NY was allowed to post speed limits higher than 65, do you think any roads could be signed higher than 65? I think the Thruway could easily be 70 for the most part. What other roads do you think could be signed higher? If so, what do you think it could be signed at?I-87 Northway has come up because of how remote it is. I-81 between cities would be another, and I've done I-88 at enough speed to recommend it for anything you'd like.
Just wondering about NY. If NY was allowed to post speed limits higher than 65, do you think any roads could be signed higher than 65? I think the Thruway could easily be 70 for the most part. What other roads do you think could be signed higher? If so, what do you think it could be signed at?I made a post a little while ago with some examples if NYSDOT is given free reign up to 75. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27178.msg2718112#msg2718112) If I was personally in charge, many of those would go up 5-10mph higher than I listed them at, but alas my opinion means 0 to the DOT.
What about NY-17 outside of hale eddy? those could easily be higher than 55 right? What seems to be the absolute limit for that road (the speeds police will tolerate before ticketing you) as well as the 85th percentile speed since no one drives 55 in those areas outside of hale eddy anyways.85th percentile speeds along this section tend to be in the low to mid 70s, just like the 65mph sections around them, which is pretty typical in NY; operating speeds rarely change between 55 and 65 zones if the road characteristics are similar enough.
I've done I-88 at enough speed to recommend it for anything you'd like.:-D
Just wondering about NY. If NY was allowed to post speed limits higher than 65, do you think any roads could be signed higher than 65? I think the Thruway could easily be 70 for the most part. What other roads do you think could be signed higher? If so, what do you think it could be signed at?I made a post a little while ago with some examples if NYSDOT is given free reign up to 75. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27178.msg2718112#msg2718112) If I was personally in charge, many of those would go up 5-10mph higher than I listed them at, but alas my opinion means 0 to the DOT.
Now 75 really should be the real absolute minimum should cops decide to aggressively enforce them.
Just wondering about NY. If NY was allowed to post speed limits higher than 65, do you think any roads could be signed higher than 65? I think the Thruway could easily be 70 for the most part. What other roads do you think could be signed higher? If so, what do you think it could be signed at?I-87 Northway has come up because of how remote it is. I-81 between cities would be another, and I've done I-88 at enough speed to recommend it for anything you'd like.
Sure, NY 531 could easily be 70, and the western stretches of I-490. I-390 may be too curvy or hilly, but it's certainly remote enough.
And since we're talking hypotheticals, the Thruway could be 80 or 85 mph if not for the heavy truck traffic.The 4 lane section of the Thruway between Harriman and Kingston is abysmal whenever it is overrun with city folk who have never seen a speed limit above 50, not when it has heavy truck traffic in my experience. The trucks on the Thruway are surprisingly patient when it comes to passing other trucks (no micro-passing), whereas the heavy tourist traffic results in a stream of 60mph passing the 55mph queue in the right, with a 2 mile long left lane queue and a slowdown to 40 or so every time someone decides to change lanes. This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.
And since we're talking hypotheticals, the Thruway could be 80 or 85 mph if not for the heavy truck traffic.The 4 lane section of the Thruway between Harriman and Kingston is abysmal whenever it is overrun with city folk who have never seen a speed limit above 50, not when it has heavy truck traffic in my experience. The trucks on the Thruway are surprisingly patient when it comes to passing other trucks (no micro-passing), whereas the heavy tourist traffic results in a stream of 60mph passing the 55mph queue in the right, with a 2 mile long left lane queue and a slowdown to 40 or so every time someone decides to change lanes. This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.
The trucks on the other hand usually cruise in the 70-75 range by themselves on the right (aided by the fact that the Thruway is relatively flat) and rarely pass at less than 70 unless there is a really slow car or truck in the right, and if they are passing, they actually pass rather than micro-pass. When the LOS is in the B to C range, the State Police will tailgate people in the left lane to help clear up some space, since at LOS A they sit in the median and at LOS D or worse they might as well not exist.
And since we're talking hypotheticals, the Thruway could be 80 or 85 mph if not for the heavy truck traffic.The 4 lane section of the Thruway between Harriman and Kingston is abysmal whenever it is overrun with city folk who have never seen a speed limit above 50, not when it has heavy truck traffic in my experience. The trucks on the Thruway are surprisingly patient when it comes to passing other trucks (no micro-passing), whereas the heavy tourist traffic results in a stream of 60mph passing the 55mph queue in the right, with a 2 mile long left lane queue and a slowdown to 40 or so every time someone decides to change lanes. This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.
The trucks on the other hand usually cruise in the 70-75 range by themselves on the right (aided by the fact that the Thruway is relatively flat) and rarely pass at less than 70 unless there is a really slow car or truck in the right, and if they are passing, they actually pass rather than micro-pass. When the LOS is in the B to C range, the State Police will tailgate people in the left lane to help clear up some space, since at LOS A they sit in the median and at LOS D or worse they might as well not exist.
NYSTA has a looser policy when it comes to widening than NYSDOT. See the "recent" widening from I-787 westward.And since we're talking hypotheticals, the Thruway could be 80 or 85 mph if not for the heavy truck traffic.The 4 lane section of the Thruway between Harriman and Kingston is abysmal whenever it is overrun with city folk who have never seen a speed limit above 50, not when it has heavy truck traffic in my experience. The trucks on the Thruway are surprisingly patient when it comes to passing other trucks (no micro-passing), whereas the heavy tourist traffic results in a stream of 60mph passing the 55mph queue in the right, with a 2 mile long left lane queue and a slowdown to 40 or so every time someone decides to change lanes. This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.
The trucks on the other hand usually cruise in the 70-75 range by themselves on the right (aided by the fact that the Thruway is relatively flat) and rarely pass at less than 70 unless there is a really slow car or truck in the right, and if they are passing, they actually pass rather than micro-pass. When the LOS is in the B to C range, the State Police will tailgate people in the left lane to help clear up some space, since at LOS A they sit in the median and at LOS D or worse they might as well not exist.
Out of curiosity, has there been any thought to the W word (widening) the thruway from Harriman to the Albany area?
Out of curiosity, has there been any thought to the W word (widening) the thruway from Harriman to the Albany area?Only among people on here if I had to guess, though I don't work for NYSTA.
No major changes needed for the rest of the segments for neither the present nor the foreseeable future.
When I looked at the traffic counts in Catskills, they were surprisingly low.No major changes needed for the rest of the segments for neither the present nor the foreseeable future.
Agreed for I-87, but you're talking about the entire Thruway, some four-lane sections of I-90 are nearly as busy as Harriman-Albany.
The 4 lane section of the Thruway between Harriman and Kingston is abysmal whenever it is overrun with city folk who have never seen a speed limit above 50, not when it has heavy truck traffic in my experience. The trucks on the Thruway are surprisingly patient when it comes to passing other trucks (no micro-passing), whereas the heavy tourist traffic results in a stream of 60mph passing the 55mph queue in the right, with a 2 mile long left lane queue and a slowdown to 40 or so every time someone decides to change lanes. This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.
The entire Boston-DC corridor tends to be crap with passing/keeping right in my experience. When 128 around Boston allowed breakdown lane travel, that was often the fastest lane. People who are always driving in congestion don't know how to drive on roads where you can pass.
Yes, this does seem to be a plague in the Northeast on 6 lane roads. At least, IMO, having 3 lanes in each direction seemingly adds at lot more capacity than it would on paper in my experience. This is just my observation though, so I'm not sure from an engineering standpoint if this is true.The entire Boston-DC corridor tends to be crap with passing/keeping right in my experience. When 128 around Boston allowed breakdown lane travel, that was often the fastest lane. People who are always driving in congestion don't know how to drive on roads where you can pass.
Yeah, it's usually fine when there's only two lanes, but that's such a low percentage of the highways around here. I think it's partly because people who are used to congestion, once they get away from it, prefer to have a set it-and-forget it approach to driving, so they avoid the right lane with its frequent exits and entrances, and just camp out in the middle by default and let everyone else do all the work. :-P
(And then they swear up and down that they never want self-driving vehicles…)
I have noticed the exact opposite in the Boston area – if you try to go 55 in the left lane, you will get run over. Slow left lane hogs do not exist here.
I will admit that I do stay in the center lane more than I probably should, but I'm usually going fast enough that I'm not usually impeding traffic.
They're going fast enough that it's not as egregious, but it's still annoying that they do not adhere to KRETP.
Yeah, I've run into major headaches on summer or even autumn weekends (leaves changing). It could widen.When I looked at the traffic counts in Catskills, they were surprisingly low.No major changes needed for the rest of the segments for neither the present nor the foreseeable future.
Agreed for I-87, but you're talking about the entire Thruway, some four-lane sections of I-90 are nearly as busy as Harriman-Albany.
Of course, summer weekend rush from NYC will be multiple times higher, but the usual question is if those rush days justify an upgrade. Especially with Daddy bridge credits being there for long term payoff
This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.
Meh. I don't know. There's a lot of people who pass a line of cars and they pass them slower than you're going, but I don't consider that LLB-ing since they're at least passing people.This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.
My experience with NY drivers is that it isn't just the "city folk" who don't understand KRETP. The whole state as a general rule ignores it.
In terms of NYC weekend traffic, things maybe more involved. On one hand, city has virtually endless traffic source capacity. So widening would be negated by redistributed traffic from other destinations - Poconos and what not, as well as extra travellers.Yeah, I've run into major headaches on summer or even autumn weekends (leaves changing). It could widen.When I looked at the traffic counts in Catskills, they were surprisingly low.No major changes needed for the rest of the segments for neither the present nor the foreseeable future.
Agreed for I-87, but you're talking about the entire Thruway, some four-lane sections of I-90 are nearly as busy as Harriman-Albany.
Of course, summer weekend rush from NYC will be multiple times higher, but the usual question is if those rush days justify an upgrade. Especially with Daddy bridge credits being there for long term payoff
Makes you wonder who gets to make that determination of whether a park is conservation or recreation and how on Earth they think they can keep the two purposes exclusive from one another. Seems quixotic all around.In terms of NYC weekend traffic, things maybe more involved. On one hand, city has virtually endless traffic source capacity. So widening would be negated by redistributed traffic from other destinations - Poconos and what not, as well as extra travellers.Yeah, I've run into major headaches on summer or even autumn weekends (leaves changing). It could widen.When I looked at the traffic counts in Catskills, they were surprisingly low.No major changes needed for the rest of the segments for neither the present nor the foreseeable future.
Agreed for I-87, but you're talking about the entire Thruway, some four-lane sections of I-90 are nearly as busy as Harriman-Albany.
Of course, summer weekend rush from NYC will be multiple times higher, but the usual question is if those rush days justify an upgrade. Especially with Daddy bridge credits being there for long term payoff
The other aspect is status of Catskills and Adirondack. They are natural conservation, rather than recreational parks, and many popular destinations are running at and above capacity.
People are actually forced to leave when there is no parking.
A first result from Google search regarding the issue:
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2021/04/01/adirondacks-registration-parking-lot-permit-pass-required-popular-hikes-this-year/7058308002/
Adirondack role may be defined by NYS constitution as "forever wild" - with lots of amendments and fine print.Makes you wonder who gets to make that determination of whether a park is conservation or recreation and how on Earth they think they can keep the two purposes exclusive from one another. Seems quixotic all around.In terms of NYC weekend traffic, things maybe more involved. On one hand, city has virtually endless traffic source capacity. So widening would be negated by redistributed traffic from other destinations - Poconos and what not, as well as extra travellers.Yeah, I've run into major headaches on summer or even autumn weekends (leaves changing). It could widen.When I looked at the traffic counts in Catskills, they were surprisingly low.No major changes needed for the rest of the segments for neither the present nor the foreseeable future.
Agreed for I-87, but you're talking about the entire Thruway, some four-lane sections of I-90 are nearly as busy as Harriman-Albany.
Of course, summer weekend rush from NYC will be multiple times higher, but the usual question is if those rush days justify an upgrade. Especially with Daddy bridge credits being there for long term payoff
The other aspect is status of Catskills and Adirondack. They are natural conservation, rather than recreational parks, and many popular destinations are running at and above capacity.
People are actually forced to leave when there is no parking.
A first result from Google search regarding the issue:
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2021/04/01/adirondacks-registration-parking-lot-permit-pass-required-popular-hikes-this-year/7058308002/
I am all for crowd controls -- even using lotteries and quotas and the like to keep them down. The Kaaterskill Falls area is getting trashed by overwhelming crowds, for just one known example. The ADK helps with managing Adirondack Park, but I don't know their involvement with the Catskills. I'd be surprised if they or a counterpart wasn't in the Catskills. Then again, the Catskills had a network of private resorts, maybe their interests filled that role?
I've been worried about the declining etiquette amongst hikers in the woods. Hikers trampling this and that or blasting music out of Bluetooth speakers (modern say boom boxes). I don't think we have the resources to protect nature from ourselves and training new generations seems to be failing (not that older generations are perfect).
Still, despite the way Adirondack and Catskill Parks were established, managing them like any other natural park system to ensure the natural resources aren't destroyed seems obvious to me.
Adirondack role may be defined by NYS constitution as "forever wild" - with lots of amendments and fine print.Makes you wonder who gets to make that determination of whether a park is conservation or recreation and how on Earth they think they can keep the two purposes exclusive from one another. Seems quixotic all around.In terms of NYC weekend traffic, things maybe more involved. On one hand, city has virtually endless traffic source capacity. So widening would be negated by redistributed traffic from other destinations - Poconos and what not, as well as extra travellers.Yeah, I've run into major headaches on summer or even autumn weekends (leaves changing). It could widen.When I looked at the traffic counts in Catskills, they were surprisingly low.No major changes needed for the rest of the segments for neither the present nor the foreseeable future.
Agreed for I-87, but you're talking about the entire Thruway, some four-lane sections of I-90 are nearly as busy as Harriman-Albany.
Of course, summer weekend rush from NYC will be multiple times higher, but the usual question is if those rush days justify an upgrade. Especially with Daddy bridge credits being there for long term payoff
The other aspect is status of Catskills and Adirondack. They are natural conservation, rather than recreational parks, and many popular destinations are running at and above capacity.
People are actually forced to leave when there is no parking.
A first result from Google search regarding the issue:
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2021/04/01/adirondacks-registration-parking-lot-permit-pass-required-popular-hikes-this-year/7058308002/
I am all for crowd controls -- even using lotteries and quotas and the like to keep them down. The Kaaterskill Falls area is getting trashed by overwhelming crowds, for just one known example. The ADK helps with managing Adirondack Park, but I don't know their involvement with the Catskills. I'd be surprised if they or a counterpart wasn't in the Catskills. Then again, the Catskills had a network of private resorts, maybe their interests filled that role?
I've been worried about the declining etiquette amongst hikers in the woods. Hikers trampling this and that or blasting music out of Bluetooth speakers (modern say boom boxes). I don't think we have the resources to protect nature from ourselves and training new generations seems to be failing (not that older generations are perfect).
Still, despite the way Adirondack and Catskill Parks were established, managing them like any other natural park system to ensure the natural resources aren't destroyed seems obvious to me.
And Catskills resorts were a bit different, with people more confined to resort area - not walking all over the forest. Besides, large areas of Catskills are now bought out by NYC to protect water sources from human activities.
That's a very oversimplified view, especially of Adirondack Park, where forever wild only pertains to public lands within the Blue Line while the APC is heavily involved with all the land within the Blue Line. Management of land within the Blue Line has definitely evolved over the decades and become more and more complicated than the simple forever wild statement in the Constitution.Well, in the context of Thruway widening, where this discussion have started - I am pretty sure throttling of weekend traffic will be discussed as well.
Sure, there are the reservoirs in the Catskills and the resorts only covering part of the area. My point was that the remaining resorts (they've been declining with some very notable major closures over the last 20 years) may still be a significant lobbyist group. You just don't hear about a "Catskill Park Commission" like you do the APC or hear about a Catskill Mountain Club like you do the ADK. Both reserves are being overrun, but it really does seem like the Daks have more resources and organization to be brought to bear.
My experience with NY drivers is that it isn't just the "city folk" who don't understand KRETP. The whole state as a general rule ignores it.
Meh. I don't know. There's a lot of people who pass a line of cars and they pass them slower than you're going, but I don't consider that LLB-ing since they're at least passing people.
No one beats Ohioans when it comes to camping out in the left lane "just because."
I am all for crowd controls -- even using lotteries and quotas and the like to keep them down. The Kaaterskill Falls area is getting trashed by overwhelming crowds, for just one known example.
This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.
My experience with NY drivers is that it isn't just the "city folk" who don't understand KRETP. The whole state as a general rule ignores it.
I still think it's mostly faster traffic that ignores KRETP. You rarely encounter traffic going at or below speed in the left lane and refusing to move left.
I wouldn't be surprised if middle lane camping is a contributing factor to speed limits in the northeast being so low. I was talking with someone about speed limits a while back, and at one point she said "I wouldn't want the speed limit on I-787 raised [from 55] because then I couldn't just go 60 in the middle lane".
Regarding traffic counts on the Thruway, it doesn't get below 10k. For the Thruway portion of I-87 north of exit 11:
-11-12: 122k
-12-13: 132k
-13-14: 134k
-14-14A: 138k
-14A-14B: 101k
-14B-15: 92k
-15-16: 84k
-16-17: 50k
-17-18: 40k
-18-19: 40k
-19-20: 38k
-20-21: 33k
-21-21B: 38k
-21B-21A: 43k
-21A-22: 54k
-22-23: 51k
-23-24: 57k
I still think it's mostly faster traffic that ignores KRETP. You rarely encounter traffic going at or below speed in the left lane and refusing to move left.
True as pertains to the left lane. In the middle, however, this is pretty much the rule (at least if you replace "speed limit" with "prevailing speed").
I really wonder why did I remember below 10kI wouldn't be surprised if middle lane camping is a contributing factor to speed limits in the northeast being so low. I was talking with someone about speed limits a while back, and at one point she said "I wouldn't want the speed limit on I-787 raised [from 55] because then I couldn't just go 60 in the middle lane".
It's definitely a factor in the right lane being used as a secondary passing lane. You almost expect the slow traffic to be in the middle, so it ironically messes up the flow when someone slow is on the right as they should be!
Rural freeways with six lanes are also almost non-existent, which creates a mindset of "six lanes = urban = very busy with frequent exits" leading to middle lane camping on almost all six lane freeways. The rural four-lane freeways are much better when it comes to KRETP adherence.Regarding traffic counts on the Thruway, it doesn't get below 10k. For the Thruway portion of I-87 north of exit 11:
-11-12: 122k
-12-13: 132k
-13-14: 134k
-14-14A: 138k
-14A-14B: 101k
-14B-15: 92k
-15-16: 84k
-16-17: 50k
-17-18: 40k
-18-19: 40k
-19-20: 38k
-20-21: 33k
-21-21B: 38k
-21B-21A: 43k
-21A-22: 54k
-22-23: 51k
-23-24: 57k
Yeah, I don't see how any portion of the Thruway south of Albany would ever be below 10k. You'd have to figure at least 20k even on a winter weekday, and closer to 50-60k on the busiest travel days/weekends.
These figures support my thought that the top priorities for widening should be 16 to 17 and 21A to 23.
It's definitely a factor in the right lane being used as a secondary passing lane. You almost expect the slow traffic to be in the middle, so it ironically messes up the flow when someone slow is on the right as they should be!
Rural freeways with six lanes are also almost non-existent, which creates a mindset of "six lanes = urban = very busy with frequent exits" leading to middle lane camping on almost all six lane freeways. The rural four-lane freeways are much better when it comes to KRETP adherence.
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890. It's frustrating.This becomes even more magnified when city folk who don't understand KRETP decide they want to clog the left lane as well.
My experience with NY drivers is that it isn't just the "city folk" who don't understand KRETP. The whole state as a general rule ignores it.
I still think it's mostly faster traffic that ignores KRETP. You rarely encounter traffic going at or below speed in the left lane and refusing to move left.
(The one big exception is left exits, where people tend to move left miles earlier than necessary, causing traffic to flow past on the right.)
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890. It's frustrating.
Which is perfectly legal, at least in most statesIt's definitely a factor in the right lane being used as a secondary passing lane. You almost expect the slow traffic to be in the middle, so it ironically messes up the flow when someone slow is on the right as they should be!
Rural freeways with six lanes are also almost non-existent, which creates a mindset of "six lanes = urban = very busy with frequent exits" leading to middle lane camping on almost all six lane freeways. The rural four-lane freeways are much better when it comes to KRETP adherence.
What I find bizarre are the people who seem to prefer to pass on the right. Far too frequently, I’ll move from the right lane to the middle lane with the left lane open (either well in advance of a pass since the left lane is open or due to an interchange where I can see entering traffic coming down the ramp) only to have someone charge up behind me and then pass me on the right even though the left lane is open.
iPad
What I find bizarre are the people who seem to prefer to pass on the right. Far too frequently, I’ll move from the right lane to the middle lane with the left lane open (either well in advance of a pass since the left lane is open or due to an interchange where I can see entering traffic coming down the ramp) only to have someone charge up behind me and then pass me on the right even though the left lane is open.Which is perfectly legal, at least in most states
iPad
Which is perfectly legal, at least in most states
It may be legal but at least in my opinion, passing on the right is always more dangerous than passing on the left. Plus, as I said above, I left the right lane for safety reasons (either gaining on another vehicle in the right lane or merging traffic ahead) so even more reason why a pass on the right in that situation is more dangerous than a pass on the left.
The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890. It's frustrating.
You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit” lane on the left rather than on the right.
People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890. It's frustrating.
You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit” lane on the left rather than on the right.
As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890. It's frustrating.
You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit” lane on the left rather than on the right.
As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
So...clog the right lanes.People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890. It's frustrating.
You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit” lane on the left rather than on the right.
As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
Hey I noticed something when virtually touring I-81. I see the Cartland Next 2 Exits sign now is revised to include both exits for Ithaca as well.NYSDOT has been on a few sign replacement projects in Region 3 over the last 3-4 years. As one sees from the EXIT 12 guide sign, NYSDOT has added 2 MILE advance signage whereas there was none before on sections of I-81 south of Syracuse and on NY 481 between North Syracuse and Fulton. NYSDOT has also changed signage at the entrance areas on interchanges such as this: https://goo.gl/maps/PCrGHwSQiyzNTcnM9. This is what this spot looked like in late 2016: https://goo.gl/maps/XkbRVNMjnP5aJwAt7. NYSDOT also got rid of the mileage signs at these interchanges such as this: https://goo.gl/maps/QnR53r7BRRSgdEtQ6. This seems to be more in line with what states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana do at interchanges.
https://goo.gl/maps/ZpDmXbUBtyX189kv8
Then also the Exit 12 guides now include Ithaca as well as Homer and Cortland.
https://goo.gl/maps/Pnid81TVgVA2itrYA
I always thought NYSDOT should include Ithaca along with Cortland on the Next 2 exits signs. Now I see someone is finally thinking clearly.
So...clog the right lanes.People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890. It's frustrating.
You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit” lane on the left rather than on the right.
As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
No, what needs to happen is the left exit needs to be a right exit.
Nah. Make it a right exit and follow the rules of the road with KRETP. All better, just like how they fixed the I-95/I-695 interchange in Maryland. No more people lining up on the left...and no crazy middle left turning nuttiness. Just take people off to the right like Interstates should.So...clog the right lanes.People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890. It's frustrating.
You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit” lane on the left rather than on the right.
As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
No, what needs to happen is the left exit needs to be a right exit.
It's a high-speed split, so switching sides wouldn't change anything except which side traffic collects on.
The issue is that I-90 traffic needs more than one lane, and the easiest way to address that without adding new lanes is with an option lane. Then the traffic that currently clogs the left lane could stay in the center lane.
If you ignore the names and designations, and analyze it from a traffic perspective, almost 2 cars remain on I-90 (Exit 24) for every 1 car that remains on the Thruway mainline towards I-87 south, so IMO having I-90 "exit" on the left is appropriate.Left exits aren't appropriate.
If you ignore the names and designations, and analyze it from a traffic perspective, almost 2 cars remain on I-90 (Exit 24) for every 1 car that remains on the Thruway mainline towards I-87 south, so IMO having I-90 "exit" on the left is appropriate.Left exits aren't appropriate.
It's a high-speed split, so switching sides wouldn't change anything except which side traffic collects on.Nah. Make it a right exit and follow the rules of the road with KRETP. All better, just like how they fixed the I-95/I-695 interchange in Maryland. No more people lining up on the left...and no crazy middle left turning nuttiness. Just take people off to the right like Interstates should.
The issue is that I-90 traffic needs more than one lane, and the easiest way to address that without adding new lanes is with an option lane. Then the traffic that currently clogs the left lane could stay in the center lane.
Traffic transitioning from I-90 EB to I-87 SB should be treated as a right exit and traffic remaining on I-90 EB should be treated as the mainline. The right lane becomes an exit only and that expands to 2 exit only lanes where now the I-90 exit traffic expands to 2 lanes.
Is the only significant reason this won't happen the silly insistence that the Thruway designation is more important than the I-87 and I-90 designations? Would it take more than paint and signs?
There are 2 lanes going right towards NYC, and 2 lanes going left to Albany.People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890. It's frustrating.
You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit” lane on the left rather than on the right.
As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
That would be the case if Castleton on Hudson bridge was in a better shape. As it stands right now, both routes are within a minute in drive time and a mile of driving distance of each other. Timing is valid outside of Albany rush hour, of course; and one is tolled and the other is free. Toll barriers are no longer a time consuming thing. Rush hour traffic or road work may be a deal breaker, but without that there is no clear advantage of choosing either routing.Traffic transitioning from I-90 EB to I-87 SB should be treated as a right exit and traffic remaining on I-90 EB should be treated as the mainline. The right lane becomes an exit only and that expands to 2 exit only lanes where now the I-90 exit traffic expands to 2 lanes.
Is the only significant reason this won't happen the silly insistence that the Thruway designation is more important than the I-87 and I-90 designations? Would it take more than paint and signs?
It’s actually the shorter and faster route than staying on free I-90. Staying on the Thruway to the Berkshire Spur uses Boston as a control city. Personally, I-90 should have followed that way to begin with.
Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.Can you elaborate a bit? I can see arguments against widening NYSTA would be putting on a table (money, money, and money), but I don't quite see full pro-widening picture.
New York isn’t a poor state. Why can’t they afford that? What would it cost? 3-5 billion for the entire thing? It’s also a tolled facility so could they not issue bonds? Furthermore does the NYSTA only operate that one road or all tolled roads in the state?Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.Can you elaborate a bit? I can see arguments against widening NYSTA would be putting on a table (money, money, and money), but I don't quite see full pro-widening picture.
Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.
NYS is certainly not a rich state; and Upstate NY in particular is even worse.New York isn’t a poor state. Why can’t they afford that? What would it cost? 3-5 billion for the entire thing? It’s also a tolled facility so could they not issue bonds? Furthermore does the NYSTA only operate that one road or all tolled roads in the state?Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.Can you elaborate a bit? I can see arguments against widening NYSTA would be putting on a table (money, money, and money), but I don't quite see full pro-widening picture.
PS, I hope my message didn’t come across as being a smart ass. I’m genuinely curious about these things. I know in California I’m surprised at the lack of 6 lane rural stretches connecting major cities.
Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.
Could it be the hills clogging traffic? I was surprised to see traffic counts that don't suggest three-lanes the entire way but the grades between Albany and Route 17 slowed traffic down a lot.
For cars, 2 lane highway can handle more than 4k an hour. Then you talk truck fraction, rush hour intensity (mostly concentrated commute vs spread out long haul).Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.
Could it be the hills clogging traffic? I was surprised to see traffic counts that don't suggest three-lanes the entire way but the grades between Albany and Route 17 slowed traffic down a lot.
What traffic counts would suggest a widening is warranted? I used 30k for a threshold in the rural six-lane freeway thread, and I would say that's on the low end and 40-45k on the high end of when a widening would be considered. Certainly anything over 50k would be warranted, which includes NY 17 to I-84 and Berkshire Spur to I-787.
Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.
Could it be the hills clogging traffic? I was surprised to see traffic counts that don't suggest three-lanes the entire way but the grades between Albany and Route 17 slowed traffic down a lot.
What traffic counts would suggest a widening is warranted? I used 30k for a threshold in the rural six-lane freeway thread, and I would say that's on the low end and 40-45k on the high end of when a widening would be considered. Certainly anything over 50k would be warranted, which includes NY 17 to I-84 and Berkshire Spur to I-787.
Nah, just an intersection that's up to modern standards. Get rid of the left exit and things'll flow better all the way from Schenectady. All those slow people on the left will now be on the right where they should be.There are 2 lanes going right towards NYC, and 2 lanes going left to Albany.People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890. It's frustrating.
You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit” lane on the left rather than on the right.
