AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: New York  (Read 618421 times)

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9162
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: July 20, 2018, 09:16:19 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3750 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.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2774
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:10:02 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3751 on: June 29, 2018, 10:52:42 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.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3834
  • Last Login: July 20, 2018, 11:41:02 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3752 on: June 29, 2018, 11:54:33 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 11:57:35 PM by Rothman »
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2774
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:10:02 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3753 on: June 29, 2018, 11:59:56 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.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Roadgeek Adam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1022
  • Warren CR 14 - Warrensburg, NY

  • Age: 27
  • Location: State Route 324, Tonawanda, New York
  • Last Login: July 20, 2018, 10:19:16 PM
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: New York
« Reply #3754 on: June 30, 2018, 01:06:29 AM »

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.
Logged
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University '17
B.A. History, Montclair State University '15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex County College '13

TML

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13
  • Location: New Hyde Park, NY
  • Last Login: July 19, 2018, 10:11:17 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3755 on: June 30, 2018, 02:00:51 AM »

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).
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2774
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:10:02 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3756 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.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11689
  • Views expressed are my own, not my employer's.

  • Age: 35
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: July 20, 2018, 11:02:15 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3757 on: June 30, 2018, 10:06:45 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).
Logged
~ Steve
http://www.alpsroads.net
I've listened many times, and I still can't figure out what the fox says.

"YOUR NAME IS NAMED AFTER A BUTT"

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5484
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 19
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: July 20, 2018, 10:27:41 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: New York
« Reply #3758 on: June 30, 2018, 10:17:02 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).
« Last Edit: June 30, 2018, 10:46:46 AM by 1 »
Logged
Clinched, plus MA 108

Traveled, plus:
US ⒉⒔50
MA ⒐22.40.99.10⒎10⒏1⒒1⒚127.141.159.286
NH 27,111A
NY 366
GA 42,140
FL A1A
CT 32

Flickr

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3834
  • Last Login: July 20, 2018, 11:41:02 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3759 on: June 30, 2018, 10:43:54 AM »

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

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2774
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:10:02 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3760 on: June 30, 2018, 12:21:01 PM »

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.

« Last Edit: June 30, 2018, 12:23:50 PM by Beltway »
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Buffaboy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1030
  • Make I-90 thru Buffalo 8 lanes NOW!

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Buffalo and Utica, New York
  • Last Login: July 20, 2018, 11:07:04 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3761 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.
Logged
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

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11689
  • Views expressed are my own, not my employer's.

  • Age: 35
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: July 20, 2018, 11:02:15 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3762 on: July 04, 2018, 12:55:53 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 12:58:54 AM by Alps »
Logged
~ Steve
http://www.alpsroads.net
I've listened many times, and I still can't figure out what the fox says.

"YOUR NAME IS NAMED AFTER A BUTT"

cl94

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5309
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Troy, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 01:00:03 AM
    • The Albany Hiker
Re: New York
« Reply #3763 on: July 04, 2018, 10:06:51 AM »

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.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 612
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: July 20, 2018, 07:26:54 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3764 on: July 06, 2018, 12:35:11 AM »

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?
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8398
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: Today at 12:17:54 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3765 on: July 18, 2018, 11:07:33 PM »

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).
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9162
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: July 20, 2018, 09:16:19 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3766 on: July 19, 2018, 02:24:17 PM »

I assume it's to provide easy access to the airport by feeding directly into it.
Logged
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.