From the Albany Business Review, there is study coming soon to transform I-787 north of Exit 2 (all the way to NY 7, a/k/a Alt 7) as a high speed boulevard.
http://m.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2014/08/25/a-new-interstate-787-in-albany-study-will-examine.html?ana=twt&r=full (http://m.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2014/08/25/a-new-interstate-787-in-albany-study-will-examine.html?ana=twt&r=full)
This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.
I sure as hell hope they don't completely eliminate a limited-access option. The stretch north of I-90 bypasses congested areas of I-87 and I-90 and the remainder is the only road to downtown and the train station that isn't 2 lanes and/or hopelessly clogged. The bigger issue here is that Albany was first laid out 400 years ago and cannot handle the large amount of traffic that the state capitol creates. The rough terrain doesn't help matters. I'd be for putting it in a trench and capping it over, but remember that the ground under current I-787 is just above sea level and there's a set of railroad tracks under/in the median of I-787. Do we need the uncompleted expressways blocking stuff up? No. Are the bridge to nowhere and its access roads overbuilt? Without a doubt. But we'd need to accommodate the 100,000 cars using I-787 on any given day in some fashion and a boulevard can't do that. The West Side Highway has lower traffic counts and that's 6+ lanes and operating near LOS F most of the day.
Quote from: Zeffy on August 25, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.
29's bad enough as it is; rush-hour traffic around the signalized intersections backs up horribly (it can take over 15 minutes to get to 29 from 579). I wish they'd made it completely limited-access, not the other way around.
Quote from: Dougtone on August 25, 2014, 05:07:16 PM
From the Albany Business Review, there is study coming soon to transform I-787 north of Exit 2 (all the way to NY 7, a/k/a Alt 7) as a high speed boulevard.
http://m.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2014/08/25/a-new-interstate-787-in-albany-study-will-examine.html?ana=twt&r=full (http://m.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2014/08/25/a-new-interstate-787-in-albany-study-will-examine.html?ana=twt&r=full)
When I was little, there was no Interstate 787. NY 32 (Pearl Street) and Broadway were the main north-south roads in and out of downtown Albany. Broadway was constructed of Belgian block. The State Street loop in front of the Delaware & Hudson Railway station (now the University of the State of New York headquarters) existed, also Belgian block. Both city streets were two lanes, although Broadway was wide. It took forever to get to Menands, Watervliet, Cohoes and Troy. The trip is now a matter of minutes. Removing Interstate 787 in some fashion has been ongoing claptrap for 30+years.
"Those are the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind." Dr. Frodrick Frankenstein from the Mel Brooks film, "Young Frankenstein"
Quote from: cl94 on August 25, 2014, 05:39:51 PM
I sure as hell hope they don't completely eliminate a limited-access option. The stretch north of I-90 bypasses congested areas of I-87 and I-90 and the remainder is the only road to downtown and the train station that isn't 2 lanes and/or hopelessly clogged. The bigger issue here is that Albany was first laid out 400 years ago and cannot handle the large amount of traffic that the state capitol creates. The rough terrain doesn't help matters. I'd be for putting it in a trench and capping it over, but remember that the ground under current I-787 is just above sea level and there's a set of railroad tracks under/in the median of I-787. Do we need the uncompleted expressways blocking stuff up? No. Are the bridge to nowhere and its access roads overbuilt? Without a doubt. But we'd need to accommodate the 100,000 cars using I-787 on any given day in some fashion and a boulevard can't do that. The West Side Highway has lower traffic counts and that's 6+ lanes and operating near LOS F most of the day.
Demolishing I-787 seems nonsensical. I can see why they would do it with CT 34 in New Haven, since that one ends just after it begins, meaning that it serves almost no purpose. I-787 is not a highway to nowhere, and I would expect that it would be bad for traffic to demolish it.
Quote from: Zeffy on August 25, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.
I'd guess that it would become NY 787. Not to be confused with NY 878, which was also downgraded from an interstate.
Quote from: dgolub on August 25, 2014, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 25, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.
I'd guess that it would become NY 787. Not to be confused with NY 878, which was also downgraded from an interstate.
Except one direction is still I-878 (as far as the feds are concerned)
You'd have better results trying to turn the Northway into a boulevard. Believe it or not, it has less problems than I-787 does. I-787's congestion puts NYC to shame, which is really quite surprising, as it doesn't have any bad merges like the Northway does; the heaviest merge is from I-90, but those lanes continue for a ways, so there's no need for traffic to move over and disrupt the flow...