As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
After 2 lanes going towards Albany joins with another 2-lane ramp from opposite Thruway direction, there was a now-gone toll plaza and after that 2 lanes go left to i-90 Albany, 2 lanes go right to I-87 Northway, and a lane splits off towards us20 exit.
It's a complex interchange with lots of merges and lane changes, slowdown is really expected.
What @Rothman seemingly wants is an express lane for himself to save 15 seconds.
PS edited ramp description for clarity
Nah, just an intersection that's up to modern standards. Get rid of the left exit and things'll flow better all the way from Schenectady. All those slow people on the left will now be on the right where they should be.There are 2 lanes going right towards NYC, and 2 lanes going left to Albany.People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890. It's frustrating.
You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit” lane on the left rather than on the right.
As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
After 2 lanes going towards Albany joins with another 2-lane ramp from opposite Thruway direction, there was a now-gone toll plaza and after that 2 lanes go left to i-90 Albany, 2 lanes go right to I-87 Northway, and a lane splits off towards us20 exit.
It's a complex interchange with lots of merges and lane changes, slowdown is really expected.
What @Rothman seemingly wants is an express lane for himself to save 15 seconds.
PS edited ramp description for clarity
Nah, just an intersection that's up to modern standards. Get rid of the left exit and things'll flow better all the way from Schenectady. All those slow people on the left will now be on the right where they should be.There are 2 lanes going right towards NYC, and 2 lanes going left to Albany.People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890. It's frustrating.
You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit” lane on the left rather than on the right.
As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
After 2 lanes going towards Albany joins with another 2-lane ramp from opposite Thruway direction, there was a now-gone toll plaza and after that 2 lanes go left to i-90 Albany, 2 lanes go right to I-87 Northway, and a lane splits off towards us20 exit.
It's a complex interchange with lots of merges and lane changes, slowdown is really expected.
What @Rothman seemingly wants is an express lane for himself to save 15 seconds.
PS edited ramp description for clarity
Left exit has VERY little to do with the issues. What we really need int that area is to deal with Northway -> Thruway ramp. However that requires some engineering with at least GED diplomas working for NYSDOT...
As for slow people... Where exactly are you heading?
I suspect you are exiting towards Albany, and what you're arguing about is your god-given right to cut through 4 lanes of traffic in the last moment, making other drivers brake to the floor. Am I missing something?
Nah, just an intersection that's up to modern standards. Get rid of the left exit and things'll flow better all the way from Schenectady. All those slow people on the left will now be on the right where they should be.There are 2 lanes going right towards NYC, and 2 lanes going left to Albany.People would still clog the left lane of the Thruway like they do now, though.The left exit for Exit 24 (I-90/I-87) is a major cause for LLB-ing all the way back to I-890. It's frustrating.
You mean where the Thruway exits I-90 to the right? I always thought the Thruway designed it that way since the major flow was to I-90 with only a secondary flow remaining on the Thruway. But looking at it on Google Earth, it appears they then blew it by adding the “exit” lane on the left rather than on the right.
As a general rule, option lanes are better than added lanes for that very reason. No matter which side the extra lane opens on, slow traffic tends to collects in that single lane until the new lane opens. Option lanes provide a lot more flexibility for all traffic.
The way it is now, all traffic to I-90 has to get in that left lane at some point. I think an option lane would make things at least a little better, since traffic could use both the left and center lanes to get to I-90.
After 2 lanes going towards Albany joins with another 2-lane ramp from opposite Thruway direction, there was a now-gone toll plaza and after that 2 lanes go left to i-90 Albany, 2 lanes go right to I-87 Northway, and a lane splits off towards us20 exit.
It's a complex interchange with lots of merges and lane changes, slowdown is really expected.
What @Rothman seemingly wants is an express lane for himself to save 15 seconds.
PS edited ramp description for clarity
Left exit has VERY little to do with the issues. What we really need int that area is to deal with Northway -> Thruway ramp. However that requires some engineering with at least GED diplomas working for NYSDOT...
As for slow people... Where exactly are you heading?
I suspect you are exiting towards Albany, and what you're arguing about is your god-given right to cut through 4 lanes of traffic in the last moment, making other drivers brake to the floor. Am I missing something?
Yep, Exit 1 from I-87 SB is bad, but I wonder if better signage would help (split traffic into Thruway/Free 90 lanes earlier). Of course, just adding a lane to the ramp to the Thruway would be better.
Left exit causes a lot of issues. Take the converse, with the right exit on I-90 WB for I-890 to Schenectady. Works a lot better. So would getting rid of the left on I-90 EB for I-90. :)
New York isn’t a poor state. Why can’t they afford that? What would it cost? 3-5 billion for the entire thing? It’s also a tolled facility so could they not issue bonds? Furthermore does the NYSTA only operate that one road or all tolled roads in the state?Traffic volumes suggest 2 lanes from 17 to the Berkshire Extension. But my experience suggests they should 3 lane each way the whole way.Can you elaborate a bit? I can see arguments against widening NYSTA would be putting on a table (money, money, and money), but I don't quite see full pro-widening picture.
Hey I noticed something when virtually touring I-81. I see the Cartland Next 2 Exits sign now is revised to include both exits for Ithaca as well.NYSDOT has been on a few sign replacement projects in Region 3 over the last 3-4 years. As one sees from the EXIT 12 guide sign, NYSDOT has added 2 MILE advance signage whereas there was none before on sections of I-81 south of Syracuse and on NY 481 between North Syracuse and Fulton. NYSDOT has also changed signage at the entrance areas on interchanges such as this: https://goo.gl/maps/PCrGHwSQiyzNTcnM9. This is what this spot looked like in late 2016: https://goo.gl/maps/XkbRVNMjnP5aJwAt7. NYSDOT also got rid of the mileage signs at these interchanges such as this: https://goo.gl/maps/QnR53r7BRRSgdEtQ6. This seems to be more in line with what states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana do at interchanges.
https://goo.gl/maps/ZpDmXbUBtyX189kv8
Then also the Exit 12 guides now include Ithaca as well as Homer and Cortland.
https://goo.gl/maps/Pnid81TVgVA2itrYA
I always thought NYSDOT should include Ithaca along with Cortland on the Next 2 exits signs. Now I see someone is finally thinking clearly.
It is good to see that NYSDOT, especially in Region 3, is replacing, upgrading, and updating signage throughout. Even some state highways have received updated signage. Many mileage signs and destination signs now employ mixed case lettering instead of all CAPS.
Also, no Series F on the shields on the updated signs. :thumbsup:
Do we know enough about the temporal distribution of traffic on the Thruway to determine lane count required to maintain LOS B at the 30th highest hour (a) now, and (b) in a hypothetical design year of 2045 (assuming annualized traffic growth at a consistent rate along the entire corridor)?I don't think there is growth in the plans for upstate NY. My strong impression is that many plans assume further population decline.
*snickers*Do we know enough about the temporal distribution of traffic on the Thruway to determine lane count required to maintain LOS B at the 30th highest hour (a) now, and (b) in a hypothetical design year of 2045 (assuming annualized traffic growth at a consistent rate along the entire corridor)?I don't think there is growth in the plans for upstate NY. My strong impression is that many plans assume further population decline.
Well, the population in much of New York will be declining but that doesn't necessarily mean traffic will drop. For instance, New York is seeing record park visitation all throughout its state-managed units and the Adirondacks so this could be a deciding factor in future projects. But I suspect that new long-distance corridors will be put on the back burner - like the US 219 project, because there isn't the traffic nor growth coming to much of upstate.That sure is not stopping states like West Virginia from building new roads left and right.
Different politics and funding policies.
Corridor H is the last Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) corridor to be finished in the state, and there is a huge push into getting the central portion completed between Elkins and Thomas/Davis. Construction is underway on the portion from Elkins to Parsons, and construction should start on the Parsons to Thomas/Davis portion by 2023 or 2024. The east Wardenville segment is contingent on Virginia building its portion but the engineering has been completed.
The Coalfields Expressway (US 121) isn't an ADHS corridor and is being mostly funded via federal and state dollars and the Roads to Prosperity program - which is partly funded through tolls from the West Virginia Turnpike. Tolls now have semi-regular increases, taking politics out of any increases - which is partly the reason why tolls were stuck at $1.25 per mainline booth for a very long time. It was the cheapest toll road to drive on in the nation for decades - and it's still not a bad deal at $4.25 per mainline booth. But it is funding the Coalfields extension from Mullens to Welch.
The King Coal Highway/Tolsia Highway (US 52) is being extended a few miles to Airport Road/WV 123 around Bluefield, but that's about it. Proposed for 2024 or 2025 is the completion of the Williamson bypass from US 119 to the completed segment south of the city. Again, funded with a combination of federal and state dollars and the Roads to Prosperity program.
Others, like the US 522 project in the eastern part of the state, is all reliant on federal and state dollars.
Major differences.
- New York sends a substantial amount of money downstate - and whether that is too much or too little, that's a lot different than West Virginia where the money is more evenly distributed.
- The New York State Thruway also does not send money to projects across the state. The West Virginia Turnpike, when it fell under the broader tourism and parkway authority, funded projects that were not necessarily transportation-related... such as the Tamarack. Now that it has been divested of its tourism responsibilities, the Turnpike directs 100% of its revenue to maintaining the Turnpike and in supporting projects throughout the southern tier of the state.
- West Virginia is still completing its ADHS corridors. New York finished Corridor T (NY 17/I-86) and Corridor U (SR 328) and U-1 (US 15/I-99). So of course it looks like West Virginia is still building like crazy - but it's just that our highways have taken a lot longer to come to fruition because of their high costs and routing changes.
ADHS is still being funded (see: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2284/text?r=38&s=1, which was signed into law) via appropriations and measures such as that. It also helps to have strong senators and representatives that have championed highway construction as a core tenant of their campaigns. Manchin and Byrd have been major proponents of getting their ADHS corridors completed - and both have sat and wielded power in their respective committees. New York, despite its many more senators and representatives, doesn't have as much pull and its priorities have been put elsewhere.That bill in your link is not law nor funding. It does shoe Manchin's interest in the ADHS, but as the tracker says right in your link, it hasn't moved past introduction and it has sat there since June of last year.
For other projects, there is little funding to pull from and so projects do get dragged out much longer than the corridor routes. US 35 is probably an exception and there were serious talks of making it into a toll road. It took a new governor and the Roads to Prosperity program to finally get the last (long) leg built. But then you have the King Coal/Tolsia Highways, and for the 30 years it's been out there, only a few short segments and the longer Williamson-Gilbert segment have been built. And it looks like the remainder of it, from Williamson north and Gilbert south to Bluefield will be built with two lanes - and the segment north of Williamson may follow portions of the existing road instead of being all new terrain to expedite construction. I don't forsee it being completed in my lifetime.
And then there is WV 10, which was once projected to be all four lanes from Huntington south. Only the segment from Logan to Man has been completed and there is nothing else proposed. Or the completion of the WV 9 freeway around Martinsburg. US 522. I-68's westward extension to Wheeling. WV 2... etc.
Take away the corridors and what's being funded via the Turnpike, and West Virginia isn't building much.
Signed into law: https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-manchins-finish-adhs-act-signed-law-part-bipartisan-infrastructure#:~:text=Finish%20the%20ADHS%20Act%20is,in%20funding%20through%20this%20legislation.*sigh*
Here's a weird signal near me, on NY 52. The shopping plaza gets a signal and the empty lot across the street gets one signal head. The empty lot gets a flashing red and does not have a sensor. However, if the shopping plaza trips the green, the empty lot's signal will turn green, yellow, then back to flashing red.A pretty similar one was here. CHanged to a full light when another store was added.
https://goo.gl/maps/hR81TgWLRetCaMPKA
Here's a weird signal near me, on NY 52. The shopping plaza gets a signal and the empty lot across the street gets one signal head. The empty lot gets a flashing red and does not have a sensor. However, if the shopping plaza trips the green, the empty lot's signal will turn green, yellow, then back to flashing red.A pretty similar one was here. CHanged to a full light when another store was added.
https://goo.gl/maps/hR81TgWLRetCaMPKA
https://goo.gl/maps/qSmdoZbxs6iQDiEh9
Looks like when there is a major traffic source (plaza with a large grocery store in this case) on one side, and something that doesn't meet traffic numbers for a traffic light across the street, they try to get the best of both situations with a traffic light (because it is already there), but no (expensive) sensor mixed with a stop sign (flashing red) such smaller location would get otherwise.
The cleanest way to fix it is to make it a SPUI, but I'm sure a free-flowing interchange for all directions is preferred.I think the bowtie design was innovative given the space constraints, but the left lane exits and merges are problematic. I wonder if speed reducing measures on US 9 would help matters.On another topic, what's with the awkward interchange with US 9 and US 44/NY 55 in Poughkeepsie? Obviously it's an old interchange with the left exits/merges and short accel lanes, but why choose said design in the first place? It does no favors for US 9 -> Mid Hudson Bridge traffic (US 9 NB competes with exiting SB traffic) and if they were to redesign the interchange it could do with flyovers directly accessing 44/55 WB.
I drove through that interchange daily for about 10 years. I don't think it can be fixed because there's no space on either side. I was surprised when there wasn't someone rear-ended there. Accident rate was 10.97 per million vehicle miles when I asked for accident data
Ok... anyone have a clue when Sacandaga Road between Vley Road and the Scotia village line will ever be repaved? It's literally a cobblestone road now.Put a bobblehead on your dashboard and drive it, taking a video of it shaking. That always gets NYSDOT's attention.
Ok... anyone have a clue when Sacandaga Road between Vley Road and the Scotia village line will ever be repaved? It's literally a cobblestone road now.Put a bobblehead on your dashboard and drive it, taking a video of it shaking. That always gets NYSDOT's attention.
https://goo.gl/maps/etJHfw67w9vbkgoz9
I take the design of this water tower was by Robert Moses?
I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.So it begins in NY. New pilot program.
I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.So it begins in NY. New pilot program.
I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.So it begins in NY. New pilot program.
I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.So it begins in NY. New pilot program.
Oh, NYSTA started using them last year, but they only issued warnings.
My concern is that they'll use cameras in work zones without active work for revenue enhancement, sort of how NYC uses "school zone" speed cameras 16 hours a day every week of the year. If the cameras are actually to keep workers safe instead of revenue enhancement, they won't be active outside of work hours. Some states are good with this, others are not.
^ There have been numerous stories in the news about it. The fact that these cameras are coming shouldn't be a surprise at this point to people who live in the state.
I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.So it begins in NY. New pilot program.
Oh, NYSTA started using them last year, but they only issued warnings.
My concern is that they'll use cameras in work zones without active work for revenue enhancement, sort of how NYC uses "school zone" speed cameras 16 hours a day every week of the year. If the cameras are actually to keep workers safe instead of revenue enhancement, they won't be active outside of work hours. Some states are good with this, others are not.
I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.So it begins in NY. New pilot program.
Oh, NYSTA started using them last year, but they only issued warnings.
My concern is that they'll use cameras in work zones without active work for revenue enhancement, sort of how NYC uses "school zone" speed cameras 16 hours a day every week of the year. If the cameras are actually to keep workers safe instead of revenue enhancement, they won't be active outside of work hours. Some states are good with this, others are not.
I have been told of instances where people have gotten nailed for work zone speed infractions even when workers are not present.
I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.So it begins in NY. New pilot program.
Oh, NYSTA started using them last year, but they only issued warnings.
My concern is that they'll use cameras in work zones without active work for revenue enhancement, sort of how NYC uses "school zone" speed cameras 16 hours a day every week of the year. If the cameras are actually to keep workers safe instead of revenue enhancement, they won't be active outside of work hours. Some states are good with this, others are not.
I have been told of instances where people have gotten nailed for work zone speed infractions even when workers are not present.
Already? I don't think there is that restriction on the enforcement usage, though. In NY, work zone safety is such a hot topic (intrusions and deaths happen every year) that I am sure the argument would be made that those who speed through work zones would do so if workers are present or not.
One can argue that posting and enforcing empty work zones trains people to ignore those when not enforced.I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.So it begins in NY. New pilot program.
Oh, NYSTA started using them last year, but they only issued warnings.
My concern is that they'll use cameras in work zones without active work for revenue enhancement, sort of how NYC uses "school zone" speed cameras 16 hours a day every week of the year. If the cameras are actually to keep workers safe instead of revenue enhancement, they won't be active outside of work hours. Some states are good with this, others are not.
I have been told of instances where people have gotten nailed for work zone speed infractions even when workers are not present.
Already? I don't think there is that restriction on the enforcement usage, though. In NY, work zone safety is such a hot topic (intrusions and deaths happen every year) that I am sure the argument would be made that those who speed through work zones would do so if workers are present or not.
I don't know, personally I'm much more cautious in active work zones. If there's just a lane closure with no active work, I'll mostly try to just keep up with traffic or go up to 10 over just to prevent braking/slowdowns/backups. But caution takes precedence when there's active work going on.You can only see active work from 0.5 mile away, probably less. That gives you little time to actually slow down.
Wonder what that means legally. Contractor is enforcing limits via camera during times it shouldn't per the contract, but speeders are still breaking the law.I encountered a work zone with camera enforcement on NY 33A in Rochester today.So it begins in NY. New pilot program.
Oh, NYSTA started using them last year, but they only issued warnings.
My concern is that they'll use cameras in work zones without active work for revenue enhancement, sort of how NYC uses "school zone" speed cameras 16 hours a day every week of the year. If the cameras are actually to keep workers safe instead of revenue enhancement, they won't be active outside of work hours. Some states are good with this, others are not.
I have been told of instances where people have gotten nailed for work zone speed infractions even when workers are not present.
Already? I don't think there is that restriction on the enforcement usage, though. In NY, work zone safety is such a hot topic (intrusions and deaths happen every year) that I am sure the argument would be made that those who speed through work zones would do so if workers are present or not.
According to the RFP, the cameras are only used when workers are present.
The same psychology that applies to speed limits applies to work zone limits. If the limit is lowered excessively, people are trained to ignore it. If it is only lowered when necessary, people make damn sure to follow it. This is why speed limit adherence is garbage in the Northeast US and Canada- limits are underposted by 10-20 with the expectation people will drive 10-20 over. In my experience, average speeds on rural freeways are pretty consistent across the US despite differing speed limits.Agreed. This change is certainly welcome, and may well increase compliance. Before, I tended to have to be very careful to keep my speed to 62 or less (my usual 7 over). Now, I find that I'm naturally keeping to the 55-60 range, because I don't have a long lead-in where I feel like I'm crawling.
https://goo.gl/maps/MQqYS8CMNzS997EQAIt is in fact NY-912Q. (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.43269,-73.7166206,3a,15y,280.37h,85.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZIBFUEUKJZ8lTORc-yU3zw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4280686,-73.7202356,15z
I see Google is showing the unsigned reference route number for the Exit 22 spur along I-87 in Lake George. If it’s correct that is.
Have we considered the regional impacts of congestion pricing in Manhattan?Never have I seen an example of such glorious speculation gone quite amok.
I expect a lot less traffic on the Long Island Expressway, and perhaps relief as far away as Southwestern Connecticut.
But on the other hand, the circumferential routes around New York would see more traffic, especially on the Whitestone and Throggs' Neck Bridges now that the Queensboro Bridge-FDR Drive-Willis Bridge shunpike is gone.
Never have I seen an example of such glorious speculation gone quite amok.
But on the other hand, the circumferential routes around New York would see more traffic, especially on the Whitestone and Throggs' Neck Bridges now that the Queensboro Bridge-FDR Drive-Willis Bridge shunpike is gone.
But on the other hand, the circumferential routes around New York would see more traffic, especially on the Whitestone and Throggs' Neck Bridges now that the Queensboro Bridge-FDR Drive-Willis Bridge shunpike is gone.
Is it? I thought that you only get charged if you go on the streets and are OK if you get directly onto a highway.
https://goo.gl/maps/6csvyJbMTCiQXpzs8
Does anyone know if this intersection is still used during the ten days of September when the the Great NY State Fair is in session?
But on the other hand, the circumferential routes around New York would see more traffic, especially on the Whitestone and Throggs' Neck Bridges now that the Queensboro Bridge-FDR Drive-Willis Bridge shunpike is gone.
Is it? I thought that you only get charged if you go on the streets and are OK if you get directly onto a highway.
https://goo.gl/maps/6csvyJbMTCiQXpzs8It's been replaced with ramps IIRC.
Does anyone know if this intersection is still used during the ten days of September when the the Great NY State Fair is in session?
Yep, you assumed that and a whole lot of other things. You should read more before coming to such conclusions.But on the other hand, the circumferential routes around New York would see more traffic, especially on the Whitestone and Throggs' Neck Bridges now that the Queensboro Bridge-FDR Drive-Willis Bridge shunpike is gone.
Is it? I thought that you only get charged if you go on the streets and are OK if you get directly onto a highway.
I was assuming they'd start tolling the East River bridges, which they frankly should've done years ago.
https://goo.gl/maps/6csvyJbMTCiQXpzs8It's been replaced with ramps IIRC.
Does anyone know if this intersection is still used during the ten days of September when the the Great NY State Fair is in session?
Button copy will be replaced relatively soon, actually.https://goo.gl/maps/6csvyJbMTCiQXpzs8It's been replaced with ramps IIRC.
Does anyone know if this intersection is still used during the ten days of September when the the Great NY State Fair is in session?
Signal was removed a few years ago and replaced with a ramp. Some of the folding button copy still existed as of last August.
I see on the WB I-690 ramp to NY 695, there is an at grade with a gated driveway into the Orange Lot. I assume that gate is opened and also allows traffic either in or out of it.Lot's open all the time now and provides access to the Empire State Trail.
Also GSV has imagery of the access road that services the lot as well.
I’m surprised it’s not designated park and ride for commuters.Lack of demand.
Random NY note that I forgot to mention earlier: A bunch of US 20A shields in Livingston County are erroneous NY 20A shields.
Here's one example (https://goo.gl/maps/vghz9eWorK4MTb3e9), and here's another (https://goo.gl/maps/VYBtdZxaxmkD2GGPA). Ironically in both of those examples, you can see a correct US 20A shield in the background. :confused:
And here's another one (https://goo.gl/maps/4uCmfTFj5riaYGmF8) 10 miles away at 20A/15A. So you get the idea!
Maybe because there is little distinction between those. Unlike more highway-ish US routes towards west, they are just roads here. For example, US 9 and US 20 run along regular streets through city center over here, and don't have the feel of anything special. OK, it got numbered, lets post the number.Random NY note that I forgot to mention earlier: A bunch of US 20A shields in Livingston County are erroneous NY 20A shields.
Here's one example (https://goo.gl/maps/vghz9eWorK4MTb3e9), and here's another (https://goo.gl/maps/VYBtdZxaxmkD2GGPA). Ironically in both of those examples, you can see a correct US 20A shield in the background. :confused:
And here's another one (https://goo.gl/maps/4uCmfTFj5riaYGmF8) 10 miles away at 20A/15A. So you get the idea!
Using the correct US or NY Route shield for a route doesn't seem to be as high of a priority as it used to be for the contractors doing work for NYSDOT. Along with US/NY 20A, "US 10", and "US 34" seem to be quite popular.
Random NY note that I forgot to mention earlier: A bunch of US 20A shields in Livingston County are erroneous NY 20A shields.
Here's one example (https://goo.gl/maps/vghz9eWorK4MTb3e9), and here's another (https://goo.gl/maps/VYBtdZxaxmkD2GGPA). Ironically in both of those examples, you can see a correct US 20A shield in the background. :confused:
And here's another one (https://goo.gl/maps/4uCmfTFj5riaYGmF8) 10 miles away at 20A/15A. So you get the idea!
Using the correct US or NY Route shield for a route doesn't seem to be as high of a priority as it used to be for the contractors doing work for NYSDOT. Along with US/NY 20A, "US 10", and "US 34" seem to be quite popular.
Just passed by a new, highly visible, US/NY mixup on the Thruway at Exit 16. At least one of the SB advance exit signs has a US 17 shield instead of NY 17.
Well if it is one of the Thruway guide signs, NYSDOT definitely wouldn't fix that. :bigass:Just passed by a new, highly visible, US/NY mixup on the Thruway at Exit 16. At least one of the SB advance exit signs has a US 17 shield instead of NY 17.
That seems like the kind of thing that NYSDOT would probably fix if you contacted them about it. But then again, it's probably much more noticeable to us roadgeeks than it is to the general population, so maybe they don't care that much.
The sign goof I would find the most amusing is if they were to erect an erroneous US 104 sign along NY 104, given that was the road's old designation. By the way, is the old US 104 sign still posted at the 2nd St./Ferry Ave. intersection? Or has it been replaced with a "correct" NY 104 sign?
Random NY note that I forgot to mention earlier: A bunch of US 20A shields in Livingston County are erroneous NY 20A shields.
Here's one example (https://goo.gl/maps/vghz9eWorK4MTb3e9), and here's another (https://goo.gl/maps/VYBtdZxaxmkD2GGPA). Ironically in both of those examples, you can see a correct US 20A shield in the background. :confused:
And here's another one (https://goo.gl/maps/4uCmfTFj5riaYGmF8) 10 miles away at 20A/15A. So you get the idea!
NY 48 ends at old US 104 in Oswego, not Fulton. Also, it appears that the last time the Google Car visited the intersection (October 2013), the NY 48 end sign had a US 48 shield.
Random NY note that I forgot to mention earlier: A bunch of US 20A shields in Livingston County are erroneous NY 20A shields.
Here's one example (https://goo.gl/maps/vghz9eWorK4MTb3e9), and here's another (https://goo.gl/maps/VYBtdZxaxmkD2GGPA). Ironically in both of those examples, you can see a correct US 20A shield in the background. :confused:
And here's another one (https://goo.gl/maps/4uCmfTFj5riaYGmF8) 10 miles away at 20A/15A. So you get the idea!
And the first one has three characters squeezed into a two-digit shield, which is a lot more rare in New York (several of them around Geneseo).
I have. One only, and probably construction related, but I've seen it and photoed it.Random NY note that I forgot to mention earlier: A bunch of US 20A shields in Livingston County are erroneous NY 20A shields.
Here's one example (https://goo.gl/maps/vghz9eWorK4MTb3e9), and here's another (https://goo.gl/maps/VYBtdZxaxmkD2GGPA). Ironically in both of those examples, you can see a correct US 20A shield in the background. :confused:
And here's another one (https://goo.gl/maps/4uCmfTFj5riaYGmF8) 10 miles away at 20A/15A. So you get the idea!
And the first one has three characters squeezed into a two-digit shield, which is a lot more rare in New York (several of them around Geneseo).
Wake me up when someone finds a NY 1 shield.
NY 48 ends at old US 104 in Oswego, not Fulton. Also, it appears that the last time the Google Car visited the intersection (October 2013), the NY 48 end sign had a US 48 shield.
Where we goin'?NY 48 ends at old US 104 in Oswego, not Fulton. Also, it appears that the last time the Google Car visited the intersection (October 2013), the NY 48 end sign had a US 48 shield.
Oswego, yes.
Oswego, yes.Where we goin'?
I believe NYSTA had one or more error US 60 shields out in western NY for years.
I believe NYSTA had one or more error US 60 shields out in western NY for years.
Yes, Exit 59 showed as US 60 on the eastbound advance guide sign for years. NYSTA and I went back and forth on this in email and it looks like it was corrected in 2020 or 2021. It's a shame they didn't replace the whole sign, as it's one of the NYSTA signs constructed with non-reflective lettering.
Guilty as charged but at least you're no longer confused as to whether it's really NY Route 60 or US Route 62 (also in the relative area).I believe NYSTA had one or more error US 60 shields out in western NY for years.
Yes, Exit 59 showed as US 60 on the eastbound advance guide sign for years. NYSTA and I went back and forth on this in email and it looks like it was corrected in 2020 or 2021. It's a shame they didn't replace the whole sign, as it's one of the NYSTA signs constructed with non-reflective lettering.
So you ruined my fun passing that sign all the time.
You realize few people passing that sign legit care? I know of other errors but I am not going to run to the authorities to get it fixed.
You realize few people passing that sign legit care? I know of other errors but I am not going to run to the authorities to get it fixed.
I’d say the same thing about I-81 existing on a viaduct in Syracuse!
Heh. Syracuse has been weird about new apartments, though. You have the new apartments across from the State Office Building and then in the Corbett building and the Smith's building...but then Hamilton House sits there, entirely vacant (needs to be demolished).You realize few people passing that sign legit care? I know of other errors but I am not going to run to the authorities to get it fixed.
I’d say the same thing about I-81 existing on a viaduct in Syracuse!
I support the 81 demolition. I just would prefer it go to the expansion of new housing of Section 8 variety and not gentrification. We have enough housing for hipsters as is.
Also these are not the same situation
I'm with Adam in my assessment of I-81. I'd support it...if there were grants for Section 8 and other assistance programs involved. Otherwise, it's just going to gentrify and price out the people who live in the area. Not as much money/tax revenue in Section 8 housing as there is in luxury apartments and rich people don't like living near "the poors", so...
