AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northeast => Topic started by: Alex on August 18, 2009, 12:34:57 AM

Title: New York
Post by: Alex on August 18, 2009, 12:34:57 AM
Does anyone know what this concrete structure is?

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=43.153029~-77.607722&style=h&lvl=19&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1 (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=43.153029~-77.607722&style=h&lvl=19&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 18, 2009, 12:38:57 AM
It's right next to the train station (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/rochester/lvrr.jpg (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/rochester/lvrr.jpg)) so my guess is the tracks came in on that structure.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mightyace on August 18, 2009, 01:57:22 PM
To me, it looks like the tracks stub-ended underneath and the concrete structure was for pickup and deliveries of passengers including via taxi and trucks with express freight.

But, without an old photo to go by, I can't say whether either Alps or myself is right.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 18, 2009, 07:43:47 PM
http://www.crookedlakereview.com/images/136_150/140summer2006/sheret6.jpg (http://www.crookedlakereview.com/images/136_150/140summer2006/sheret6.jpg)
That's from an old postcard - appears that the left side (where your concrete structure is) was a building foundation and trains came in somewhere else.  A little hard to tell, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on August 18, 2009, 07:57:00 PM
Is New York similar to Vermont where incorporated villages and cities maintain their own signage? I am wondering if this may explain the difference in these types of state shields:

http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york250/ny-256_sb_end.jpg (http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york250/ny-256_sb_end.jpg) vs. http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york010/ny-015_nb_at_ny-256_sb.jpg (http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york010/ny-015_nb_at_ny-256_sb.jpg)

If not, are the differences in shield styles a contractor, issue, a district issue, or something else?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 18, 2009, 09:28:54 PM
I hope it's a contractor issue, but it's definitely a NYSDOT problem, nothing to do with town-maintained routes.  Couldn't tell you if it's regional or not, but I've only seen that first style upstate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 18, 2009, 09:31:18 PM
the 36 and 63 are an older standard, and the 15 and the 256 with it are a newer one.

old standard can be seen here:
http://shields.aaroads.com/show.php?image=NY19700281t300280.jpg (http://shields.aaroads.com/show.php?image=NY19700281t300280.jpg)

the 256 with the 36 and the 63 is non-standard.  must be a contractor flaw.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on August 19, 2009, 06:38:29 AM
That train station is now a Dinosaur BBQ restaurant.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Ian on August 19, 2009, 08:57:36 AM
Both of those shields I have seen more than just a few times. I am starting to think its not a contractor issue rather than it being the new type of shield. I hope I am wrong at this because its hideous IMHO. The hump in the 63 and 36 shields are too short and the hump in the 256 is too wide.

i
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 19, 2009, 08:59:48 AM
Well, no NYSDOT is testing new shields, and that was one of the designs :|
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 19, 2009, 10:34:30 PM
New York is consistently inconsistent anyways (to quote Doug Kerr).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on August 20, 2009, 02:44:27 AM
Any idea of what used to be displayed where the empty brackets are in this assembly:

http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york999/bridge_st_nb_at_i-690_eb_02.jpg (http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york999/bridge_st_nb_at_i-690_eb_02.jpg)

The assembly is on Bridge Street north at Exit 17 of I-690.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: njroadhorse on August 20, 2009, 10:22:24 AM
Perhaps "TO I-81", as I-690 West does go there.  It would make sense, considering I-481 and NY 290 are also mentioned.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 20, 2009, 06:12:13 PM
Deanej: When NYSDOT posts bad signs, they go the extra mile:

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3637/3509259368_13136d0866_o.jpg)

edit: Because I forgot how to trim the size of your obnoxiously large photo, I simply replaced it with a link instead. I'm about to go find out how to make it smaller . . .

-your "friendly" moderator, Yanksfan

double edit: add "width=800" inside the img tag. 

triple edit: thank you

-the "friendly" one again
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on August 20, 2009, 07:47:18 PM
Quote
Perhaps "TO I-81", as I-690 West does go there.  It would make sense, considering I-481 and NY 290 are also mentioned.

Was just looking at my 1965 Rand, and the Syracuse inset shows New York 415 heading north from New York 290 near the intersection with Bridge Street. Could this be the missing shield?

New York 415 (http://www.gribblenation.net/nyroutes/ind/410_419.htm) was assigned to U.S. 15's alignment in 1974, so this answer may be a stretch as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 20, 2009, 08:13:59 PM
Um, shields are a little new for that. NY 415 has been decommissioned for sometime in Syracuse. It is now Onondaga CR 77, so really not much of a chance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on August 20, 2009, 09:10:25 PM
Quote
Um, shields are a little new for that. NY 415 has been decommissioned for sometime in Syracuse. It is now Onondaga CR 77, so really not much of a chance.

Um, I admitted it was a stretch. Weirder things have happened in NYS, look at the U.S. 15 shields still posted in Rochester...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on August 24, 2009, 12:20:11 PM
How far was John Glenn Boulevard supposed to extend eastward? I see on aerials that it ends at Buckley Road (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=r5qb7n8ng82g&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&scene=8175282&encType=1), but grading continues a bit further north to Morgan Road. Several printed maps also show it as completed between Buckley and Morgan Roads, but that is certainly not the case in reality.

Also, is Onondaga County 57 the only county route signed within the county?

I read that the original end of Interstate 690 involved turning onto Interstate 90 at a traffic light. I can see the trumpet interchange footprint on this aerial (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=43.111166~-76.267648&style=h&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1). Was the traffic light at the end of the ramps, or with New York 48, or somewhere else?

The USGS quad shows the original configuration as well:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-690_original_west_end.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 24, 2009, 12:33:00 PM
I can tell you for sure that Onondaga County Route 57 isn't even signed right :P - Its signed so no one got confused with the decommissioning of NY 57. Its internally Onondaga County Route 91-2 or 91B for the layman.

The others I am not so sure on.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on August 24, 2009, 04:15:37 PM
I had always figured that John Glenn Boulevard would have connected with NY 481. I don't have any concrete evidence, but I always guessed it could be the case.

Also, on another 481 note, I believe that the end of the NY 5 expressway in Fairmount(at Wegman's) could have connected to the current end of 481 at 81 south of Syracuse. Again, no concrete evidence. Just a thought.

If those two thoughts of mine are correct(please, someone let me know if I am on to something), those two projects together would have created a full loop of sorts around Syracuse. 481 to 5 to 695 to 690 to John Glenn Boulevard back to 481.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on August 24, 2009, 06:31:21 PM
Snappyjack is correct on John Glenn Blvd.  A regional transportation plan from 1971 (which I found at the SU library) shows the plan was to extend it north to meet NY 481 midway between the Morgan Rd and Henry Clay Blvd overpasses.  A rough hand-drawn map is on my Fictional NY 348 page (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/fictional/new_york/syracuse/ny348/ny348.htm).

Regarding NY 5, there were actually two proposals for the end of the expressway in Fairmount.  One, as Snappyjack suggests, would have connected to I-81...but near Nedrow instead of at I-481.  The other would have extended an improved NY 5 (either freeway or an improved arterial) east towards downtown Syracuse, with various alternatives considered (upgrading Genessee St, Erie Blvd, new alignment near Grand Ave or Onondaga St, stopping at Geddes St or continuing to West St).

