So it seems that in the coming years, the eastern terminus of I-587 in Kingston will be reconfigured into a roundabout. I have mixed feelings on this myself. While I do like the fact that it will make that area look a little nicer, I think there could have been a better alternative. Also, this means that 587 will be the only interstate in the country with a roundabout at each end.
Here's a link to the video showing what it all will look like when finished: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wBY1rJcjoM
And here's a link to the project website with more information: http://www.co.ulster.ny.us/planning/i587.html
Are roundabouts allowed on Interstate highways? I always though the terminus had to be an interchange with another freeway, or it just ended like a typical street at some other type of junction.
Basically, each roundabout is the terminus. People have argued that I-587 is connected to I-87, but it really begins at the roundabout.
NYSDOT policy is to always have a roundabout as an alternative when reconstructing an intersection.
This will certainly make I-587 easy to clinch once done. No need to figure out a route back!
It also looks like I-587 is going to be narrowed in the area from 4 to 2 lanes.
Quote from: doofy103 on December 25, 2010, 12:17:28 PM
It also looks like I-587 is going to be narrowed in the area from 4 to 2 lanes.
Yeah, I noticed that as well. I also noticed in the long term plans for the area found in one of the PDF files for the project, that there is a new street grid proposed for the immediate area, which would effectively wipe out 587 altogether in what I imagine would be a boulevard type of roadway. Aside from assuming the FHWA and the DOT doesn't want 587 around anymore, I doubt those parts of the plan will come to fruition. And if it does, well then there really isn't much purpose as signing it as an interstate anymore.
Quote from: Snappyjack on December 25, 2010, 02:55:57 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on December 25, 2010, 12:17:28 PM
It also looks like I-587 is going to be narrowed in the area from 4 to 2 lanes.
Yeah, I noticed that as well. I also noticed in the long term plans for the area found in one of the PDF files for the project, that there is a new street grid proposed for the immediate area, which would effectively wipe out 587 altogether in what I imagine would be a boulevard type of roadway. Aside from assuming the FHWA and the DOT doesn't want 587 around anymore, I doubt those parts of the plan will come to fruition. And if it does, well then there really isn't much purpose as signing it as an interstate anymore.
IMO, there's really not much purpose in signing it one now. :-D
Quote from: doofy103 on December 25, 2010, 12:17:28 PM
It also looks like I-587 is going to be narrowed in the area from 4 to 2 lanes.
Are Interstates allowed to be just two lanes wide?
From the youtube traffic simulation video, the roundabout does not look like a solution, only trade one set of problems for another. Looks to me that a it would be easier for pedestrians to cross at a signalized intersection rather than the continuously flowing roundabout - but given the simulation videos, pedestrian impacts seem to have been ignored. I certainly don't see any peds halting traffic during the video. And it still looks like there is significant queuing on the roundabout approaches.
Of course when the preliminary study document includes stuff like "sign scale inappropriate for setting," I gonna question the results more (I like being able to read the signs, not have them be on the opposite side of the road and blocked by a semi). Just how decayed is this area anyway? The Intro Talk document just looks like standard medievalist propaganda.
On Page 8/27 of the Preliminary Recommendations, there appears to be an erroneous US x3 truck detour sign.
That's an error US 213 shield. There were several posted during the recent NY 213 detour.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on December 24, 2010, 07:10:45 PM
Basically, each roundabout is the terminus. People have argued that I-587 is connected to I-87, but it really begins at the roundabout.
Nor is it signed from I-87. In my opinion, I-587 should just be a part of NY 28 and NY 28 only.
I am a little disturbed by how what is obviously a traffic calming measure is getting billed as a way to improve traffic flow. How many fools are actually buying that one?
The problem they point out about left turning vehicles collecting in the middle and blocking traffic could be solved simply by reconfiguring the intersection to actually be an intersection rather than a cluster of four intersections (why was it built that way in the first place?), perhaps minimizing or eliminating the porkchops in the process. And hey, this also achieves the goal of reducing the footprint!
You seem to be assuming that slower traffic at a complicated intersection is not improved flow. I'm not sure that there's a satisfactory solution for pedestrians at a roundabout (assuming you're in a place where the drivers are dicks), but otherwise, from a strictly traffic flow standpoint, it does seem to be better in some situations. One of the big benefits is that there's no need for stopping, unless traffic is so heavy that one cannot enter the circle.
There IS stopping, if somebody is in the circle you have to YIELD to them which is considered a stop if the car is in the right spot. That is why I hate roundabouts b/c nobody YIELDS.
Exactly, doofy. The biggest issue with roundabouts is that hardly anybody knows the rules.
I don't think it's a matter of ignorance so much as idiocy. People know the rules, they can read the signs, they just choose to ignore them. People don't yield at roundabouts for the same reason they run red lights/stop signs, pass illegally, etc.
In my experience, there's one person stuck at the entrance to the roundabout because there are all these cars circling around and that person can't figure out that he has the right of way half the time. Because of the entrance design, there's no room to pull around him either. Call it what you want.
Uh...the person at the entrance to the roundabout does not have the right of way, the people on the circulatory do. If they don't, it's not a roundabout.
and that is why I hate roundabouts b/c people don't YIELD.
Over here I remember as a kid seeing many traffic lights being replaced with roundabouts. Now 25 years later said roundabouts suffer queues on the approaches often because there is a dominant flow meaning traffic joining downstream of this has a hard time finding a break in the traffic. Many roundabouts have recently being replaced with traffic lights because of such problems. Here's (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=50.846486,-1.088151&spn=0.002611,0.009012&t=k&z=18) an example. Part of the roundabout is still visible at the top.
In areas with moderate traffic levels roundabouts definitely allow a smoother flow of traffic. Night time is when roundabouts are at their best. At 2am in the morning there is no need to stop since you're the only car on the road. Traffic lights however, depending on how their set up, often means waiting forever at a red light as there is no cross traffic to trigger the change of lights.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 10, 2011, 09:19:42 PM
Uh...the person at the entrance to the roundabout does not have the right of way, the people on the circulatory do. If they don't, it's not a roundabout.
That doesn't mean you can't be a problem by stopping. I've seen people sit an the entrance of a roundabout when the only car in the roundabout is clear on the other side of it and there was enough time for three cars to enter.
Quote from: deanej on January 11, 2011, 02:08:24 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 10, 2011, 09:19:42 PM
Uh...the person at the entrance to the roundabout does not have the right of way, the people on the circulatory do. If they don't, it's not a roundabout.
That doesn't mean you can't be a problem by stopping. I've seen people sit an the entrance of a roundabout when the only car in the roundabout is clear on the other side of it and there was enough time for three cars to enter.
This. is what I meant.