Quote from: dgolub on August 25, 2014, 06:56:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 25, 2014, 05:39:51 PM
I sure as hell hope they don't completely eliminate a limited-access option. The stretch north of I-90 bypasses congested areas of I-87 and I-90 and the remainder is the only road to downtown and the train station that isn't 2 lanes and/or hopelessly clogged. The bigger issue here is that Albany was first laid out 400 years ago and cannot handle the large amount of traffic that the state capitol creates. The rough terrain doesn't help matters. I'd be for putting it in a trench and capping it over, but remember that the ground under current I-787 is just above sea level and there's a set of railroad tracks under/in the median of I-787. Do we need the uncompleted expressways blocking stuff up? No. Are the bridge to nowhere and its access roads overbuilt? Without a doubt. But we'd need to accommodate the 100,000 cars using I-787 on any given day in some fashion and a boulevard can't do that. The West Side Highway has lower traffic counts and that's 6+ lanes and operating near LOS F most of the day.
Demolishing I-787 seems nonsensical. I can see why they would do it with CT 34 in New Haven, since that one ends just after it begins, meaning that it serves almost no purpose. I-787 is not a highway to nowhere, and I would expect that it would be bad for traffic to demolish it.
If you give an inch, they'll take a mile, and that's exactly what they're doing. I wouldn't be surprised if the end goal of these groups is to eliminate freeways entirely.
Quote from: dgolub on August 25, 2014, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 25, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.
I'd guess that it would become NY 787. Not to be confused with NY 878, which was also downgraded from an interstate.
Or NY 747, a new route serving Stewart Airport.
Quote from: vdeane on August 25, 2014, 09:34:54 PM
You'd have better results trying to turn the Northway into a boulevard. Believe it or not, it has less problems than I-787 does. I-787's congestion puts NYC to shame, which is really quite surprising, as it doesn't have any bad merges like the Northway does; the heaviest merge is from I-90, but those lanes continue for a ways, so there's no need for traffic to move over and disrupt the flow...
Quote from: dgolub on August 25, 2014, 06:56:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 25, 2014, 05:39:51 PM
I sure as hell hope they don't completely eliminate a limited-access option. The stretch north of I-90 bypasses congested areas of I-87 and I-90 and the remainder is the only road to downtown and the train station that isn't 2 lanes and/or hopelessly clogged. The bigger issue here is that Albany was first laid out 400 years ago and cannot handle the large amount of traffic that the state capitol creates. The rough terrain doesn't help matters. I'd be for putting it in a trench and capping it over, but remember that the ground under current I-787 is just above sea level and there's a set of railroad tracks under/in the median of I-787. Do we need the uncompleted expressways blocking stuff up? No. Are the bridge to nowhere and its access roads overbuilt? Without a doubt. But we'd need to accommodate the 100,000 cars using I-787 on any given day in some fashion and a boulevard can't do that. The West Side Highway has lower traffic counts and that's 6+ lanes and operating near LOS F most of the day.
Demolishing I-787 seems nonsensical. I can see why they would do it with CT 34 in New Haven, since that one ends just after it begins, meaning that it serves almost no purpose. I-787 is not a highway to nowhere, and I would expect that it would be bad for traffic to demolish it.
If you give an inch, they'll take a mile, and that's exactly what they're doing. I wouldn't be surprised if the end goal of these groups is to eliminate freeways entirely.
Quote from: dgolub on August 25, 2014, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 25, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.
I'd guess that it would become NY 787. Not to be confused with NY 878, which was also downgraded from an interstate.
Or NY 747, a new route serving Stewart Airport.
The biggest problem with I-787 is the concentration of traffic. Its numbers might not look like much, but most of that volume is over two short periods of time: one in each rush hour. Hit it at those times and the road is hell. Interchange spacing doesn't help matters, as the southernmost exits are closely spaced for such a small city and that's with some braiding of ramps. Even outside of that time, there's more than enough traffic to warrant a limited-access highway, especially for the suburbs. I've done the Albany-Cohoes trip on NY 32. What takes 5 minutes on I-787 takes over 20, and that's with the vast majority of traffic using I-787. I can't imagine how bad it would be without a limited-access alternative.
Quote from: cl94 on August 25, 2014, 09:34:08 PM
Quote from: dgolub on August 25, 2014, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 25, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.
I'd guess that it would become NY 787. Not to be confused with NY 878, which was also downgraded from an interstate.
Except one direction is still I-878 (as far as the feds are concerned)
Yes, but it's signed as NY 878 and listed as such in state documents.
I-787 is a great bypass route for people who don't like paying the tolls at the I-90/I-87 interchange (atleast my family always uses I-787 for this reason. :D) If they ever removed it, it would be hell to get through Albany. The thing is, there isn't much to do to change it's routing since so many things are already built around it. I-91 through Springfield and Hartford has a similar situation.