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 26, 2009, 02:36:20 PM
Anyone know what happens to NY 45 south of NY 59 near Spring Valley? The NYSDOT route log and traffic data documents indicate it goes to the NJ line but I can't find evidence of its route from NY 59 to NJ on any online or paper source I have access to.  I'm working on the NYS highway system for the clinched highway mapping project.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 26, 2009, 04:14:46 PM
NY 45 follows Chestnut Ridge Rd. straight to the NJ border. Even has a standard NYS Welcome sign. Looks like there are standard reassurance and reference markers posted on the route as well. Sign at border (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Woodcliff+Lake,+NJ&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.421237,65.478516&ie=UTF8&ll=41.070982,-74.067905&spn=0.000709,0.000999&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.071073,-74.067889&panoid=8a_DG6k8JQjl4jGvhnsw4Q&cbp=12,55.88,,0,7.9)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 26, 2009, 04:37:01 PM
Thanks for the NY 45 info.  That seemed like it would be the logical routing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on August 27, 2009, 12:18:51 AM
I-390 upgrade, in Livingston County, gets funding

GENESEO - Assemblyman Daniel Burling (R,C,I-Warsaw) announced funding for Livingston County transportation improvements. $3.2 million will be directed to pavement replacement on Interstate 390. Burling called the funding critical to the economic stability of Western New York.

“Rough roadways mean longer commutes for work and leisure, increased strain on our automobiles, and a climate that hinders improvements to our local economy,” said Burling. “A stable transportation infrastructure is essential to keeping families and businesses here in Western New York, as well as to attracting new investment to the region.”

The $3.2 million repaving of I-390 will cover 6.5 miles of roadway between Routes 5 and 20 in Avon to Route 20A in Geneseo. To maintain pavement integrity, deteriorating sections of concrete will be removed and replaced. The project is expected to be complete in June 2011.

Burling cautioned motorists to expect one lane of traffic in each direction, with a speed limit reduction to 55 mph during construction hours.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 27, 2009, 10:14:13 AM
Didn't they just repave that area?  I-390 north of Mount Morris is just fine the way it is now.  Give the funding to the areas south of there that actually need it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 27, 2009, 12:48:26 PM
Heh old 401 hell
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on August 27, 2009, 07:30:10 PM
US 219 freeway expansion delayed:

Quote
Don't expect completion of a superhighway version of Route 219 to make its way down into ski country anytime soon.

The newest section of road construction, landslide and all, has ballooned to $122 million from its original cost of $85.6 million, representing a 42 percent increase.

Cleanup work where the landslide occurred at the Town of Concord's Scoby Hill added $25 million more, and that's on top of an additional $12 million in miscellaneous overruns for the 4.2 miles of roadway that includes a double bridge spanning high above Cattaraugus Creek.

The price tag for the next 3.7-mile section is estimated at about $72 million, but bidding of the project has been delayed for two years because of questions concerning the environmental impact on wetlands.

And it will be at least a year before motorists will be able to bypass Springville at Route 39 on the newest section and drive into Cattaraugus County's Town of Ashford, where they will exit back onto existing 219 at Peters Road.

This latest stretch of north-south, four-lane expressway was supposed to open in December.

http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/772997.html (http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/772997.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on August 28, 2009, 03:27:37 PM
More New York BS. God forbid we actually build a nice road for once without delays and chickens**t studies.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 28, 2009, 04:10:54 PM
Yeah. This state can't accomplish 219, imagine what'll happen if they go ahead with the Northern Tier (Rooftop) Expressway from 81 to 87.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on August 28, 2009, 04:18:00 PM
Yeah, I'm certainly not holding my breath on that one. :-P
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 28, 2009, 04:20:57 PM
Next they'll turn NY 12 into the Chenango Expressway, (which serves a good reason to swap NY 320 to Chenango County), and then 104 into the Ridge Expressway,

it'll be a never ending spree
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on February 07, 2011, 07:16:41 AM
Here's a blog post (http://walkbikejersey.blogspot.com/2011/02/roundabout-video-shows-locals-eating.html) that includes a video of the apparently-new roundabout at US 9/NY 9L/NY 32 in Glens Falls.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on February 16, 2012, 01:24:06 PM
Found a Clearview guide sign along the Whitestone Expressway southbound on GSV today ahead of Exit 15.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.787308,-73.821999&spn=0.000016,0.007113&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.787435,-73.824007&panoid=QbutMwcL0lIMv7r3R9cOCw&cbp=12,188.21,,0,7.16

This a NYC thing, or just a random exception?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on February 16, 2012, 10:25:32 PM
That's an NYCDOT sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on February 17, 2012, 09:24:41 PM
Found a Clearview guide sign along the Whitestone Expressway southbound on GSV today ahead of Exit 15.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.787308,-73.821999&spn=0.000016,0.007113&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.787435,-73.824007&panoid=QbutMwcL0lIMv7r3R9cOCw&cbp=12,188.21,,0,7.16

This a NYC thing, or just a random exception?

NYSDOT Region 2 (Utica) is starting to put Clearview signs on two-lane roads here and there, mostly down in Madison County.  There's a few along NY Route 8.

I'm anxious to see the new signs for the CR 34 / Marcy-SUNYIT Expressway interchange (formerly Edic Rd) off of Route 49 near Utica to see if they'll be in Clearview or not.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on February 27, 2012, 10:26:43 PM
Does anyone know what this concrete structure is?

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=43.153029~-77.607722&style=h&lvl=19&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1 (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=43.153029~-77.607722&style=h&lvl=19&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1)

I realize this question is really old, but since I didn't see the answer mentioned: this was the interchange ramp between the Rochester subway and the Lehigh Valley RR. The building on the left, now Dinosaur BBQ, is the ex-Lehigh station (and preserved as such, to a large extent). To the right of the ramp stub is the tunnel portal where the subway descended below grade, running up to the former Erie Canal aqueduct, now the unused lower level of the Broad St. bridge (scroll north to see it).

There is still an old raceway running through the lower levels of the Rundel library building, which is there on the north side of Court St. On the east-facing view you can see the arches where this raceway empties into the Genesee River.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on April 19, 2012, 08:15:38 PM
Does anyone have any idea of why the north-south roads near Henrietta are at an angle?  It's not like there's any mountains to go around.  Here's (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.052207,-77.626648&spn=0.105494,0.222988&t=m&z=13) a map link of the area I'm referring to.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on April 19, 2012, 08:41:46 PM
http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/17132/County+Plan/Monroe+County+1872/New+York/ shows how the land was divided into lots. So blame the original landowners, perhaps these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pulteney_Association
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on April 19, 2012, 09:08:51 PM
Does anyone know why Hylan Boulevard and Stueben Street in Staten Island are the way they are.  Should not Hylan be Stueben and vise versa.  I am guessing that I-278 had something to do with it, but it would seem logical to not have Stueben Street at all and just call it Hylan Boulevard with the original as maybe Old Hylan Boulevard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 20, 2012, 12:57:04 AM
Does anyone have any idea of why the north-south roads near Henrietta are at an angle?  It's not like there's any mountains to go around.  Here's (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.052207,-77.626648&spn=0.105494,0.222988&t=m&z=13) a map link of the area I'm referring to.

Lots of the old land purchases in the Northeast were non-rectangular; the national standard of square township and range lines didn't fully take hold until much later. I would guess that the diagonal line along the eastern margins of Henrietta, Rush, and part of Brighton was located somehow in relation to the Genesee River.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: highwayroads on April 21, 2012, 10:06:52 PM
I like that New York allows you to go through construction sites at 55.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 22, 2012, 12:28:10 PM
It depends on the area.  Most 65mph roads allow work zone speed limits of 55, but not always.  On 55mph roads, work zones are typically 45.  Region 9 often doesn't post work zone speed limits at all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 22, 2012, 07:18:34 PM
Did NYSDOT Region #10 really transform the Northern State Parkway-NYS 110 interchange from a cloverleaf into a diamond? Or was this just a rumor from an anonymous IP on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_State_Route_110&action=history
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on April 22, 2012, 07:36:19 PM
Not done yet, but they're going to (http://www.gpinet.com/userfiles/file/BAB%20Northern%20State%20and%20LIE%20at%20Rte%20110.pdf).

