NYC Roads

[vdeane]

To be fair, the construction on NJ 495 is no doubt making traffic worse than it already is.  But yeah, I would NOT want to live somewhere with that kind of congestion!

[MikeCL]

To be fair, the construction on NJ 495 is no doubt making traffic worse than it already is.  But yeah, I would NOT want to live somewhere with that kind of congestion!

I don't get it... 495 was worn down to the steel rebar in some areas how could they let it get that bad??

[seicer]

Patch, patch, patch. To do any sort of deck overhaul would have been just as horrendous as it is now, and if you can get by for decades with just patching, why not?

[empirestate]

Any construction set up on the Sheridan?  If so where abouts? Are they going north to south?

Nobody has any pics or updates on the Sheridan?  Kinda surprised with all the talk around here. 

I don't think anything much is happening yet.

Yeah, I've used it a couple times recently. Nary a peep.

When is the Harlem River Drive going to be completed?

Probably right after the last sidewalk shed in the city comes down.

Officially, I could never live in NYC and have to deal with that nightmare. Cool to see, but a beast to deal with. I'll take upstate, thank you very much!

Well, if you lived IN the city, you wouldn't have to deal with it; only those who drive in or out do. (But you'd be constantly bitching about the subway, so there's that.)

And there's something about living, and having to drive, in the immediate suburbs that's almost more frustrating than driving in the city proper: when you realize you've spent all that money and moved that much farther from the action, yet you haven't gotten any significant relief from crowding and congestion. (And if you think drivers are bad inside NYC, wait till you get 'em outside of the city, where they have room to really do some damage.)

[D-Dey65]

New topic; I found an interesting sign at the Queens-Midtown Tunnel while doing research on the routes of Command Bus Company.


https://bus.nycsubway.org/perl/show?571


The "STOP: Do Not Enter" light isn't as much of a curiosity as the standard "Do Not Enter" sign beneath it, which looks interchangeable. Does anybody know what the other message on the sign is?

[Alps]

New topic; I found an interesting sign at the Queens-Midtown Tunnel while doing research on the routes of Command Bus Company.


https://bus.nycsubway.org/perl/show?571


The "STOP: Do Not Enter" light isn't as much of a curiosity as the standard "Do Not Enter" sign beneath it, which looks interchangeable. Does anybody know what the other message on the sign is?

Probably QMT with an arrow, for 2-way traffic in a single tube.

[ixnay]

New topic; I found an interesting sign at the Queens-Midtown Tunnel while doing research on the routes of Command Bus Company.


https://bus.nycsubway.org/perl/show?571


The "STOP: Do Not Enter" light isn't as much of a curiosity as the standard "Do Not Enter" sign beneath it, which looks interchangeable. Does anybody know what the other message on the sign is?

Probably QMT with an arrow, for 2-way traffic in a single tube.

ixnay

[Mergingtraffic]

Get it while you can before I-895 becomes part of folklore.

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

New topic; I found an interesting sign at the Queens-Midtown Tunnel while doing research on the routes of Command Bus Company.


https://bus.nycsubway.org/perl/show?571


The "STOP: Do Not Enter" light isn't as much of a curiosity as the standard "Do Not Enter" sign beneath it, which looks interchangeable. Does anybody know what the other message on the sign is?

Probably QMT with an arrow, for 2-way traffic in a single tube.

Looks like it on streetview. Those signs are still there. The traffic light is mostly still there too, except for the newer 12 inch section on bottom.

[D-Dey65]

I wish Streetview wasn't giving me so much trouble zooming down on that area right now.


Another question; where are the maps of the proposed reconstruction of Bruckner Expressway near Pelham and Hutchinson River Parkways that was mentioned earlier?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/40°51'10.3%22N+73°49'37.7%22W/@40.8597138,-73.8289268,700m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.852871!4d-73.827138?hl=en

Because I was thinking an extension of Baychester Avenue south from Co-Op City to the Pelham Bay Park subway station with no connection to either of these roads might be a way to keep local traffic away from the expressway.

[Mergingtraffic]

Was in Queens today and noticed the button copy for the GCP by 114th street and ramps are gone as are the button copy on 96 Rd Ave and Jewel Ave.

A new I-278 RFK 1 1/4 Miles advance BGS went up on the FDR Drive NB.

This one hangs on by JFK



I-678 still two lanes through the Kew Gardens interchange but progress seems to be happening there.

[Alias the J]

The two new express lanes at the OBX toll booth almost look ready.