Food desert could have been addressed with assistance programs. Really wouldn't be that hard to throw in tax breaks for supermarkets. But again, the "target demographic" for the renewal either has cars or the money to order delivery.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Between exits 18 and 19, I'm noticing that a lot of the pylons have had their wires removed.
[url=url_location]text[/url]
I think NYSBA has a problem with the readers at the Mid-Hudson Bridge. I was on the bridge back on May 28th, and I just had it posted to my EZPass account but they charged me the Pay by Plate amount. I fired an inquiry off to EZPass to see if I can get that fixed to the proper amount ($1.55), but I don't know of any other way to get it fixed.If you have that plate linked to E-ZPass account, even plate charge should be at reduced rate and charged to the account.
I wish Bestpass offered services to individuals since their toll operations team is great at getting issues fixed.
Yessir... it should have been billed at $1.55 and not the full mailed bill of $2.I think NYSBA has a problem with the readers at the Mid-Hudson Bridge. I was on the bridge back on May 28th, and I just had it posted to my EZPass account but they charged me the Pay by Plate amount. I fired an inquiry off to EZPass to see if I can get that fixed to the proper amount ($1.55), but I don't know of any other way to get it fixed.If you have that plate linked to E-ZPass account, even plate charge should be at reduced rate and charged to the account.
I wish Bestpass offered services to individuals since their toll operations team is great at getting issues fixed.
Yessir... it should have been billed at $1.55 and not the full mailed bill of $2.I think NYSBA has a problem with the readers at the Mid-Hudson Bridge. I was on the bridge back on May 28th, and I just had it posted to my EZPass account but they charged me the Pay by Plate amount. I fired an inquiry off to EZPass to see if I can get that fixed to the proper amount ($1.55), but I don't know of any other way to get it fixed.If you have that plate linked to E-ZPass account, even plate charge should be at reduced rate and charged to the account.
I wish Bestpass offered services to individuals since their toll operations team is great at getting issues fixed.
I'm also keeping an eye out for any Thruway shenanigans with my motorcycle plate. My trip to Verona on Saturday hasn't popped up yet.
Yessir... it should have been billed at $1.55 and not the full mailed bill of $2.I think NYSBA has a problem with the readers at the Mid-Hudson Bridge. I was on the bridge back on May 28th, and I just had it posted to my EZPass account but they charged me the Pay by Plate amount. I fired an inquiry off to EZPass to see if I can get that fixed to the proper amount ($1.55), but I don't know of any other way to get it fixed.If you have that plate linked to E-ZPass account, even plate charge should be at reduced rate and charged to the account.
I wish Bestpass offered services to individuals since their toll operations team is great at getting issues fixed.
I'm also keeping an eye out for any Thruway shenanigans with my motorcycle plate. My trip to Verona on Saturday hasn't popped up yet.
The only other explanation is they are charging for a mis-read. At least the Thruway Authority has a policy that says it will bill the mail rate if an E-ZPass is not properly mounted and the toll has to be assessed through a license plate image.
That worked. I'm getting a 45 cent refund for that Mid Hudson Bridge toll.Hm. Wonder if that is more than the value of your time getting it.
That looks like a strategy toll agencies use to make money. So arguing for every cent is a must to keep them in check.That worked. I'm getting a 45 cent refund for that Mid Hudson Bridge toll.Hm. Wonder if that is more than the value of your time getting it.
Well, if it's worth it to you, okay, then. Fighting over a single 45 cent toll isn't worth it in my book.That looks like a strategy toll agencies use to make money. So arguing for every cent is a must to keep them in check.That worked. I'm getting a 45 cent refund for that Mid Hudson Bridge toll.Hm. Wonder if that is more than the value of your time getting it.
Well, if it's worth it to you, okay, then. Fighting over a single 45 cent toll isn't worth it in my book.That looks like a strategy toll agencies use to make money. So arguing for every cent is a must to keep them in check.That worked. I'm getting a 45 cent refund for that Mid Hudson Bridge toll.Hm. Wonder if that is more than the value of your time getting it.
If it was recurring due to commuting or frequency, then that would be an issue. But, 45 cents is the value of less than a minute of my time. If it takes longer than that to resolve the issue, I'm actually wasting my time.
(Unlike moving some money of mine into a higher-yield account...more than worth it).
I had a situation when NYSTA wanted $13 in tolls - and it took $20 in postage to get it resolved, plus time, plus... A matter of principle, if you will - I would make THEM spend time on it as well, and make bullshit not worth it. Otherwise 45 cents here, 15 bucks there, and a violation on top since you have a history of problems...Well, if it's worth it to you, okay, then. Fighting over a single 45 cent toll isn't worth it in my book.That looks like a strategy toll agencies use to make money. So arguing for every cent is a must to keep them in check.That worked. I'm getting a 45 cent refund for that Mid Hudson Bridge toll.Hm. Wonder if that is more than the value of your time getting it.
If it was recurring due to commuting or frequency, then that would be an issue. But, 45 cents is the value of less than a minute of my time. If it takes longer than that to resolve the issue, I'm actually wasting my time.
(Unlike moving some money of mine into a higher-yield account...more than worth it).
I had a situation when NYSTA wanted $13 in tolls - and it took $20 in postage to get it resolved, plus time, plus... A matter of principle, if you will - I would make THEM spend time on it as well, and make bullshit not worth it. Otherwise 45 cents here, 15 bucks there, and a violation on top since you have a history of problems...Well, if it's worth it to you, okay, then. Fighting over a single 45 cent toll isn't worth it in my book.That looks like a strategy toll agencies use to make money. So arguing for every cent is a must to keep them in check.That worked. I'm getting a 45 cent refund for that Mid Hudson Bridge toll.Hm. Wonder if that is more than the value of your time getting it.
If it was recurring due to commuting or frequency, then that would be an issue. But, 45 cents is the value of less than a minute of my time. If it takes longer than that to resolve the issue, I'm actually wasting my time.
(Unlike moving some money of mine into a higher-yield account...more than worth it).
25A/26 is a deliberately created problem.I had a situation when NYSTA wanted $13 in tolls - and it took $20 in postage to get it resolved, plus time, plus... A matter of principle, if you will - I would make THEM spend time on it as well, and make bullshit not worth it. Otherwise 45 cents here, 15 bucks there, and a violation on top since you have a history of problems...Well, if it's worth it to you, okay, then. Fighting over a single 45 cent toll isn't worth it in my book.That looks like a strategy toll agencies use to make money. So arguing for every cent is a must to keep them in check.That worked. I'm getting a 45 cent refund for that Mid Hudson Bridge toll.Hm. Wonder if that is more than the value of your time getting it.
If it was recurring due to commuting or frequency, then that would be an issue. But, 45 cents is the value of less than a minute of my time. If it takes longer than that to resolve the issue, I'm actually wasting my time.
(Unlike moving some money of mine into a higher-yield account...more than worth it).
Or my favorite lately with the tags on the work account where it would only read at the exit causing max charge for the rate class. Did also have the one off where the tag said exit 26 yet the truck GPS showed it getting off 25A.
One little annoyance I have with the new system is that getting off at 25A for gas/food no longer results in a discounted toll for using 25A. A bigger issue others have noticed is that, if you enter at 25A and stop at the Guilderland Service Area, a stay of more than a few minutes will result in the system thinking you exited and reentered.That would seem to go against the terms of the agreement that allowed for the use of federal funds to widen the Thruway rather than build the rest of I-88.
I see some desperately needed repaving getting done on I-890 as well. The Northway between 15 and 17 is getting some resurfacing done too.
I see some desperately needed repaving getting done on I-890 as well. The Northway between 15 and 17 is getting some resurfacing done too.
890 is getting a full reconstruction west of downtown. That has barely been touched since it was built close to 50 years ago, so yes, it is sorely needed. Now get Region 1 to do a full-depth reconstruction on the 7 expressway- that has gotten quite rough in places.
They seem to be digging a lot more than I'd expect in the median on I-890 near its western end. Better drainage?
Then again, I've never had an issue with E-ZPass and I check my statements.Well, I've told you people in the past that the E-Z Pass toll plazas have missed my plate a few times when I drive through them. So I'd hold off on the tin foil accusations for now.
You guys must be wrapping your tag in foil or something. :D
In Dutchess County, they're almost done installing a traffic circle on NY 376/CR 104/CR 94 by the airport in Wappinger. I think it's a DCDPW project, not NYSDOT. It's been free-flowing every time I've gone through there. It replaces this mess: https://goo.gl/maps/n4aRhujNEvx1oj1m6
In Dutchess County, they're almost done installing a traffic circle on NY 376/CR 104/CR 94 by the airport in Wappinger. I think it's a DCDPW project, not NYSDOT. It's been free-flowing every time I've gone through there. It replaces this mess: https://goo.gl/maps/n4aRhujNEvx1oj1m6
Also noticed new signs for Exit 41 (NY 9D) coming off the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge. The control city says Wappinger Falls though it's technically WappingerS Falls.
In Dutchess County, they're almost done installing a traffic circle on NY 376/CR 104/CR 94 by the airport in Wappinger. I think it's a DCDPW project, not NYSDOT. It's been free-flowing every time I've gone through there. It replaces this mess: https://goo.gl/maps/n4aRhujNEvx1oj1m6As mentioned by cl94, it was done by NYSDOT. Dutchess County itself has never installed a roudabout, NYSDOT has installed 3 each on NY-55 and NY-376 (now 4), and the City of Poughkeepsie has installed one as well.
And DCDPW widened the shoulders on CR 28, added two signals for side streets, and added badly needed turn lanes at the CR 28/94 intersection.I have mixed feelings about this project. While it is nice to finally have shoulders, they should have taken advantage of the shovels and at least attempted to mitigate the roller coaster of a road it is. I guess they wanted an excuse not to raise the speed limit. Also, I am not overly enamored by the two new signal installations. The new signal at Losee Rd and MacFarlane Rd replaced an offset 4 way (effectively 2 T intersections about 50ft apart), but I think that a roundabout would have been better here IMO. The new signal Spook Hill Rd IMO is useless, other than delaying both CR-28 traffic and Spook Hill Rd traffic, since the cars who would otherwise simply have a stop sign to turn left now have a probable red signal, which probably would end up resulting in a longer wait, especially late at night. They also missed a golden opportunity to convert the CR-28/CR-94 intersection into a roundabout to replace the current signal. At least they added turn lanes...
QuoteAlso noticed new signs for Exit 41 (NY 9D) coming off the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge. The control city says Wappinger Falls though it's technically WappingerS Falls.
Yeah, that gets everyone around here. The town is Wappinger, the village is Wappingers Falls, and the school district (headquartered in neither but in an apparent attempt to refer to both) is Wappingers.
Why does the Bronx River Parkway tend to become flood prone to the point of closures? And are there long term plans to make the BRP flood resistant?The most likely reason is due to the fact that the original section, the one that floods the most, was completed directly adjacent to the Bronx River in 1925. Engineering was not the best back then. That would be my guess.
And are there long term plans to make the BRP flood resistant?The section in question is maintained by Westchester County, so I would imagine there would be less push from the County DPW to do something than from NYSDOT, which is making an effort in regard to flood mitigation.
In Dutchess County, they're almost done installing a traffic circle on NY 376/CR 104/CR 94 by the airport in Wappinger. I think it's a DCDPW project, not NYSDOT. It's been free-flowing every time I've gone through there. It replaces this mess: https://goo.gl/maps/n4aRhujNEvx1oj1m6
Was just there today, got confused for a minute because Apple didn't know the circle was there until we were literally going around it (the map showed us driving on grass but correctly identified the traffic circle.
^ Assuming this is the one you saw (I just looked up one on 511NY), I read it as saying roadwork to exit 13 on the Taconic.
And speaking of VMSs, why does a VMS in Eastern Nassau (5 minutes from Glen Cove Rd) use 108th St as a destination and not the Van Wyck/Grand Central?
And DCDPW widened the shoulders on CR 28, added two signals for side streets, and added badly needed turn lanes at the CR 28/94 intersection.I have mixed feelings about this project. While it is nice to finally have shoulders, they should have taken advantage of the shovels and at least attempted to mitigate the roller coaster of a road it is. I guess they wanted an excuse not to raise the speed limit. Also, I am not overly enamored by the two new signal installations. The new signal at Losee Rd and MacFarlane Rd replaced an offset 4 way (effectively 2 T intersections about 50ft apart), but I think that a roundabout would have been better here IMO. The new signal Spook Hill Rd IMO is useless, other than delaying both CR-28 traffic and Spook Hill Rd traffic, since the cars who would otherwise simply have a stop sign to turn left now have a probable red signal, which probably would end up resulting in a longer wait, especially late at night. They also missed a golden opportunity to convert the CR-28/CR-94 intersection into a roundabout to replace the current signal. At least they added turn lanes...
[/DCDPW Rant]
Not sure what's meant by "NYSDOT dead end method," especially since for municipalities to discuss safety studies with NYSDOT's Regional offices is somewhat easy. The municipalities may not like the answer (e.g., "There is no safety problem at the location."), but just because a safety analysis does not confirm perception doesn't make it a "dead end."And DCDPW widened the shoulders on CR 28, added two signals for side streets, and added badly needed turn lanes at the CR 28/94 intersection.I have mixed feelings about this project. While it is nice to finally have shoulders, they should have taken advantage of the shovels and at least attempted to mitigate the roller coaster of a road it is. I guess they wanted an excuse not to raise the speed limit. Also, I am not overly enamored by the two new signal installations. The new signal at Losee Rd and MacFarlane Rd replaced an offset 4 way (effectively 2 T intersections about 50ft apart), but I think that a roundabout would have been better here IMO. The new signal Spook Hill Rd IMO is useless, other than delaying both CR-28 traffic and Spook Hill Rd traffic, since the cars who would otherwise simply have a stop sign to turn left now have a probable red signal, which probably would end up resulting in a longer wait, especially late at night. They also missed a golden opportunity to convert the CR-28/CR-94 intersection into a roundabout to replace the current signal. At least they added turn lanes...
[/DCDPW Rant]
I wish the sensitivity of the new lights was adjusted. Like if someone makes a right-on-red off of the side street, the signal will immediately stop all traffic on 28 for one car that was going to make it through anyway. And now that there's a turn lane, people pass me using the turn lane when I make a right off of 28.
And the locals had the same complaint about CR 93, they wanted fixes to the road but all the fixes make the road safer and invite higher speeds. Sadly, even road re-design won't trigger a speed limit study, still gotta do the town board > NYSDOT dead end method. Up in Pok, there's a short 30 mph section of US 9 where a crosswalk USED to be. Lost some brain cells trying to explain this to the town board.
I see Region 9 is going all out with I-88 resurfacing. Tons of brand new surface in Cobleskill and Schoharie.
I see Region 9 is going all out with I-88 resurfacing. Tons of brand new surface in Cobleskill and Schoharie.
Driving on for the first time and clinching I-88 eastbound today, there were lots of PA-style single lane for multiple miles, each separated by a couple-mile-long segments of untouched old pavement at two lanes (I guess the "passing lane"). However, having read/heard about all the old warnings about always staying in the left lane on that road (though plenty of drivers doing that all over NY and on 81 north of Scranton), the right lane didn't seem that bad to me on the older pavement sections.
^ That bridge had significant opposition to replacement, with the village refusing to issue a permit to the LIRR due to public opposition to redesigning the roadway. It went to court where the judge ruled that that roadway redesign was not necessary to replacing the bridge for the third track.It's still a bad idea. If they wanted to leave it for one lane, they should just keep it only for bikes and pedestrians and such.
https://theislandnow.com/featured/judge-orders-garden-city-to-grant-permits-for-denton-avenue-bridge-reconstruction/
^ That bridge had significant opposition to replacement, with the village refusing to issue a permit to the LIRR due to public opposition to redesigning the roadway. It went to court where the judge ruled that that roadway redesign was not necessary to replacing the bridge for the third track.It's still a bad idea. If they wanted to leave it for one lane, they should just keep it only for bikes and pedestrians and such.
https://theislandnow.com/featured/judge-orders-garden-city-to-grant-permits-for-denton-avenue-bridge-reconstruction/
In the meantime, Nassau Boulevard should still get that puny section widened to six lanes.
^ That bridge had significant opposition to replacement, with the village refusing to issue a permit to the LIRR due to public opposition to redesigning the roadway. It went to court where the judge ruled that that roadway redesign was not necessary to replacing the bridge for the third track.It's still a bad idea. If they wanted to leave it for one lane, they should just keep it only for bikes and pedestrians and such.
https://theislandnow.com/featured/judge-orders-garden-city-to-grant-permits-for-denton-avenue-bridge-reconstruction/
In the meantime, Nassau Boulevard should still get that puny section widened to six lanes.
We've talked about this one-lane underpass at length on the Railroad.net Forum. Couple of reasons why it was built that way. One is that the affluent Village of Garden City doesn't want to encourage anyone to drive into the idyllic residential neighborhood on their side of the tracks. Another related reason is the north side is an industrial area and they don't want heavy truck traffic to use this route to/from that area. And even I have to agree it would be a bad thing to have box trucks and semi's driving thru that residential neighborhood.
On the west side of Newburgh, there was once an interchange planned with I-84: https://historicaerials.com/location/41.519493815157304/-74.03596940297939/1965/15A US 9W freeway?
What was this exit to be for?
https://www.liherald.com/stories/nassau-county-bridge-authority-disbands-citizens-committee,142738There is one bridge on the Jersey Shore that does not accept EZ Pass. The Margate Toll Bridge.
The Nassau County Bridge Authority is currently in talks with EZ-Pass to get the system on the bridge. They are the last remaining toll bridge in the NYC area (and frankly, the whole state of New York) that is still accepting cash.
The international bridges also still accept cash. With the Thousand Islands Bridge, the border is between two large islands while toll collection is on the mainland in each direction, so crossing the border is not necessary to pay the toll.
On the west side of Newburgh, there was once an interchange planned with I-84: https://historicaerials.com/location/41.519493815157304/-74.03596940297939/1965/15A US 9W freeway?
What was this exit to be for?
Whatever the proposed interchange was for, I wonder when they eliminated all evidence that an interchange was planned there? I have a strong suspicion that this interchange would have been the "missing" Exit 9, as there was no Exit 9 on Interstate 84 before exits were renumbered to mileage-based in 2019.Look at the historic aerial link and choose years. Still evident in 2004. Starting to disappear by 2011. I think it was just left alone for trees to make their way into the cleared road area. The faintest traces are left in 2019.
The international bridges also still accept cash. With the Thousand Islands Bridge, the border is between two large islands while toll collection is on the mainland in each direction, so crossing the border is not necessary to pay the toll.
Actually, wasn't it only fairly recently that the Thousand Islands Bridge started accepting EZPass? I seem to recall it being cash or prepaid ticket only up until a few years ago.
The truck traffic is probably easily blunted with rules about no trucks. This is pure NIMBYism and little more.Yes, but one lane isn't so great for cars either. So, as I've said in the past, either close it off, or make it for bicycles and pedestrians only. And maybe include skateboarders while you're at it.
Please share, if possible. I cannot seem to find anything regarding it.On the west side of Newburgh, there was once an interchange planned with I-84: https://historicaerials.com/location/41.519493815157304/-74.03596940297939/1965/15A US 9W freeway?
What was this exit to be for?
A 1972 study I found references a US 9W bypass route for Newburgh, but it wasn't intended to be a freeway. They called it the "Route 9W Alternative Arterial Bypass."
Dumb question, but one i always want to ask after a vacation or trip outside of New York Stte: is there any reason why there's no internally illuminated overhead street name signs anywhere in the state? Does the state ban internally illuminated road signs for some irrational reason, much like they ban pavement reflectors?The big one coming down I-87 to Exit 1 in Albany is internally illuminated...but older than dirt.
I think the original poster was asking about street name signs typically hung from traffic light mast-arms and lighted internally by a fluorescent tube. Used to be common in California; don't know if they still are. I don't think I've ever seen them in the Northeast.
Dumb question, but one i always want to ask after a vacation or trip outside of New York Stte: is there any reason why there's no internally illuminated overhead street name signs anywhere in the state? Does the state ban internally illuminated road signs for some irrational reason, much like they ban pavement reflectors?
Does the state ban internally illuminated road signs for some irrational reason, much like they ban pavement reflectors?
No, there isn't a ban. They've just fallen out ot favor.Does the state ban internally illuminated road signs for some irrational reason, much like they ban pavement reflectors?
Is there an actual ban on those? Never would have noticed that before but doing a quick search of random roads (state and local), no RPMs to be found.
Highly reflective signs should not need to be illuminated. It is expensive to light signs, even with newer LED fixtures, because of the need to run wire to the site or the need to install solar panels and batteries to power the lights. West Virginia is one of the few states that still install new LED fixtures on overhead signs even though they use highly reflective signs; most other states have opted out.
https://www.liherald.com/stories/nassau-county-bridge-authority-disbands-citizens-committee,142738
The Nassau County Bridge Authority is currently in talks with EZ-Pass to get the system on the bridge. They are the last remaining toll bridge in the NYC area (and frankly, the whole state of New York) that is still accepting cash.
https://goo.gl/maps/tX4CBr8MR769ResEAIt's less ambiguous and hopefully reduces low bridge hits.
What is up lately with the usage of PASSENGER CARS ONLY?
I noticed that the NO COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC is hardly used like it always was back in the seventies and eighties.
https://goo.gl/maps/tX4CBr8MR769ResEAIt's less ambiguous and hopefully reduces low bridge hits.
What is up lately with the usage of PASSENGER CARS ONLY?
I noticed that the NO COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC is hardly used like it always was back in the seventies and eighties.
https://goo.gl/maps/tX4CBr8MR769ResEA
What is up lately with the usage of PASSENGER CARS ONLY?
I noticed that the NO COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC is hardly used like it always was back in the seventies and eighties.
Which is funny, because ConnDOT has been using NO COMMERCIAL VEHICLES on new sign installs for the MP/WCPs.https://goo.gl/maps/tX4CBr8MR769ResEAIt's less ambiguous and hopefully reduces low bridge hits.
What is up lately with the usage of PASSENGER CARS ONLY?
I noticed that the NO COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC is hardly used like it always was back in the seventies and eighties.
NY has started using a new technique for pavement markings where they grind down recessions into the pavement for the marking to sit in. It prevents the markings from getting worn out by snowplows, and it's super reflective at night. It's a better option for northern climates and makes the raised reflectors obsolete.No, there isn't a ban. They've just fallen out ot favor.Does the state ban internally illuminated road signs for some irrational reason, much like they ban pavement reflectors?
Is there an actual ban on those? Never would have noticed that before but doing a quick search of random roads (state and local), no RPMs to be found.
Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger” or “cars” ?Cars. Pretty clear.
how about commercial cars?Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger” or “cars” ?Cars. Pretty clear.
how about commercial cars?Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger” or “cars” ?Cars. Pretty clear.
Heck no. Passenger cars only.how about commercial cars?Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger” or “cars” ?Cars. Pretty clear.
Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.Heck no. Passenger cars only.how about commercial cars?Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger” or “cars” ?Cars. Pretty clear.
Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.Heck no. Passenger cars only.how about commercial cars?Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger” or “cars” ?Cars. Pretty clear.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.
That’s asinine if you are being serious.Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.Heck no. Passenger cars only.how about commercial cars?Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger” or “cars” ?Cars. Pretty clear.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.
No commercial cars. Get them off the parkways, too.
Controls traffic.That’s asinine if you are being serious.Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.Heck no. Passenger cars only.how about commercial cars?Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger” or “cars” ?Cars. Pretty clear.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.
No commercial cars. Get them off the parkways, too.
It's serious, that's the law. So you think the law is asinine.That’s asinine if you are being serious.Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.Heck no. Passenger cars only.how about commercial cars?Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger” or “cars” ?Cars. Pretty clear.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.
No commercial cars. Get them off the parkways, too.
Lol the old “it’s the law” crap. That shit never gets old. I love it.It's serious, that's the law. So you think the law is asinine.That’s asinine if you are being serious.Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.Heck no. Passenger cars only.how about commercial cars?Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger” or “cars” ?Cars. Pretty clear.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.
No commercial cars. Get them off the parkways, too.
I mean logically speaking wouldn’t we want to ban passenger traffic and expand mass transit? After all commercial traffic is something mass transit isn’t feasible for. That said I’m against that as well. Just saying it’s weird to ban commercial traffic we rely on that for our day to day needs.Controls traffic.That’s asinine if you are being serious.Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.Heck no. Passenger cars only.how about commercial cars?Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger” or “cars” ?Cars. Pretty clear.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.
No commercial cars. Get them off the parkways, too.
Law is great. THis particular one is totally beautiful. It is as great as Robert Moses who built those parkways.It's serious, that's the law. So you think the law is asinine.That’s asinine if you are being serious.Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.Heck no. Passenger cars only.how about commercial cars?Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger” or “cars” ?Cars. Pretty clear.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.
No commercial cars. Get them off the parkways, too.
I’m being facetious obviously and I’m sure Alps knows that.Law is great. THis particular one is totally beautiful. It is as great as Robert Moses who built those parkways.It's serious, that's the law. So you think the law is asinine.That’s asinine if you are being serious.Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.Heck no. Passenger cars only.how about commercial cars?Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger” or “cars” ?Cars. Pretty clear.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.
No commercial cars. Get them off the parkways, too.
Question is about the role of those parkways today. Are they still roads to the beach where (n-word) are not desired? Are they still scenic roads to the beach or through the park or just regular commute roads? For one, Bronx River Parkway has 100k+ AADT, and I don't believe those are all leisure drives. Is there a real reason to keep them limited - I mean limited beyond their technically justified height and weight limits?I’m being facetious obviously and I’m sure Alps knows that.Law is great. THis particular one is totally beautiful. It is as great as Robert Moses who built those parkways.It's serious, that's the law. So you think the law is asinine.That’s asinine if you are being serious.Passenger car may mean, for example, a sales rep driving company car to the customer.Heck no. Passenger cars only.how about commercial cars?Is New York intentionally trying to exclude pickups and vans registered as passenger vehicles and used as family cars? New York is never clear if they can be vague. Is the significant word “passenger” or “cars” ?Cars. Pretty clear.
I know those rules... But really, we may say Robert Moses was a bad guy, but still pray to the rules he made up.
No commercial cars. Get them off the parkways, too.
But Mr. Moses(a racist) didn’t get to build all of his parkways and freeways unfortunately. The point I’m driving at is the commercial vehicle ban makes no sense and should be the opposite or rather there shouldn’t be any restrictions at all other than maybe large semis if the road can’t handle it.
I was just looking around the Corning area on GSV and noticed a mileage sign change on WB I-86 just west of Painted Post. Before, the mileage sign had Coopers Plain 2/Bath 18/Jamestown 140. https://goo.gl/maps/WVzaGbpD32Pn1cDz9 Now, Jamestown has been replaced with Erie 195. https://goo.gl/maps/ydrpSevcxSBy49sh9
Any reason why this was done as Erie is not mentioned on the BGS's or on the interchange mileage signs around the Corning area? I found this odd. BTW, Erie should be 185 (167 miles on I-86 in NY, 18 miles from NY/PA line to downtown Erie).
I have also noticed NYSDOT is using smaller posts for mileage signs in some areas.
Well obviously we shouldn’t do it based on the last part but otherwise if NYC wants it’s problem solved it needs to add more capacity which will include building more GP lanes. That seems to be a fairy tale so if their solution is just to ban as much traffic as they can well it’s one I’ll disagree with. In a way they would be harming the working class including African Americans as they’d be shutting off of roads if they’re working.More like those vehicles which could travel on now-parkway would have to take longer routes, take more road space, increase traffic elsewhere. More emissions as well.
Then I’m not quite sure where we disagree.Well obviously we shouldn’t do it based on the last part but otherwise if NYC wants it’s problem solved it needs to add more capacity which will include building more GP lanes. That seems to be a fairy tale so if their solution is just to ban as much traffic as they can well it’s one I’ll disagree with. In a way they would be harming the working class including African Americans as they’d be shutting off of roads if they’re working.More like those vehicles which could travel on now-parkway would have to take longer routes, take more road space, increase traffic elsewhere. More emissions as well.
There is a theory that making car commute more difficult would shift more people towards public transportation. Commercial delivery, though, is not going to shift to subway no matter what.
Of course, there is a beauty of the park to be enjoyed while waiting in traffic - which would be ruined by U-Haul orange.... And I have problems with inserting google link for some less than lovely parkway view.
@alps is a person, not a place!Then I’m not quite sure where we disagree.Well obviously we shouldn’t do it based on the last part but otherwise if NYC wants it’s problem solved it needs to add more capacity which will include building more GP lanes. That seems to be a fairy tale so if their solution is just to ban as much traffic as they can well it’s one I’ll disagree with. In a way they would be harming the working class including African Americans as they’d be shutting off of roads if they’re working.More like those vehicles which could travel on now-parkway would have to take longer routes, take more road space, increase traffic elsewhere. More emissions as well.