NYSDOT press release (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2011/2011-05-19)


With respect to the Wiki edit in question, it appears to be correct - Google shows a construction configuration (http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.796154,-73.415076&spn=0.00411,0.010568&hnear=New+York&t=h&z=17) with only one exit ramp each way. The specific configuration is temporary but the presence of only one exit each way is permanent.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 22, 2012, 08:50:33 PM
Ugh! Don't tell me they're eliminating the loop ramps on the L.I.E.!


God DAMMIT!!

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 23, 2012, 11:33:27 AM
NYSDOT did the same thing to the NY 404/NY 47 (now NY 590) interchange.  My understanding is that it was done to take care of some really bad weaving.

At the Rochester road meet we even saw a car use one of the old ramps as a cut-through to his driveway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 23, 2012, 02:11:42 PM
Yes they did, many many years ago. One of the old loop ramps is now an oddly-divided dead-end residential street. I think it was residential even when it was also a ramp!

Somewhat more recently, they also de-looped the Fairport interchange (Exit 25).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 24, 2012, 07:56:22 AM
Quote
Ugh! Don't tell me they're eliminating the loop ramps on the L.I.E.!

Depending on which loops remain, a 6-ramp par-clo will generally operate more efficiently than a full cloverleaf, in part because there is no longer the weaving movements mentioned by deanej.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on May 07, 2012, 07:48:19 AM
I went over to Liverpool yesterday to pick up a computer I won on eBay, and I have a few things to report from the trip:

I saw my first yellow "YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS IN CROSSWALK" in-road sign in Elbridge.  I thought that pedestrian signs in this area weren't even made using yellow anymore.

NY 695 has all new signage north of Gerelock Road.  One thing that stuck out to me was the new I-690 West exit BGS.  The sign is closer to being a square, similar to the one on the left on the old sign bridge (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.075126,-76.229603&spn=0.00435,0.010568&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.074964,-76.229758&panoid=Id5WHMVOwVBh7S-7RVb3uw&cbp=12,46.76,,0,4.02).  The new 690 West sign is basically identical to the old one.  The "EXIT ONLY" panel on the new sign was the first time I've seen the up/right arrow used in the "EXIT ONLY" area.  It read "EXIT [arrow] ONLY".  The BGS is also on a new sign bridge spanning the entire highway, along with a new "Gerelock Rd./EXIT ½ MILE" sign above the southbound lanes.  The mini overhead "Gerelock Rd." sign before the exit (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.073935,-76.231052&spn=0.004381,0.010568&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.074053,-76.230932&panoid=NybM9hIV8gw-xhWlV2KnLQ&cbp=12,223.63,,1,-2.15) has been replaced by a ground-mounted sign.  I don't remember if the overhead "EXIT" sign at the gore (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.071059,-76.234174&spn=0.004381,0.010568&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.071248,-76.233934&panoid=IxUgyFfaT9AQh5cv2XQpqA&cbp=12,237.61,,1,-3.34) was there or not.

The blue mile markers that were installed sometime around 2002 (someone correct me if I'm wrong) on NY 5, NY 695, and I-690 have been replaced with MUTCD-compliant green ones.  Street View imagery from July 2011 shows the old mile markers (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.057404,-76.236953&spn=0.004382,0.010568&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.05732,-76.236997&panoid=KoqOyr986YhSqtMs6BS7zg&cbp=12,63.12,,2,2.8).

Option lanes at exit ramps and lane splits in the area have been repainted to be dotted, but they didn't remove or black out the old paint.

When we exited I-690 at John Glenn Blvd., I saw my first "sideways" added lane sign (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.11288,-76.2662&spn=0.008756,0.021136&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.11288,-76.2662&panoid=kYzhRzruEKafSqJ1rRCkfA&cbp=12,315.73,,1,-0.05).  Just after the merge, I noticed that the railroad crossing (http://maps.google.com/?ll=43.114611,-76.264515&spn=0.004378,0.010568&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.114611,-76.264515&panoid=EPt6iE7d_M1V-euWP-g-VA&cbp=12,80.82,,0,-6.58) had 8 inch lenses.

Around the intersection of John Glenn Blvd. and CR 57, there are (imo ugly) non-cutout CR 57 shields, along with directional banners that are probably half as high as they should be.  They look more like street blades than directional banners.  As an aside, I think that the the "JCT CR 57" shield on John Glenn Blvd. eastbound is way too close to the intersection.  I also saw a left turn arrow with a "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" sign.  There may be more, but I only saw one.

On the way home, I saw a VMS advertising the upcoming I-81 Challenge (http://thei81challenge.org) public meeting.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on May 07, 2012, 06:28:45 PM
Does any part of the Long Island Expressway allow for 65 mph since NY adapted the law.  I know that when the 65 mph law was allowed on interstates DE, MD, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI, and MA did not allow anything above 55, so this particular interstate never got it then, but since NY implemented the 65 on interstates has at least the Suffolk part of the Expressway allow any part to be 65?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 20, 2012, 08:52:51 PM
I was on Canal St. EB through Ellenville today (Canal and Center are the two-way couplets for NY 52, a unique situation where both roads are signed as 52 in both directions). I noticed that the reference route markers on Canal read "1V01" instead of "1101" - a V instead of a tens digit. That would seem to indicate Center as the main route and Canal as some sort of alternate designation. Also, the eastern end of canal was in the 2V01 range, suggesting a control section reset where the reference markers reappeared. (There were almost none through town that I saw.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: signalman on May 21, 2012, 07:57:31 AM
Does any part of the Long Island Expressway allow for 65 mph since NY adapted the law.  I know that when the 65 mph law was allowed on interstates DE, MD, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI, and MA did not allow anything above 55, so this particular interstate never got it then, but since NY implemented the 65 on interstates has at least the Suffolk part of the Expressway allow any part to be 65?

I seem to remember seeing a pic of the LIE with a 65 speed limit sign in the pic.  I don't know where along the highway it was though.  Most likely out in Suffolk County.  Personally, I can't confirm the speed limit on the LIE as I've never been on it.  Hell, I was only out on Long Island once, and I used the Southern State Parkway.  I remember that being posted at 55, but traffic was moving around 70.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 21, 2012, 08:37:09 PM
I was on Canal St. EB through Ellenville today (Canal and Center are the two-way couplets for NY 52, a unique situation where both roads are signed as 52 in both directions). I noticed that the reference route markers on Canal read "1V01" instead of "1101" - a V instead of a tens digit. That would seem to indicate Center as the main route and Canal as some sort of alternate designation. Also, the eastern end of canal was in the 2V01 range, suggesting a control section reset where the reference markers reappeared. (There were almost none through town that I saw.)

Yes, the V is standard for one-way couplets, although Ellenville might be the only place it's actually used. (That might be because couplets are usually found on locally-maintained streets, which don't have reference markers posted.) See http://empirestateroads.com/rm/2.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 21, 2012, 08:40:25 PM
I was on Canal St. EB through Ellenville today (Canal and Center are the two-way couplets for NY 52, a unique situation where both roads are signed as 52 in both directions). I noticed that the reference route markers on Canal read "1V01" instead of "1101" - a V instead of a tens digit. That would seem to indicate Center as the main route and Canal as some sort of alternate designation. Also, the eastern end of canal was in the 2V01 range, suggesting a control section reset where the reference markers reappeared. (There were almost none through town that I saw.)