[storm2k]

So I've seen on GSV that the FDR has gotten a lot of new signage, but I'm guessing most of the contracts have been in kind replacements just with updated retroflective signs, like this one which is clearly a new sign, but still keeps the old school center aligned exit tab? There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason along the FDR for which way the tabs are aligned. Would have thought they would take the time for these updates to ensure that the exit tabs are either right or left aligned per updated requirements, like they did further north on the Harlem River Dr segment north of the Triboro.

[Mergingtraffic]

So I've seen on GSV that the FDR has gotten a lot of new signage, but I'm guessing most of the contracts have been in kind replacements just with updated retroflective signs, like this one which is clearly a new sign, but still keeps the old school center aligned exit tab? There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason along the FDR for which way the tabs are aligned. Would have thought they would take the time for these updates to ensure that the exit tabs are either right or left aligned per updated requirements, like they did further north on the Harlem River Dr segment north of the Triboro.

I think the sign you linked is a NYC install hence the horrible bubble shield.

Also I think Staten Island has only two button copy signs left, the BAY ST sign coming off the VNB, which isn't even served by traffic anymore with the new AET layout and this one on Lafferts Lane.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6150116,-74.1591709,3a,75y,284.29h,104.59t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sU4nemSwSUe15DTdCjaNXoA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DU4nemSwSUe15DTdCjaNXoA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D175.54985%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

If somebody knows for sure let us know.

[mrsman]

Do people here have any thoughts on the congestion pricing proposals?

I'm hopefully optimistic that a tolling system can be implemented that would not be too punitive.  It doesn't seem like there is that much information on pricing, hours, or even the exact boundaries of what is proposed.  (Perhaps that is by design.)

Anyway, I would hope that whatever is implemented  should do the following:

Two-way tolls on Verrazano,

The tolls on Henry Hudson Bridge and the tolls to the Rockaways should be really cheap to avoid people bypassing the tolls, say $1.50 for cars with EZ-Pass and scalable for buses and trucks and toll by plate.

THe tolls on Verrazano, Triboro, Whitestone, and Throgs Neck, should also be significantly reduced.  IMO something like $5 EZ-Pass for cars would be fair.  If possible, the toll on the Triboro for Bronx-Manhattan traffic should match the HHB, and the tolls for Bronx-Queens and Manhattan-Queens should match the Whitestone tolls.

Any toll paid on the Lincoln, Holland, Midtown, or Battery tunnel should be credited toward the congestion charge.

Any toll paid on the HHB or Triboro should be credited toward the congestion charge, if you then cross the zone within 2 hours.

THe congestion charge should be free between 12 midnight and 5 am, and the charge should change with time of day, based on traffic conditions.  An absolute maximum of $15, even at the busiest times and a daytime minimum of $5 would be nice.

All must pay the charge.  There should be no carveouts based on income or the need to go to a doctor.

The boundary should be adjusted to allow for free travel from the Brooklyn Bridge to the FDR Drive, so long as you don't exit before 60th street, and to allow for traffic on the Upper East Side free travel to/from the Queensboro Bridge at all times.

Travel within the zone should be free, unless you cross a boundary.  Travel on the FDR drive with the zone (like say from 42nd to Grand St) should also be free.


I understand the need for funding for transporation, and a proper system can be designed to discourage pass-through traffic in Manhattan, but it should be done with fairness in mind. 

If anyone has other ideas or some knowledge as to more specifics of the plans, please comment.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

Two-way tolls on Verrazano

Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.

Any toll paid on the Lincoln, Holland, Midtown, or Battery tunnel should be credited toward the congestion charge

Sounds fair, but it would cripple the program from a revenue perspective. PANYNJ isn't going to share any money with any other agency. Keep in mind the toll has almost doubled over the past 10 years to fund the agency's more money-losing ventures like PATH and the new WTC.

[1995hoo]

Two-way tolls on Verrazano

Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.

....

Why? There was two-way tolling on the Verrazano for many years until Staten Island residents' protests about air pollution caused by backed-up traffic at the Brooklyn-bound tolls convinced the authorities to make it a one-way toll. (This is why you had to slow down to pass through unused tollbooths heading to Brooklyn–they left the booths in place.) Why would Congress have any say in whether they could reinstate two-way tolls?

Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano"  is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

Two-way tolls on Verrazano

Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.

....