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 26, 2014, 07:15:13 PM
I-787 is a great bypass route for people who don't like paying the tolls at the I-90/I-87 interchange (atleast my family always uses I-787 for this reason. :D) If they ever removed it, it would be hell to get through Albany. The thing is, there isn't much to do to change it's routing since so many things are already built around it. I-91 through Springfield and Hartford has a similar situation.
You could bury it or elevate it even more. Can't relocate it, as much of it was built on an old railroad ROW and there's development from 400 years ago. Both would improve river access, but neither would be remotely inexpensive. A tunnel would have to keep out the Hudson River and a bridge would worsen the "beautiful view" of factories in Troy and Rensselaer.
A new editorial/blogpost: What if tearing down I-787 could actually improve traffic? (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2016/02/01/what-if-tearing-down-i-787-could-actually-improve)
Has links to Albany highway plan history, much of it from Chris Jordan's Capital Highways (http://www.capitalhighways.8m.com/index.html) site.
Quote from: kurumi on February 02, 2016, 12:08:10 AM
A new editorial/blogpost: What if tearing down I-787 could actually improve traffic? (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2016/02/01/what-if-tearing-down-i-787-could-actually-improve)
Has links to Albany highway plan history, much of it from Chris Jordan's Capital Highways (http://www.capitalhighways.8m.com/index.html) site.
Quote787 is part of a network that (thankfully) wasn't finished
Yeah, I don't think so. Your vehement anti-highway sentiment is showing, Sandy Johnston. The John Norquist "solution" is a total disaster waiting to happen.
He does have two valid points: first, the lack of access points does contribute to the traffic problem. Second, the Plaza, circle interchange, and Dunn Bridge are overbuilt eyesores. Even if 787 is retained, these are issues that need to be addressed.
Quote from: froggie on February 02, 2016, 08:18:47 AM
He does have two valid points: first, the lack of access points does contribute to the traffic problem. Second, the Plaza, circle interchange, and Dunn Bridge are overbuilt eyesores. Even if 787 is retained, these are issues that need to be addressed.
It's overbuilt, but there's no easy way to rectify any of it. Even a rebuilt Bridge to Nowhere would have to be at a similar height for clearance. Get rid of the Arterial and go from there. The circle stack can come down piece by piece - not like traffic to/from the west can't be detoured. The bridge needs to stay in some fashion and a new bridge will have similar issues on the Rensselaer side, as there's no space to bring it down to sea level.
Tear down I-787 and you end up with solid gridlock during rush hours and events (e.g., Tulipfest and July 4th). Adding more access points to a boulevard (i.e., traffic lights) would just exacerbate the problem. It's a ridiculous idea.
That said, I personally don't mind the South Mall, but the Dunn Memorial Bridge is pretty ridiculous. Like others have said, though, not sure what exactly can be done about that now that wouldn't be viewed as a waste of money. Why spend gazillions tearing down and replacing a bridge when the current bridge at least works given how dinky Rensselaer is (a city of less than 10,000 people...).
Quote from: vdeane on August 25, 2014, 09:34:54 PM
You'd have better results trying to turn the Northway into a boulevard. Believe it or not, it has less problems than I-787 does. I-787's congestion puts NYC to shame, which is really quite surprising, as it doesn't have any bad merges like the Northway does; the heaviest merge is from I-90, but those lanes continue for a ways, so there's no need for traffic to move over and disrupt the flow...
Quote from: dgolub on August 25, 2014, 06:56:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 25, 2014, 05:39:51 PM
I sure as hell hope they don't completely eliminate a limited-access option. The stretch north of I-90 bypasses congested areas of I-87 and I-90 and the remainder is the only road to downtown and the train station that isn't 2 lanes and/or hopelessly clogged. The bigger issue here is that Albany was first laid out 400 years ago and cannot handle the large amount of traffic that the state capitol creates. The rough terrain doesn't help matters. I'd be for putting it in a trench and capping it over, but remember that the ground under current I-787 is just above sea level and there's a set of railroad tracks under/in the median of I-787. Do we need the uncompleted expressways blocking stuff up? No. Are the bridge to nowhere and its access roads overbuilt? Without a doubt. But we'd need to accommodate the 100,000 cars using I-787 on any given day in some fashion and a boulevard can't do that. The West Side Highway has lower traffic counts and that's 6+ lanes and operating near LOS F most of the day.
Demolishing I-787 seems nonsensical. I can see why they would do it with CT 34 in New Haven, since that one ends just after it begins, meaning that it serves almost no purpose. I-787 is not a highway to nowhere, and I would expect that it would be bad for traffic to demolish it.
If you give an inch, they'll take a mile, and that's exactly what they're doing. I wouldn't be surprised if the end goal of these groups is to eliminate freeways entirely.
Quote from: dgolub on August 25, 2014, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 25, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.