There is a theory that making car commute more difficult would shift more people towards public transportation. Commercial delivery, though, is not going to shift to subway no matter what.
Of course, there is a beauty of the park to be enjoyed while waiting in traffic - which would be ruined by U-Haul orange.... And I have problems with inserting google link for some less than lovely parkway view.
Does anyone recall the nature of the 3-2-3 traffic configuration of the upper deck of the GWB as seen in the 1972 Maude Sitcom opener?
Does anyone recall the nature of the 3-2-3 traffic configuration of the upper deck of the GWB as seen in the 1972 Maude Sitcom opener?
Speaking of which, in that opening at 0:28, what road is that?
Does anyone recall the nature of the 3-2-3 traffic configuration of the upper deck of the GWB as seen in the 1972 Maude Sitcom opener?
Speaking of which, in that opening at 0:28, what road is that?
That’s a good question. It could be a highway in just about any state.
I believe the final road on this, the neighborhood of Maude’s house is in California. In the shows closer, the red no parking curbs give that one away as New York ( or any state on the East Coast for that matter) don’t use anything but yellow curbs for no parking.
I've seen a few of those here in Madison. I believe they are for "traffic calming" purposes. I would call using them traffic annoyance measures.
Does the MUTCD require that interstate highways have posted mile markers? I've always wondered why interstates in NYC only have reference markers. I know the New England Thruway has its own mileposts and the Hutch now has proper mile markers all the way down to the Bruckner Interchange. I can't imagine there's a huge desire for them but they should still be posted.Up until recently, there were huge swaths of unmarked Interstate mileage on CT due to years of neglect.
Does the MUTCD require that interstate highways have posted mile markers? I've always wondered why interstates in NYC only have reference markers. I know the New England Thruway has its own mileposts and the Hutch now has proper mile markers all the way down to the Bruckner Interchange. I can't imagine there's a huge desire for them but they should still be posted.Up until recently, there were huge swaths of unmarked Interstate mileage on CT due to years of neglect.
I still have no clue how I-790 worked and looked pre reconstructionI-790 was a two lane road from the Thruway tollbooths to the NY 8/NY 12 freeway. The road traveled on the grassy strip between the two retention ponds south of the current I-790 EB lanes. The road got closer to the EB Thruway lanes until I-790 WB was next to them as it went under the NY 8/NY 12 freeway and made a left loop to enter the freeway SB, where the SB to EB loop ramp currently is. I-790 EB exited at a RIRO ramp across from the SB RIRO ramp and joined the WB lane right above the cut in the canal just south of the current NB to EB ramp movement. If one was heading south on NY 8/NY 12, one would have to exit at the SB RIRO to get to I-790 EB and the Thruway.
Hey guys, just a question. Why does NYSDOT make mistakes with so many of their state route signs, and then they just role with it? I was driving on NY-23 Eastbound about to go over the Rip Van Winkle Br, and then I noticed, at the NY-23 and NY-385 Junction, going Eastbound 23, the signs for NY-385 East and West were messed up! The shield was upside down, but the numbers were fine! Ill povide a image down below, but why is this so common? Thanks.I wonder if you're the first one to notice...
Is there a map? And what does Alp mean by "that could hardly be considered interstate standard"I still have no clue how I-790 worked and looked pre reconstructionI-790 was a two lane road from the Thruway tollbooths to the NY 8/NY 12 freeway. The road traveled on the grassy strip between the two retention ponds south of the current I-790 EB lanes. The road got closer to the EB Thruway lanes until I-790 WB was next to them as it went under the NY 8/NY 12 freeway and made a left loop to enter the freeway SB, where the SB to EB loop ramp currently is. I-790 EB exited at a RIRO ramp across from the SB RIRO ramp and joined the WB lane right above the cut in the canal just south of the current NB to EB ramp movement. If one was heading south on NY 8/NY 12, one would have to exit at the SB RIRO to get to I-790 EB and the Thruway.
I don't rely on the accuracy of the years posted on Historic Aerials as I remember driving on I-790 when it was still two lanes in the early 2000's as I needed to stop at a motel there in Utica before heading to Boston for a delivery. I do remember that the configuration was different as the highway was closer to the EB lanes of the Thruway sooner than in the early 1980's.
The only "map" I used was going on to the Historic Aerials website and looking at both aerial photos and topo maps of the area, plus my recollection of when I drove through the area back in 1982 and in 2003. This is why I mentioned that I do not rely on the years given by Historic Aerials based on what I see when I bring up a particular year. Some of the years are not correct.Is there a map? And what does Alp mean by "that could hardly be considered interstate standard"I still have no clue how I-790 worked and looked pre reconstructionI-790 was a two lane road from the Thruway tollbooths to the NY 8/NY 12 freeway. The road traveled on the grassy strip between the two retention ponds south of the current I-790 EB lanes. The road got closer to the EB Thruway lanes until I-790 WB was next to them as it went under the NY 8/NY 12 freeway and made a left loop to enter the freeway SB, where the SB to EB loop ramp currently is. I-790 EB exited at a RIRO ramp across from the SB RIRO ramp and joined the WB lane right above the cut in the canal just south of the current NB to EB ramp movement. If one was heading south on NY 8/NY 12, one would have to exit at the SB RIRO to get to I-790 EB and the Thruway.
I don't rely on the accuracy of the years posted on Historic Aerials as I remember driving on I-790 when it was still two lanes in the early 2000's as I needed to stop at a motel there in Utica before heading to Boston for a delivery. I do remember that the configuration was different as the highway was closer to the EB lanes of the Thruway sooner than in the early 1980's.
when I drove through the area back in 1982 and in 2003. This is why I mentioned that I do not rely on the years given by Historic Aerials based on what I see when I bring up a particular year. Some of the years are not correct.
Empire State Roads has some "interchange of the week" features that touch on this, including maps of the old configurations. Interestingly, none of I-790 is in its original configuration.With open road tolling currently in use, there is a good reason to give that frontage road another look. And a short stretch of untolled road within Utica will not kill NYSTA bottom line...
http://empirestateroads.com/week/week17.html
http://empirestateroads.com/week/week72.html
http://empirestateroads.com/week/week40.html
Regarding interstate standards, I don't believe the original standards specified four lanes divided; there were many two-lane stretches, including I-95 in northern Maine, that eventually got upgraded as a result. Meanwhile, I-790 now only connects to its parent in one direction. I wonder how hard it would be to build a flyover from the ramp to Genesee Street south from the Thruway to I-790 west?
I've thought for a long time that Exit 31 should be reconfigured, and it would be a lot easier now that the Thruway has switched to electronic tolling. It would be very simple to put in two new slip ramps at the western end for traffic to/from the west, and remove the whole mess of ramps at the eastern end and replace them with direct tie-ins to the Thruway to/from the east. That would make a lot better use of the NY 49 "frontage roads" rather than funneling all Thruway traffic through a single disjointed point, and save a lot of time connecting between the Thruway and NY 8/NY 12.
Call those ramps Exit 31A ...I've thought for a long time that Exit 31 should be reconfigured, and it would be a lot easier now that the Thruway has switched to electronic tolling. It would be very simple to put in two new slip ramps at the western end for traffic to/from the west, and remove the whole mess of ramps at the eastern end and replace them with direct tie-ins to the Thruway to/from the east. That would make a lot better use of the NY 49 "frontage roads" rather than funneling all Thruway traffic through a single disjointed point, and save a lot of time connecting between the Thruway and NY 8/NY 12.
This would be great, but it seems like the Thruway limited their easy options here by keeping the Utica area on a ramp-only tag reader rather than going with mainline readers between exits like they did in Albany and Syracuse. I have no concept of how expensive/complicated it would be to modify the system with appropriate readers to allow these ramps that I'd really like to see. I-90 West to I-790 should not involve 3 right turns including what tends to be a bit of a busy traffic light at the second of the turns.
Call those ramps Exit 31A ...I've thought for a long time that Exit 31 should be reconfigured, and it would be a lot easier now that the Thruway has switched to electronic tolling. It would be very simple to put in two new slip ramps at the western end for traffic to/from the west, and remove the whole mess of ramps at the eastern end and replace them with direct tie-ins to the Thruway to/from the east. That would make a lot better use of the NY 49 "frontage roads" rather than funneling all Thruway traffic through a single disjointed point, and save a lot of time connecting between the Thruway and NY 8/NY 12.
This would be great, but it seems like the Thruway limited their easy options here by keeping the Utica area on a ramp-only tag reader rather than going with mainline readers between exits like they did in Albany and Syracuse. I have no concept of how expensive/complicated it would be to modify the system with appropriate readers to allow these ramps that I'd really like to see. I-90 West to I-790 should not involve 3 right turns including what tends to be a bit of a busy traffic light at the second of the turns.
when I drove through the area back in 1982 and in 2003. This is why I mentioned that I do not rely on the years given by Historic Aerials based on what I see when I bring up a particular year. Some of the years are not correct.
I think your memory may be a bit off, though, as it was DEFINITELY in its current configuration by 2003. I imagine one of our NY contingent (especially baugh17) would have a better idea when things were completed.
Is there a map?
Adding a few more gantries should be cheaper than moving dirt and pouring concrete from my perspective. Programming an extra access point may be a problem, depending on how configurable their system is. Would really suck if things cannot be changed because software rewrite is too expensive.Call those ramps Exit 31A ...I've thought for a long time that Exit 31 should be reconfigured, and it would be a lot easier now that the Thruway has switched to electronic tolling. It would be very simple to put in two new slip ramps at the western end for traffic to/from the west, and remove the whole mess of ramps at the eastern end and replace them with direct tie-ins to the Thruway to/from the east. That would make a lot better use of the NY 49 "frontage roads" rather than funneling all Thruway traffic through a single disjointed point, and save a lot of time connecting between the Thruway and NY 8/NY 12.
This would be great, but it seems like the Thruway limited their easy options here by keeping the Utica area on a ramp-only tag reader rather than going with mainline readers between exits like they did in Albany and Syracuse. I have no concept of how expensive/complicated it would be to modify the system with appropriate readers to allow these ramps that I'd really like to see. I-90 West to I-790 should not involve 3 right turns including what tends to be a bit of a busy traffic light at the second of the turns.
The issue isn't the numbering (there would still be only one exit per direction), but the fact that the current Exit 31 gantries are located on ramps that would be removed with this proposal. They'd have to be replaced with four individual gantries or two mainline gantries.
^ They'd probably have to break the Albany-Syracuse VTS into an Albany-Utica VTS and a Syracuse-Utica VTS. Incidentally, access from I-90 west to Genesee Street is going to be a challenge if the existing interchange were removed in favor of making existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes, because of all the commercial plazas that have been built in the area. They would also need to deal with the tandem lot and the welcome center. Attempting to keep existing exit 31 AND also make existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes also introduces weaving no matter where you put the eastern slip ramps, so we have to choose between one or the other. For what it's worth, I don't think the Thruway would have built a ramp gantry at exit 31 if they thought they were going to rip it out any time soon.From my perspective, Thruway should hold on any major project until Daddy's bridge finance is more or less cleared. Debt service is 27% their 2022 budget... That can easily be a decade or more... So whatever we can dream of - NY85/Thruway interchange, ramp reconfiguration, major widening - is 15 years away as a best case scenario. And by then... Who knows if EZpass v.2 will be coming, or something else would change
^ They'd probably have to break the Albany-Syracuse VTS into an Albany-Utica VTS and a Syracuse-Utica VTS. Incidentally, access from I-90 west to Genesee Street is going to be a challenge if the existing interchange were removed in favor of making existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes, because of all the commercial plazas that have been built in the area. They would also need to deal with the tandem lot and the welcome center. Attempting to keep existing exit 31 AND also make existing I-790/NY 49 into local lanes also introduces weaving no matter where you put the eastern slip ramps, so we have to choose between one or the other. For what it's worth, I don't think the Thruway would have built a ramp gantry at exit 31 if they thought they were going to rip it out any time soon.
^ Have you seen the Thruway's ramp gantries? They're pretty big (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.111247,-75.2087623,3a,75y,320.88h,79.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNyKZirjT18vIBL5RikXboA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Plus I was picturing that a slip ramp would be something small like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.215649,-77.4400444,3a,76.4y,257.61h,81.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXEXsU6k6wfrWCr4awW-FMg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Plus the Thruway doesn't seem to be that interested in ramp gantries upstate... otherwise, they could have done something far simpler regarding the free travel between exits 24 and 25A, rather than having to guess whether to give that section for free (which isn't 100% accurate and significantly delays toll processing).
^ I was showing you how big the interchange gantries are. Perhaps exit 20 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0861763,-73.974387,3a,44.1y,110.63h,82.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZKaIenSAn2UgGvVE9_hPfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a better example, since that's actually a single lane. I have a hard time picturing that on a slip ramp.I am trying to recall if I saw anything on MassPike. Those seem to be same gantries.
Exits 24-25A was mentioned to show how uninterested the Thruway is in ramp gantries. If they were interested, they would just have put ramp gantries on the tolled movements at exit 25, mainline gantries inside exit 25A, and had the Albany-Syracuse VTS end west of exit 26, with no other gantries between exits 24-26 except the ones I mentioned earlier in this sentence. Instead, they included exit 26 in the VTS, and put mainline gantries between the other exits. I think the fact that they did this the hardest way possible shows their attitude to ramp gantries quite clearly.
It's worth noting as well that they way I stacked the version I put a few posts ago was specifically to avoid having to replace the Leland Avenue and NY 49 EB bridges over the Thruway.
^ I was showing you how big the interchange gantries are. Perhaps exit 20 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0861763,-73.974387,3a,44.1y,110.63h,82.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZKaIenSAn2UgGvVE9_hPfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a better example, since that's actually a single lane. I have a hard time picturing that on a slip ramp.
Exits 24-25A was mentioned to show how uninterested the Thruway is in ramp gantries. If they were interested, they would just have put ramp gantries on the tolled movements at exit 25, mainline gantries inside exit 25A, and had the Albany-Syracuse VTS end west of exit 26, with no other gantries between exits 24-26 except the ones I mentioned earlier in this sentence. Instead, they included exit 26 in the VTS, and put mainline gantries between the other exits. I think the fact that they did this the hardest way possible shows their attitude to ramp gantries quite clearly.
It's worth noting as well that they way I stacked the version I put a few posts ago was specifically to avoid having to replace the Leland Avenue and NY 49 EB bridges over the Thruway.
The way I outlined is actually less than what's there (six mainline gantries (one each direction at three locations) and one interchange gantry vs. four mainline gantries and two ramp gantries) and IIRC the map of gantry locations was on the Thruway website well before COVID. It seems they got hung up on their way of doing it and didn't think things through.^ I was showing you how big the interchange gantries are. Perhaps exit 20 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0861763,-73.974387,3a,44.1y,110.63h,82.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZKaIenSAn2UgGvVE9_hPfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a better example, since that's actually a single lane. I have a hard time picturing that on a slip ramp.I am trying to recall if I saw anything on MassPike. Those seem to be same gantries.
Exits 24-25A was mentioned to show how uninterested the Thruway is in ramp gantries. If they were interested, they would just have put ramp gantries on the tolled movements at exit 25, mainline gantries inside exit 25A, and had the Albany-Syracuse VTS end west of exit 26, with no other gantries between exits 24-26 except the ones I mentioned earlier in this sentence. Instead, they included exit 26 in the VTS, and put mainline gantries between the other exits. I think the fact that they did this the hardest way possible shows their attitude to ramp gantries quite clearly.
It's worth noting as well that they way I stacked the version I put a few posts ago was specifically to avoid having to replace the Leland Avenue and NY 49 EB bridges over the Thruway.
As for 25... My gut feeling someone ordered one less set of equipment than was required, and lead times during COVID didn't allow top up order.
The way I outlined is actually less than what's there (six mainline gantries (one each direction at three locations) and one interchange gantry vs. four mainline gantries and two ramp gantries) and IIRC the map of gantry locations was on the Thruway website well before COVID. It seems they got hung up on their way of doing it and didn't think things through.There are per gantry costs - running cables to location, setting up those steel arches; per-lane costs; and possibly per-read costs.
https://goo.gl/maps/cctaux5bi6q9VDmS8Slightly better view of the same scene:
Found this on GSV. Crews replacing a shield assembly.
Still, I would think it would be cheaper to go with my hypothetical six gantry setup than the actual seven gantry setup, especially since then no read chargers would be incurred for traffic not paying a toll. Although I think I just realized the problem with my hypothetical and why they didn't use it: the interior exit 25A mainline gantries wouldn't have any way of differentiating exit 25-26 traffic from exit 24-26 traffic.The way I outlined is actually less than what's there (six mainline gantries (one each direction at three locations) and one interchange gantry vs. four mainline gantries and two ramp gantries) and IIRC the map of gantry locations was on the Thruway website well before COVID. It seems they got hung up on their way of doing it and didn't think things through.There are per gantry costs - running cables to location, setting up those steel arches; per-lane costs; and possibly per-read costs.
For per-lane, looks like there are 2 sets per lane plus something per shoulder; this one looks like a total of 9 sets for 3 lanes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.715008,-73.8697665,3a,75y,295.45h,95.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOZT9_NekR9ZnvnjZ3-UhZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
There are 4 sets on an exit (5 in the other direction):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.952635,-76.9795197,3a,75y,291.06h,92.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy-unX9bSgphwEJBPOJ7sLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Given that equipment sets are configures by the person with advanced stages of paranoia, they must be expensive, probably more expensive than gantry steel.
And while we are at it.... Some strange gantry decisions may be explained if per-read costs are high...
Looks like Masspike is much more integrated into DOT operations and funding, while Thruway is an independent kingdom - and was a source of funding for the state. So I can imagine Masspike being more conductive to giving up on some revenue for goodwill. I still remember a fight for free I-90 in Buffalo..Still, I would think it would be cheaper to go with my hypothetical six gantry setup than the actual seven gantry setup, especially since then no read chargers would be incurred for traffic not paying a toll. Although I think I just realized the problem with my hypothetical and why they didn't use it: the interior exit 25A mainline gantries wouldn't have any way of differentiating exit 25-26 traffic from exit 24-26 traffic.The way I outlined is actually less than what's there (six mainline gantries (one each direction at three locations) and one interchange gantry vs. four mainline gantries and two ramp gantries) and IIRC the map of gantry locations was on the Thruway website well before COVID. It seems they got hung up on their way of doing it and didn't think things through.There are per gantry costs - running cables to location, setting up those steel arches; per-lane costs; and possibly per-read costs.
For per-lane, looks like there are 2 sets per lane plus something per shoulder; this one looks like a total of 9 sets for 3 lanes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.715008,-73.8697665,3a,75y,295.45h,95.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOZT9_NekR9ZnvnjZ3-UhZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
There are 4 sets on an exit (5 in the other direction):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.952635,-76.9795197,3a,75y,291.06h,92.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy-unX9bSgphwEJBPOJ7sLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Given that equipment sets are configures by the person with advanced stages of paranoia, they must be expensive, probably more expensive than gantry steel.
And while we are at it.... Some strange gantry decisions may be explained if per-read costs are high...
That said, it IS too bad they didn't pull a MassDOT and just make all the areas where they broke up the VTS into free zones. A 23-26 free zone would solve all the problems with this.
Looks like Masspike is much more integrated into DOT operations and funding, while Thruway is an independent kingdom - and was a source of funding for the state. So I can imagine Masspike being more conductive to giving up on some revenue for goodwill. I still remember a fight for free I-90 in Buffalo..
Looks like Masspike is much more integrated into DOT operations and funding, while Thruway is an independent kingdom - and was a source of funding for the state. So I can imagine Masspike being more conductive to giving up on some revenue for goodwill. I still remember a fight for free I-90 in Buffalo..
Yes, the Mass Pike is part of MassDOT. It (along with a number of other transportation-related agencies in Massachusetts) was a separate entity prior to 2009, when everything was consolidated under the MassDOT banner.
Anybody knows if something happened on Thaddeus Lostushko bridge aka Twin bridges on I-87 just north of Albany? There was an oversized truck stopped under end of northbound arch, and some really impressive number of police cars- no ambulance or firefighters. My gut tells me "bridge strike", and I hope it is not. ..Oh well... At least it isn't I-5 bad. Serious damage to that bridge would hurt big time
Couldn't really tell what happened as I drove by ..
I visited the Ashokan Reservoir for the first time, I immediately noticed NYCDOT speed limit signs on 28A. Looks like a 1909 court ruling ordered the city to maintain the roads around the reservoir, had no idea!It's a bit more involved. Basically, NYC owns a lot of land in Catskills for water use. There are a lot of tensions with locals there, as NYC water supply is built to ancient Rome standards (except for lead pipes) and NYC has a lot of say in land use in that area to keep that water drinkable. There was a video in another thread touching on the topic (with a positive spin on the situation):
Here is New York City's water supply map.
(https://news.climate.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/map.jpg)
Wendover has an excellent video (https://youtu.be/IDLkOWW0_xg) explaining NYC's water supply system
Looks like projects to convert more of NY 17 to I-86 are moving forward
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-major-milestone-transformative-conversion-state-route-17-interstate
Looks like projects to convert more of NY 17 to I-86 are moving forwardSo if done, what gaps would remain in I-86?
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-major-milestone-transformative-conversion-state-route-17-interstate
Hale Eddy to Hancock would be the major gap left. I'd have to check the rest of the project list.Looks like projects to convert more of NY 17 to I-86 are moving forwardSo if done, what gaps would remain in I-86?
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-major-milestone-transformative-conversion-state-route-17-interstate
Given how insulated and insular the Mass Turnpike Authority was before the merger, the fact that it happened at all was a relative miracle.
Anybody in contact with Region 9? LOTS (though not all…which is somehow both better AND worse) of brand new NY-11 shields near and around the two new roundabouts at I-81 Exit 5.
Anybody in contact with Region 9? LOTS (though not all…which is somehow both better AND worse) of brand new NY-11 shields near and around the two new roundabouts at I-81 Exit 5.
I think I ended up purchasing a set of those signs from a scrap dealer:
See https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.msg2778154#msg2778154 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18607.msg2778154#msg2778154)
I still haven't had any responses about this;probably no one has :(
Who here has ridden the rail trails of the former New York and Putnam Railroad Main Line, besides one user that I already know has done it (Yes, I'm referring to you, RoadGeekAdam)?
Is the Putnam Trail as fun to ride as it looks?
I bought a NY 11 shield for my home office last winter on eBay as well. Sticker on the back indicates R9. I believe the seller was the guy who runs Twin Green Traffic Signal out of Columbia County.
Is there plans to reopen the closed rest area on 495 Westbound across from that new Long Island Welcome Center one? I drove by there last week and noticed the concrete barriers were gone (it was coned off), and the whole thing was repaved with new lines and everything in addition to the main repaving project on 495 in Suffolk county. If they were planning to keep it closed why bother repaving it?That's a very interesting question. Unfortunately, the project plans don't have any signage items that might shed some light on this. Perhaps a question for Region 10?
Is there plans to reopen the closed rest area on 495 Westbound across from that new Long Island Welcome Center one? I drove by there last week and noticed the concrete barriers were gone (it was coned off), and the whole thing was repaved with new lines and everything in addition to the main repaving project on 495 in Suffolk county. If they were planning to keep it closed why bother repaving it?That's a very interesting question. Unfortunately, the project plans don't have any signage items that might shed some light on this. Perhaps a question for Region 10?
There's another one like this - the SB Schroon Lake Rest Area, permanently closed, but it's never been striped out or had the signage removed. And there's still the "temporarily closed" rest areas at Hastings and Lewis.
There are signs for the eastbound one, and the slapped together parking area by NY 111 that was built from the DOT garage area.You know, that area is where NY 347 was supposed to end.
were they planning to run 347 down Simeon Woods Road and thru the county offices area?There are signs for the eastbound one, and the slapped together parking area by NY 111 that was built from the DOT garage area.You know, that area is where NY 347 was supposed to end.
Yes, it was going to leave Simeon Woods Road just north of Rabro Drive, then curve northeast towards the current terminus at NY 454.were they planning to run 347 down Simeon Woods Road and thru the county offices area?There are signs for the eastbound one, and the slapped together parking area by NY 111 that was built from the DOT garage area.You know, that area is where NY 347 was supposed to end.
Supposedly NY is using the work zone speed cameras in isolated areas (such as I-84 near Connecticut), yet there is no mention of the program on any New York website. Would have thought a list of locations online was a requirement like in other states.Public media campaign's coming up shortly.
What happens to US 9 South in Yonkers?I took a look at the jurisdiction of the roads there in the RIS viewer (https://gis.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=risviewer), and... wow. Short version: US 9 is maintained by the City of Yonkers, and cities are necessarily good about signing routes that pass through them.
https://goo.gl/maps/tCUJFSCbyfQysFPs6
I noticed that there is a one way segment of US and NY 9A in Downtown starting at Wells Avenue. Traffic is forced to turn onto Wells.
Then you get this intersection. https://goo.gl/maps/aoW5TWBmugVHpQZV9
However no shields for either route.
Did the State of New York forget that US 9 and NY 9A need to circumvent the one way part of Broadway?
https://goo.gl/maps/UJo7pz8jPUvVfXH87
Is that little path here along Route 17 supposed to be the Appalachian Trail?
Googlemaps implies it is, but I would figure the trail would be much wider.
https://goo.gl/maps/unFKMtL7JxWhV2cD7
I take this is the main office for the entire Thruway?
https://goo.gl/maps/unFKMtL7JxWhV2cD7No.
I take this is the main office for the entire Thruway?
It's a pretty good bypass of Auburn, and the western terminus is arguably way overbuilt for a county route, so it would make sense as NY 520. If this was PA, it would almost certainly be a state route.
In that same area, I wouldn't mind if existing NY 317 was swapped back to the county and Brutus St. between Weedsport and NY 5 became NY 317 (or any other number of choice) instead.
The upgraded signage was what piqued my interest on this matter. One does not usually see signs with "Z-bars" behind the signs on county highways except at junctions with Touring routes or reference routes. Usually the signs are mounted to the (sometimes rusty) poles with no "Z-bars" on county and town roads.It's a pretty good bypass of Auburn, and the western terminus is arguably way overbuilt for a county route, so it would make sense as NY 520. If this was PA, it would almost certainly be a state route.
In that same area, I wouldn't mind if existing NY 317 was swapped back to the county and Brutus St. between Weedsport and NY 5 became NY 317 (or any other number of choice) instead.
Cayuga CR 10A/10B/10C carried the original NY 5A designation during the mid 1930s and was later replaced with the second incarnation of NY 135 before being turned over to the county in 1939.
As for any potential for a realignment or new designation, I wouldn't get too excited.
https://goo.gl/maps/DbSYqtVDjhSoUN4N820A was originally 20 west of what is now NY 15. When 20 was completed west of Avon, NY decided to make the old route NY 35. The folks along the old route didn't like losing the US status, so US 20A was created. Search NY US 20 in the AASHTO database documents (1930's) for details.
It seems odd that NY didn’t make a NY 20A instead of the US 20 ALT.
https://goo.gl/maps/DbSYqtVDjhSoUN4N8There was also US-15 (now NY-15) and NY-15A. (The remaining portion of US-15 in NY south of I-86 was designated as I-99.)
One of the things that always fascinated me was that US 20 got the lone US designated Alternate bannered route.
US 9 has a New York State designated Alternate.
US 1 used to have NY 1A and not US 1A.
US 62 used to have a state A banner in Niagara Falls.
It seems odd that NY didn’t make a NY 20A instead of the US 20 ALT.
https://goo.gl/maps/DbSYqtVDjhSoUN4N820A was originally 20 west of what is now NY 15. When 20 was completed west of Avon, NY decided to make the old route NY 35. The folks along the old route didn't like losing the US status, so US 20A was created. Search NY US 20 in the AASHTO database documents (1930's) for details.
It seems odd that NY didn’t make a NY 20A instead of the US 20 ALT.
Here is a view from the Thruway mainline. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6293737,-73.7791611,3a,43.1y,76.51h,94.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slySQw7Tf_AcdIp-1oueuMg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)https://goo.gl/maps/unFKMtL7JxWhV2cD7
I take this is the main office for the entire Thruway?
No, I don't think so. The multi-story building next to Exit 23 is the Thruway headquarters, last I knew.
https://goo.gl/maps/DbSYqtVDjhSoUN4N820A was originally 20 west of what is now NY 15. When 20 was completed west of Avon, NY decided to make the old route NY 35. The folks along the old route didn't like losing the US status, so US 20A was created. Search NY US 20 in the AASHTO database documents (1930's) for details.
It seems odd that NY didn’t make a NY 20A instead of the US 20 ALT.