Yes, the V is standard for one-way couplets, although Ellenville might be the only place it's actually used. (That might be because couplets are usually found on locally-maintained streets, which don't have reference markers posted.) See http://empirestateroads.com/rm/2.html
Well, that would suggest what we've already been saying, that 52 WB officially follows Canal and 52 EB officially follows Center. Even though both directions are signed as the actual route.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 22, 2012, 10:51:16 AM
I seem to remember seeing a pic of the LIE with a 65 speed limit sign in the pic.  I don't know where along the highway it was though.  Most likely out in Suffolk County.  Personally, I can't confirm the speed limit on the LIE as I've never been on it.  Hell, I was only out on Long Island once, and I used the Southern State Parkway.  I remember that being posted at 55, but traffic was moving around 70.
I don't know where you saw it, but I imagine it might've been somewhere east of William Floyd Parkway.




Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 22, 2012, 11:23:12 PM
Okay, I mentioned this on this thread:
http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5411.msg145213#msg145213

But I really need an exact year for the demolition of the US 9W-NY 303 one-way interchange.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 09, 2012, 04:04:17 PM
TOLLROADSnews: NY Thruway's understated debt, stagnant traffic, big health costs, cheap truck tolls pose financial crisis - Navigant Capital Advisors (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5979)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 10, 2012, 01:10:40 PM
I'm not sure how accurate that report is; I-84 was transferred back to NYSDOT, so it can't be a growing burden.  Who knows what other errors could be in the report.

I'm not sure how much raising truck tolls would help.  There are already a lot of shunpiking trucks on NY 5 and NY 31.  Do we really want more of them?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 10, 2012, 04:01:02 PM
I'm not sure how accurate that report is; I-84 was transferred back to NYSDOT, so it can't be a growing burden.  Who knows what other errors could be in the report.

You are absolutely correct about I-84.  And there was no mention of the toll barrier that was removed from I-190 either.

Quote
I'm not sure how much raising truck tolls would help.  There are already a lot of shunpiking trucks on NY 5 and NY 31.  Do we really want more of them?

Though using the non-freeway alternative (I mean freeway in the sense of functional class, not free of tolls) presumably costs those trucks time (and more wear on brakes, engines, clutches and transmissions).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 17, 2012, 12:52:46 AM
Well. One of the last vestiges of the Richmond Parkway extension has met its fate. I passed under the ex-overpasses between Exits 11 and 12, and well, there's nada left of the main overpasses. There are some overpasses left and one ramp, but that's it.


(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8002/7384006968_5384eee5aa_c.jpg)
Not used to seeing this scene on the SIE east.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7216/7384010474_054be771c1_c.jpg)
Even sadder shot, considering that you see where the ramps were.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8154/7384011752_7608e52c43_c.jpg)
This is one of the few remaining structures, SIE west just after Exit 12 ramp.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7232/7384006194_be0a26f95c_c.jpg)
This ramp on the SIE Eastbound is still there....for now...(its the only one left)

Related news article on SILive.com: http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/unused_overpasses_nearly_gone.html


Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 17, 2012, 05:42:32 PM
Well. One of the last vestiges of the Richmond Parkway extension has met its fate. I passed under the ex-overpasses between Exits 11 and 12, and well, there's nada left of the main overpasses. There are some overpasses left and one ramp, but that's it.
Now I'm wishing for a nuclear holocaust. NYSDOT has no credibility left. They've gone from Robert Moses types to John Norquist types.

 :no: :banghead:

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on June 17, 2012, 06:16:00 PM
To be fair, the reason the unused interchange is being removed is because the highway that goes through it is being widened and the extra lanes wouldn't fit under the existing ramps.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 17, 2012, 09:11:22 PM
Okay, but it would be great if they revived the ramps, and the road it was intended for. Of course the fact that they "widened" NY 112 from a two-lane undivided highway to a two-lane divided highway from Coram to Port Jefferson Station doesn't leave me with that much faith in them.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on June 17, 2012, 09:15:53 PM
They've gone from Robert Moses types to John Norquist types.
Scumbags to a different type of scumbags?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 17, 2012, 11:43:05 PM
Okay, but it would be great if they revived the ramps, and the road it was intended for. Of course the fact that they "widened" NY 112 from a two-lane undivided highway to a two-lane divided highway from Coram to Port Jefferson Station doesn't leave me with that much faith in them.


In your dreams Dan. The Richmond Parkway extension is never going to happen, and honestly I don't support it. Call me a NIMBY if you want, but it failed, it ain't ever coming back. If NYSDOT needs to remove the abandoned overpasses for a more important, already existing expressway, then it needs to be.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Lyle on June 18, 2012, 05:37:34 PM
Adam, why don't you support it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 18, 2012, 07:21:25 PM
To be fair, the reason the unused interchange is being removed is because the highway that goes through it is being widened and the extra lanes wouldn't fit under the existing ramps.
Also, at some point even unused overpasses need maintenance, and why spend money on something like that?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on June 18, 2012, 09:27:46 PM
Could have been part of a mountain bike park :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 18, 2012, 10:56:10 PM
Adam, why don't you support it?


It got canned. It isn't coming back. Staten Islanders won't be begging for it either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 19, 2012, 07:27:12 PM
Adam, why don't you support it?


It got canned. It isn't coming back. Staten Islanders won't be begging for it either.
Traffic-wise, it would probably be a net benefit to the state, taking pressure off of I-278, especially coming up Todt Hill. Thing is, without improvements from there into the Verrazano (and I mean more than NYSDOT is currently constructing, at least one more lane each way), you'd still have the bottleneck there. Overall, not really necessary, although would have definitely been nice.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 19, 2012, 07:36:48 PM
Adam, why don't you support it?


It got canned. It isn't coming back. Staten Islanders won't be begging for it either.
Traffic-wise, it would probably be a net benefit to the state, taking pressure off of I-278, especially coming up Todt Hill. Thing is, without improvements from there into the Verrazano (and I mean more than NYSDOT is currently constructing, at least one more lane each way), you'd still have the bottleneck there. Overall, not really necessary, although would have definitely been nice.

I don't question it had net benefits. However, but at least around here, once a proposal is killed, it isn't coming back, as much as people may want it. The Richmond Parkway extension isn't going to be constructed as much as we may dream and hope it might happen. I miss seeing these ramps go, but if its going to get them a net benefit of extra lanes, then so be it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 19, 2012, 07:43:23 PM
Adam, why don't you support it?


It got canned. It isn't coming back. Staten Islanders won't be begging for it either.
Traffic-wise, it would probably be a net benefit to the state, taking pressure off of I-278, especially coming up Todt Hill. Thing is, without improvements from there into the Verrazano (and I mean more than NYSDOT is currently constructing, at least one more lane each way), you'd still have the bottleneck there. Overall, not really necessary, although would have definitely been nice.

I don't question it had net benefits. However, but at least around here, once a proposal is killed, it isn't coming back, as much as people may want it. The Richmond Parkway extension isn't going to be constructed as much as we may dream and hope it might happen. I miss seeing these ramps go, but if its going to get them a net benefit of extra lanes, then so be it.
Next you'll tell me NJ 85 isn't opening next year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on June 23, 2012, 01:16:21 PM
I was noticing that NY 37 is signed E-W instead of N-S like it should be.  It is so odd that leaving Watertown you have NY 37 EB to the left of US 11 NB with US 11 parting ways from its direction to head East at that point. Then at NY 12's northern terminus you have NY 12 NB end with NY 37 EB to the left and NY 37 WB to the right.  In the North Hills Region everything seems counter logical.