I'd guess that it would become NY 787. Not to be confused with NY 878, which was also downgraded from an interstate.
Or NY 747, a new route serving Stewart Airport.
A little O/T, but was it intentional to have it numbered 747, considering it serves an airport? :poke:
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on February 02, 2016, 11:07:30 AM
Quote from: vdeane on August 25, 2014, 09:34:54 PM
You'd have better results trying to turn the Northway into a boulevard. Believe it or not, it has less problems than I-787 does. I-787's congestion puts NYC to shame, which is really quite surprising, as it doesn't have any bad merges like the Northway does; the heaviest merge is from I-90, but those lanes continue for a ways, so there's no need for traffic to move over and disrupt the flow...
Quote from: dgolub on August 25, 2014, 06:56:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 25, 2014, 05:39:51 PM
I sure as hell hope they don't completely eliminate a limited-access option. The stretch north of I-90 bypasses congested areas of I-87 and I-90 and the remainder is the only road to downtown and the train station that isn't 2 lanes and/or hopelessly clogged. The bigger issue here is that Albany was first laid out 400 years ago and cannot handle the large amount of traffic that the state capitol creates. The rough terrain doesn't help matters. I'd be for putting it in a trench and capping it over, but remember that the ground under current I-787 is just above sea level and there's a set of railroad tracks under/in the median of I-787. Do we need the uncompleted expressways blocking stuff up? No. Are the bridge to nowhere and its access roads overbuilt? Without a doubt. But we'd need to accommodate the 100,000 cars using I-787 on any given day in some fashion and a boulevard can't do that. The West Side Highway has lower traffic counts and that's 6+ lanes and operating near LOS F most of the day.
Demolishing I-787 seems nonsensical. I can see why they would do it with CT 34 in New Haven, since that one ends just after it begins, meaning that it serves almost no purpose. I-787 is not a highway to nowhere, and I would expect that it would be bad for traffic to demolish it.
If you give an inch, they'll take a mile, and that's exactly what they're doing. I wouldn't be surprised if the end goal of these groups is to eliminate freeways entirely.
Quote from: dgolub on August 25, 2014, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 25, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.
I'd guess that it would become NY 787. Not to be confused with NY 878, which was also downgraded from an interstate.
Or NY 747, a new route serving Stewart Airport.
A little O/T, but was it intentional to have it numbered 747, considering it serves an airport? :poke:
It was intentional.
Quote from: Rothman on February 02, 2016, 10:38:46 AM
Tear down I-787 and you end up with solid gridlock during rush hours and events (e.g., Tulipfest and July 4th). Adding more access points to a boulevard (i.e., traffic lights) would just exacerbate the problem. It's a ridiculous idea.
That said, I personally don't mind the South Mall, but the Dunn Memorial Bridge is pretty ridiculous. Like others have said, though, not sure what exactly can be done about that now that wouldn't be viewed as a waste of money. Why spend gazillions tearing down and replacing a bridge when the current bridge at least works given how dinky Rensselaer is (a city of less than 10,000 people...).
I agree completely. Rensselaer's main draw is the Amtrak station, which if the state gets its way, will see quite a few more trains, but that's off topic. Due to the clearance requirements, we'd probably be talking over $30 million for a new bridge, which could be much better spent replacing other bridges in the region (cough...Twin Bridges...cough).
They should add another bridge to connect Albany and rennselaer, redo the overpowered circle interchange, and have 87 connect with 787 and 90 directly. also add more exits downtown on 787. A signalized boulevard is the best idea these new urbanists can come up with these days.
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 02, 2016, 11:56:14 AM
They should add another bridge to connect Albany and rennselaer, redo the overpowered circle interchange, and have 87 connect with 787 and 90 directly. also add more exits downtown on 787. A signalized boulevard is the best idea these new urbanists can come up with these days.
I-87 does have a direct connection to both. I-90 is a concurrency with all movements. Another bridge will have to be either high-level or movable, as there is marine traffic. The current bridge can handle the traffic. If anything, the Mohawk River needs the bridges.
Exit spacing is tight as it is. Spacing is closer than is recommended, with SB having 4 exits in less than 2 miles (not counting the split on the ramp at the circle interchange). More exits is NOT the way to go here. Volumes are also quite high. Downtown Albany has the terrain of San Francisco and streets are narrow and clogged already, with a lot of the network dating back over 300 years, some streets going back to 1614.
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 02, 2016, 11:56:14 AM
They should add another bridge to connect Albany and rennselaer,
Why?
Just an idea, after reading that article talking about the access issues for bus routes crossing the Hudson. I don't know the area at all, but it sounds like a Blvd is a bad idea.
Nexus 6P
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 02, 2016, 12:52:52 PM
Just an idea, after reading that article talking about the access issues for bus routes crossing the Hudson. I don't know the area at all, but it sounds like a Blvd is a bad idea.