NY 35's west end was truncated to Caledonia. The original US 20 became NY 20A for about a year before becoming US 20A.
The current NY-35 was assigned its number in the early 1940s. Before that, it was assigned in Western NY.https://goo.gl/maps/DbSYqtVDjhSoUN4N820A was originally 20 west of what is now NY 15. When 20 was completed west of Avon, NY decided to make the old route NY 35. The folks along the old route didn't like losing the US status, so US 20A was created. Search NY US 20 in the AASHTO database documents (1930's) for details.
It seems odd that NY didn’t make a NY 20A instead of the US 20 ALT.
NY 35's west end was truncated to Caledonia. The original US 20 became NY 20A for about a year before becoming US 20A.
I thought 35 was a route in Westchester
I wrote a letter requesting that NYSDOT install an Added Lane sign on the southbound Taconic, at US 6 in Yorktown: https://goo.gl/maps/dQYEm1NqVaHwpREw7 (https://goo.gl/maps/dQYEm1NqVaHwpREw7) Curiously, there is an Entering Added Lane sign on the ramp, but not the mainline.I'm on your side with this. You would see added lane before the first ramp THEN a merge sign for the second.
Here's the reply I received: https://i.imgur.com/2kAWUqS.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/2kAWUqS.jpg)
Am I crazy for thinking there should still be an added lane sign here? It's an added lane!
There's a similar setup on 84 in Fishkill at US 9: one added lane ramp (from 9 sb) followed by a merge (from 9 nb) and yet there is an Added Lane sign on the 84 mainline.
It'd be nice if we could get all the relevant regions in NYSDOT to understand that "Thruway" makes for a poor control city in 2022. Region 4 likes to replace like in kind; add a TOLL banner to keep it compliant.
(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/thruway.png)
It'd be nice if we could get all the relevant regions in NYSDOT to understand that "Thruway" makes for a poor control city in 2022. Region 4 likes to replace like in kind; add a TOLL banner to keep it compliant.I would like to see the signs posted like this...
(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/thruway.png)
It'd be nice if we could get all the relevant regions in NYSDOT to understand that "Thruway" makes for a poor control city in 2022. Region 4 likes to replace like in kind; add a TOLL banner to keep it compliant.I would like to see the signs posted like this...
(https://jpnearl.com/upstatenyroads.com/aaroads/thruway.png)
TOLL NY Thruway TOLL NY Thruway TOLL NY Thruway
90 Logo 90 Logo 87 Logo
Albany Buffalo New York
Buffalo Erie Albany
These can be either ground-mounted or on overheads with the appropriate exit number if and where needed.
By doing this, a motorist will know that they are going to be entering the NY Thruway and will have control cities to go by before exiting the road that they are on currently.
Region 4 doesn't include control cities at all, but there's a few interstate-to-interstate interchanges where they don't include control cities there either ...
Region 5 does use control cities well. Something I find odd is that NYSTA tries to use Rochester at Exit 53 in Buffalo, and at I-190 Exit 16, but then fails to do so anywhere else. The control for I-290 is Thru Traffic.Syracuse is in Region 3.
Another strange thing, this time by Syracuse (no idea what Region this would be) the control cities for the Thruway from I-81 are Buffalo-Boston, skipping Albany entirely!
Region 5 does use control cities well. Something I find odd is that NYSTA tries to use Rochester at Exit 53 in Buffalo, and at I-190 Exit 16, but then fails to do so anywhere else. The control for I-290 is Thru Traffic.
Another strange thing, this time by Syracuse (no idea what Region this would be) the control cities for the Thruway from I-81 are Buffalo-Boston, skipping Albany entirely!
Region 5 does use control cities well. Something I find odd is that NYSTA tries to use Rochester at Exit 53 in Buffalo, and at I-190 Exit 16, but then fails to do so anywhere else. The control for I-290 is Thru Traffic.Syracuse is in Region 3.
Another strange thing, this time by Syracuse (no idea what Region this would be) the control cities for the Thruway from I-81 are Buffalo-Boston, skipping Albany entirely!
Where are you seeing signs posted for Buffalo-Boston? All I see on GSV (July 2022) is Buffalo-Albany.
The only Buffalo-Boston instances I can think of are at interchanges with free 90 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6693255,-73.7320898,3a,75y,244.69h,94.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUJNi_EyuM60kIEur-Yz_Fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
https://goo.gl/maps/nK8DwFXEJL95mhg18
Why is North GrandIsland Bridge Truss Less? I always wondered why it’s counterpart on the south end has a stringed cantilever Chanel span, but the North Crossing doesn’t feature one.
Same river, with same ship traffic.
The only Buffalo-Boston instances I can think of are at interchanges with free 90 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6693255,-73.7320898,3a,75y,244.69h,94.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUJNi_EyuM60kIEur-Yz_Fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Yeah I know of those, it's just that I could have sworn I saw one in Syracuse.
Some may consider the Thruway itself to be a kind of destination, even though it's not strictly compliant with the Manual.The Thruway signs should say 90/87 and above that shield say North/South/East/West, and then have the Thruway shield and have that yellow toll sign above it and have an actual control city on the sign such as Albany, New York City, Buffalo, Syracuse, or Rochester. Ive always been confused on why they never (rarely) do this, but I did hear that they are trying to phase out the Thruway signs, so I can see why they arent putting the shield on signs, but I personally don't agree with it.
One reason I could see is that all traffic to/from any Thruway exit is funneled into a single toll plaza. So it doesn't make sense to show east-west before the booth (except for a few spots, like exit 24). Any traffic goes to that toll booth first, and would be making a choice after the booth only. Things are a bit different with AET, but the single entry point still exists.Some may consider the Thruway itself to be a kind of destination, even though it's not strictly compliant with the Manual.The Thruway signs should say 90/87 and above that shield say North/South/East/West, and then have the Thruway shield and have that yellow toll sign above it and have an actual control city on the sign such as Albany, New York City, Buffalo, Syracuse, or Rochester. Ive always been confused on why they never (rarely) do this, but I did hear that they are trying to phase out the Thruway signs, so I can see why they arent putting the shield on signs, but I personally don't agree with it.
That one also had Albany and New York, so it's not exactly skipping over Albany, is it? Plus I did say "interchanges with free 90", after all.The only Buffalo-Boston instances I can think of are at interchanges with free 90 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6693255,-73.7320898,3a,75y,244.69h,94.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUJNi_EyuM60kIEur-Yz_Fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Yeah I know of those, it's just that I could have sworn I saw one in Syracuse.
Also not Syracuse, and not NYSTA, but Buffalo and Boston both appear on the same sign here (https://goo.gl/maps/dyiHXsHbSy5tKhTM9) as well.
That one also had Albany and New York, so it's not exactly skipping over Albany, is it? Plus I did say "interchanges with free 90", after all.The only Buffalo-Boston instances I can think of are at interchanges with free 90 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6693255,-73.7320898,3a,75y,244.69h,94.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUJNi_EyuM60kIEur-Yz_Fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Yeah I know of those, it's just that I could have sworn I saw one in Syracuse.
Also not Syracuse, and not NYSTA, but Buffalo and Boston both appear on the same sign here (https://goo.gl/maps/dyiHXsHbSy5tKhTM9) as well.
Something I noticed on my way home yesterday is that every VMS that wasn't on the Thruway was advertising for NYSDOT plow drivers.
Every Thruway VMS, meanwhile, was announcing a commercial vehicle ban west of Buffalo beginning at 4pm yesterday.
Something I noticed on my way home yesterday is that every VMS that wasn't on the Thruway was advertising for NYSDOT plow drivers.
CDL and $18-20/hour isn't a great combo these days.Something I noticed on my way home yesterday is that every VMS that wasn't on the Thruway was advertising for NYSDOT plow drivers.
Yes, that seems to be a yearly campaign as they ran it last year as well. It's been going for several weeks now.
Salary for plow drivers at DOT is a huge problem and has been for the past couple of years now.CDL and $18-20/hour isn't a great combo these days.Something I noticed on my way home yesterday is that every VMS that wasn't on the Thruway was advertising for NYSDOT plow drivers.
Yes, that seems to be a yearly campaign as they ran it last year as well. It's been going for several weeks now.
I heard that seasonal plow drivers actually get most of their compensation from overtime, with 100+ hours/week after a snowfall not being uncommon. yet it ends up as a tough job...Salary for plow drivers at DOT is a huge problem and has been for the past couple of years now.CDL and $18-20/hour isn't a great combo these days.Something I noticed on my way home yesterday is that every VMS that wasn't on the Thruway was advertising for NYSDOT plow drivers.
Yes, that seems to be a yearly campaign as they ran it last year as well. It's been going for several weeks now.
The Department of Civil Service was set up with good intentions and purpose, but it's more of a hindrance nowadays due to the old days of people knocking down the doors to work for the State being over. Their procedures are now archane and obsolete given the current job market.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Sure, but NYSDOT is losing drivers to other jurisdictions due to the higher base pay elsewhere. Everyone gets OT.I heard that seasonal plow drivers actually get most of their compensation from overtime, with 100+ hours/week after a snowfall not being uncommon. yet it ends up as a tough job...Salary for plow drivers at DOT is a huge problem and has been for the past couple of years now.CDL and $18-20/hour isn't a great combo these days.Something I noticed on my way home yesterday is that every VMS that wasn't on the Thruway was advertising for NYSDOT plow drivers.
Yes, that seems to be a yearly campaign as they ran it last year as well. It's been going for several weeks now.
The Department of Civil Service was set up with good intentions and purpose, but it's more of a hindrance nowadays due to the old days of people knocking down the doors to work for the State being over. Their procedures are now archane and obsolete given the current job market.
(personal opinion emphasized)
https://goo.gl/maps/ghvMBZc8VGxccL4P9
Noticed that you can’t follow NY 324 completely. NY 324 turns left off Exit 17, yet a turn prohibition is in place for safety reasons.
324 does not exit there. While there are still some NY 324 signs and trailblazers as well as reference markers along that section of Grand Island Blvd indicating that is still NY 324, NYS Roadway Inventory GIS shows it as NY 950C. NY 324 is concurrent with I-190 to Exit 15.Yeah, I suspected something like this was happening when Roadman brought it up. It's one of those routes you have to go by the log for.
Note also this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/QGKWrTbLnutjUtit5), which has a TO banner indicating this is not part of NY 324 EB. However, 324 WB is signed (https://goo.gl/maps/esCJ8wnKBBjnpn6w8) as continuing to NY 266 and joining I-190 at Exit 17. So, at least according to signage, EB follows I-190, while WB follows Grand Island Blvd.Can't trust the shields.
Sunrise Mall is dead.
So now is the time to use the land to convert NY 27 into the Expressway it was intended to be.
Sunrise Mall is dead.
So now is the time to use the land to convert NY 27 into the Expressway it was intended to be.
Sunrise Mall is dead.
So now is the time to use the land to convert NY 27 into the Expressway it was intended to be.
Sunrise Mall is dead.
So now is the time to use the land to convert NY 27 into the Expressway it was intended to be.
Excuse me while I laugh hysterically at the thought this would ever happen in any universe ever on Long Island in 2022 or 2052 or 2092 or 2142.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahano.
What really needs to be a full freeway on Long Island is Nichols Road, the way that highway is set up, is very dangerous with the surprise traffic lights that show up around curves. The intersections already are designed that there is enough room to make overpasses and there are "service roads" in the section around Centerreach.Oh, you know I've wanted that too. Between Suffolk CR 16 and NY 25. they need partial interchanges for Suffolk County Community College. Between NY 25 and NY 347, the need to use the "service roads" for a partial interchange with Hawkins and Wireless Road (northbound) and Mark Tree Road (southbound), North of NY 347, interchanges at Oxhead Road, and the entrance of Stony Brook University. Everything else should either wind up on frontage roads, bridges with no access or dead end streets.
Excuse me while I laugh hysterically at the thought this would ever happen in any universe ever on Long Island in 2022 or 2052 or 2092 or 2142.They can grab the land for it and use part of it for new lanes as well as a new interchange with NY 27A.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahano.
347 will be a neverending project.Sad, isn't it? They should've just upgraded the road the way they wanted to in the 1960's and 1970's. Hence the decal below all my posts which reads "NEW YORK STATE ROUTE 347; EXPRESSWAY NOW!"
I mean, what's crazy are the projects that are on the books of NYSDOT's active capital program just over the course of my own career and the goals just are never achieved with incredibly slow delivery and then weirdo local issues. My window has been only 20 years of a multi-decade trainwreck.347 will be a neverending project.Sad, isn't it? They should've just upgraded the road the way they wanted to in the 1960's and 1970's. Hence the decal below all my posts which reads "NEW YORK STATE ROUTE 347; EXPRESSWAY NOW!"
Not so sure about that. They didn't even rule out a New Haven - Shoreham Sound Link at the time they were proposing it. A Rye-Oyster Bay Bridge is not needed in my opinion. Any other sound links other than Orient Point- East Lyme seem like a waste of resources. I never got their logic of extending I-287 into Long Island. Even the current cross-weschester doesn't make much sense as I-287.
Not so sure about that. They didn't even rule out a New Haven - Shoreham Sound Link at the time they were proposing it. A Rye-Oyster Bay Bridge is not needed in my opinion. Any other sound links other than Orient Point- East Lyme seem like a waste of resources. I never got their logic of extending I-287 into Long Island. Even the current cross-weschester doesn't make much sense as I-287.
Not so sure about that. They didn't even rule out a New Haven - Shoreham Sound Link at the time they were proposing it. A Rye-Oyster Bay Bridge is not needed in my opinion. Any other sound links other than Orient Point- East Lyme seem like a waste of resources. I never got their logic of extending I-287 into Long Island. Even the current cross-weschester doesn't make much sense as I-287.
LOL. You really think the people in the richest areas of the Peconics are going to support a bridge from Orient Point? There's a better chance I go to Plum Island and get hosed by staffers. Long Island is not getting a 3rd bridge in our lifetimes and I would oppose each one as being a waste of resources.
Even the current cross-weschester doesn't make much sense as I-287.
I was agreeing with the person above me that a Rye-Oyster Bay Bridge isn't needed. An Orient Point bridge is needed however, because having to drive from Riverhead to Rhode Island would be insane without it. A central Sound Link would be most beneficial to people who happen to live in the center of Long Island who just so happened to be going to somewhere in Central Connecticut. Not worth a 6 lane 20 mile tunnel. 287 still doesn't make sense as it is an east west road. It should have became Interstate 82.
I was agreeing with the person above me that a Rye-Oyster Bay Bridge isn't needed. An Orient Point bridge is needed however, because having to drive from Riverhead to Rhode Island would be insane without it. A central Sound Link would be most beneficial to people who happen to live in the center of Long Island who just so happened to be going to somewhere in Central Connecticut.
287 still doesn't make sense as it is an east west road. It should have became Interstate 82.
The Orient-Watch hill Bridge has got to be the least logical proposal I have ever heard. Why bother building 22+ miles over several tiny islands when you can just go directly over the sound north to CT?
Also, the last two statements about traffic contradict each other.
The Orient-Watch hill Bridge has got to be the least logical proposal I have ever heard. Why bother building 22+ miles over several tiny islands when you can just go directly over the sound north to CT?
This is an excellent point and yeah is part of why that proposal is silly.QuoteAlso, the last two statements about traffic contradict each other.
Explain. What two statements are you referring to and where is the contradiction?
Let's not turn the general NY thread into another MMM thread. Perhaps the discussion over sound crossings could be separated out?Agreed. anyone with any knowledge of NY would know that a Long Island Sound Crossing, needed or not, is fictional for the time being.
True and it’s a sad state when Europe can build several mega projects like this at once but the US can’t.Let's not turn the general NY thread into another MMM thread. Perhaps the discussion over sound crossings could be separated out?Agreed. anyone with any knowledge of NY would know that a Long Island Sound Crossing, needed or not, is fictional for the time being.
Well, NY managed to build a new Tappan Zee aka Daddy's bridge.True and it’s a sad state when Europe can build several mega projects like this at once but the US can’t.Let's not turn the general NY thread into another MMM thread. Perhaps the discussion over sound crossings could be separated out?Agreed. anyone with any knowledge of NY would know that a Long Island Sound Crossing, needed or not, is fictional for the time being.
The Orient-Watch hill Bridge has got to be the least logical proposal I have ever heard. Why bother building 22+ miles over several tiny islands when you can just go directly over the sound north to CT?The proposed East Marion-Old Saybrook Bridge would've been shorter.
A north fork extension of the L.I.E would open suffolk country to more massive development.I've seen plenty of development going on there even without the North Fork extension of the L.I.E.
New topic, specifically the US 6/202/NY 22 overlap in Brewster;
What sign was next to the US 202 sign at this sign tree?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3942949,-73.6070717,3a,75y,44.58h,94.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssAbMzQXakL-Az_KgNlvZGA!2e0!5s20220901T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Because even the oldest GSV captures show a blank space.
A north fork extension of the L.I.E would open suffolk country to more massive development.I've seen plenty of development going on there even without the North Fork extension of the L.I.E.
That's what I suspected. And yes, the sign for Brewster Metro North Station along eastbound US 202 and northbound NY 22 is at Morningthorpe Road.New topic, specifically the US 6/202/NY 22 overlap in Brewster;
What sign was next to the US 202 sign at this sign tree?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3942949,-73.6070717,3a,75y,44.58h,94.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssAbMzQXakL-Az_KgNlvZGA!2e0!5s20220901T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Because even the oldest GSV captures show a blank space.
The other side of the intersection has a sign for the Brewster Metro North station. Maybe that? Looks like the current signage for the station on US 202 East is at Morningthorpe Rd.
Definitely.
Sunrise Highway should also be extended in both directions to complete a continuous limited access expressway on the south shore.
<------can we move this to fictional highways please?It cuts off here, and MMM will learn the hard way to stop doing this.
An observation on the new 347 construction. Has the grade separated interchange with 25 been cancelled? Driving thru that area the new curbs are in that seem to indicate that the traffic light is staying, especially since they already installed one of the new green poles for the new traffic lights. The extra right off way in the southeast quadrant is becoming what looks to be a storm retention pond. Also none of the local Long Island news articles about the construction continuing mention an interchange being built there.It is listed on the NYSDOT website (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=0T2493) as beginning construction in Fall 2029, which could mean anything.
That's beyond the end of the current TIP and is therefore nothing more than a placeholder.An observation on the new 347 construction. Has the grade separated interchange with 25 been cancelled? Driving thru that area the new curbs are in that seem to indicate that the traffic light is staying, especially since they already installed one of the new green poles for the new traffic lights. The extra right off way in the southeast quadrant is becoming what looks to be a storm retention pond. Also none of the local Long Island news articles about the construction continuing mention an interchange being built there.It is listed on the NYSDOT website (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=0T2493) as beginning construction in Fall 2029, which could mean anything.
Is there plans to reopen the closed rest area on 495 Westbound across from that new Long Island Welcome Center one? I drove by there last week and noticed the concrete barriers were gone (it was coned off), and the whole thing was repaved with new lines and everything in addition to the main repaving project on 495 in Suffolk county. If they were planning to keep it closed why bother repaving it?I emailed Region 10 and just heard back today. It's going to be a truck inspection site.
Is there plans to reopen the closed rest area on 495 Westbound across from that new Long Island Welcome Center one? I drove by there last week and noticed the concrete barriers were gone (it was coned off), and the whole thing was repaved with new lines and everything in addition to the main repaving project on 495 in Suffolk county. If they were planning to keep it closed why bother repaving it?I emailed Region 10 and just heard back today. It's going to be a truck inspection site.
For this upcoming weekend's Webinar presentation, we'll be taking a look at the freeway system of central New York State and the Syracuse metropolitan area. We'll also be continuing our discussion from last week about "The Three R's" (Replace/Relocate/Remove) of urban freeway replacement; there will be an in-depth discussion (that will likely take up the majority of the show) about how Syracuse's "Community Grid" plan to remove the downtown segment of Interstate 81 came to be, this proposal's pros & cons, and how this controversial plan may or may not serve as a template for future urban planning movements across North America. Since we know this topic is a lightning rod of sorts within the roads/travel community, we'd also welcome your thoughtful comments & questions in the live chat during our discussion, that way we can make things a bit more interactive than we normally allow.I have watched this webinar broadcast and, along with three others I have watched, I am impressed at the time you put into these and I am impressed with the quality and content presented.
If you'd like to join us live, we'll get started on Saturday (12/17) at 6 PM ET. Regardless, the link to this show can be found below:
I noticed in Albany, despite its bad signage on city street routes, NY 32 acknowledges US 9 quite well, but at State Street there are no shields to acknowledge NY’s longest running E-W state highway at that location.
In fact NY 5 itself has no trailblazing except at the west end of State Street where NY 5 turns. However drive further west to where NY 5 changes alignment from Washington to Central and no shield to inform through travelers of the change. Oh wait, Lark Street is US 9W. That intersects just before Central, and you would never know it.
It seems all routes get some kind of signage, but NY 5 gets none like it’s the forgotten route within the capital. To me NY 5 is one of the most important routes in the state, but the capital treats it like garbage. It serves Buffalo, Syracuse, and Utica along with other smaller cities like Batavia, Auburn and Ripley. It is a very important link for the Empire State and gets the worst by the states center for government.
I-90, Northway, Thruway and Alt-7 seem to be commonI noticed in Albany, despite its bad signage on city street routes, NY 32 acknowledges US 9 quite well, but at State Street there are no shields to acknowledge NY’s longest running E-W state highway at that location.
In fact NY 5 itself has no trailblazing except at the west end of State Street where NY 5 turns. However drive further west to where NY 5 changes alignment from Washington to Central and no shield to inform through travelers of the change. Oh wait, Lark Street is US 9W. That intersects just before Central, and you would never know it.
It seems all routes get some kind of signage, but NY 5 gets none like it’s the forgotten route within the capital. To me NY 5 is one of the most important routes in the state, but the capital treats it like garbage. It serves Buffalo, Syracuse, and Utica along with other smaller cities like Batavia, Auburn and Ripley. It is a very important link for the Empire State and gets the worst by the states center for government.
Speaking of the Capital District, do the media therein refer to "Free 90" as that, or is it just us on AARoads who do?
Free 90 is heard in the Capital District.I-90, Northway, Thruway and Alt-7 seem to be commonI noticed in Albany, despite its bad signage on city street routes, NY 32 acknowledges US 9 quite well, but at State Street there are no shields to acknowledge NY’s longest running E-W state highway at that location.
In fact NY 5 itself has no trailblazing except at the west end of State Street where NY 5 turns. However drive further west to where NY 5 changes alignment from Washington to Central and no shield to inform through travelers of the change. Oh wait, Lark Street is US 9W. That intersects just before Central, and you would never know it.
It seems all routes get some kind of signage, but NY 5 gets none like it’s the forgotten route within the capital. To me NY 5 is one of the most important routes in the state, but the capital treats it like garbage. It serves Buffalo, Syracuse, and Utica along with other smaller cities like Batavia, Auburn and Ripley. It is a very important link for the Empire State and gets the worst by the states center for government.
Speaking of the Capital District, do the media therein refer to "Free 90" as that, or is it just us on AARoads who do?
I was also really surprised how poorly traffic was moving through the city. Long red lights waiting for nonexistent cross traffic, too-short green arrows for the number of cars stacked up to turn, and lights seemingly not timed appropriately for the dominant traffic flow.
The first mention of Wildwood Park is seen in an article from April 9th, 1925 from the County Review, which reported that the state had plans to improve and even create highways in the area, including a “Highway from the proposed park at Wading River, which will be known as Wildwood Park, to the Wading River — Roanoke — Mattituck highway” .Now, I've heard of William Floyd Parkway (CR 46) being declared a state parkway and extended to Wildwood, and I've heard of the Northern State Parkway being extended to Wildwood, but this is the first I've heard of a parkway between Wildwood State Park and Mattituck.
Beginning at 11 p.m. on Sunday, Feb. 5, through 2025, the New Jersey-bound tube of the Holland Tunnel will close during off-peak hours six overnights each week to accommodate extensive and critical repairs from damage caused by Superstorm Sandy.
The work that must be undertaken in both tubes of the 1.6-mile-long tunnel during the overnight closures include repairs to and replacement of mechanical, electrical, communications and plumbing systems damaged by latent salt from Sandy seawater flooding, as well as repairs to architectural, structural and civil elements of the tunnel infrastructure. These systems suffered major damage when 30 million gallons of brackish water entered the tunnel through the New Jersey portals and ventilation buildings in the aftermath of Sandy, which struck the New York metropolitan area in October 2012.
Looks like this is the week for members of the state legislature to propose bills that are of interest to roadgeeks.
https://auburnpub.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/70-mph-ny-senator-eyes-higher-speed-limit-on-thruway-state-highways/article_90ee55b1-41a6-5a26-a6ab-85f22c9eb0ee.html
The thruway is curvier than the Long Island Expressway, so I-495 should be the first to get a speed limit raise. And as of now, I am not saying 75 mph (which it really should be), I am saying 65 mph just to match NYS's own speed limit law.
Straight or curvy or whatever, it seems unlikely to me that there are any engineering reasons that 80% or more of the Thruway's mileage needs a speed limit below 70 or even 75.Someone mentioned that Northway, build roughly in the same timeframe, is designed for 75 MPH, and safety margin needs to be kept in mind
Yes, to and from Albany. But I haven't driven I-90 yet. The Long Island Expressway and Sunrise Highway are much straighter. Have you even driven those. Speaking of the thruway, what's the status on electronic toll collection? Has it been fully converted to by mail (its been a year ot two since I drive on it).
But I haven't driven I-90 yet.
The fact that you now have traffic jams as far east as Exit 68, doesn't give me much confidence in seeing the speed limit raised anywhere on the Long Island Expressway.
Portions of the Thruway getting a raise, I can understand.
I have seen traffic jams up to exit 64, but never 68. And speed limit shouldn't be set based on traffic levels because then you are punishing people for driving faster at times when there is less traffic. The thruway is curvier than the Long Island Expressway, so I-495 should be the first to get a speed limit raise. And as of now, I am not saying 75 mph (which it really should be), I am saying 65 mph just to match NYS's own speed limit law.
How often do earthquakes occur in New York state? This is the first time I've heard of one happening in New York.Depends on strength. Some low profile events are there all the time. Albany area saw 3 local noticable events in past 100 years, and a few more remote were felt.
How often do earthquakes occur in New York state? This is the first time I've heard of one happening in New York.NYSDOT MO was shaken by one about ten years ago. A few employees ran outside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Virginia_earthquakeHow often do earthquakes occur in New York state? This is the first time I've heard of one happening in New York.NYSDOT MO was shaken by one about ten years ago. A few employees ran outside.
How often do earthquakes occur in New York state? This is the first time I've heard of one happening in New York.More often than you'd think. A fault line runs right down the middle of the St Lawrence River. They're usually pretty minor when they do happen though.
More often than you'd think. A fault line runs right down the middle of the St Lawrence River. They're usually pretty minor when they do happen though.There's also a notable one near the Ramapo River.
https://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/rt_17_expansion_2_6_23
Gaia worshippers are gunning after the widening Rt 17.
If 6 lanes are called for, it's not rural Catskills. More public transportation options for west side of Hudson was also called for when Tappan Zee replacement was discussed. It's not as crazy logistics wise to have a rail crossing and more rail commute for that area (crazy finance wise, though)https://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/rt_17_expansion_2_6_23
Gaia worshippers are gunning after the widening Rt 17.
"Increased mass transit?" In a rural area like the Catskills? Keep dreaming...
Decades ago, there was talk about providing more rail lines of some sort between the City or Westchester and Rockland Counties and the resorts/camps in the Catskills.https://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/rt_17_expansion_2_6_23
Gaia worshippers are gunning after the widening Rt 17.
"Increased mass transit?" In a rural area like the Catskills? Keep dreaming...
If 6 lanes are called for, it's not rural Catskills. More public transportation options for west side of Hudson was also called for when Tappan Zee replacement was discussed. It's not as crazy logistics wise to have a rail crossing and more rail commute for that area (crazy finance wise, though)https://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/rt_17_expansion_2_6_23
Gaia worshippers are gunning after the widening Rt 17.
"Increased mass transit?" In a rural area like the Catskills? Keep dreaming...
Now completion of I-86 is a completely different story, pun intended
So, correct me if I am wrong, but there are multiple factors pulling preferences in multiple directionsIf 6 lanes are called for, it's not rural Catskills. More public transportation options for west side of Hudson was also called for when Tappan Zee replacement was discussed. It's not as crazy logistics wise to have a rail crossing and more rail commute for that area (crazy finance wise, though)https://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/rt_17_expansion_2_6_23
Gaia worshippers are gunning after the widening Rt 17.
"Increased mass transit?" In a rural area like the Catskills? Keep dreaming...