What is even more interesting is that US 11 does run more east and west between Watertown and Rouses Point, that is a distance longer than US 4 runs N-S from East Greenbush to the VT Line.   Yet, NYSDOT made the exception for US 4 not to confuse people and not for US 11 where direction shifts.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 24, 2012, 01:40:58 PM
NY 37 is an east-west Road between Morristown and Covington.  East of Covington it heads south for 20 miles, so how would you sign it?

US 11 is a diagonal between Fort Drum and Canton; it doesn't fully become east-west until Potsdam.

US 4 is entirely north-south in NY; the only portion that could even receive east-west signs without someone laughing is a 6 mile portion east of Whitehall (until Vermont).  Plus it's in Region 1 and US 11 is in quirky Region 7 (also known as the only region that posts exit numbers on both a route's beginning and ending termini, though this won't be obvious until I-781 is completed).

And NY 12 is north-south until Clayton, and even then, continues to move north until Jaques-Cartier State Park (where it turns south for 1/4 mile to meet NY 37).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on June 25, 2012, 08:54:02 PM
Plus it's in Region 1 and US 11 is in quirky Region 7 (also known as the only region that posts exit numbers on both a route's beginning and ending termini, though this won't be obvious until I-781 is completed).


I find it funny that you find Region 7 to be quirky because I've always found To Region 2 to be the To Quirky One of NYSDOT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 26, 2012, 02:32:04 PM
It's certainly the quirkiest, though I'm rarely there, and the exit numbering for I-781 stood out to me... and NY 11B being north/south is a little strange... and they don't seem to do snow plow services, because every county line has a snow plow turnaround.

Not that any NYSDOT region is really normal, for that matter.  They all have some strange quirk.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 07, 2012, 02:18:42 PM
TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass innovations drive transponder use over 80% at MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 87% at plaza to go AET (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6104)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 07, 2012, 07:16:44 PM
TOLLROADSblog: E-ZPass innovations drive transponder use over 80% at MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 87% at plaza to go AET[/url]

I've seen raw numbers elsewhere in the system. The market penetration (ha) rate was 76% to 79% depending on time of day and direction, obviously lower overnight when truck traffic rises and highest during commutes. 80% doesn't surprise me as a peak, but it does as an average. Then again, if it's Bayonne going AET, I could believe 87%, because there's no non-local traffic going that way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 07, 2012, 10:15:46 PM
TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass innovations drive transponder use over 80% at MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 87% at plaza to go AET[/url]

I've seen raw numbers elsewhere in the system. The market penetration (ha) rate was 76% to 79% depending on time of day and direction, obviously lower overnight when truck traffic rises and highest during commutes. 80% doesn't surprise me as a peak, but it does as an average. Then again, if it's Bayonne going AET, I could believe 87%, because there's no non-local traffic going that way.

Why would truck traffic result in a lower percentage of toll paid by electronic means?
(I am not questioning your observations, just curious.)

It seems to me that they have a better incentive in terms of money (as compared to four-wheeled vehicles) to pay electronically than by cash.

The E-ZPass discount at the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge for a 5-axle combination is almost $23. At the N.Y. MTA B&T "major" crossings it's about half that, at $11.37.


Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 08, 2012, 08:30:53 PM
TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass innovations drive transponder use over 80% at MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 87% at plaza to go AET[/url]

I've seen raw numbers elsewhere in the system. The market penetration (ha) rate was 76% to 79% depending on time of day and direction, obviously lower overnight when truck traffic rises and highest during commutes. 80% doesn't surprise me as a peak, but it does as an average. Then again, if it's Bayonne going AET, I could believe 87%, because there's no non-local traffic going that way.

Why would truck traffic result in a lower percentage of toll paid by electronic means?
(I am not questioning your observations, just curious.)

It seems to me that they have a better incentive in terms of money (as compared to four-wheeled vehicles) to pay electronically than by cash.

The E-ZPass discount at the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge for a 5-axle combination is almost $23. At the N.Y. MTA B&T "major" crossings it's about half that, at $11.37.
They would have an incentive, but they would also have to have the tags. A lot of cross-country trucks won't have tags for every agency, or even any agency - remember that truckers typically pay out of pocket, so it's up to them to get tags. I also live in New Jersey where we have a fair number of trucks that can't get E-ZPass due to illegality of the company, truck, owner, etc....... But basically, I've seen the raw numbers, so whatever the explanation, I know the result.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 10:45:04 AM
TOLLROADSnews: E-ZPass innovations drive transponder use over 80% at MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 87% at plaza to go AET[/url]

I've seen raw numbers elsewhere in the system. The market penetration (ha) rate was 76% to 79% depending on time of day and direction, obviously lower overnight when truck traffic rises and highest during commutes. 80% doesn't surprise me as a peak, but it does as an average. Then again, if it's Bayonne going AET, I could believe 87%, because there's no non-local traffic going that way.

Why would truck traffic result in a lower percentage of toll paid by electronic means?
(I am not questioning your observations, just curious.)

It seems to me that they have a better incentive in terms of money (as compared to four-wheeled vehicles) to pay electronically than by cash.

The E-ZPass discount at the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge for a 5-axle combination is almost $23. At the N.Y. MTA B&T "major" crossings it's about half that, at $11.37.
They would have an incentive, but they would also have to have the tags. A lot of cross-country trucks won't have tags for every agency, or even any agency - remember that truckers typically pay out of pocket, so it's up to them to get tags. I also live in New Jersey where we have a fair number of trucks that can't get E-ZPass due to illegality of the company, truck, owner, etc....... But basically, I've seen the raw numbers, so whatever the explanation, I know the result.

The out-of-state truck and "illegal" truck explanations would presumably explain some of it (and again, I do not question your findings).

How aggressive are the various police agencies in North Jersey (NJSP) and New York City (NYPD) and the Port Authority's police when  it comes to commercial vehicle (including weight) enforcement?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: elsmere241 on August 09, 2012, 02:22:34 PM
My brother-in-law is a trucker, and he says he has one transponder for EZ-Pass and the weigh stations.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on August 11, 2012, 12:34:53 PM

How aggressive are the various police agencies in North Jersey (NJSP) and New York City (NYPD) and the Port Authority's police when  it comes to commercial vehicle (including weight) enforcement?


I see a lot of trucks pulled over at the GW Bridge. (Keep in mind the tunnels do not have large trucks going through.) There is enforcement at every tunnel entrance, so it would be difficult to sneak a commercial vehicle in there, but weight wouldn't likely be an issue. I don't know why they get pulled over at the GW, but they do, but it's only EB because of the toll plaza. There's no way to enforce WB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2012, 12:48:16 PM

How aggressive are the various police agencies in North Jersey (NJSP) and New York City (NYPD) and the Port Authority's police when  it comes to commercial vehicle (including weight) enforcement?


I see a lot of trucks pulled over at the GW Bridge. (Keep in mind the tunnels do not have large trucks going through.) There is enforcement at every tunnel entrance, so it would be difficult to sneak a commercial vehicle in there, but weight wouldn't likely be an issue. I don't know why they get pulled over at the GW, but they do, but it's only EB because of the toll plaza. There's no way to enforce WB.

I don't cross the GW Bridge very often, but I have seen the Port Authority's police (I presume) inspecting trucks and checking logbooks there.  And you're correct - it is not really possible for them to do any checks on the westbound side. 