Nexus 6P
The access issue has a lot to do with the lack of connecting routes on the east side. It's a PITA to go up that side of the river. There's not much on that side other than Troy, which is well-served. I live in Troy and bus service from here to ESP is every 5-10 minutes.
I can appreciate how the Mall Arterial and its associated interchange are overpowered for something that's never going to be finished. Simple solution to this: replace the circle interchange with something resembling a more traditional diamond, drop the grade of the Arterial so it intersects Pearl and Grand Streets.
But as for the idea of removing 787 itself because it blocks access to the waterfront, do they also intend to remove the train tracks running in the median of 787?
Interstate 787 should not be torn down. However, surely it could be improved to relieve congestion. Also, could its southern terminus at Interstate 87 be modified so you don't have to exit the mainline to access the New York Thruway?
Could? Yes (though it's outside the study area, so it's purely hypothetical). Does it need to be? Probably not, congestion issues there are caused by the half diamond to US 9W to/from the toll plaza, not I-787 exiting itself.
Quote from: vdeane on February 03, 2016, 03:10:50 PM
Could? Yes (though it's outside the study area, so it's purely hypothetical). Does it need to be? Probably not, congestion issues there are caused by the half diamond to US 9W to/from the toll plaza, not I-787 exiting itself.
You could fix half of that by closing the entrance ramp and building a ramp from NB I-787/whatever it is there to the Thruway through the east end of the tandem lot.. Tight curve, but no tighter than some other ramps in the area.
Well I know one thing, the ugly interchange on the eastern portion of the Dunn bridge needs to be reconstructed.
I've been slowly working on a proposal that would retain 787, but would simplify a lot of ramps and access and at least attempt to improve the connection between downtown and the waterfront. With the semester in full gear, it may be a while before I can finish it.
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2016, 05:10:51 PM
I've been slowly working on a proposal that would retain 787, but would simplify a lot of ramps and access and at least attempt to improve the connection between downtown and the waterfront. With the semester in full gear, it may be a while before I can finish it.
If it was me, I would just tear the elevated part of I-787 where it meets the circle interchange as well as remove the train tracks and rebuilt that part of I-787 to surface interstate, rebuild all the bridges over I-787. Problem solved. No need to tear down all of that to become a boulevard. Heavy traffic uses I-787 so why would they want to make it even worse?
Quote from: cl94 on February 03, 2016, 03:24:46 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 03, 2016, 03:10:50 PM
Could? Yes (though it's outside the study area, so it's purely hypothetical). Does it need to be? Probably not, congestion issues there are caused by the half diamond to US 9W to/from the toll plaza, not I-787 exiting itself.
You could fix half of that by closing the entrance ramp and building a ramp from NB I-787/whatever it is there to the Thruway through the east end of the tandem lot.. Tight curve, but no tighter than some other ramps in the area.
There are plans to address some of the traffic issues at that intersection. I forget, but they may be doing exactly that.
Quote from: MazdaStrider on February 04, 2016, 12:03:28 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2016, 05:10:51 PM
I've been slowly working on a proposal that would retain 787, but would simplify a lot of ramps and access and at least attempt to improve the connection between downtown and the waterfront. With the semester in full gear, it may be a while before I can finish it.
If it was me, I would just tear the elevated part of I-787 where it meets the circle interchange as well as remove the train tracks and rebuilt that part of I-787 to surface interstate, rebuild all the bridges over I-787. Problem solved. No need to tear down all of that to become a boulevard. Heavy traffic uses I-787 so why would they want to make it even worse?
Oh, is that all. O.o
You do realize those rail tracks are still quite heavily used, right?
Quote from: Rothman on February 04, 2016, 09:11:44 AM
Quote from: MazdaStrider on February 04, 2016, 12:03:28 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2016, 05:10:51 PM
I've been slowly working on a proposal that would retain 787, but would simplify a lot of ramps and access and at least attempt to improve the connection between downtown and the waterfront. With the semester in full gear, it may be a while before I can finish it.
If it was me, I would just tear the elevated part of I-787 where it meets the circle interchange as well as remove the train tracks and rebuilt that part of I-787 to surface interstate, rebuild all the bridges over I-787. Problem solved. No need to tear down all of that to become a boulevard. Heavy traffic uses I-787 so why would they want to make it even worse?
Oh, is that all. O.o
You do realize those rail tracks are still quite heavily used, right?
No I didn't know what.. it can still be moved? (I havent been to that area forever).