Now completion of I-86 is a completely different story, pun intended
I would disagree. Weekend traffic can completely overwhelm NY 17 from Monticello eastward. Even though the Catskills tourism industry has shifted from its over-reliance on Jewish-owned resorts in the Borscht Belt, it still has a considerable amount of traffic for its many other destinations - including the new Legoland. The many, many Jewish summer camps and settlements also generate a lot of traffic - to the point of creating very slow-moving traffic for dozens of miles on Friday and Sunday nights (unfortunately finding this out too many times). There is enough traffic to justify six lanes east of Monticello. I just wish the state was more aggressive in the closure of obsolete and duplicate highway ramps now, but at the least most will be taken care of in future projects.
They want everyone else to live in crowded cities and get around on the bus so they can keep their bucolic paradisehttps://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/rt_17_expansion_2_6_23
Gaia worshippers are gunning after the widening Rt 17.
"Increased mass transit?" In a rural area like the Catskills? Keep dreaming...
That pretty much describes every anti-highway organization, most notably the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, the Affiliated Brookhaven Civics Organizations, and the "Campaign to Save Route 25A."They want everyone else to live in crowded cities and get around on the bus so they can keep their bucolic paradisehttps://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/rt_17_expansion_2_6_23
Gaia worshippers are gunning after the widening Rt 17.
"Increased mass transit?" In a rural area like the Catskills? Keep dreaming...
Something interesting I became aware of today... apparently Mt. McGregor Road in Wilton has reference markers (https://goo.gl/maps/KXcS22Ej12zQHwNTA) denoting it as route 948. There's no current or former reference route for the road listed on Empire State Roads (http://empirestateroads.com/sr/refroute1.html), and the number doesn't even correspond to the current format. I know of two others that are similarly marked - Freemans Bridge Road (949) and Glen Cove Road (904), but those are both current reference routes (911F and 900B, respectively). Does anyone know about these old 900 series numbers?Did you blow off some dust on an old copy of the Sufficiency Manual? Probably is in there somewhere.
Something interesting I became aware of today... apparently Mt. McGregor Road in Wilton has reference markers (https://goo.gl/maps/KXcS22Ej12zQHwNTA) denoting it as route 948. There's no current or former reference route for the road listed on Empire State Roads (http://empirestateroads.com/sr/refroute1.html), and the number doesn't even correspond to the current format. I know of two others that are similarly marked - Freemans Bridge Road (949) and Glen Cove Road (904), but those are both current reference routes (911F and 900B, respectively). Does anyone know about these old 900 series numbers?
It's been a while since I traveled to any of the Northway north of Exit 30, and was surprised to see a highest elevation on I-87 sign. Anyone know if that's relatively new or if I just never noticed it on earlier trips up that way?
I don't know if any of you recall the Taconic State Parkway crash back in the summer of 2009 which killed 8 people. I was of course to young to recall it, but I heard about somewhere and went into a rabbithole.They were going the wrong direction on the Parkway. That's on them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Taconic_State_Parkway_crash
The minivan was being driven by Diane Schuler, who was allegedly drunk. Her husband denies this, but her husband seems like a bit of a tool so whatever. There was a documentry made about it. Haven't watched it yet but I intend to eventually.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2011325/
I did read Jackie Hance's book (the mother of three of the girls killed and Diane's sister-in-law), and it mostly focuses on her experiences and famiy though it has some details on the crash. Just a warning, I don't cry much at all and this book made me cry.
https://www.amazon.com/Ill-See-Again-Jackie-Hance/dp/147675800X
The reason I bring this up on this forum is I saw many people on reddit blame the Taconic Parkway itself for the crash, as the road isn't super great. But I'm wondering is there an issue with the road or was this just a tragic accident (or not an accident)?
I don't know if any of you recall the Taconic State Parkway crash back in the summer of 2009 which killed 8 people. I was of course to young to recall it, but I heard about somewhere and went into a rabbithole.They were going the wrong direction on the Parkway. That's on them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Taconic_State_Parkway_crash
The minivan was being driven by Diane Schuler, who was allegedly drunk. Her husband denies this, but her husband seems like a bit of a tool so whatever. There was a documentry made about it. Haven't watched it yet but I intend to eventually.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2011325/
I did read Jackie Hance's book (the mother of three of the girls killed and Diane's sister-in-law), and it mostly focuses on her experiences and famiy though it has some details on the crash. Just a warning, I don't cry much at all and this book made me cry.
https://www.amazon.com/Ill-See-Again-Jackie-Hance/dp/147675800X
The reason I bring this up on this forum is I saw many people on reddit blame the Taconic Parkway itself for the crash, as the road isn't super great. But I'm wondering is there an issue with the road or was this just a tragic accident (or not an accident)?
Apparently the Bastardi family sued the Warren Hance, the car's owner, in a lawsuit. They say it is because it was Warren's car which was driven, and that they were required too, but seems extremely shitty to sue the parents who just lost all 3 of their young children to a crash that from all the information given, was 0% their fault. The person at fault was Diane, and maybe her piece of shit husband who denied that his wife was drinking or doing drugs at the time. Apparently the HBO documentry has more about how this guy (Danny Schuler) is a terrible person. Then again everyone sued everyone so who knows at this point.I don't know if any of you recall the Taconic State Parkway crash back in the summer of 2009 which killed 8 people. I was of course to young to recall it, but I heard about somewhere and went into a rabbithole.They were going the wrong direction on the Parkway. That's on them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Taconic_State_Parkway_crash
The minivan was being driven by Diane Schuler, who was allegedly drunk. Her husband denies this, but her husband seems like a bit of a tool so whatever. There was a documentry made about it. Haven't watched it yet but I intend to eventually.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2011325/
I did read Jackie Hance's book (the mother of three of the girls killed and Diane's sister-in-law), and it mostly focuses on her experiences and famiy though it has some details on the crash. Just a warning, I don't cry much at all and this book made me cry.
https://www.amazon.com/Ill-See-Again-Jackie-Hance/dp/147675800X
The reason I bring this up on this forum is I saw many people on reddit blame the Taconic Parkway itself for the crash, as the road isn't super great. But I'm wondering is there an issue with the road or was this just a tragic accident (or not an accident)?
The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.
That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the errant driver. End of story.
There was another excellent book written about the accident and its investigation. The Taconic Tragedy, A Son's Search For The Truth, by Jeanne Bastardi, a relative of one of the people killed.
I don't know if any of you recall the Taconic State Parkway crash back in the summer of 2009 which killed 8 people. I was of course to young to recall it, but I heard about somewhere and went into a rabbithole.They were going the wrong direction on the Parkway. That's on them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Taconic_State_Parkway_crash
The minivan was being driven by Diane Schuler, who was allegedly drunk. Her husband denies this, but her husband seems like a bit of a tool so whatever. There was a documentry made about it. Haven't watched it yet but I intend to eventually.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2011325/
I did read Jackie Hance's book (the mother of three of the girls killed and Diane's sister-in-law), and it mostly focuses on her experiences and famiy though it has some details on the crash. Just a warning, I don't cry much at all and this book made me cry.
https://www.amazon.com/Ill-See-Again-Jackie-Hance/dp/147675800X
The reason I bring this up on this forum is I saw many people on reddit blame the Taconic Parkway itself for the crash, as the road isn't super great. But I'm wondering is there an issue with the road or was this just a tragic accident (or not an accident)?
The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.
That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the errant driver. End of story.
I remember seeing statistics on people entering wrong way on a ramp. It is not a trivial problem statistically, 1.5% of total road deaths or so. Of course, alcohol is a strong correlation with wrong way as well...I don't know if any of you recall the Taconic State Parkway crash back in the summer of 2009 which killed 8 people. I was of course to young to recall it, but I heard about somewhere and went into a rabbithole.They were going the wrong direction on the Parkway. That's on them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Taconic_State_Parkway_crash
The minivan was being driven by Diane Schuler, who was allegedly drunk. Her husband denies this, but her husband seems like a bit of a tool so whatever. There was a documentry made about it. Haven't watched it yet but I intend to eventually.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2011325/
I did read Jackie Hance's book (the mother of three of the girls killed and Diane's sister-in-law), and it mostly focuses on her experiences and famiy though it has some details on the crash. Just a warning, I don't cry much at all and this book made me cry.
https://www.amazon.com/Ill-See-Again-Jackie-Hance/dp/147675800X
The reason I bring this up on this forum is I saw many people on reddit blame the Taconic Parkway itself for the crash, as the road isn't super great. But I'm wondering is there an issue with the road or was this just a tragic accident (or not an accident)?
The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.
That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the errant driver. End of story.
I do recall hearing in the news that the state specifically go back to the exit ramp where she allegedly entered the wrong way and put more and larger Do Not Enter / Wrong Way signs and new no left/right turns signs up. Compare the 2008 imagery to more recent times: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.142646,-73.8138526,3a,75y,338.02h,81.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgZQv-syvITLSjlkLUWVhIw!2e0!5s20081101T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en
FWIW, it is generally illegal for minors (either with a permit or a license) to drive on any parkway in NYS or within NYC city limits.The restrictions (as follows) are for permit holders, rather than age: (https://dmv.ny.gov/driver-license/learner-permit-and-driver-license-restrictions)
You may not drive with a learner permit:
on any street within a park in New York City
on any bridge or tunnel under the jurisdiction of the Tri-borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority
on the Cross County, Hutchinson River, Saw Mill River, or Taconic State parkways in Westchester County
in a DMV road test area
Any street within a park? As in, the traverses across Central Park? Seems weird to only exclude those roads, but whatever.FWIW, it is generally illegal for minors (either with a permit or a license) to drive on any parkway in NYS or within NYC city limits.The restrictions (as follows) are for permit holders, rather than age: (https://dmv.ny.gov/driver-license/learner-permit-and-driver-license-restrictions)QuoteYou may not drive with a learner permit:
on any street within a park in New York City
on any bridge or tunnel under the jurisdiction of the Tri-borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority
on the Cross County, Hutchinson River, Saw Mill River, or Taconic State parkways in Westchester County
in a DMV road test area
There are also restrictions for people with a junior license (those under 18 who haven't taken an approved Driver's Ed course - a full one, not the required five-hour pre-licensing course). Upstate this consists of restrictions on passengers and driving at night, but downstate is quite strict - Long Island treats them the same as a permit unless driving to/from work or school, and NYC doesn't allow driving with one at all (to the point where they advise delaying the road test to age 18 unless someone has taken an approved Driver's Ed course).FWIW, it is generally illegal for minors (either with a permit or a license) to drive on any parkway in NYS or within NYC city limits.The restrictions (as follows) are for permit holders, rather than age: (https://dmv.ny.gov/driver-license/learner-permit-and-driver-license-restrictions)QuoteYou may not drive with a learner permit:
on any street within a park in New York City
on any bridge or tunnel under the jurisdiction of the Tri-borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority
on the Cross County, Hutchinson River, Saw Mill River, or Taconic State parkways in Westchester County
in a DMV road test area
Different theory about the crash that her husband might have been happier with: she wasn't drunk, she just forgot for a second that the American Revolution happened and thought that we still were the UK where people drive on the left. Call it a time trance.I don't know if any of you recall the Taconic State Parkway crash back in the summer of 2009 which killed 8 people. I was of course to young to recall it, but I heard about somewhere and went into a rabbithole.They were going the wrong direction on the Parkway. That's on them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Taconic_State_Parkway_crash
The minivan was being driven by Diane Schuler, who was allegedly drunk. Her husband denies this, but her husband seems like a bit of a tool so whatever. There was a documentry made about it. Haven't watched it yet but I intend to eventually.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2011325/
I did read Jackie Hance's book (the mother of three of the girls killed and Diane's sister-in-law), and it mostly focuses on her experiences and famiy though it has some details on the crash. Just a warning, I don't cry much at all and this book made me cry.
https://www.amazon.com/Ill-See-Again-Jackie-Hance/dp/147675800X
The reason I bring this up on this forum is I saw many people on reddit blame the Taconic Parkway itself for the crash, as the road isn't super great. But I'm wondering is there an issue with the road or was this just a tragic accident (or not an accident)?
The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.
That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the errant driver. End of story.
I do recall hearing in the news that the state specifically went back to the exit ramp where she allegedly entered the wrong way and put more and larger Do Not Enter / Wrong Way signs and new no left/right turns signs up. Compare the 2008 imagery to more recent times: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.142646,-73.8138526,3a,75y,338.02h,81.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgZQv-syvITLSjlkLUWVhIw!2e0!5s20081101T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en
(Edited for grammar)
The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.
That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the errant driver. End of story.
I do recall hearing in the news that the state specifically went back to the exit ramp where she allegedly entered the wrong way and put more and larger Do Not Enter / Wrong Way signs and new no left/right turns signs up. Compare the 2008 imagery to more recent times: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.142646,-73.8138526,3a,75y,338.02h,81.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgZQv-syvITLSjlkLUWVhIw!2e0!5s20081101T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en
(Edited for grammar)
Mulltiple cars going the other direction were honking at her, just didn't notice. Must have been very drunk. She was also going about 85 mph, which is a good 30 mph above the speed limit on the Taconic. The horrifying thing his is that her brother (the dad of her nieces) clearly noticed on a phone call that she was in no shape to drive, and told her to stop. She didn't listen and ended up killing herself and seven other people. Never drive drunk.The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.
That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the errant driver. End of story.
I do recall hearing in the news that the state specifically went back to the exit ramp where she allegedly entered the wrong way and put more and larger Do Not Enter / Wrong Way signs and new no left/right turns signs up. Compare the 2008 imagery to more recent times: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.142646,-73.8138526,3a,75y,338.02h,81.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgZQv-syvITLSjlkLUWVhIw!2e0!5s20081101T000000!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en
(Edited for grammar)
By exit ramp standards, that one does look rather easy to accidentally enter, since it's fairly long and straight and there's no corresponding entrance ramp across from it. But even though the design isn't great, the driver is still fully responsible for blowing past the wrong way signage and especially for getting up to freeway speeds without realizing something was majorly wrong.
The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.Given that, and Mr. Matte's link to the ramp where Diane Schuler went the wrong way, I know you're right. There was nothing wrong with this section of the road. There are other sections of the road that need major work, which was the reason many here incorrectly blamed the road itself.
That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the impaired driver. End of story.
Hey I wasn't blaiming the road itself. I just saw several other people on other sites do that.The exact cause of the crash was well established by the investigation. It was caused by the extremely drunk female driver of the van that drove south in the northbound lanes. Her state of intoxication was determined by the official autopsy. She entered the Parkway in the wrong direction by going the wrong way up an exit ramp that was clearly marked. Weather and visibility were excellent at the time.Given that, and Mr. Matte's link to the ramp where Diane Schuler went the wrong way, I know you're right. There was nothing wrong with this section of the road. There are other sections of the road that need major work, which was the reason many here incorrectly blamed the road itself.
That section of the Taconic Parkway is a rebuilt modern divided highway with completely controlled access. There was nothing wrong with the road; only with the impaired driver. End of story.
The CSX crossing on Blue Barns Road in Clifton Park remains untouched. I fear its gonna get worse as the weather lumbers its way through April.Rail crossings are the responsibility of the railroad to maintain.
The CSX crossing on Blue Barns Road in Clifton Park remains untouched. I fear its gonna get worse as the weather lumbers its way through April.Rail crossings are the responsibility of the railroad to maintain.
The CSX crossing on Blue Barns Road in Clifton Park remains untouched. I fear its gonna get worse as the weather lumbers its way through April.And what exactly is the problem we're talking about?
The CSX crossing on Blue Barns Road in Clifton Park remains untouched. I fear its gonna get worse as the weather lumbers its way through April.And what exactly is the problem we're talking about?
I will note one thing: CSX is not actually taking over this crossing. This PanAm line is being spun off into a child railway, the Berkshire and Eastern,
be careful if you are driving on the Northern State Parkway in Suffolk County, there are a few really bad potholes between Exit 41 and 42, there were a few vehicles pulled over on the side of the road after one particularly bad one.
It's getting bad by Long Island pavement standards.
Edit: the crater by the Wolf Hill Road off-ramp has been filled
Have there been any proposals to build a bridge over the Hudson between Crotonville and Haverstraw? Right now the gap between the Bear Mountain and Tappen Zee bridges is 18 milesNone that have been taken seriously. If anything, there's been more funding put towards the ferry.
Have there been any proposals to build a bridge over the Hudson between Crotonville and Haverstraw? Right now the gap between the Bear Mountain and Tappen Zee bridges is 18 milesAs a first order approximation - that is still a wide area of Hudson, and even NYS governor's ego can be only that big.
Tappan Zee is already way too expensive, and located in a wide bad spot only because, you know, governor's "FU" can be pretty big.
If I remember correctly, that was governor's decision NOT to go into PANYNJ jurisdiction.Tappan Zee is already way too expensive, and located in a wide bad spot only because, you know, governor's "FU" can be pretty big.
This has been discussed before. Tappan Zee is where it is not because of anybody's ego (per se) but because it's the closest the Thruway could get a bridge to NYC without it falling under Port Authority jurisdiction. If there's any "ego" involved, it's PANYNJ's.
Even if that's true, there would be other justifications for the NY Governor to avoid PANYNJ than just ego.If I remember correctly, that was governor's decision NOT to go into PANYNJ jurisdiction.Tappan Zee is already way too expensive, and located in a wide bad spot only because, you know, governor's "FU" can be pretty big.
This has been discussed before. Tappan Zee is where it is not because of anybody's ego (per se) but because it's the closest the Thruway could get a bridge to NYC without it falling under Port Authority jurisdiction. If there's any "ego" involved, it's PANYNJ's.
But it is interesting as history fine print at most.
Have there been any proposals to build a bridge over the Hudson between Crotonville and Haverstraw? Right now the gap between the Bear Mountain and Tappen Zee bridges is 18 miles18 miles isn't that bad for bridges along the Hudson.
Have there been any proposals to build a bridge over the Hudson between Crotonville and Haverstraw? Right now the gap between the Bear Mountain and Tappen Zee bridges is 18 miles18 miles isn't that bad for bridges along the Hudson.
^Well David Golub drove that part of the Northern State Pkwy so I did not have to. ;-)It can't be as bad as Country Road in Medford was until the late-1990's. or Southern Boulevard in the South Bronx.
Tappan Zee is already way too expensive, and located in a wide bad spot only because, you know, governor's "FU" can be pretty big.
This has been discussed before. Tappan Zee is where it is not because of anybody's ego (per se) but because it's the closest the Thruway could get a bridge to NYC without it falling under Port Authority jurisdiction. If there's any "ego" involved, it's PANYNJ's.
Unless NYSDOT decides to revive the proposal to extend the Cross County Parkway west of the Henry Hudson and Saw Mill Parkways and a connecting road is built on the Jersey side, there's no chance of any new bridge between the GWB and Tappan Zee.I don't think it would be a NYSDOT project and would fall under PANYNJ.
Tappan Zee was literally feet north of the PANYNJ jurisdiction, new one is also just outside the area. (some say PANYNJ area is XX miles radius from some landmark - no, legally it is defined as a polygon with long-lat coordinates of corners, approximating some circle).Unless NYSDOT decides to revive the proposal to extend the Cross County Parkway west of the Henry Hudson and Saw Mill Parkways and a connecting road is built on the Jersey side, there's no chance of any new bridge between the GWB and Tappan Zee.I don't think it would be a NYSDOT project and would fall under PANYNJ.
In any matter, I haven't heard anyone official talk about this sort of proposal.
I can tell you why a new Alpine-Yonkers Bridge won't happen: all the NIMBYs and all the richass NIMBYs.For Haverstraw, the ferry has always been deemed adequate.
As for Haverstraw, there's never really been one. There was one for a dam and Thruway bridge at Haverstraw.
It'd have to be coordinated to some degree between all agencies, but NJ never moved forward with the 14 freeway so I don't see anything changing on our side, which is much more of a lift than a few miles of CCP.Unless NYSDOT decides to revive the proposal to extend the Cross County Parkway west of the Henry Hudson and Saw Mill Parkways and a connecting road is built on the Jersey side, there's no chance of any new bridge between the GWB and Tappan Zee.I don't think it would be a NYSDOT project and would fall under PANYNJ.
In any matter, I haven't heard anyone official talk about this sort of proposal.
You know, I had to go out of my way to find your old link on that freeway.It'd have to be coordinated to some degree between all agencies, but NJ never moved forward with the 14 freeway so I don't see anything changing on our side, which is much more of a lift than a few miles of CCP.Unless NYSDOT decides to revive the proposal to extend the Cross County Parkway west of the Henry Hudson and Saw Mill Parkways and a connecting road is built on the Jersey side, there's no chance of any new bridge between the GWB and Tappan Zee.I don't think it would be a NYSDOT project and would fall under PANYNJ.
In any matter, I haven't heard anyone official talk about this sort of proposal.
I can tell you why a new Alpine-Yonkers Bridge won't happen: all the NIMBYs and all the richass NIMBYs.For Haverstraw, the ferry has always been deemed adequate.
As for Haverstraw, there's never really been one. There was one for a dam and Thruway bridge at Haverstraw.
I can tell you why a new Alpine-Yonkers Bridge won't happen: all the NIMBYs and all the richass NIMBYs.For Haverstraw, the ferry has always been deemed adequate.
As for Haverstraw, there's never really been one. There was one for a dam and Thruway bridge at Haverstraw.
The NYS Budget Commission in 1950 did propose a dual Hudson River dam/Thruway bridge at Haverstraw around the same time the tests were conducted to determine what type of bridge would be built at Salisbury Point. The cost would have been about $200 million in 1950. They threw out the idea of the suspension bridge at the Salisbury Point (Tappan Zee) crossing. (A second dam would've been built at Chelsea.)
You know, you didn't have to. I consolidated all that into https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/log/2.html#14You know, I had to go out of my way to find your old link on that freeway.It'd have to be coordinated to some degree between all agencies, but NJ never moved forward with the 14 freeway so I don't see anything changing on our side, which is much more of a lift than a few miles of CCP.Unless NYSDOT decides to revive the proposal to extend the Cross County Parkway west of the Henry Hudson and Saw Mill Parkways and a connecting road is built on the Jersey side, there's no chance of any new bridge between the GWB and Tappan Zee.I don't think it would be a NYSDOT project and would fall under PANYNJ.
In any matter, I haven't heard anyone official talk about this sort of proposal.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060131095007/http://web.mit.edu/smalpert/www/roads/nj/nj-14.html
New York made a big mistake tearing down the old toll booth for the Bear Mountain Bridge:Isn't there a pedestrian tunnel over on the other side that links the zoo with the State Park?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3201378,-73.9890365,109m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&entry=ttu
Observe this unlucky fellow (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.320015,-73.9898039,3a,37.5y,99.26h,89.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA9vZH1G1uxAYZf0cQ3rqkw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu) trying to cross US 6 and 202 when the signs at the gantry tell everybody to keep moving.
Perhaps the better solution would've been to revive the old booth as a pedestrian bridge.
Traffic is required to yield right-of-way to pedestrians in a marked crosswalk. And much as I dislike HAWK Beacons, this might be a good spot to install one. Or if not that, maybe just an RRFB (Rectangular, rapid flashing beacon).Pelican or RRFB. Never HAWK.
Will New York City ever include the HAWK into its vocabulary 😂?
Considering that mono tube mast arms still haven’t made an appearance as well as modern signal controllers with loops, I think the timed crosswalk traffic signals will always be the norm to control crosswalks.
Does anyone know the story behind the short four-lane divided section of NY 17A, for the easternmost two-ish miles before its junction at NY 17? It seems to go back to two lanes at a completely unremarkable spot, rather than at a major intersection or destination. (I doubt the NY Renaissance Faire or the former ski area visible on the satellite view ever generated enough traffic to warrant this, and the four-lane stretch doesn't quite make it to those anyway.) It also just-barely misses making it the whole way to NY 17. While there's a bit of a climb WB here, it doesn't seem steep enough to warrant a climbing lane, and much steeper parts further west don't have one... and this would also fail to explain the second lane EB.
https://goo.gl/maps/eRijUaXVVoEdnkzeA (https://goo.gl/maps/eRijUaXVVoEdnkzeA)
Bigger question. Why is there a NJ style mast arm here?
https://goo.gl/maps/Dm95wbtCpB8ZEoEg6
Also does anyone know if NY 17 A is a N-S or E-W route? It seems to lack directional banners on shields.
Edit:
Found some on NY 210.
https://goo.gl/maps/DM6xSsoLg8C3ttEh7
Never mind.
I remember when it did! :(Bigger question. Why is there a NJ style mast arm here?
https://goo.gl/maps/Dm95wbtCpB8ZEoEg6
Also does anyone know if NY 17 A is a N-S or E-W route? It seems to lack directional banners on shields.
Edit:
Found some on NY 210.
https://goo.gl/maps/DM6xSsoLg8C3ttEh7
Never mind.
That traffic light is quite old and doesn't work, even during the Renaissance Faire.
As per the MUTCD, if the signal is not in service, it must be bagged or otherwise made invisible to approaching traffic. Dark signals are not permitted except on HAWK style signals.reason #3338 why HAWK signals are stupid and should be abolished
As per the MUTCD, if the signal is not in service, it must be bagged or otherwise made invisible to approaching traffic. Dark signals are not permitted except on HAWK style signals.reason #3338 why HAWK signals are stupid and should be abolished
Thinking? You expect something wrong from an organization with the name starting with FAs per the MUTCD, if the signal is not in service, it must be bagged or otherwise made invisible to approaching traffic. Dark signals are not permitted except on HAWK style signals.reason #3338 why HAWK signals are stupid and should be abolished
I agree with you 100% Alps. Consistency should be the rule in this game and it usually is. That's what the Manual is all about. Ya' Gotta wonder what the heck they were thinkin' at FHWA when they came up with the HAWK concept.
I like the HAWK signals in New York I've seen so far.
*ducks*
I haven't seen any on Long Island yet. Are the ones in the Buffalo area erected by NYS DOT or a local traffic agency?
All but one are on DOT-operated roads (NY 324, NY 5 have them; Kenmore is CR 307). Unless R5 installed more.
I haven't seen any on Long Island yet. Are the ones in the Buffalo area erected by NYS DOT or a local traffic agency?
I haven't seen any on Long Island yet. Are the ones in the Buffalo area erected by NYS DOT or a local traffic agency?
There is one in Old Bethpage on Old Bethpage Rd by Trail View State Park (the former Bethpage parkway ROW)
Looks like this is the week for members of the state legislature to propose bills that are of interest to roadgeeks.Since this came up in the recent roadwaywiz webinar on Buffalo, I should mention that despite the unusually large amount of press coverage this time, that did not translate into actual enthusiasm from the legislature and it didn't get out of committee in either (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S2209) chamber (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/A5044). :-( I think there's still a theoretical chance next year when the legislature resumes (aside from the special session the Assembly is doing right now to finish a few things leftover this year), but if it doesn't go to the governor then, it would die and need to be reintroduced.
https://auburnpub.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/70-mph-ny-senator-eyes-higher-speed-limit-on-thruway-state-highways/article_90ee55b1-41a6-5a26-a6ab-85f22c9eb0ee.html
Judging from my travels on the Thruway, it's not like the enforced speed limit will change with another 5-15 on the posted limit.Looks like this is the week for members of the state legislature to propose bills that are of interest to roadgeeks.Since this came up in the recent roadwaywiz webinar on Buffalo, I should mention that despite the unusually large amount of press coverage this time, that did not translate into actual enthusiasm from the legislature and it didn't get out of committee in either (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S2209) chamber (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/A5044). :-( I think there's still a theoretical chance next year when the legislature resumes (aside from the special session the Assembly is doing right now to finish a few things leftover this year), but if it doesn't go to the governor then, it would die and need to be reintroduced.
https://auburnpub.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/70-mph-ny-senator-eyes-higher-speed-limit-on-thruway-state-highways/article_90ee55b1-41a6-5a26-a6ab-85f22c9eb0ee.html
Meanwhile, AAA is speaking out against the bill (https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2023/06/debatable-should-the-northway-speed-limit-go-up.html).
It's too bad. I thought it had an actual chance this time, yet it went no further than past efforts.
(personal opinion)
On another note, another bill I was really hoping to see get signed into law did actually pass both chambers at the last second, but the most recent status on it is "returned to Senate", so it looks like it won't go to Hochul to be signed either. I guess my track record with legislative bills is much the same as my Mom's record with sports teams: rooting for it causes it to lose/fail.
In other news, new signage has gone up with pictorial no truck shields at I-81 NB/370/Onondaga Lake Parkway/Old Liverpool Road in Syracuse. The ramps remain closed, however, probably due to worries about more bridge hits at this point.
In other news, new signage has gone up with pictorial no truck shields at I-81 NB/370/Onondaga Lake Parkway/Old Liverpool Road in Syracuse. The ramps remain closed, however, probably due to worries about more bridge hits at this point.