And good point about the dimensional restrictions at the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels.  Someone attending a TRB meeting some years ago told me that his company has special (smaller) semitrailers for delivering freight from a distribution center in North Jersey to places in Manhattan that are legal through the one of the tunnels.  Makes sense to me.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 26, 2012, 07:31:52 PM
Updating the Staten Island Expressway construction:

(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/315078_313653648733556_552988385_n.jpg)
New exit 15 eastbound, opened July 9, 2012. (http://www.mta.info/mta/news/releases/?en=120706-BT69)

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/526985_313654445400143_1025247825_n.jpg)
Old exit 15 eastbound, now barely anything more than an overpass. All signage approaching the old 15 is gone in quite a hurry. Of course there is barely any signage for the new 15.

(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/255253_313653225400265_809327198_n.jpg)
The Richmond north to SIE westbound that once flew over Exit 12 is gone, last time I posted photos, it was in the process of being demolished.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2012, 12:19:05 PM
N.Y. Times: Reckless Drivers Who Hit People Face Few Penalties in New York [City] (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/nyregion/reckless-drivers-who-hit-people-face-few-penalties-in-new-york.html)

Quote
Roxana Sorina Buta, dark-eyed and lithe, hurried home from work as a waitress on May 24, scurrying through rain and 1:30 a.m. darkness toward the subway. She got to Broadway and stepped into the crosswalk when the light turned green.

Quote
At the same time a New York City dump truck rumbled eastbound on 14th Street and turned south on Broadway. On the video taken in a Citibank on that corner, you can see the truck making a fast, seamless turn. If you look very closely, you will also see a shadow flicker in front of the truck’s right headlight.

Quote
That was Ms. Buta, and the truck hit her square.

Quote
Ms. Buta, 21, an aspiring actress, the only child of immigrants from Romania, was no more.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: M3019C LPS20 on March 15, 2013, 11:53:01 PM
The remaining bridges that still stand on Staten Island are located on the other side of the island. Right at the end of Richmond Pkwy.

At one time, they led to nowhere. Although today two of them are now connected to a newly paved road that is located in the general area of where the former Brookfield landfill was.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 03, 2013, 05:31:34 PM
For some reason, NYSDOT has decided to lower the speed limit on I-81 north approaching the Thousand Islands Bridge.  It's now 40 for a whole mile before the toll booths instead of 55 (which is was and still is southbound).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on April 03, 2013, 05:35:19 PM
I noticed the 55 MPH zone starts earlier when approaching Syracuse, as well. Actually, I think they moved it back to where the original zone started, after the upgrade to 65 in the 90s.

Have also noticed new signage in Region 3, specifically new Truck Inspection signs, and new Left exit panels for the 481 diverge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 03, 2013, 06:22:31 PM
So where are those now?  Last I checked, the northbound 55 started north of I-481 (before the next exit), and the southbound 55 ended just south of I-481.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on April 03, 2013, 06:56:41 PM
Southbound, unchanged; at the merge of I-481 into I-81.

Northbound, it is now posted 55 before the I-481 split. If memory serves correctly, this was the original location of the change, which was pushed past I-481, perhaps when 65 was permitted on I-481 (as well as NY-695, and NY-5 bypass in Camillus, etc.) This is also where a new reference segment begins on the Reference Marker system.

Other boundaries did not seem to change (through Binghamton, or around local roads in Syracuse).

Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 04, 2013, 09:59:28 AM
It does make more sense to have the speed limit for both directions to be the same.  Never understood why they're different.  Personally, I'd have it 65 until just north of I-481 so traffic going to/from I-481 doesn't have to slow down, but I don't think NYSDOT is allowed to post 65 within city limits.  You also see that in Binghamton with protracted 55 zones that don't make particular sense.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on April 04, 2013, 02:49:51 PM
I thought the "within city limits" restriction was removed, but could be mistaken there... The differences in where zones start/end is odd, but made sense (65 past the split onto a road that is 65, for example).

An odd case of this, on I-81 in PA, 65 is posted northbound after joining from the Turnpike/US 6 interchange, but southbound you are "55 for the next 34 miles" about 2 miles before the exit... Of course, it is not an direct connection, but still...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 04, 2013, 04:49:48 PM
Quote
but southbound you are "55 for the next 34 miles" about 2 miles before the exit... Of course, it is not an direct connection, but still...

You're also on a notable downhill grade going southbound on that stretch...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on April 04, 2013, 10:51:22 PM
Southbound, unchanged; at the merge of I-481 into I-81.

Northbound, it is now posted 55 before the I-481 split. If memory serves correctly, this was the original location of the change, which was pushed past I-481, perhaps when 65 was permitted on I-481 (as well as NY-695, and NY-5 bypass in Camillus, etc.) This is also where a new reference segment begins on the Reference Marker system.

Other boundaries did not seem to change (through Binghamton, or around local roads in Syracuse).



At least there's 65 MPH stretches leading to Syracuse. For the life of me I can't figure out why NY 5S and NY 12 going into Utica aren't 65 MPH until the city limit. The only possible reason is for revenue generation purposes. The only 65 MPH stretch of highway in R2 is NY Route 49. The freeway portions of 5S and 12 are engineered to be more 65-friendly than NY Route 49 is .
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 05, 2013, 11:44:05 AM
I thought the "within city limits" restriction was removed, but could be mistaken there... The differences in where zones start/end is odd, but made sense (65 past the split onto a road that is 65, for example).
Well, there are a few stretches of 65 in cities, but it's not the norm... mainly, stuff like I-86 skirting through Corning.  I-81's 55 zones in Binghamton follow the city line despite the first exit being a couple of miles down the road.

Southbound, unchanged; at the merge of I-481 into I-81.

Northbound, it is now posted 55 before the I-481 split. If memory serves correctly, this was the original location of the change, which was pushed past I-481, perhaps when 65 was permitted on I-481 (as well as NY-695, and NY-5 bypass in Camillus, etc.) This is also where a new reference segment begins on the Reference Marker system.

Other boundaries did not seem to change (through Binghamton, or around local roads in Syracuse).



At least there's 65 MPH stretches leading to Syracuse. For the life of me I can't figure out why NY 5S and NY 12 going into Utica aren't 65 MPH until the city limit. The only possible reason is for revenue generation purposes. The only 65 MPH stretch of highway in R2 is NY Route 49. The freeway portions of 5S and 12 are engineered to be more 65-friendly than NY Route 49 is .
Or NY 8... I'm not entirely convinced region 2 knows what freeways are.  I think NY 49 only has it because it's future I-790.

Another protracted rural 55 is NY 17 between Hale Eddy and Roscoe.  It slows down for the at-grade intersections in Hale Eddy... and just keeps going and going, for no apparent reason.  Maybe Delaware County needs the ticket revenue.  The road is built to the same standards as the 65 zone to the east, and the exits are further apart.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 05, 2013, 12:07:30 PM
Transportation Nation: Feds Set Uniform Standards For Sandy Rebuilding (http://transportationnation.org/2013/04/04/feds-set-uniform-standards-for-sandy-rebuilding/)

Quote
Build higher. That’s what the federal government is saying to the owners of structures badly damaged by Sandy. Northeast flood zones now have tougher re-building requirements that apply across the board: to houses, businesses and government infrastructure.

Quote
Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood stood in front of an Amtrak electrical station in a New Jersey swamp to make their point: any structure more than half destroyed by Sandy that is being rebuilt with federal funds, must be lifted higher than before. The new standards require a building owner to consult an updated FEMA flood map, find the new recommended height for his structure and then lift it a foot above that.

Quote
LaHood explained why: “So that people don’t have to go through the same heartache and headache and backache that it’s taken to rebuild.”

Quote
LaHood says the Amtrak electrical plant, which was knocked out by Sandy, will be lifted several feet at a cost of $25 million. A statement from the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force has details on the new standards:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on April 05, 2013, 01:13:09 PM
I-81's 55 zones in Binghamton follow the city line despite the first exit being a couple of miles down the road.