Quote from: MazdaStrider on February 05, 2016, 05:24:51 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 04, 2016, 09:11:44 AM
Quote from: MazdaStrider on February 04, 2016, 12:03:28 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2016, 05:10:51 PM
I've been slowly working on a proposal that would retain 787, but would simplify a lot of ramps and access and at least attempt to improve the connection between downtown and the waterfront. With the semester in full gear, it may be a while before I can finish it.
If it was me, I would just tear the elevated part of I-787 where it meets the circle interchange as well as remove the train tracks and rebuilt that part of I-787 to surface interstate, rebuild all the bridges over I-787. Problem solved. No need to tear down all of that to become a boulevard. Heavy traffic uses I-787 so why would they want to make it even worse?
Oh, is that all. O.o
You do realize those rail tracks are still quite heavily used, right?
No I didn't know what.. it can still be moved? (I havent been to that area forever).
No.
They could probably be rebuilt/relocated within the corridor, but it would be a considerable engineering undertaking.
I think that the real fix needs to be between 787/Alt.7/87. I am a commuter from Saratoga County. In the rush hours, the lack of bridges on the Mohawk are the real choke points. The twin bridges always back up, especially with all of the Clifton Park entrances.
South of Alt. 7, the Northway seems to be most beneficial to people who travel to western Albany, and Colonie. A Northway/free 90 route to downtown has so much congestion from those coming from the west. I think the best improvement would be a more direct interchange between 87, and Alt. 7, due to the hairpin interchange cloverleaf. The entrance and exit to/from Route 9 Latham makes even more zig zagging. Westbound Alt. 7 needs a breakdown lane. If there is a problem, there is nowhere to pull off. The steep climb has slow trucks, which can't get around the stalled car.
This is why I think the route could be improved with fly overs between sb 87- Alt 7 eb, and 787 nb-Alt. 7 wb.
THERE IS NO "ALT. 7"! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2016, 09:00:49 AM
THERE IS NO "ALT. 7"! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Of course there is! It's in the minds of the public! :pan:
Quote from: cl94 on April 18, 2016, 10:49:46 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2016, 09:00:49 AM
THERE IS NO "ALT. 7"! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Of course there is! It's in the minds of the public! :pan:
The capacity of the public to deny reality knows no bounds. :P
The English language is descriptive. Move to France if you don't like it.
Quote from: NE2 on April 18, 2016, 12:43:05 PM
The English language is descriptive. Move to France if you don't like it.
French is not descriptive? That explains Impressionism.
Rather than blast the newbie for referencing a route that may not currently exist, why not respond to his proposals?
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2016, 11:53:56 AM
Quote from: cl94 on April 18, 2016, 10:49:46 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2016, 09:00:49 AM
THERE IS NO "ALT. 7"! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Of course there is! It's in the minds of the public! :pan:
The capacity of the public to deny reality knows no bounds. :P
Yet, nothing will change until the traffic reporters get it right. WGY still uses "alternate 7" exclusively (and I just heard them use it).
Quote from: froggie on April 18, 2016, 01:39:12 PM
Rather than blast the newbie for referencing a route that may not currently exist, why not respond to his proposals?
I'm getting there. We agree with just about everything. Problem is money (more importantly, the lack thereof).
Quote from: Conn. Roads on April 18, 2016, 12:34:10 AM
I think that the real fix needs to be between 787/Alt.7/87. I am a commuter from Saratoga County. In the rush hours, the lack of bridges on the Mohawk are the real choke points. The twin bridges always back up, especially with all of the Clifton Park entrances.
South of Alt. 7, the Northway seems to be most beneficial to people who travel to western Albany, and Colonie. A Northway/free 90 route to downtown has so much congestion from those coming from the west. I think the best improvement would be a more direct interchange between 87, and Alt. 7, due to the hairpin interchange cloverleaf. The entrance and exit to/from Route 9 Latham makes even more zig zagging. Westbound Alt. 7 needs a breakdown lane. If there is a problem, there is nowhere to pull off. The steep climb has slow trucks, which can't get around the stalled car.
This is why I think the route could be improved with fly overs between sb 87- Alt 7 eb, and 787 nb-Alt. 7 wb.
I've favored a northern extension of 787 that comes back to 87.
I thought that for a loooong time. Then I considered geography and the need to tear through pretty dense sections of Waterford and Halfmoon. Only the Village of Waterford is particularly "poor"- the area near the Northway is quite wealthy. An extension would have to come in close to Round Lake to avoid most of the densely-populated areas and by that point, it would be useless to traffic heading anywhere south of Exit 10 and west of the Northway.
Quote from: cl94 on April 18, 2016, 10:55:44 PM
I thought that for a loooong time. Then I considered geography and the need to tear through pretty dense sections of Waterford and Halfmoon. Only the Village of Waterford is particularly "poor"- the area near the Northway is quite wealthy. An extension would have to come in close to Round Lake to avoid most of the densely-populated areas and by that point, it would be useless to traffic heading anywhere south of Exit 10 and west of the Northway.