Completing a bridge repair project on the ramp bridges over the railroad (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.0744974,-76.1721334//@43.0745422,-76.1724114,344m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e1?entry=ttu) is why it's closed. I'd noticed it last month when I was in town, and this local news article (https://www.localsyr.com/news/your-stories/your-stories-qa-why-the-onondaga-lake-pkwy-exit-is-closed-again/) confirmed it.
Meanwhile, AAA is speaking out against the bill (https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2023/06/debatable-should-the-northway-speed-limit-go-up.html).
Well, maybe there is some truth in that.Meanwhile, AAA is speaking out against the bill (https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2023/06/debatable-should-the-northway-speed-limit-go-up.html).
Note that AAA still hasn't gotten past: "Drivers often travel faster than posted speed limits, but when officials raise limits to match travel speeds, people still go faster." Ah, no. Debunked eons ago.
A 2019 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study found that rising speed limits have cost nearly 37,000 lives over 25 years. AAA and IIHS urge policymakers to factor in this danger when considering speed limit changes.
That sounds like an enforcement issue, not an issue with 70 mph limits. A higher legal limit coupled with stricter enforcement would be fine by me. Plus my understanding is that this wouldn't be an automatic increase, rather subject to DOT study and discretion, so who knows if said interstate would even get an increase. Note the following:Well, maybe there is some truth in that.Meanwhile, AAA is speaking out against the bill (https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2023/06/debatable-should-the-northway-speed-limit-go-up.html).
Note that AAA still hasn't gotten past: "Drivers often travel faster than posted speed limits, but when officials raise limits to match travel speeds, people still go faster." Ah, no. Debunked eons ago.
My nearest interstate has a speed limit of 65, typical free flow of 75-80, and was flowing 90-95 in the early covid days with no enforcement.
I suspect that once speed limit goes up by 5 MPH, so would "+15" speed convention with speed limits increased up to +15.
However, the commissioner of theMay, not shall. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the 65 zones in denser areas would stay 65 rather than go 70 if something like this ever became law. When PA went 70, only the PTC did a blanket increase; PennDOT was much more selective.
department of transportation may establish a maximum speed limit of not
more than [sixty-five] SEVENTY miles per hour on any state roadway which
meets department criteria for such maximum speed.
That sounds like an enforcement issue, not an issue with 70 mph limits. A higher legal limit coupled with stricter enforcement would be fine by me.And, if you will, if nothing would change on the road - why bother?
That sounds like an enforcement issue, not an issue with 70 mph limits. A higher legal limit coupled with stricter enforcement would be fine by me.And, if you will, if nothing would change on the road - why bother?
Enforcement practices are loose, and yes, there are reasons for that.
The Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.
The Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.
As is New York.
NYSTA: Either fund it or get lostThe Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.
As is New York.
I can't wait for thatfightdiscussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
NYSTA: Either fund it or get lostThe Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.
As is New York.
I can't wait for thatfightdiscussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
FHWA: 0_o
So? No consequences can be exerted on NYSTA.NYSTA: Either fund it or get lostThe Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.
As is New York.
I can't wait for thatfightdiscussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
FHWA: 0_o
:-D
Either way, the Thruway can't have its own set of numbers and expect to remain compliant.
So? No consequences can be exerted on NYSTA.NYSTA: Either fund it or get lostThe Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.
As is New York.
I can't wait for thatfightdiscussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
FHWA: 0_o
:-D
Either way, the Thruway can't have its own set of numbers and expect to remain compliant.
So? No consequences can be exerted on NYSTA.NYSTA: Either fund it or get lostThe Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.
As is New York.
I can't wait for thatfightdiscussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
FHWA: 0_o
:-D
Either way, the Thruway can't have its own set of numbers and expect to remain compliant.
I'm guessing its "NYSTA can do whatever it wants and to heck with FHWA and NYSDOT"?
So? No consequences can be exerted on NYSTA.NYSTA: Either fund it or get lostThe Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.
As is New York.
I can't wait for thatfightdiscussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
FHWA: 0_o
:-D
Either way, the Thruway can't have its own set of numbers and expect to remain compliant.
I'm guessing its "NYSTA can do whatever it wants and to heck with FHWA and NYSDOT"?
Well, yes. NYSTA is a public authority, a rogue entity that exists outside of State government, with the exception of Governor recommendations for leadership appointments. Although it may receive pennies in federal funding through NYSDOT for certain, specific tasks (e.g., striping and bridges over the Thruway), the fact of the matter is federal and state funding are not large parts of their available funding, the bulk of which is toll revenues.
So, FHWA and NYSDOT don't have any pull over them.
FHWA: "You're non-compliant with the MUTCD!"
NYSTA: "So?"
FHWA: "You have to be compliant!"
NYSTA: "Or what?"
FHWA: "..."
FHWA: "We'll pull your federal funding...?"
NYSTA: BWAAAAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! Go pound sand.
So? No consequences can be exerted on NYSTA.NYSTA: Either fund it or get lostThe Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.
As is New York.
I can't wait for thatfightdiscussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
FHWA: 0_o
:-D
Either way, the Thruway can't have its own set of numbers and expect to remain compliant.
I'm guessing its "NYSTA can do whatever it wants and to heck with FHWA and NYSDOT"?
Well, yes. NYSTA is a public authority, a rogue entity that exists outside of State government, with the exception of Governor recommendations for leadership appointments. Although it may receive pennies in federal funding through NYSDOT for certain, specific tasks (e.g., striping and bridges over the Thruway), the fact of the matter is federal and state funding are not large parts of their available funding, the bulk of which is toll revenues.
So, FHWA and NYSDOT don't have any pull over them.
FHWA: "You're non-compliant with the MUTCD!"
NYSTA: "So?"
FHWA: "You have to be compliant!"
NYSTA: "Or what?"
FHWA: "..."
FHWA: "We'll pull your federal funding...?"
NYSTA: BWAAAAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! Go pound sand.
The FHWA could go nuclear and revoke all the Interstate designations for the Thruway system.
No, it wasn't. That was pressure exerted upon NYSDOT.So? No consequences can be exerted on NYSTA.NYSTA: Either fund it or get lostThe Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.
As is New York.
I can't wait for thatfightdiscussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
FHWA: 0_o
:-D
Either way, the Thruway can't have its own set of numbers and expect to remain compliant.
I'm guessing its "NYSTA can do whatever it wants and to heck with FHWA and NYSDOT"?
Well, yes. NYSTA is a public authority, a rogue entity that exists outside of State government, with the exception of Governor recommendations for leadership appointments. Although it may receive pennies in federal funding through NYSDOT for certain, specific tasks (e.g., striping and bridges over the Thruway), the fact of the matter is federal and state funding are not large parts of their available funding, the bulk of which is toll revenues.
So, FHWA and NYSDOT don't have any pull over them.
FHWA: "You're non-compliant with the MUTCD!"
NYSTA: "So?"
FHWA: "You have to be compliant!"
NYSTA: "Or what?"
FHWA: "..."
FHWA: "We'll pull your federal funding...?"
NYSTA: BWAAAAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! Go pound sand.
Well, Cuomo's ads were pulled off the Thruway somehow due to FHWA intervention - but I assume it wasn't NYSTA thing to begin with...
Again, no. The answer from NYSTA would be, "Um, okay, weirdoes."The FHWA could go nuclear and revoke all the Interstate designations for the Thruway system.
Oh, ouch.
No, it wasn't. That was pressure exerted upon NYSDOT.So it boils down to "how efficiently the pressure applied to NYSDOT and governor transfers to NYSTA
No, it wasn't. That was pressure exerted upon NYSDOT.So? No consequences can be exerted on NYSTA.NYSTA: Either fund it or get lostThe Hutchinson River Parkway converted to mileage-based exits in 2021. As for the CT 15 Merritt Parkway, Wikipedia says it will happen in 2025, but when it actually happens is anyone's guess. I think the Connecticut Department of Transportation should have implemented mileage-based exits statewide in a much faster fashion. The reason why it is happening so slowly is likely because Connecticut is converting their exit numbers reluctantly.
As is New York.
I can't wait for thatfightdiscussion between DOT, NYSTA, and FHWA.
FHWA: 0_o
:-D
Either way, the Thruway can't have its own set of numbers and expect to remain compliant.
I'm guessing its "NYSTA can do whatever it wants and to heck with FHWA and NYSDOT"?
Well, yes. NYSTA is a public authority, a rogue entity that exists outside of State government, with the exception of Governor recommendations for leadership appointments. Although it may receive pennies in federal funding through NYSDOT for certain, specific tasks (e.g., striping and bridges over the Thruway), the fact of the matter is federal and state funding are not large parts of their available funding, the bulk of which is toll revenues.
So, FHWA and NYSDOT don't have any pull over them.
FHWA: "You're non-compliant with the MUTCD!"
NYSTA: "So?"
FHWA: "You have to be compliant!"
NYSTA: "Or what?"
FHWA: "..."
FHWA: "We'll pull your federal funding...?"
NYSTA: BWAAAAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! Go pound sand.
Well, Cuomo's ads were pulled off the Thruway somehow due to FHWA intervention - but I assume it wasn't NYSTA thing to begin with...
Heh. I've heard authority directors -- not only the Thruway's, but also DASNY's and others -- just straight-faced say they really don't answer to anyone as heads of public authorities.No, it wasn't. That was pressure exerted upon NYSDOT.So it boils down to "how efficiently the pressure applied to NYSDOT and governor transfers to NYSTA
Hard to believe there is no transfer at all. My impression is that the governor has the upper hand anyway, but also has little reason to play the game.
Not to overquote: If NYSTA does not change exit numbers, the FHWA could pressure NYS into losing Federal dollars unless they force NYSTA's hand. This has been mentioned for other agencies as well in my experience, but it's all conjecture for now.
I've never understood why the Thruway Authority has such a grand attachment to their interchange numbering system. There's no toll booths anymore, and it's not like locals say "I live at Exit 34" like they do around the New Jersey Turnpike. I got it back in the day when there were toll booths and tickets and all that, but now it's just another interstate that happens to have tolls.Here's the thing. When I'm on the Thruway, I KNOW where I am and I KNOW which exit I need based on the last city I passed and the city coming next. For example, I know to look for the exit, regardless of number, for I-490 towards Rochester when I'm west of Syracuse. That is Exit 45 right now, but it could be Exit 277 for all I care, but I still know to take that exit.
Not to overquote: If NYSTA does not change exit numbers, the FHWA could pressure NYS into losing Federal dollars unless they force NYSTA's hand. This has been mentioned for other agencies as well in my experience, but it's all conjecture for now.
I've never understood why the Thruway Authority has such a grand attachment to their interchange numbering system. There's no toll booths anymore, and it's not like locals say "I live at Exit 34" like they do around the New Jersey Turnpike. I got it back in the day when there were toll booths and tickets and all that, but now it's just another interstate that happens to have tolls.In NY, the big fear is business blowback due to their having to change advertising. Even the cost of changing signage is secondary to that fear in NY in my experience.
No. They wanted to improve MUTCD compliance.Not to overquote: If NYSTA does not change exit numbers, the FHWA could pressure NYS into losing Federal dollars unless they force NYSTA's hand. This has been mentioned for other agencies as well in my experience, but it's all conjecture for now.
If I recall a while back, isn't that what happened with the NJ Turnpike Authority to force compliance with BGS design practices?
No. They wanted to improve MUTCD compliance.Not to overquote: If NYSTA does not change exit numbers, the FHWA could pressure NYS into losing Federal dollars unless they force NYSTA's hand. This has been mentioned for other agencies as well in my experience, but it's all conjecture for now.
If I recall a while back, isn't that what happened with the NJ Turnpike Authority to force compliance with BGS design practices?
Did businesses cause "blowback" in other states when exits were renumbered? I have a feeling that is just an excuse to keep the numbers unchanged.Ah, no. It's really a big fear at NYSDOT and is the first thing anyone brings up in a discussion.
Did businesses cause "blowback" in other states when exits were renumbered? I have a feeling that is just an excuse to keep the numbers unchanged.Ah, no. It's really a big fear at NYSDOT and is the first thing anyone brings up in a discussion.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Did businesses cause "blowback" in other states when exits were renumbered? I have a feeling that is just an excuse to keep the numbers unchanged.Ah, no. It's really a big fear at NYSDOT and is the first thing anyone brings up in a discussion.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Given how the renumbering went down in PA, that seems to be a cop out to me. IIRC it was viewed as a generally positive move and they did put a lot of press and presoaking out there to prepare the public for the change.
Did businesses cause "blowback" in other states when exits were renumbered? I have a feeling that is just an excuse to keep the numbers unchanged.Ah, no. It's really a big fear at NYSDOT and is the first thing anyone brings up in a discussion.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Given how the renumbering went down in PA, that seems to be a cop out to me. IIRC it was viewed as a generally positive move and they did put a lot of press and presoaking out there to prepare the public for the change.
PA isn't NY. There are a myriad of reasons unique to NY as to why NY is one of the last states to convert
NYSTA: We don't want to convert the numbers, so we'll just get rid of exit numbers in general.NYSTA a week later: We'll keep the numbers, but we're getting rid of all exits.
You were saying, or I read as such, that FHWA was forcing NJTA's hand. I was replying that NJTA was doing so on their own accord.No. They wanted to improve MUTCD compliance.Not to overquote: If NYSTA does not change exit numbers, the FHWA could pressure NYS into losing Federal dollars unless they force NYSTA's hand. This has been mentioned for other agencies as well in my experience, but it's all conjecture for now.
If I recall a while back, isn't that what happened with the NJ Turnpike Authority to force compliance with BGS design practices?
Alps, I'm not sure I understand. It sounds like we're saying the same thing.
NYSTA a month later: What's this about cars being unable to leave the Thruway?NYSTA: We don't want to convert the numbers, so we'll just get rid of exit numbers in general.NYSTA a week later: We'll keep the numbers, but we're getting rid of all exits.
I'm curious as to why some of the old concrete has held up so well. The Thruway west of Syracuse was rebuilt ... 10 years ago (?) but is already failing at the joints. Meanwhile, I-495 on Long Island is still pressing on with original concrete that's 40 years old, and there are other highways in the state with concrete that's well outlasting what I would have expected in such a salt heavy state. Would it be the type of concrete used?
https://goo.gl/maps/JssU1putE33w2p5j8
Finally got rid of the sine salad I see.
https://goo.gl/maps/6J89JS4CBoYizT8C7
This was what was there originally.
https://goo.gl/maps/JssU1putE33w2p5j8
Finally got rid of the sine salad I see.
https://goo.gl/maps/6J89JS4CBoYizT8C7
This was what was there originally.
Given there is too much information there in the first one (have been under that sign many times), it's a good decision.
You have to look at what's easier to read at XX mph. Less is more.
https://goo.gl/maps/TjfZcfoBwz8FFrgS6Hey, I think I've brought up this subject before too. I've always felt there should be some kind of reconstruction in that area.
The bigger problem is where the NB left merge is from US 6 and 7 Lakes Drive. If one heading North on 7 Lakes wants to continue on 7 Lakes, has to weave across the two lanes of the PIP.
There is not much room between the left merge and the right exit to do it one lane at a time, so it’s a drastic crossing to undertake.
Do you people know where else bridges for the Appalachian Trail are needed? The Palisades Interstate Parkway south of the Visitor's Center, Bookstore, and former gas station.
Southbound Lanes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2838639,-74.0281499,3a,75y,197.9h,90.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCKpLc03Dz8xdv9V8q2Ia8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Northbound Lanes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2801954,-74.0296056,3a,37.5y,15.08h,89.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snxRzaKefw2eZjMRmiIPXIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Crossing according to GSV:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2822594,-74.028683,434m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
You can't have hikers trying to dodge speeding cars on the PIP. I keep thinking of a land bridge or two similar to what you have with the Cross Florida Greenway over I-75 between Marion Oaks and Ocala.
Given 218 is missing a section that would need to be rebuilt, guaranteed we won't see it open until 2024.
They can probably support it. Not gonna be simple though with the eroded side of the mountain. Considering West Point is nearby, wouldn't surprise me if USACE gets involved.USACE really only gets involved with bridges over navigable waterways.
Not totally a road project, but there was a minor glitch with replacement project for rail trail bridge over NY85.
Bridge did sag a little bit while concrete deck was getting poured
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/33/51/67/24026573/3/rawImage.jpg)
Where'd you get the photo?
This one is on a front page of TU:Not totally a road project, but there was a minor glitch with replacement project for rail trail bridge over NY85.Where'd you get the photo?
Bridge did sag a little bit while concrete deck was getting poured
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/33/51/67/24026573/3/rawImage.jpg)
Not totally a road project, but there was a minor glitch with replacement project for rail trail bridge over NY85.
Bridge did sag a little bit while concrete deck was getting poured
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/33/51/67/24026573/3/rawImage.jpg)
If it was on I-95 in South Carolina, it probably wouldn't even warrant a "rough road" warning sign.
I drove that section several years back and enjoyed it, but it does seem unlikely to be a top priority to get it reopened end-to-end any time soon.
The 5 people a day that actually use it to get from the southeast part of Cornwall-on-Hudson to the Washington Gate can drive the extra 5 minutes on US-9W when it reopens.If it was on I-95 in South Carolina, it probably wouldn't even warrant a "rough road" warning sign.
I drove that section several years back and enjoyed it, but it does seem unlikely to be a top priority to get it reopened end-to-end any time soon.
What priority it does have is because it provides alternate access to the Washington Gate at West Point.
The 5 people a day that actually use it to get from the southeast part of Cornwall-on-Hudson to the Washington Gate can drive the extra 5 minutes on US-9W when it reopens.If it was on I-95 in South Carolina, it probably wouldn't even warrant a "rough road" warning sign.
I drove that section several years back and enjoyed it, but it does seem unlikely to be a top priority to get it reopened end-to-end any time soon.
What priority it does have is because it provides alternate access to the Washington Gate at West Point.
Even taking all 1446 cars per day into account, other roads that have 10x or more traffic and longer detours due to a lack of redundancy should and will be prioritized by NYSDOT.
Let us know when the Army is getting in the way of NYSDOT.The 5 people a day that actually use it to get from the southeast part of Cornwall-on-Hudson to the Washington Gate can drive the extra 5 minutes on US-9W when it reopens.If it was on I-95 in South Carolina, it probably wouldn't even warrant a "rough road" warning sign.
I drove that section several years back and enjoyed it, but it does seem unlikely to be a top priority to get it reopened end-to-end any time soon.
What priority it does have is because it provides alternate access to the Washington Gate at West Point.
Even taking all 1446 cars per day into account, other roads that have 10x or more traffic and longer detours due to a lack of redundancy should and will be prioritized by NYSDOT.
Tell it to the Army!
From what I understand they want redundancy.Please provide some sort of evidence that the Army has actually stated a position on the matter, rather than just your speculation.
With Highland Falls a disaster area the Thayer Gate is of no use. Both the Washington and Stony Lonesome Gates are accessible from 9W but that was shut down. While 293 would provide access, in the aftermath of this storm it couldn't be used because US 6 was closed on its opposite end. If 218 hadn't bee damaged it would have been the access route to the post.
Personally, from the pictures I've seen, I doubt that 218 can be rebuilt. But with a Can Do attitude, ...
That is kind of cool, but I doubt if most drivers even notice the difference in the route shields.
Maybe NJDOT provided the shield?That is kind of cool, but I doubt if most drivers even notice the difference in the route shields.
I wonder why the black border NJ shield though. NY, since the MUTCD forbade the use of text, has used border less shields on their own routes.
That is kind of cool, but I doubt if most drivers even notice the difference in the route shields.
I wonder why the black border NJ shield though. NY, since the MUTCD forbade the use of text, has used border less shields on their own routes.
The MUTCD has never "forbade the use of text"...
That is kind of cool, but I doubt if most drivers even notice the difference in the route shields.
I wonder why the black border NJ shield though. NY, since the MUTCD forbade the use of text, has used border less shields on their own routes.
I thought NJ always put black border markers on the guide signs outside of the NJ Turnpike. Probably NYSDOT trying to make the marker look as NJ typical as possible.
Crossing Allen Creek in Rochester, New York, I-490 is carried across a 75 to 80-foot section of a structure that was built in 1905 for the Rochester to Syracuse interurban railroad. The twin-cell concrete rigid frame structure with an arch top was built to look like stone. In 1956/1957 when that section of the Interstate was built in Rochester, traffic on one side of the Interstate was carried on this 1905 structure, with the other side carried on a new concrete structure. In 1991, the structure was lengthened to accommodate a widened Interstate, but the 1905 structure remains in use.
I was reading the Interstate Facts of the Day, you know, like you do, and I came across this entry for July 5:must be this one:QuoteCrossing Allen Creek in Rochester, New York, I-490 is carried across a 75 to 80-foot section of a structure that was built in 1905 for the Rochester to Syracuse interurban railroad. The twin-cell concrete rigid frame structure with an arch top was built to look like stone. In 1956/1957 when that section of the Interstate was built in Rochester, traffic on one side of the Interstate was carried on this 1905 structure, with the other side carried on a new concrete structure. In 1991, the structure was lengthened to accommodate a widened Interstate, but the 1905 structure remains in use.
I've been looking for this bridge on Google Maps and elsewhere, and while I've found a lot of interesting information on I-490, the Rochester and Syracuse Railroad, and the Erie Canal, I cannot for the life of me locate this bridge. Does anyone know where it might be?
must be this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1303559,-77.526911,18.71z?entry=ttu
over here: https://www.dot.ny.gov/John Madden
you need Monroe county, on the first page it's BIN 1048880, Year Built: 1900; Year Reconstructed: 2001
I have no idea what is going on. I posted, and I am seeing, a completely different linkmust be this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1303559,-77.526911,18.71z?entry=ttu
over here: https://www.dot.ny.gov/John Madden
you need Monroe county, on the first page it's BIN 1048880, Year Built: 1900; Year Reconstructed: 2001
Re the bolded,
1) I clicked on the link (minus "Madden") and got (from the NYSDOT site)
Error
Were you looking for something?
You have reached this page in error. We apologize for the inconvenience. Please use our feedback form to report this issue and help us improve the web site.
(HTTP ERROR CODE 404: Page Not Found)
and
2) Is there a reason for the gap between "John" and "Madden"? A typo?
I was reading the Interstate Facts of the Day, you know, like you do, and I came across this entry for July 5:must be this one:QuoteCrossing Allen Creek in Rochester, New York, I-490 is carried across a 75 to 80-foot section of a structure that was built in 1905 for the Rochester to Syracuse interurban railroad. The twin-cell concrete rigid frame structure with an arch top was built to look like stone. In 1956/1957 when that section of the Interstate was built in Rochester, traffic on one side of the Interstate was carried on this 1905 structure, with the other side carried on a new concrete structure. In 1991, the structure was lengthened to accommodate a widened Interstate, but the 1905 structure remains in use.
I've been looking for this bridge on Google Maps and elsewhere, and while I've found a lot of interesting information on I-490, the Rochester and Syracuse Railroad, and the Erie Canal, I cannot for the life of me locate this bridge. Does anyone know where it might be?
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1303559,-77.526911,18.71z?entry=ttu
over here: https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/bridgedata
you need Monroe county, on the first page it's BIN 1048880, Year Built: 1900; Year Reconstructed: 2001
The Popolopen Arch Bridge on Route 9W in Orange County has been reopened.Anyone else read that as Poiponen arch?
It had been closed since the July 9 storm when some of its underpinnings were washed out.
The Popolopen Arch Bridge on Route 9W in Orange County has been reopened.Looks like they fixed it more easily than I thought they would. When I heard what the floods did to it, I thought they were going to need a total replacement.
It had been closed since the July 9 storm when some of its underpinnings were washed out.
This seems to me as a completely random question, but is there any information out there about CR 11 previously being NY 866? I noticed it on OSM as I was looking at I-86/NY 17 on Travel Mapping.I'm guessing you mean Steuben County CR-11:
Likewise, NY-415 itself still has NY-15 reference markers, (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3255435,-77.2881026,3a,15y,123.9h,82.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saQrigQXhoK8Af_41Pvjomg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) since it was previously NY-15.
Earlier today I was looking at the signage history of the New York State Thruway as it approaches the Plattekill Service Area:Yeah, man. No more TTY available there. :D
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5729249,-74.0844378,3a,75y,333.24h,86.09t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1slQ-UmDHvM1VvwDT8HbEXBw!2e0!5s20151101T000000?hl=en&entry=ttu
What a disappointment.
It's not just that. It's all the other amenities they used to brag about.Earlier today I was looking at the signage history of the New York State Thruway as it approaches the Plattekill Service Area:Yeah, man. No more TTY available there. :D
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5729249,-74.0844378,3a,75y,333.24h,86.09t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1slQ-UmDHvM1VvwDT8HbEXBw!2e0!5s20151101T000000?hl=en&entry=ttu
What a disappointment.
The sign doesn't indicate any dining or refreshment facilities. Do they not exist there?At the time when the GSV car went by in 2022, the service area was being demolished and rebuilt. It has since reopened with full services.
That particular sign wouldn't advertise that anyways; those are on the advance signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5580882,-74.0809319,3a,28.6y,2.89h,92.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8k6IQyVLxx7Ouo80acBtCw!2e0!5s20190901T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) further back.The sign doesn't indicate any dining or refreshment facilities. Do they not exist there?At the time when the GSV car went by in 2022, the service area was being demolished and rebuilt. It has since reopened with full services.
That particular sign wouldn't advertise that anyways; those are on the advance signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5580882,-74.0809319,3a,28.6y,2.89h,92.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8k6IQyVLxx7Ouo80acBtCw!2e0!5s20190901T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) further back.The sign doesn't indicate any dining or refreshment facilities. Do they not exist there?At the time when the GSV car went by in 2022, the service area was being demolished and rebuilt. It has since reopened with full services.
That reminds me that I made my first stop at the new Plattekill service area last week. While it still feels small, I was happy to see it's significantly larger than the others among the new ones I've been to so far. Looks to me like sufficient seating and the bathroom was much more reasonable in size as well.Level 3... That's the size of 5 out of 24 service areas. Another 10 are sized as a quarter of of Plattekill one or smaller
The official size classifications are weird. IMO levels 2A and 2B have more in common with level 3 than they do with level 2.That reminds me that I made my first stop at the new Plattekill service area last week. While it still feels small, I was happy to see it's significantly larger than the others among the new ones I've been to so far. Looks to me like sufficient seating and the bathroom was much more reasonable in size as well.Level 3... That's the size of 5 out of 24 service areas. Another 10 are sized as a quarter of of Plattekill one or smaller
That reminds me that I made my first stop at the new Plattekill service area last week. While it still feels small, I was happy to see it's significantly larger than the others among the new ones I've been to so far. Looks to me like sufficient seating and the bathroom was much more reasonable in size as well.I'd like to see more pics of that service area in Wikimedia Commons, along with the Sloatsburg and Ramapo Service Areas. The only reason I don't grab them myself is because I'm stuck in Florida.
Does NYSDOT maintain US 11 in Syracuse? I ask because I see on GSV where the US route changes alignment on N. state Street to N. Salina Street there is lacking trailblazing. Ditto SB from N. Salina to N. State.
I see though NY 5 is signed where it changes alignments plus US 11 is signed from NY 5 in both directions at State Street.
It makes me wonder if one route is state maintained and the other is not. Or both are municipal roads, but Syracuse, unlike Albany, is somewhat better at signing routes than the capital is.
The city did put up the relatively-neat-for-NY signal street sign blades with route shields at NY 173 though:
Having driven all of US 11 through Syracuse last month, at least where the random turns are (Raynor Avenue, Salina Street, Wolf Street) and some of the other state highway intersections, the route is signed. Per NYSDOT GIS data I downloaded last year, it's all city-maintained.
The city did put up the relatively-neat-for-NY signal street sign blades with route shields at NY 173 though:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/US_11_sb_at_NY_173%2C_July_2023.jpg)
Personally, I don't mind the inclusion of cardinal directions, but it can be a lot of information to fit on a small sign, as shown here (https://goo.gl/maps/fPNGSpPGwPvE4aQH8). The NJ 27 sign is great, but the Wood Ave one is a bit dense for my liking, and too close to the signal head. I'd like to see more ground-mounted "LGS" style signage at state route junctions (Ã la Washington (https://goo.gl/maps/189k1gV2jeobLHqe6), but with directions combined on a single line and any route destinations listed below).the Wood Ave one is indeed too dense. I would have designed it with more room. You should see my signs. (:
I see our friends at NYSDOT Region 10 are putting a detour for US 135 out on Long Island.NYM5-1 isn't US 135. NYM5-1 is custom signs for parkways. A 135 shield would just be a straight "M" from the MUTCD. (M1-4 for US, M1-5 for state)
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=42125&p_is_digital=Y (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=42125&p_is_digital=Y)
They're also keeping it retro with some centered exit number tabs, so good for them.