The 55 Zone was moved northward as well when the zones were extended; it was originally before the NY-17/FI-86 split northbound. However, these boundaries have not changed, save for temporary construction projects, etc.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 08, 2013, 05:43:03 PM
Quote
but southbound you are "55 for the next 34 miles" about 2 miles before the exit... Of course, it is not an direct connection, but still...

You're also on a notable downhill grade going southbound on that stretch...

And, finally, heading southbound you have this major exit coming up with traffic (especially trucks) starting to shift into the right lane to get to I-476 or the left lane to avoid all that right lane traffic. No such issue northbound.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on May 04, 2013, 09:05:20 PM
I took a day trip to our church camp (near Rome) with some friends on July 3rd last summer (I meant to post this on July 4th, but I'm just getting to it now, ten months later :banghead:), and I made some observations along the way.  I was only able to get one picture since I was riding in the back seat on the way there (I had a perfect angle at a stoplight), and although I rode back in the front, it was dark.

Thruway:

• Some street name signs on bridges have been replaced with Clearview ones

• Advance signage located across from the Warners Service Area for the Dewitt Service Area has been replaced with Clearview

• I could have sworn just the word "EXIT" on one of the supplemental signs for Exit 39 eastbound was in Clearview

• Signage in both directions at the new Buckley Road bridge near the I-81 interchange has been replaced with Clearview, and the new eastbound I-81 exit sign was moved to the ground.  The new Electronics Parkway sign for westbound traffic is still mounted on the bridge.

• Gore point striping for the westbound Electronics Parkway exit is diagonal, not chevron shaped.  I think the I-481 exit was the same way (I couldn't tell because it was dark).  There may be more, but I didn't pay attention.

• The CR 57 shields on the 1 mile and exit signs for Exit 38 westbound don't reflect at all, and the colors seemed off on the 1 mile sign

• The mileage signs below the "NO U-TURN" signs are mostly in Clearview (black on yellow too, but that's another thread), and some looked to be Arial or Helvetica

Surface Roads:

• In Oneida County, Reference Markers used a different font, and the numbers were smaller than normal.  The ones in the city of Rome looked normal.

• Along the NY 46/NY 49 duplex, all of the Reference Markers were on the north/east side of the road

• Street name signs along Black River Blvd. in Rome are HUGE, and I thought they were Clearview until I compared the picture I took of one with the Roadgeek Fonts.  I'd say it might be Series C or D:
(http://mjr1990.webng.com/AARoads/Black River Blvd Sign In Rome.jpeg)

As for why this intersection is pictured, we missed the turn to stay on NY 26 north, so we were waiting to turn to get back to it.

• I was unable to get a picture, but there was a sign that read "THOMAS st" (in that exact upper/lowercase combination).  If I could have gotten a picture, I'd post it in "Worst of Road Signs".

I also posted in the Incorrect Highways Marked On Google Maps thread (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2001.msg219497#msg219497) about the horrible directions that sent us literally zigzagging around Oneida County.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on May 05, 2013, 07:07:56 AM


• In Oneida County, Reference Markers used a different font, and the numbers were smaller than normal.  The ones in the city of Rome looked normal.

• Along the NY 46/NY 49 duplex, all of the Reference Markers were on the north/east side of the road

• Street name signs along Black River Blvd. in Rome are HUGE, and I thought they were Clearview until I compared the picture I took of one with the Roadgeek Fonts.  I'd say it might be Series C or D:
(http://mjr1990.webng.com/AARoads/Black River Blvd Sign In Rome.jpeg)

As for why this intersection is pictured, we missed the turn to stay on NY 26 north, so we were waiting to turn to get back to it.

• I was unable to get a picture, but there was a sign that read "THOMAS st" (in that exact upper/lowercase combination).  If I could have gotten a picture, I'd post it in "Worst of Road Signs".


I've never noticed the reference markers in Oneida County using different lettering. I've always thought it was region 9 (especially Delaware County) that used the different lettering. I'll have to pay closer attention here in Oneida County, but I've never seen it. Where did you observe this?

The street name signs along Black River Blvd. are very, very big for their application. That's Series D lettering you see there. I love mixed case Series D when it uses the "older" version of the lettering (like shown in the photo). It's the same lettering seen on the freeway signs in Georgia.  The newer version of the lettering has weirdly shaped "s"s and "w"s.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on May 10, 2013, 08:57:53 PM
@upstatenyroads: I can't remember the exact location of the reference markers, but I do remember that they returned to normal when we entered the town of Rome.



If anyone is near the Auburn area, you might want to get pictures of the older signs along the Arterial (US 20/NY 5) and intersecting side streets while you still can.  There's a sign replacement project underway, and they've done from NY 326 to the western end of the NY 38 multiplex.  Signs intended to be replaced are marked with a white X spray painted on either the post or the sign itself.  There's also underground utility markings and/or marker flags near the posts.  Some signs only have the utility markers.  They've split the project into segments between major intersections, and are working eastward.  They've done one segment per week for the last three weeks.  They're probably going to go to NY 34 next week.

I took pictures of most of the route shields from NY 38 to the US 20/NY 5 split in the summer of 2010.  I went out today to get anything I missed, along with the remaining distance signs.  I got pictures of some of the new signs as well.  New destination signs lack distances, and I saw two double-sided street name signs that could only be seen in one direction.

The sign pictured below from Steve's NY 326 page (http://alpsroads.net/roads/ny/ny_326) is now gone.  All of the other signs on the page probably gone now too.
(http://alpsroads.net/roads/ny/ny_326/ewright.jpg)

On a side note, NYSDOT seems to like Series D for new distance, town/city/village, and street name signs, including ones in the project mentioned above.  I hated it at first, but I've grown to like it a bit.  I still prefer Series E(M) over D though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mc78andrew on May 14, 2013, 03:01:15 PM
Just a warning...the ramp onto the GWB from the Henry Hudson pkwy south is an absolute mess!  As I was driving over this mess this morning at 515 I was grateful that I don't have the crazy sports car that I want and thinking just what would happen to such a car over such bad pavement. 

Then what do you know...1/3 of the way across the bridge the TPM says I have a flat.  As I creep across the bridge getting passed by everyone I pull over to see my tire hissing air and a nice chuck ripped out of the sidewall. 

Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 01, 2013, 10:13:25 AM
Just northwest of where the widened median on Southern State Parkway near Belmont Lake State Park begins, there's a strip of undeveloped land along Lakeway Drive and Hilltop Avenue running as far as Little East Neck Road. Was this part of some proposed spur to and from Southern State?

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:40.713333,-73.357222&hl=en&ll=40.733308,-73.365111&spn=0.011105,0.026157&t=h&z=16

If not, why does that strip of undeveloped land exist in the first place?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 01, 2013, 11:50:31 AM
Just northwest of where the widened median on Southern State Parkway near Belmont Lake State Park begins, there's a strip of undeveloped land along Lakeway Drive and Hilltop Avenue running as far as Little East Neck Road. Was this part of some proposed spur to and from Southern State?

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:40.713333,-73.357222&hl=en&ll=40.733308,-73.365111&spn=0.011105,0.026157&t=h&z=16

If not, why does that strip of undeveloped land exist in the first place?


