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

Beltway

Quote from: Rothman on June 29, 2018, 09:41:07 PM
The idea that this crossing is needed is poppycock.

Really?  The NYSDOT study on the crossings says that there is a 2040 travel demand of 86,000 AADT for the western crossing.  Six lane freeway territory.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)


Rothman

#3751
2040.  How many governors is that far away?

22 years away.  I am sure there were studies 22 years ago that said we would have flying cars by now.

A new crossing will not be built in my lifetime.  That is all there is to it.  And come 2040, when I am in my mid-60s, I will come back to this thread and say, "Neener neener."

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Beltway

Quote from: Rothman on June 29, 2018, 11:54:33 PM
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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Roadgeek Adam

The only hope of a crossing would be a speed ferry crossing for a reasonable price that would have to be heavily subsidized.

This won't happen, but the Port Jefferson and Orient Point ferries are absurdly priced to be of any use.
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University 2015-17
B.A. History, Montclair State University 2013-15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex (County) College 2009-13

TML

I'd say the idea of a Long Island Sound crossing is down but not out.

Based on the timing of proposals, it seems to me that at least one proposal becomes active every generation. I think it is highly likely that within another generation we will have another serious discussion about another proposed LIS crossing, especially if the federal government decides to go ahead with a massive infrastructure plan with public financing (the Sanders model, not the Trump model).

Beltway

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.

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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Alps

Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2018, 07:35:34 AM
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.

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 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).

hotdogPi

#3757
Quote from: Alps on June 30, 2018, 10:06:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2018, 07:35:34 AM
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.

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 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).

A crossing entirely within New York is much shorter than one into Connecticut, unless you're connecting the tip of Long Island (likely as an extension of CT 9).
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

Rothman

Quote from: Beltway on June 29, 2018, 11:59:56 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 29, 2018, 11:54:33 PM
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.
I reserve the right to rant nonetheless.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Beltway

#3759
Quote from: Alps on June 30, 2018, 10:06:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2018, 07:35:34 AM
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.
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 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 NYSDOT report showed about the same travel demand for the western alignment (I-287 extension) as for the central alignment (Bridgeport-Kings Park).  2040 AADTs about 87,000.  My question is how much interest is there in the New England states for an alignment that they would have to help fund and build, presumably thru a CT-NY interstate compact.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Buffaboy

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.
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

Alps

#3761
Quote from: Buffaboy on July 03, 2018, 08:06:54 PM
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.

cl94

Quote from: Alps on July 04, 2018, 12:55:53 AM
Quote from: Buffaboy on July 03, 2018, 08:06:54 PM
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.

Agree. The ROW isn't even wide enough for 4 lanes unless there was a Jersey barrier, and even then it would be tight.
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)

RobbieL2415

What I feel would be better than a N/S sound crossing would be one from Montauk to Narragansett or Montauk-Westerly.  But what do I know?

roadman65

Why does NY 33's freeway (Kensington Expressway) end on the south side of Genessee Street?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Buffalo+Niagara+International+Airport/@42.9316626,-78.7435025,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89d374c8ccbe865d:0xc0e27200bdc16a88!8m2!3d42.9397059!4d-78.7295067
I can see that maybe NYSDOT did not want a five way intersection with Dick Road, but the fact that WB NY 33 leaving the airport requires a left turn and then loops under Genessee is odd.  At least a directional interchange could have been built having no left turn WB, but a ramp departing from the right side.

I am wondering if there ever were plans to extend the Kensington further east and the fact the airport makes any kind of alignment north of the present arterial impossible that it would have run to the south to wherever it was (or could go).
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

vdeane

I assume it's to provide easy access to the airport by feeding directly into it.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

D-Dey65

Quote from: vdeane on June 29, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
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.


Rothman

#3767
I have not found NYC to be perpetual gridlock during the day.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

NoGoodNamesAvailable

Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 24, 2018, 10:39:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 29, 2018, 10:43:34 PM
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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

D-Dey65

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on July 25, 2018, 12:10:23 AM
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.

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on July 25, 2018, 12:10:23 AM
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.

Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on July 25, 2018, 12:10:23 AM
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.


Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on July 25, 2018, 12:10:23 AM
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.

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).
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.

Henry

I, for one, am glad that I've never lived in New York, given how insanely expensive everything is. I probably would've had to find another hobby, like sports or classic TV.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

empirestate

Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 25, 2018, 02:54:06 AM
Also I don't know where you get the idea that there's all this free parking anywhere in the city, let alone Manhattan.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I got that idea from living and working there for a number of years. On-street parking is, indeed, free and open to the public across much of the city, including Manhattan. There is metered parking on the avenues, and in commercial districts around the city, but the residential blocks are not metered. (And in Manhattan, those residential blocks are immediately adjacent to the metered areas along the avenues.)

Indeed, on a Sunday when most of the other parking restrictions and regulations aren't in effect, parking in Manhattan becomes no big deal whatsoever.

Rothman

Have to agree with empirestate.  I have parked for free right on Manhattan on weekends.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

vdeane

Quote from: Rothman on July 24, 2018, 10:53:29 PM
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).

Anyone trying to get from Long Island to New Jersey has it even harder: it's pay the extortionist toll on the Verrazano, deal with congestion approaching the George Washington, or take Manhattan surface streets.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Rothman

Yep, I have hit traffic in NYC, too.  But, perpetual gridlock every day all day?  Nah.
Other cities in the U.S. have worse traffic.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.



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.