I agree, it would have to come in between 10 and 11. But that would provide so much traffic relief to the Northway that everyone south of Exit 10 would no longer have an issue.
Quote from: Alps on April 18, 2016, 11:55:35 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 18, 2016, 10:55:44 PM
I thought that for a loooong time. Then I considered geography and the need to tear through pretty dense sections of Waterford and Halfmoon. Only the Village of Waterford is particularly "poor"- the area near the Northway is quite wealthy. An extension would have to come in close to Round Lake to avoid most of the densely-populated areas and by that point, it would be useless to traffic heading anywhere south of Exit 10 and west of the Northway.
I agree, it would have to come in between 10 and 11. But that would provide so much traffic relief to the Northway that everyone south of Exit 10 would no longer have an issue.
Question is how much of the Northway traffic north of there comes from south or east of I-787. Such a plan would probably require 787 to be widened to a minimum of 6 lanes in Albany County, possibly 8 between Free 90 and NY 7, as that area is already subject to jams if somebody sneezes. However, coupled with a much-needed replacement of the US 4 bridge over the Hudson south of Fort Edward, that might divert some of the Vermont traffic from 149 as well.
Quote from: froggie on April 18, 2016, 01:39:12 PM
Rather than blast the newbie for referencing a route that may not currently exist, why not respond to his proposals?
*blasts froggie*
...
How isn't there a breakdown lane on NY 7 WB? I thought the shoulder there was wide enough?
It's not. It's a minimal shoulder where the climbing lane exists. There's one pull-off just past the Boght Rd overpass, otherwise the shoulder doesn't widen out to something usable until you're almost to the US 9 exit.
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2016, 03:35:49 PM
It's not. It's a minimal shoulder where the climbing lane exists. There's one pull-off just past the Boght Rd overpass, otherwise the shoulder doesn't widen out to something usable until you're almost to the US 9 exit.
You'd be surprised how often I see cars parked on that shoulder. Right lane traffic gets along just fine.
They're probably parking some off the pavement. The pavement proper is only about 4-5ft wide.
Plus there's a cable guiderail in at least a few spots.
Sorry about my mention of Alternate 7. Was the part of Route 2 from Watervliet originally duplex route numbers with 7, before the expressway was built? I have only lived here since the early 2000s, and all the traffic reporters say Alt. 7.
If 787 was extended through Waterford, how could they route it through the village? Could it hop to Green Island, and follow the old rail line? 32 is narrow through the village, and the left to continue to Mechanicville always backs up.
If 787 did come out on the Northway near exit 10-11, it could more or less divert the travelers from above Clifton Park. Is there a figure on how many Albany commuters are from Ballston, Malta, Saratoga, Wilton, and Glens Falls/Queensbury? As I said in my first post, some from up north may still use 87 all the way, if the job is in the western parts of Albany, or Colonie. The new route could divert some downtown bound traffic.
This is not road related, but there were commuter train proposals about 10 years ago. This is something that had been, but was lost due to people switching to the now choked Northway.
NY 2 used to be NY 7 exclusively, then 7 was rerouted onto the expressway. Why the Alt. 7 name stuck is beyond me.
Some form of commuter and/or light rail would be wonderful, but I'm not convinced people live/work close enough to the tracks to make it worthwhile.
787 would have to go around the west side of Waterford, head north from there, and turn west near the Mechanicville rail yard. That area is a nightmare and I avoid it unless I'm getting gas at the Cohoes Cumbies, which is always 10-15 cents cheaper than every other gas station in the area. Region 1 is putting in an FYA at the intersection you mentioned and that might help a little bit. River Road on the east side being discontinuous doesn't help matters.
How many commuters come from north of Exit 10? A lot. Numbers drop off dramatically north of Exit 20. From growing up in Queensbury, I can say that my father was far from the only person who commuted to Albany.
Quote from: Snappyjack on April 23, 2016, 12:12:59 AM
NY 2 used to be NY 7 exclusively, then 7 was rerouted onto the expressway. Why the Alt. 7 name stuck is beyond me.
I expect this is what you meant, but just to clarify, the Latham to Troy segment of current NY 2 was NY 7 before "Alternate 7" opened. Troy to the Massachusetts line was already NY 2.
Quote from: Jim on April 23, 2016, 02:20:05 PM
Quote from: Snappyjack on April 23, 2016, 12:12:59 AM
NY 2 used to be NY 7 exclusively, then 7 was rerouted onto the expressway. Why the Alt. 7 name stuck is beyond me.
I expect this is what you meant, but just to clarify, the Latham to Troy segment of current NY 2 was NY 7 before "Alternate 7" opened. Troy to the Massachusetts line was already NY 2.
