News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

New York

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Duke87

You (assuming you approach this logically) want traffic to move both quickly and safely. The problem is, sometimes real world constraints mean you can have fast traffic or safe traffic, but not both. In the modern day, safety is considered more important than speed.

Which is fine, but at the same time it is wrong to assume that slowing traffic down is the key to solving every safety problem. It is also wrong to assume that simply lowering the speed limit will automatically make people drive slower.

In the Connecticut example the problem is that the section of US 6 east of there is a congested 2 lane road with a high accident rate. The proper solution to this problem is to complete the freeway between Manchester and Willmantic that was originally proposed decades ago... unfortunately, the political will to do that simply isn't there, so the state is surrendering to the fact that they will never finish the freeway and working within the constraints of that reality.

Back to New York, you have a similar problem: real solutions are politically untenable because they do not satisfy the emotional need to blame and punish drivers for roads being unsafe. There is a huge turf war in NYC where non-car owners (which in this day and age is a majority of New Yorkers) are fighting vehemently to wrest dominance of streets away from car owners. Any traffic safety campaign is thus inevitably going to end up with that as an ulterior motive.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.


Alps

Quote from: Duke87 on May 16, 2014, 06:54:20 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on May 16, 2014, 11:29:11 AMI 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.
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.

Duke87

Based on your pictures 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.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Mergingtraffic

I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

froggie

I-81 Syracuse has been discussed extensively in the Facebook road groups.  In short, one of the "Viaduct" alternatives (except V-5) is what will likely happen, though there are a number of local officials and neighborhood groups pushing for one of the street-level alternatives.

D-Dey65

Quote from: doofy103 on May 22, 2014, 03:05:03 PM
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/alternatives

I-81 teardown...but not really.  Thoughts?
Absolutely NO to the street-level alternatives!!

vdeane

The AADT for I-81 in that area is about 90,000.  That's more than double the most heavily traveled arterial (West St near I-690) and dwarfs I-481.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Mergingtraffic

#407
Quote from: Duke87 on May 20, 2014, 11:52:10 PM
Based on your pictures 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.

I was on the Belt EB this past weekend and all the NFBC that was there in the latest Google Street View are now gone.  So between Aug or Sept 2013 and now they've been replaced except for the NY-878 trio of signs.







I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

vdeane

In other news: Cuomo announced plans to have NYSDOT's Main Office, Region 1, and NYSTA to share the same building.

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/213618/dot-and-thruway-authority-to-share-new-albany-building/
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Duke87

Can Cuomo make NYSDOT and NYSTA share the same sets of exit numbers? :pan:


In other news, I was in Syracuse last week for work and was able to talk with a couple colleagues who live in that area about I-81. The assesment I got from both of them was "most people in this area would rather the highway be left as is, tearing it down would be a disaster for businesses downtown because then people won't be able to get there, and the state doesn't have the money to build a tunnel to replace it". When I pressed about the concept of the downtown environment possibly being improved by removing the freeway, they said "this is Syracuse, the potential for downtown to be some happening cosmopolitan place doesn't exist with or without I-81".

I think this conversation revealed an interesting point: the vast majority of people clamoring for I-81 in Syracuse to be torn down are armchair urbanists who don't live anywhere near Syracuse and have probably never been there. The opinion you get from reading blogs and stuff on the matter is completely out of touch with the opinions of locals in the area.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

froggie

Duke:  while that may be true, some of the loudest voices in support of the teardown are those that live south of downtown or near SU...presumably people more familiar with the city than an "armchair urbanist".

I disagree with the assertion that it'd be a disaster because 'people won't be able to get there'.  For starters, even the teardown options streamline and improve access to downtown to/from the north.  Second, given where the on/off ramps to/from 81 south are to get to downtown, the teardown option is no different in terms of the number of traffic signals going to/from the south.  Drivers coming up 81 from the south exit at Adams St today to get to downtown.  And it'll be the exact same scenario under the teardown option.

From a traffic perspective, the teardown/no-teardown question is really more about the 50-some-thousand vehicles a day that are passing through downtown on I-81 but not stopping downtown.

Duke87

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. The argument that "people wouldn't be able to get there" claims that people would want to avoid downtown because it would be a mess of traffic congestion without I-81, not that there would be a physical lack of access.

And yes, I will concede that the people I was talking to are ordinary locals, not people who have any particular expertise on traffic engineering or urban planning. I am not trying to use them as supporting witnesses to the keep the freeway cause. My point is that counter to the impression you get reading blogs about it that smother the idea with praise, tearing down the freeway is NOT what a majority of the people of Syracuse want.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Jim

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?
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: https://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, skiing, weather, sports)

froggie

QuoteYou 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".

Not just SU.  The neighborhoods immediately south of downtown (NOT at SU) are also very vocal in their support of a teardown.

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.

QuoteAs 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.

There would also be more lanes passing through those signals under a teardown scenario, so it balances out at least partially.