Why? There was two-way tolling on the Verrazano for many years until Staten Island residents' protests about air pollution caused by backed-up traffic at the Brooklyn-bound tolls convinced the authorities to make it a one-way toll. (This is why you had to slow down to pass through unused tollbooths heading to Brooklyn–they left the booths in place.) Why would Congress have any say in whether they could reinstate two-way tolls?

Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano"  is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)

The switch to one-way tolling on the Verrazano was opposed by local authorities and only came about due to an act of Congress.

[1995hoo]

Thanks. Obviously I didn't know that.

[vdeane]

Two-way tolls on Verrazano

Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.

....

Why? There was two-way tolling on the Verrazano for many years until Staten Island residents' protests about air pollution caused by backed-up traffic at the Brooklyn-bound tolls convinced the authorities to make it a one-way toll. (This is why you had to slow down to pass through unused tollbooths heading to Brooklyn–they left the booths in place.) Why would Congress have any say in whether they could reinstate two-way tolls?

Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano"  is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)

The switch to one-way tolling on the Verrazano was opposed by local authorities and only came about due to an act of Congress.

How is Congress butting in to something so hyper-local even constitutional?

[1995hoo]

Two-way tolls on Verrazano

Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.

....

Why? There was two-way tolling on the Verrazano for many years until Staten Island residents' protests about air pollution caused by backed-up traffic at the Brooklyn-bound tolls convinced the authorities to make it a one-way toll. (This is why you had to slow down to pass through unused tollbooths heading to Brooklyn–they left the booths in place.) Why would Congress have any say in whether they could reinstate two-way tolls?

Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano"  is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)

The switch to one-way tolling on the Verrazano was opposed by local authorities and only came about due to an act of Congress.

How is Congress butting in to something so hyper-local even constitutional?

Presumably they found it affects interstate commerce (which it probably does). The Commerce Clause was found to apply in the famous Heart of Atlanta Motel case involving a single-location non-chain motel that did not allow black guests, federal law about integration notwithstanding. The motel owner argued that Congress had no authority to require his business to rent rooms to blacks, but the federal courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) disagreed and found that motel accommodations clearly relate to interstate commerce.

Given that precedent, I think it's clear that tolling on the Verrazzano Bridge is far more obviously connected to interstate commerce than a single-location motel in Georgia.

There are other bases Congress could use to regulate that sort of thing, but interstate commerce is the most frequent and the most obvious.

[vdeane]

Two-way tolls on Verrazano

Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.

....

Why? There was two-way tolling on the Verrazano for many years until Staten Island residents' protests about air pollution caused by backed-up traffic at the Brooklyn-bound tolls convinced the authorities to make it a one-way toll. (This is why you had to slow down to pass through unused tollbooths heading to Brooklyn–they left the booths in place.) Why would Congress have any say in whether they could reinstate two-way tolls?

Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano"  is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)

The switch to one-way tolling on the Verrazano was opposed by local authorities and only came about due to an act of Congress.

How is Congress butting in to something so hyper-local even constitutional?

Presumably they found it affects interstate commerce (which it probably does). The Commerce Clause was found to apply in the famous Heart of Atlanta Motel case involving a single-location non-chain motel that did not allow black guests, federal law about integration notwithstanding. The motel owner argued that Congress had no authority to require his business to rent rooms to blacks, but the federal courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) disagreed and found that motel accommodations clearly relate to interstate commerce.

Given that precedent, I think it's clear that tolling on the Verrazzano Bridge is far more obviously connected to interstate commerce than a single-location motel in Georgia.

There are other bases Congress could use to regulate that sort of thing, but interstate commerce is the most frequent and the most obvious.

I would think the law in the hotel case would have applied to all hotels, not just the one.  And if Congress wants to look at interstate commerce implications of tolling, then they can look at all the traffic diverting into Manhattan to avoid the sky high Verrazzano (incidentally, someone needs to tell Google of the correct spelling) tolls.  Air quality in Staten Island, however, does not strike me as being remotely related to interstate commerce, so if anything, this law is hindering it and always has.

[ixnay]

Two-way tolls on Verrazano

Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.

....

Why? There was two-way tolling on the Verrazano for many years until Staten Island residents' protests about air pollution caused by backed-up traffic at the Brooklyn-bound tolls convinced the authorities to make it a one-way toll. (This is why you had to slow down to pass through unused tollbooths heading to Brooklyn–they left the booths in place.) Why would Congress have any say in whether they could reinstate two-way tolls?

Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano"  is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)

The switch to one-way tolling on the Verrazano was opposed by local authorities and only came about due to an act of Congress.