The centered exit number tags are probably an error.
https://goo.gl/maps/iHJU5uoxYa74vx3SAGiven the location, sure, why not?
I-87 is an E-W running route? The PIP Exit 9E guide shows it running East with I-287.
https://goo.gl/maps/iHJU5uoxYa74vx3SAGiven the location, sure, why not?
I-87 is an E-W running route? The PIP Exit 9E guide shows it running East with I-287.
So what's going on with the intersection of Upper Glen and Aviation/Quaker in Queensbury?I think I remember hearing something about a water line break on the news.
Having driven all of US 11 through Syracuse last month, at least where the random turns are (Raynor Avenue, Salina Street, Wolf Street) and some of the other state highway intersections, the route is signed. Per NYSDOT GIS data I downloaded last year, it's all city-maintained.
The city did put up the relatively-neat-for-NY signal street sign blades with route shields at NY 173 though:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/US_11_sb_at_NY_173%2C_July_2023.jpg)
When did the Shenandoah Service Area close? I assume it was a gas station-only service area.1999, maybe?
I see a large cluster of spotlight trailers gathered around the former Shenandoah Service Area on the Taconic State Parkway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5467322,-73.7747536,3a,75y,1.63h,95.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFiBnJzmn149A4_km3FP1-w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu
NYSDOT Region 8 isn't planning to demolish the remains of the place, are they?
Not totally a road project, but there was a minor glitch with replacement project for rail trail bridge over NY85.A follow up: a preliminary engineering report says that whoever designed the bridge basically didn't realize girders are not straight but have a step "to mimic previous 3-span structure"
Bridge did sag a little bit while concrete deck was getting poured
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/33/51/67/24026573/3/rawImage.jpg)
When did the Shenandoah Service Area close? I assume it was a gas station-only service area.1999, maybe?
linkNot totally a road project, but there was a minor glitch with replacement project for rail trail bridge over NY85.A follow up: a preliminary engineering report says that whoever designed the bridge basically didn't realize girders are not straight but have a step "to mimic previous 3-span structure"
Bridge did sag a little bit while concrete deck was getting poured
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/33/51/67/24026573/3/rawImage.jpg)
Nice to see that design firm also does consulting for NYSDOT...
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/albany-county-releases-report-rail-trail-bridge-18353527.php?IPID=Times-Union-Capital-Region-spotlightlinkNot totally a road project, but there was a minor glitch with replacement project for rail trail bridge over NY85.A follow up: a preliminary engineering report says that whoever designed the bridge basically didn't realize girders are not straight but have a step "to mimic previous 3-span structure"
Bridge did sag a little bit while concrete deck was getting poured
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/33/51/67/24026573/3/rawImage.jpg)
Nice to see that design firm also does consulting for NYSDOT...
Me neither, but this suffices. Thank you.https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/albany-county-releases-report-rail-trail-bridge-18353527.php?IPID=Times-Union-Capital-Region-spotlightlinkNot totally a road project, but there was a minor glitch with replacement project for rail trail bridge over NY85.A follow up: a preliminary engineering report says that whoever designed the bridge basically didn't realize girders are not straight but have a step "to mimic previous 3-span structure"
Bridge did sag a little bit while concrete deck was getting poured
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/33/51/67/24026573/3/rawImage.jpg)
Nice to see that design firm also does consulting for NYSDOT...
Cannot make standalone scribd link to work.
Fun fact: this is not the first bridge collapse from the same designer:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2003/2003204
Someone was remarking in a thread I came across (local newspaper) about how the old bridge was still in good condition. Could it have been raised on new abutments or the roadway lowered to provide the clearance needed? Could an "off the shelf" bridge from someplace like the Bridge Brothers (https://bridgebrothers.com/trail-bridges/) saved taxpayers a lot of money versus trying to mimic the old design of the bridge? (Which really wasn't that special.)It was an old railroad bridge, raising it would be difficult due to design I would imagine. A very narrow roadway under the bridge was a bigger problem.
Ah - thanks for the GSV. It still makes me wonder if just lifting the old superstructure out of there, replacing the abutments, and raising the bridge would have been sufficient. It probably wouldn't have widened the roadway as the supports would need to be reinstalled in the same location.Pedestrian/bicycle access is a big thing these days, so some widening was probably a must.
Rather than mimic 3 spans of different heights, they could have done something like a trapezoid that wouldn't buckle.I suspect this is the problem with engineers' perception of structural FEA. There was a pretty high profile (as in billions lost) similar case in Boeing 787 program.
Engineers are responsible for structural feasibility. The structural engineers should have been the ones to decide design.Rather than mimic 3 spans of different heights, they could have done something like a trapezoid that wouldn't buckle.I suspect this is the problem with engineers' perception of structural FEA. There was a pretty high profile (as in billions lost) similar case in Boeing 787 program.
And I am afraid even to think of how many things end up deep into their safety margins in similar scenarios.
Well, the buck (I mean DA) stops at PE stamp on the design. Those working for the firm without PE doing actual FEA and design also didn't do well.Engineers are responsible for structural feasibility. The structural engineers should have been the ones to decide design.Rather than mimic 3 spans of different heights, they could have done something like a trapezoid that wouldn't buckle.I suspect this is the problem with engineers' perception of structural FEA. There was a pretty high profile (as in billions lost) similar case in Boeing 787 program.
And I am afraid even to think of how many things end up deep into their safety margins in similar scenarios.
Does everybody here see these traffic signals?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/North_End%3B_Adirondack_Drive_%40_NY_25%2C_Selden%2C_NY.jpg/640px-North_End%3B_Adirondack_Drive_%40_NY_25%2C_Selden%2C_NY.jpg)
That's Adirondack Drive at the north end with NY 25 in Selden. I took that picture in November 2021. The latest GSV view (October 2019) still has a stop sign there. So, the simple question is, when were they installed?
The back plates are flimsy as crap. The ones at US 20A and South Taylor Road in Orchard Park and US 62/NY 179 in Hamburg are already missing parts of their backplates.And prices for signal replacements are skyrocketing due to material costs...
The back plates are flimsy as crap.
You are missing the fact that the design is done by engineers.Well, the buck (I mean DA) stops at PE stamp on the design. Those working for the firm without PE doing actual FEA and design also didn't do well.Engineers are responsible for structural feasibility. The structural engineers should have been the ones to decide design.Rather than mimic 3 spans of different heights, they could have done something like a trapezoid that wouldn't buckle.I suspect this is the problem with engineers' perception of structural FEA. There was a pretty high profile (as in billions lost) similar case in Boeing 787 program.
And I am afraid even to think of how many things end up deep into their safety margins in similar scenarios.
Overall, I am not going to apportion the responsibility - there is always many things to consider and multiple people to blame. But I hope you're not going to deny responsibility of design team?
Talking about engineers... there had been a great tradition of an engineer standing under the newly built bridge...You are missing the fact that the design is done by engineers.Well, the buck (I mean DA) stops at PE stamp on the design. Those working for the firm without PE doing actual FEA and design also didn't do well.Engineers are responsible for structural feasibility. The structural engineers should have been the ones to decide design.Rather than mimic 3 spans of different heights, they could have done something like a trapezoid that wouldn't buckle.I suspect this is the problem with engineers' perception of structural FEA. There was a pretty high profile (as in billions lost) similar case in Boeing 787 program.
And I am afraid even to think of how many things end up deep into their safety margins in similar scenarios.
Overall, I am not going to apportion the responsibility - there is always many things to consider and multiple people to blame. But I hope you're not going to deny responsibility of design team?
They need to do something for 378 west to 787 south. That is a heavy movement; the corresponding N-E is a direct right turn under any scenario.So, coming from Troy? Yep, definitely.
All of the NYC parkways do now.
Didn't someone post a link to a page with all the shields to one of the Facebook groups a while back? Unfortunately I can't find it at the moment, but I remember using it to make the shields for my site (minus the Belt, which still uses one I found elsewhere (I presume contract plans posted to a Facebook group); I did make the other (https://nysroads.com/images/shields/bpne.png) and I have a note to compare and potentially switch should a shield ever appear in the wild to confirm which one is right).All of the NYC parkways do now.
In theory. In practice, there are very few signs up, so for many of the parkways, we don't know what the new signs look like.
The Storm King Highway portion of NY Route 218 is now listed on Google Maps as being closed until next July.Closes every winter season.
The road was severely damaged in a bad storm in June.
All of the NYC parkways do now.
In theory. In practice, there are very few signs up, so for many of the parkways, we don't know what the new signs look like.
Google Maps used to have a glitch where if you wanted to visit an overlook while the road was closed, the route would have you swim across the Hudson.
Are speed bumps/humps legal in NYS? The town of East Fishkill opened a new road to service the new Amazon warehouse. It is a signed route to I 84 and connects Lime Kiln Rd (CR 27) and NY 52. But despite it being a truck route, it's got speed bumps and NO ENGINE BRAKE signs. It's a road through an abandoned IBM complex, why is traffic calming needed here?
East Fishkill also lowered the speed limit on Lake Walton Rd (from 40 to 35) without the DOT, they just passed an ordinance which I'm pretty sure isn't legal.
The potential concepts for the Troy-Menands Bridge alignment have been posted to the study website. Note that the concepts are just of the bridge alignment; exact details of how it would tie in on each side are beyond the scope of this study and what is shown is just placeholders, although reducing the footprint of the I-787/NY 378 interchange is a goal.Quoting my own post to note that the draft Troy-Menands Bridge PEL report and questionnaire are both online, as are updated renderings of the nine concepts that are easier to see.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/troymenandsbridge/reports
https://www.facebook.com/groups/96206174878/permalink/10162179526174879/Read more than the headlines -- thanks for forwarding clickbait. FreewayJim is a haven for this crap.
https://wpdh.com/automated-speeding-tickets-begin-for-i-84-and-i-87-in-new-york/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral
Be careful now on some NY State roads.
Speed cameras are now going to be the enforcers on some NY Interstates.
NY 104 in Rochester currently has camera enforcement in multiple work zones. They have a truck parked at each end of the zones with the equipment.https://www.facebook.com/groups/96206174878/permalink/10162179526174879/Read more than the headlines -- thanks for forwarding clickbait. FreewayJim is a haven for this crap.
https://wpdh.com/automated-speeding-tickets-begin-for-i-84-and-i-87-in-new-york/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral
Be careful now on some NY State roads.
Speed cameras are now going to be the enforcers on some NY Interstates.
It's only for work zones, which has been the case for a whole lot of months now.
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.
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.
...Was it money, NIMBYs, or environmental concerns.
I think you meant to reply to a different post.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.
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)!
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.
https://www.wshu.org/long-island-news/2023-11-22/atlantic-beach-bridge-e-zpassI 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.
It's official: the Atlantic Beach Bridge in Nassau County will be accepting E-Z Pass sometime in mid-December (next month)!
The Storm King Highway portion of NY Route 218 is now listed on Google Maps as being closed until next July.It was actually damaged in July, but I don't see the closing listed.
The road was severely damaged in a bad storm in June.
A project of potential relevance: 4T5024 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5024)Heh. The "T" stands for temporary. Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).
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.
A project of potential relevance: 4T5024 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5024)Heh. The "T" stands for temporary. Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).
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.
And...it's just a JOC to replace OSSes as needed...
Heh. It's a routine term contract.A project of potential relevance: 4T5024 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5024)Heh. The "T" stands for temporary. Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).
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.
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 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5022)). 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.A project of potential relevance: 4T5024 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5024)Heh. The "T" stands for temporary. Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).
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.
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 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5022)). 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.A project of potential relevance: 4T5024 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5024)Heh. The "T" stands for temporary. Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).
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.
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.
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.Yeah, what Rothman said. This is just one location in an overhead sign structure contract (specifically, this one (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5022)). 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.A project of potential relevance: 4T5024 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5024)Heh. The "T" stands for temporary. Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, what Rothman said. This is just one location in an overhead sign structure contract (specifically, this one (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5022)). 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.A project of potential relevance: 4T5024 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=4T5024)Heh. The "T" stands for temporary. Won't be real until it gets a real PIN (design approval at the earliest).
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.
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.
Isn't signage at an interchange usually all replaced at once, or is that only during larger construction projects?
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. :D
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.
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).
Those assorted signs on 590 and 104 were part of the ARRA signs, I believe.
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. :D
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).
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.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qhxCAfkZK8ScDq3w7Looking 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.
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?
Will Parkway Rd. be cul-de-saced, and this house located along the parkway be demolished as part of the plan? What about the Forgotten Way intersection and the right-in/right-out at the Ossining Public Works Department? I didn't see any of those addressed in the presentation.I don't think they have gotten that far yet. This is just a study. That stuff will probably be addressed in final design.
Pictures of the new signs in question: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.
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).
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.Those assorted signs on 590 and 104 were part of the ARRA signs, I believe.
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. :D
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).
NYSDOT PowerPoint on the 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway', - https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf)It's about time that this alleged "parkway" gets more interchanges and intersection eliminations. I like everything except the one with NY 100. Now all they have to do is eliminate more at-grade intersections on the Bronx River Parkway north of Sprain Brook Parkway, Taconic River Parkway south of Sprain Brook Parkway, and all remaining points north of the Westchester-Putnam County Line, Cross Westchester Parkway, and Saw Mill River Parkway.
Oh. Is that all.NYSDOT PowerPoint on the 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway', - https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf)It's about time that this alleged "parkway" gets more interchanges and intersection eliminations. I like everything except the one with NY 100. Now all they have to do is eliminate more intersection on the Bronx River Parkway north of Sprain Brook Parkway, Taconic River Parkway south of Sprain Brook Parkway, and all remaining points north of the Westchester-Putnam County Line, Cross Westchester Parkway, and Saw Mill River Parkway.
Oh, and especially the Bear Mountain Parkway. Fill the gap and get rid of the intersections.
Seems like a good start but the rest of what you said hopefully comes to fruition someday.NYSDOT PowerPoint on the 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway', - https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf)It's about time that this alleged "parkway" gets more interchanges and intersection eliminations. I like everything except the one with NY 100. Now all they have to do is eliminate more intersection on the Bronx River Parkway north of Sprain Brook Parkway, Taconic River Parkway south of Sprain Brook Parkway, and all remaining points north of the Westchester-Putnam County Line, Cross Westchester Parkway, and Saw Mill River Parkway.
Oh, and especially the Bear Mountain Parkway. Fill the gap and get rid of the intersections.
Any road that feels like a freeway should be. So I agree that Saw Mill should get finished. That's my one.Oh. Is that all.NYSDOT PowerPoint on the 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway', - https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf)It's about time that this alleged "parkway" gets more interchanges and intersection eliminations. I like everything except the one with NY 100. Now all they have to do is eliminate more intersection on the Bronx River Parkway north of Sprain Brook Parkway, Taconic River Parkway south of Sprain Brook Parkway, and all remaining points north of the Westchester-Putnam County Line, Cross Westchester Parkway, and Saw Mill River Parkway.
Oh, and especially the Bear Mountain Parkway. Fill the gap and get rid of the intersections.
NYSDOT PowerPoint on the 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway', - https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf)It's about time that this alleged "parkway" gets more interchanges and intersection eliminations. I like everything except the one with NY 100. Now all they have to do is eliminate more intersection on the Bronx River Parkway north of Sprain Brook Parkway, Taconic River Parkway south of Sprain Brook Parkway, and all remaining points north of the Westchester-Putnam County Line, Cross Westchester Parkway, and Saw Mill River Parkway.
Oh, and especially the Bear Mountain Parkway. Fill the gap and get rid of the intersections.
No, I just remembered that the Rye Playland Parkway could use some intersection replacements.Oh. Is that all.NYSDOT PowerPoint on the 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway', - https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf)It's about time that this alleged "parkway" gets more interchanges and intersection eliminations. I like everything except the one with NY 100. Now all they have to do is eliminate more intersection on the Bronx River Parkway north of Sprain Brook Parkway, Taconic River Parkway south of Sprain Brook Parkway, and all remaining points north of the Westchester-Putnam County Line, Cross Westchester Parkway, and Saw Mill River Parkway.
Oh, and especially the Bear Mountain Parkway. Fill the gap and get rid of the intersections.
No it can't. Unless you're funding it.No, I just remembered that the Rye Playland Parkway could use some intersection replacements.Oh. Is that all.NYSDOT PowerPoint on the 'Modernization of Briarcliff-Peekskill Parkway', - https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/810355-Home/810355-Repository/BPP%20Scoping%20Report%20Public%20Workshop%20II%20Presentation%20(Includes%20Concepts).pdf)It's about time that this alleged "parkway" gets more interchanges and intersection eliminations. I like everything except the one with NY 100. Now all they have to do is eliminate more intersection on the Bronx River Parkway north of Sprain Brook Parkway, Taconic River Parkway south of Sprain Brook Parkway, and all remaining points north of the Westchester-Putnam County Line, Cross Westchester Parkway, and Saw Mill River Parkway.
Oh, and especially the Bear Mountain Parkway. Fill the gap and get rid of the intersections.
I-590 SB exit 2B: https://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i590&state=NY&file=102_6357.JPG
Are there any HAWKs outside of the Buffalo area?
Right here man! https://data.ny.gov/Transportation/Compact-NYSDOT-Highway-Record-Plans-Beginning-1900/6bx3-2s36/data
Speaking of road "improvements" in New York, I just learned that the anti-highway zealots of Upstate New York and winning their fight to cancel the plans to upgrade NY 17 into I-86.That's a bit hyperbolic. Yes, they're voicing their opinion against the widening (quite loudly, given the number of articles this past week), but NYSDOT hasn't even selected a preferred alternative to upgrade the segment from US 209 to the Thruway, much less definitively confirmed where or even if it would be widened. And the upgrade to I-86 doesn't actually require widening. Prior to the 17 Forward 86 Coalition pushing the issue, the plan was to upgrade the road to I-86 and afterwards consider whether to widen it.
https://hudsonvalleypost.com/controversy-over-route-17-widening-new-york-hudson-valley/
Couldn't the Hale Eddy projects (and thus the upgrade to I-86) still be advanced independently of a widening south of Monticello?All of the projects could (Hale Eddy, despite being the most visible piece, is just one of many, many things that need to be done). That was my point. But does the energy exist without the widening push? The reason the whole thing stagnated in the first place was because NYSDOT can't afford to put too much money into "beyond preservation" projects ("beyond preservation" isn't just "something more than what's there"; renewal projects like major pavement rehabilitation and bridge replacements are beyond preservation as well), and that's still the case. So, if the widening doesn't happen, there wouldn't be anything engineering-wise preventing the upgrade from proceeding, the question is, would the political will still be there?
Is the name of the hospital being on the hospital sign specifically a New York thing? It seems so to me.
Is the name of the hospital being on the hospital sign specifically a New York thing? It seems so to me.
We have them in Delaware, especially when there's more than one hospital at the freeway exit.
And to think I remember when the hospital signage there pointed straight for Genesee.Is the name of the hospital being on the hospital sign specifically a New York thing? It seems so to me.
We have them in Delaware, especially when there's more than one hospital at the freeway exit.
Meanwhile, this is not typical upstate, not even when there are multiple hospitals reached from a single exit. I-490 Exit 17 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Qq7ArLf6jEkTqqKS9) is one such example (signage is for Highland Hospital, but Goodman St is also the primary route to Strong (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Strong,+Rochester,+NY/@43.1199282,-77.6278734,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x89d6b4d2f591c489:0x320ae8fd0b62e3ee!8m2!3d43.1198225!4d-77.6163803!16s%2Fg%2F1wnby_j9!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu) from the northeast quadrant of the metro).
And to think I remember when the hospital signage there pointed straight for Genesee.Is the name of the hospital being on the hospital sign specifically a New York thing? It seems so to me.
We have them in Delaware, especially when there's more than one hospital at the freeway exit.
Meanwhile, this is not typical upstate, not even when there are multiple hospitals reached from a single exit. I-490 Exit 17 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Qq7ArLf6jEkTqqKS9) is one such example (signage is for Highland Hospital, but Goodman St is also the primary route to Strong (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Strong,+Rochester,+NY/@43.1199282,-77.6278734,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x89d6b4d2f591c489:0x320ae8fd0b62e3ee!8m2!3d43.1198225!4d-77.6163803!16s%2Fg%2F1wnby_j9!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu) from the northeast quadrant of the metro).
Speaking of road "improvements" in New York, I just learned that the anti-highway zealots of Upstate New York and winning their fight to cancel the plans to upgrade NY 17 into I-86.
https://hudsonvalleypost.com/controversy-over-route-17-widening-new-york-hudson-valley/
The Cross Bronx is also having lanes removed on the service roads.
https://www.crainsnewyork.com/transportation/cross-bronx-expressway-connector-road-advances-150m-federal-grant
I could read the rest of it if the article didn't have that stupid paywall. But judging by that one delusional image, it doesn't look so good.
Am I correct that NYSDOT has released renderings for the proposed tunnel on Route 33 in Buffalo or is this old news?The article is from the 19th. Just saw it yesterday.
Someone posted it on FB via a link to Local News in the Greater Buffalo Area.
Am I correct that NYSDOT has released renderings for the proposed tunnel on Route 33 in Buffalo or is this old news?The article is from the 19th. Just saw it yesterday.
Someone posted it on FB via a link to Local News in the Greater Buffalo Area.
https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/buffalo/renderings-of-kensington-project-released/
Can you not see the significant main difference between the two projects?Am I correct that NYSDOT has released renderings for the proposed tunnel on Route 33 in Buffalo or is this old news?The article is from the 19th. Just saw it yesterday.
Someone posted it on FB via a link to Local News in the Greater Buffalo Area.
https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/buffalo/renderings-of-kensington-project-released/
A+ on the video. It looks like almost the entire acceleration lane from Best St to 33 EB will be in the tunnel, which is a cool feature. Seeing this just makes it even more of a bummer that a tunnel wasn't an option in Syracuse.
Can you not see the significant main difference between the two projects?Am I correct that NYSDOT has released renderings for the proposed tunnel on Route 33 in Buffalo or is this old news?The article is from the 19th. Just saw it yesterday.
Someone posted it on FB via a link to Local News in the Greater Buffalo Area.
https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/buffalo/renderings-of-kensington-project-released/
A+ on the video. It looks like almost the entire acceleration lane from Best St to 33 EB will be in the tunnel, which is a cool feature. Seeing this just makes it even more of a bummer that a tunnel wasn't an option in Syracuse.
I would have liked to have a tunnel in Buffalo constructed that followed the former alignment of the unbuilt segment of the NY 33 freeway, connecting its existing western terminus to its previously proposed western terminus at Interstate 190's Exit 8. Alas, I realize that is as likely to happen as an Interstate 81 tunnel being constructed in Syracuse.
NY-12E Realignment (Fall 2025 Completion): (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=778009)a) Brownville, no S
NY-12E will be relocated from its existing bridge over the Black River in Brownsville to a new bridge approximately 0.5 miles to the west. The existing bridge will be demolished, and the rest of the existing alignment in Brownsville will revert to Jefferson County as an extension of CR-190.
Contract plans are here. (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=42342&p_is_digital=Y) Scheduled completion for the new bridge, and thus the reroute, is November 30, 2024 (slide 10) (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=42604&p_is_digital=Y). The demolition of the existing bridge and other work will be done after.
b) This kills the town. You've just moved all the traffic on a state highway from downtown to a bridge that avoids it completely. I'm shocked they're okay with this.
Goodbye Stewart's and pizza places...b) This kills the town. You've just moved all the traffic on a state highway from downtown to a bridge that avoids it completely. I'm shocked they're okay with this.
Have you been through the town? There's extremely little in the way of traffic-dependent businesses along there...basically just a Stewart's and a couple of pizza places that are probably frequented by locals to begin with. I think you're overreacting.
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though. They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though. They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
So...okay...town's gonna die.I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though. They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
Those "in the know" are hitting either the Sunoco next to Price Chopper at Exit 45 to use their gas points or the Sunoco at the 7-Eleven at Exit 46 that also has a Timmy Ho's...
Does that make a difference? I'm not really sure why a few have the gas branded Sunoco while most don't.I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though. They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
So...okay...town's gonna die.I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though. They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
Those "in the know" are hitting either the Sunoco next to Price Chopper at Exit 45 to use their gas points or the Sunoco at the 7-Eleven at Exit 46 that also has a Timmy Ho's...
We must help the town die.So...okay...town's gonna die.I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though. They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
Those "in the know" are hitting either the Sunoco next to Price Chopper at Exit 45 to use their gas points or the Sunoco at the 7-Eleven at Exit 46 that also has a Timmy Ho's...
If that's the case, the town is already dying and moving the bridge isn't going to change or affect that...
Gas stations tend to be a little more dependent on more than just locals.Does that make a difference? I'm not really sure why a few have the gas branded Sunoco while most don't.I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though. They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
If reduced traffic at gas station means the town is dead, I would say that town is already dead.We must help the town die.So...okay...town's gonna die.I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though. They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
Those "in the know" are hitting either the Sunoco next to Price Chopper at Exit 45 to use their gas points or the Sunoco at the 7-Eleven at Exit 46 that also has a Timmy Ho's...
If that's the case, the town is already dying and moving the bridge isn't going to change or affect that...
We must beat a dead town.If reduced traffic at gas station means the town is dead, I would say that town is already dead.We must help the town die.So...okay...town's gonna die.I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though. They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
Those "in the know" are hitting either the Sunoco next to Price Chopper at Exit 45 to use their gas points or the Sunoco at the 7-Eleven at Exit 46 that also has a Timmy Ho's...
If that's the case, the town is already dying and moving the bridge isn't going to change or affect that...
I was thinking more along the lines of why the gas being branded Sunoco makes a difference, given that most Stewart's locations with gas do not have the Sunoco branding (or any branding at all, other than Stewart's). They're even in the process of slowly phasing out the stores that don't sell gas.Gas stations tend to be a little more dependent on more than just locals.Does that make a difference? I'm not really sure why a few have the gas branded Sunoco while most don't.I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though. They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
Necrophilic animal cruelty?We must beat a dead town.If reduced traffic at gas station means the town is dead, I would say that town is already dead.We must help the town die.So...okay...town's gonna die.I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though. They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
Those "in the know" are hitting either the Sunoco next to Price Chopper at Exit 45 to use their gas points or the Sunoco at the 7-Eleven at Exit 46 that also has a Timmy Ho's...
If that's the case, the town is already dying and moving the bridge isn't going to change or affect that...
I'm pretty sure Stewart's makes most of its business off locals, not travelers passing though. They don't even bother to keep much around in the way of hot food outside the workday lunch rush.It's a Stewart's with Sunoco gas, though.
For generations, I've seen map companies (most notably Hagstrom's) post a non-existent westbound loop on-ramp from Veterans Memorial Highway (before it was designated as NY 454), and the Long Island Expressway (back when it was still NY 495). Yet I've never seen this ramp, so I assumed it was something that existed years ago before the L.I.E. went east of Exit 57, and the map companies still hadn't caught on that it wasn't there anymore.(1966 for those who click the link)
So within the hour, I was looking through some papers, which include hand-written notes regarding source material for the previous ramp and service road configurations for Wikipedia articles on the Long Island Expressway. Then I looked up Historic Aerials of the vicinity, and what I found was something I wish I could say was completely bonkers, but instead the most I can say is that those who set it up may have had a few screws loose.
Instead of a fairly reasonable temporary on-ramp, I saw westbound only turning ramps onto the eastbound service road, and northbound Blydenburgh Road, both of which lead to the eastbound on-ramp, which itself ended at a temporary U-turn to the westbound lanes of the expressway.
This has to be seen to be believed.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=40.8047&lon=-73.1728
And I still want to know about the loop ramp between the Vets Highway and Long Island Expressway.
For generations, I've seen map companies (most notably Hagstrom's) post a non-existent westbound loop on-ramp from Veterans Memorial Highway (before it was designated as NY 454), and the Long Island Expressway (back when it was still NY 495). Yet I've never seen this ramp, so I assumed it was something that existed years ago before the L.I.E. went east of Exit 57, and the map companies still hadn't caught on that it wasn't there anymore.The road east of there is clearly not open yet. I imagine they figured it would be easier to provide a ramp on the right than to build a left turn for all the traffic, which they may have anticipated being lower after the road opened.
So within the hour, I was looking through some papers, which include hand-written notes regarding source material for the previous ramp and service road configurations for Wikipedia articles on the Long Island Expressway. Then I looked up Historic Aerials of the vicinity, and what I found was something I wish I could say was completely bonkers, but instead the most I can say is that those who set it up may have had a few screws loose.
Instead of a fairly reasonable temporary on-ramp, I saw westbound only turning ramps onto the eastbound service road, and northbound Blydenburgh Road, both of which lead to the eastbound on-ramp, which itself ended at a temporary U-turn to the westbound lanes of the expressway.
This has to be seen to be believed.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=40.8047&lon=-73.1728
And I still want to know about the loop ramp between the Vets Highway and Long Island Expressway.