Specifically, east of 15th Street (after NY 2 was truncated from being routed across the Menands Bridge to Downtown Albany). NY 7 cut up 15th Street through the middle of RPI, at one point concurrent with NY 40 on that stretch. There are a few very old state-spec signs a little north of NY 2 that are the only standing relics I know of. The shields for NY 2 east heading SB on 15th Street appear significantly older than those for WB and likely predate the change.
Alternate 7, as we've mentioned before, might be the most common name for that expressway. Traffic reports refer to it as that almost exclusively.
Of course, NY 7 used to be NY 9, consistent with VT/NH/ME 9, but that designation went away when US 9 was designated.
Quote from: Conn. Roads on April 22, 2016, 10:44:38 PM
Sorry about my mention of Alternate 7.
Just joshin' ya.
Thanks for giving me a history lesson about our area. As my user name points out, Connecticut roads are my real passion. Kurumi.com is one of my favorite sites. One of their links sent me here.
I used to like to go on road trips with older relatives. It fascinated me when they would point out a rerouting, or road changes due to the 1955 floods, or how the trolley line ran down the street.
Thanks for the help, and I have thick enough skin to take the kidding. It makes me feel welcome.
One last question. You said that NY7 was NY 9, which was a continuation on VT 9. I used to commute to Binghamton. Was the stretch through Latham, Schemectady....Cobelskill.....Oneonta.....Bingo 9 too?
NY 7 north/east of Binghamton was designated as NY 9 as part of the 1924 initial signing of state routes. It was redesignated in 1927 to avoid duplicating US 9. A couple minor realignments and an extension to the PA line have occurred west of Schenectady and NY 7 was one of the few routes to get through the 1930 renumbering. Had US 9 not been designated in New York, NY 9 would likely be one of the few original destinations to exist in the modern day.
Quote from: cl94 on April 25, 2016, 08:21:01 PM
NY 7 north/east of Binghamton was designated as NY 9 as part of the 1924 initial signing of state routes. It was redesignated in 1927 to avoid duplicating US 9. A couple minor realignments and an extension to the PA line have occurred west of Schenectady and NY 7 was one of the few routes to get through the 1930 renumbering. Had US 9 not been designated in New York, NY 9 would likely be one of the few original destinations to exist in the modern day.
We're getting rather far afield here, but what was NY 7 designated before 1927?
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2016, 12:11:38 AM
Quote from: cl94 on April 25, 2016, 08:21:01 PM
NY 7 north/east of Binghamton was designated as NY 9 as part of the 1924 initial signing of state routes. It was redesignated in 1927 to avoid duplicating US 9. A couple minor realignments and an extension to the PA line have occurred west of Schenectady and NY 7 was one of the few routes to get through the 1930 renumbering. Had US 9 not been designated in New York, NY 9 would likely be one of the few original destinations to exist in the modern day.
We're getting rather far afield here, but what was NY 7 designated before 1927?
NY 9, as I stated in the quote, as a western continuation of New England Route 9.
Quote from: cl94 on April 26, 2016, 12:16:36 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2016, 12:11:38 AM
Quote from: cl94 on April 25, 2016, 08:21:01 PM
NY 7 north/east of Binghamton was designated as NY 9 as part of the 1924 initial signing of state routes. It was redesignated in 1927 to avoid duplicating US 9. A couple minor realignments and an extension to the PA line have occurred west of Schenectady and NY 7 was one of the few routes to get through the 1930 renumbering. Had US 9 not been designated in New York, NY 9 would likely be one of the few original destinations to exist in the modern day.
We're getting rather far afield here, but what was NY 7 designated before 1927?
NY 9, as I stated in the quote, as a western continuation of New England Route 9.
No, the opposite question. Where was 7?
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2016, 10:46:13 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 26, 2016, 12:16:36 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2016, 12:11:38 AM
Quote from: cl94 on April 25, 2016, 08:21:01 PM
NY 7 north/east of Binghamton was designated as NY 9 as part of the 1924 initial signing of state routes. It was redesignated in 1927 to avoid duplicating US 9. A couple minor realignments and an extension to the PA line have occurred west of Schenectady and NY 7 was one of the few routes to get through the 1930 renumbering. Had US 9 not been designated in New York, NY 9 would likely be one of the few original destinations to exist in the modern day.
We're getting rather far afield here, but what was NY 7 designated before 1927?
NY 9, as I stated in the quote, as a western continuation of New England Route 9.
No, the opposite question. Where was 7?
Modern NY 954L, NY 130 and US 20 between downtown Buffalo and Albany. The portion west of Avon was renumbered NY 35, becoming US 20 in the late 30s after it was straightened and a few grade separations were added.