How is Congress butting in to something so hyper-local even constitutional?

Presumably they found it affects interstate commerce (which it probably does). The Commerce Clause was found to apply in the famous Heart of Atlanta Motel case involving a single-location non-chain motel that did not allow black guests, federal law about integration notwithstanding. The motel owner argued that Congress had no authority to require his business to rent rooms to blacks, but the federal courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) disagreed and found that motel accommodations clearly relate to interstate commerce.

Given that precedent, I think it's clear that tolling on the Verrazzano Bridge is far more obviously connected to interstate commerce than a single-location motel in Georgia.

There are other bases Congress could use to regulate that sort of thing, but interstate commerce is the most frequent and the most obvious.

I would think the law in the hotel case would have applied to all hotels, not just the one.  And if Congress wants to look at interstate commerce implications of tolling, then they can look at all the traffic diverting into Manhattan to avoid the sky high Verrazzano (incidentally, someone needs to tell Google of the correct spelling) tolls.  Air quality in Staten Island, however, does not strike me as being remotely related to interstate commerce, so if anything, this law is hindering it and always has.

Do any metro NYC locals call it the VZB?   As for the correct spelling (which I first became aware of via a monument abutting, of all things, the boardwalk in Rehoboth Beach, DE a few years ago), now that we know Giovanni had double z's, shall we call this somewhat famous bridge "the Razz", since you can't spell Verrazzano without "razz"?   Or maybe the Sleepy Span since its name has multiple z's? 

ixnay

[SignBridge]

Mostly we just call it the Verrazzano Bridge.........

[1995hoo]

Two-way tolls on Verrazano

Totally reasonable, but it would require authorization from Congress.

....

Why? There was two-way tolling on the Verrazano for many years until Staten Island residents' protests about air pollution caused by backed-up traffic at the Brooklyn-bound tolls convinced the authorities to make it a one-way toll. (This is why you had to slow down to pass through unused tollbooths heading to Brooklyn–they left the booths in place.) Why would Congress have any say in whether they could reinstate two-way tolls?

Given that the concern that led to one-way tolling is now irrelevant, reinstating two-way tolls might be a good idea and might reduce the instances of people driving through the city to avoid the very steep Verrazzano toll. ("Verrazzano"  is the new spelling because that's how the explorer spelled it and the state finally corrected their misspelling last year.)

The switch to one-way tolling on the Verrazano was opposed by local authorities and only came about due to an act of Congress.

How is Congress butting in to something so hyper-local even constitutional?

Presumably they found it affects interstate commerce (which it probably does). The Commerce Clause was found to apply in the famous Heart of Atlanta Motel case involving a single-location non-chain motel that did not allow black guests, federal law about integration notwithstanding. The motel owner argued that Congress had no authority to require his business to rent rooms to blacks, but the federal courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) disagreed and found that motel accommodations clearly relate to interstate commerce.

Given that precedent, I think it's clear that tolling on the Verrazzano Bridge is far more obviously connected to interstate commerce than a single-location motel in Georgia.

There are other bases Congress could use to regulate that sort of thing, but interstate commerce is the most frequent and the most obvious.

I would think the law in the hotel case would have applied to all hotels, not just the one.  And if Congress wants to look at interstate commerce implications of tolling, then they can look at all the traffic diverting into Manhattan to avoid the sky high Verrazzano (incidentally, someone needs to tell Google of the correct spelling) tolls.  Air quality in Staten Island, however, does not strike me as being remotely related to interstate commerce, so if anything, this law is hindering it and always has.

The law in the motel case did apply to all hotels. It was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or 1965 (I forget the year). The motel owner argued that because his motel only had one location well inside Georgia, the Civil Rights Act couldn't apply to him.

But the Commerce Clause is a LOT broader than you probably think it is. Note also that I don't know whether Congress cited the Commerce Clause in the Verrazano situation. I speculated on that because it's an obvious one, but there are other bases they can use. A common one is to tie something to highway funds–if the state doesn't do a certain thing, the state will lose some portion (or all) of its federal highway funding. The courts have found that to be permissible as long as what Congress demands the state do is not otherwise unconstitutional. For example, Congress cannot demand that a state declare Judaism to be the state religion because that would violate the First Amendment. But Congress can demand that a state not post any speed limit higher than 55 mph because nothing in the Constitution applies there, and the Tenth Amendment doesn't dictate otherwise because the state does not have a right to federal highway funds.