QuoteI 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?

Yes, I-81 would be rerouted onto the existing I-481, with the interchanges on each end modified to accommodate the change.  The issue here is that there's relatively little I-81 traffic that is actually passing through the entire area (roughly 5400 vpd).  The concern (echoed in Duke's comments) is that traffic passing through downtown (the majority of I-81 traffic on the viaduct) wouldn't detour over to 481/690 but instead would clog up the proposed boulevard.

vdeane

The trouble is, parts of I-481 are congested now.  The traffic that would be carried on the portion between NY 5 and the Thruway would rival the recently-widened section of the Thruway between exits 23 and 24.

Plus, who's gonna get all the trucks heading to western NY to divert a few miles?  The ones coming from I-390 already cut across NY 63 despite all the DOT signs telling them not to.

Also, for those wondering where my traffic info comes from: http://gis.dot.ny.gov/tdv/

By this time on Thursday, I'll be able to tell you in way too many words where those numbers come from.

Quote from: Duke87 on June 01, 2014, 09:12:24 PM
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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Duke87

Quote from: froggie on June 02, 2014, 01:50:34 PM
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.

Yes, but don't the opinions of people in adjacent towns also matter here? They are essentially part of the same community. The sphere of people impacted does not end at the arbitrary location of the city line. I mean, it's the state's highway, not Syracuse's.

Of course, the way this breaks down is plenty predictable: people who live near the viaduct see it as a blight and want it gone. People who live in the area but not near the viaduct see it as a useful road and want it to stay.

In other words, it's good ol' NIMBYism at work. Fancy that.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Alps

Onondaga County ends "Parkway Sundays" - similar to Memorial Drive in Boston and many other jurisdictions that close off a road every Sunday to let people enjoy it on foot.

connroadgeek

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.

shadyjay

Quote from: connroadgeek on July 04, 2014, 09:27:04 PM
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.

NYSTA operates and maintains the Thruway, which pre-dated the interstate system.  I believe they also operate the Canal system.  NYSDOT operates and maintains non-thruway roads within New York State (everything outside of the 5 boroughs).  NYCDOT takes care of all roads in the boroughs, outside of the New England Thruway portion of I-95 (mainline Thruway "ends" at the Bronx/Westchester line. 

I don't believe there was ever a "Connecticut Turnpike Authority", back when it was a toll road.  Perhaps if it had, it would be a much different road than it is today, especially if tolls collected went into the turnpike and not into a general fund.  In NY, Thruway tolls are kept in the Thruway system.  Not to mention same with other agencies/tolls, including the MTA, the NYSBA, PA, etc. 

Pete from Boston


Quote from: connroadgeek on July 04, 2014, 09:27:04 PM
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.

Without touching the NYCDOT question, the Thruway was probably created, like a lot of toll agencies, as an Independent Authority so it could control its own finances (issue its own bonds, maintain its own credit rating, and so forth), and presumably act independently in other ways.  In Massachusetts the Turnpike Authority was finally folded into the state highway department, but most states seem to keep them independent.  New York, for one, has used the NYSTA's firm revenue stream to "sell" ancillary highways to it, helping to balance the comparably shakier state budget.

Alps

*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.

Buffaboy


Quote from: Alps on July 05, 2014, 02:24:15 AM
*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.

I once read during the era of Robert Moses he was either in charge or created many state government corporations. The problem with consolidation though is employees of these groups can be put out of work right?


What's not to like about highways and bridges, intersections and interchanges, rails and planes?

My Wikipedia county SVG maps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Buffaboy

cpzilliacus

N.Y. Times: Falling for the Photo in Staten Island

Quote"O.K. You sure you want to do this? Can you use this? Let me give you some background. You follow?"

QuoteActually, given the tale that Barton Silverman was about to tell, I most definitely would not follow.

QuoteHe 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.

QuoteAnd almost fall off the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge in the process.

QuoteHe was 19 and living in Bensonhurst with his mother, Stella. An employment agency's classified ad for a lab assistant caught his attention.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cl94

Quote from: Alps on July 05, 2014, 02:24:15 AM
*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.

I-84 went back to NYSDOT when the Niagara Thruway went toll-free, as the tolls in Buffalo paid for maintenance. I'll add the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), which maintains routes in state parks and NY 431, among other roads.

That being said, there are too many authorities. Buffalo and the Niagara Region have two separate international bridge authorities for a total of 4 bridges spaced less than 50 miles apart that should probably merge. I'd be for merging NYSDOT and NYSTA, similar to how MassHighway and the Turnpike Authority merged a few years back. Cut out the upper-level people, reduce/remove tolls at key points (i.e. traffic between Buffalo and Rochester) to reduce loads on the state highway system, and you'd probably still save money. Plus, a NYSDOT takeover might stop the Clearview. Everybody wins, both ordinary citizens and roadgeeks alike!
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

vdeane

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...
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.



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