I don't know, but I would guess the name Lakeway Drive is a clue, along with the fact that Belmont Lake is the location of the Long Island state parks headquarters. Perhaps Lakeway Drive was originally conceived as a grand-ish entry way to the state park at Belmont Lake?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 01, 2013, 12:17:40 PM
The Northway missing Exit 3.  It is obvious that there is another interchange that is eventually to be added to I-87 in Colonie, NY.  It lies between the Albany Airport exit and NY 5 as the Airport is Exit 4 and Route 5 is Exit 2.  There are no known corridors there, so am I to assume that someday the Albany Airport will have a direct connection? 

Also, will NY 7 ever have a full freeway between I-890 and I-87?  I see a trumpet is at Interchange 7 on I-87 that means it might not ever extend west to Schenectady or else other ramps would have been constructed.  Then again trumpets are easy to convert into almost anything, so NY, for once, might of been proactive and thought about the reality.  As we all know the abandoned Richmond Parkway on Staten Island left behind many ghost ramps and unused bridges and then in other cases you see no ROW left behind or other such ghost ramps around.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on August 01, 2013, 02:07:52 PM
Exit 3 on Interstate 87/Adirondack Northway was for the proposed Interstate 687 that was to connect to Interstate 90 on the northside of Albany.  The Interstate 687 ramps, overpass, even lighting were built in the early 1970's over Interstate 90 at was is now Exit 5A--Corporate Woods Blvd.  There are constant proposals to have a direct connection between Interstate 87 and Albany International Airport.

To my knowledge there was never any plan to expand NY 7 west from the Northway to Schenectady.  Building the current NY 7 from the Collar City Bridge in Troy to the Northway was a huge legal fight by homeowners in its path that lasted 20 years, 1966-1986.  The State of New York won, but highway expansion plans in the Capital District have largely ended since 1989.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on August 01, 2013, 04:38:31 PM
For those interested, a search on "Northway Exit 3" brings up several news stories from the last year about the plans and progress (or lack thereof) for a direct link from I-87 to ALB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on August 04, 2013, 09:34:09 PM
It is my understanding that one of the early proposals for Interstate 88 was to follow a route close to NY 7 between I-890 and the Northway (I-87) and then out to Troy along the modern day NY 7 Expressway (or Alternate Route 7 to the locals).  This of course was one of a number of proposals for an eastern extension of I-88.  To my knowledge, there was never any proposal to expand NY 7 as an expressway or freeway itself between Latham and Schenectady.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 05, 2013, 09:41:28 PM
Anybody know the history of NY button copy?  For example, CT used non-reflective button copy until 1980 or so and then switched to rivted and then to reflectorized button copy by 1985.  Then phased out all button copy in 1995ish.



Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on August 11, 2013, 11:45:13 PM
Anybody know the history of NY button copy?  For example, CT used non-reflective button copy until 1980 or so and then switched to rivted and then to reflectorized button copy by 1985.  Then phased out all button copy in 1995ish.


I believe button copy was phased out around 1990, though I remember some non-button copy signs that said "MacArthur Stadium NEXT RIGHT" on the original alignment of Interstate 81 near now-Carousel Center as early as 1980. The non-button copy signs were first made of wood (replacements for I-81 SB advance exit signs for Exits 31 and 36 were like this).

The rebuilding of Interstate 790 in 1989 used button copy on reflectorized signs, however, the sign rehab project on NY Route 49 expressway in 1991 was non-button copy.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 28, 2013, 10:27:46 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Elmhurst,+Queens,+NY&hl=en&ll=40.735584,-73.925457&spn=0.005593,0.014999&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=24.039383,61.435547&oq=elm&t=h&hnear=Elmhurst,+Queens,+New+York&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.73565,-73.925698&panoid=Paxd5IWK_IaVKs7IkM2hrw&cbp=12,135,,0,0

What is up with the Alternate I-495 designation?  I have never seen that ever in the system for interstates.  I am guessing that its an alternate way to I-495, but no such designation really exists/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on August 28, 2013, 11:25:09 PM
What is up with the Alternate I-495 designation?
It's essentially a C/D road that uses the lower level through the cemeteries.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 29, 2013, 08:52:12 AM
If that is the case, then it is part of I-495 proper as it is a c/d road even though underneath the mainline instead of on the sides.  The Alternate is not a bannered route, but just a secondary alignment that is acting like an alternate.

On another note, I like the way NYCDOT pleases both the feds and themselves at the same time using both "Riverhead" and the traditional "Eastern LI" on the guide signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on August 29, 2013, 10:19:15 AM
If that is the case, then it is part of I-495 proper as it is a c/d road even though underneath the mainline instead of on the sides.  The Alternate is not a bannered route, but just a secondary alignment that is acting like an alternate.

On another note, I like the way NYCDOT pleases both the feds and themselves at the same time using both "Riverhead" and the traditional "Eastern LI" on the guide signs.

As NE wrote, it is just another way to indicate to traffic that the forthcoming lower level continues through.

Another instance of ALT Interstate signage in NYC is for Astoria Boulevard, which trucks are directed to in place of the GCP to make the connection between I-278 (BQE) and I-678 (Van Wyck) for LaGuardia Airport.

(http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york278/i-278_wb_exit_045_05.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york278/i-278_wb_exit_045_05.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on August 29, 2013, 11:46:01 AM
If that is the case, then it is part of I-495 proper as it is a c/d road even though underneath the mainline instead of on the sides.  The Alternate is not a bannered route, but just a secondary alignment that is acting like an alternate.

On another note, I like the way NYCDOT pleases both the feds and themselves at the same time using both "Riverhead" and the traditional "Eastern LI" on the guide signs.

As NE wrote, it is just another way to indicate to traffic that the forthcoming lower level continues through.

Another instance of ALT Interstate signage in NYC is for Astoria Boulevard, which trucks are directed to in place of the GCP to make the connection between I-278 (BQE) and I-678 (Van Wyck) for LaGuardia Airport.

(http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york278/i-278_wb_exit_045_05.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york278/i-278_wb_exit_045_05.jpg)
That one's a little different and more technically correct/accurate because of the word TO being situated between the ALT wording and I-278 shield.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on August 29, 2013, 06:41:51 PM
Yeah this one is more correct with the TO as it is stating that it is an alternate route to I-278 as it really is.  The other on the LIE is also an alternate to I-495 East, but in reality it actually uses a c/d road that is part of the interstate.  I am sure the engineer who wrote the sign did not do it for that purpose, but like Alex said that it just informs the drivers that they can use the lower level as well to continue on to I-495 EB.  However, you look at it with TO or no TO its still an alternate to the main route.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on August 31, 2013, 08:34:49 PM
NYS DOT screwed up on the left sign. The words NY Airports should be in mixed-case lettering and the arrows are supposed to be over the lanes affected. How can DOT or their contractor be so sloppy?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 03, 2013, 10:18:14 PM
NYS DOT screwed up on the left sign. The words NY Airports should be in mixed-case lettering and the arrows are supposed to be over the lanes affected. How can DOT or their contractor be so sloppy?

Isn't this part of I-278 maintained by NYCDOT, though?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 03, 2013, 10:24:12 PM
The signs in NYC are put up by NY State DOT. Ya' should have been around in the 1960's when the City fought with NYS DOT to put the highways names on the signs along with the route shield. And in the 1970's when the State re-signed all NYC highways with names and numbers on the top line.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on September 03, 2013, 10:24:30 PM
Isn't this part of I-278 maintained by NYCDOT, though?
I don't think so: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region11/general-info/built-and-unbuilt-arterial-system
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on September 03, 2013, 11:36:22 PM
Psst, guys... that pair of signs was installed by MTA Bridges & Tunnels (a.k.a. TBTA), being physically located on the structure of the Triboro Bridge and all.  ;-)

TBTA, like lots of agencies that just maintain bridges and their approaches, has given us plenty of signage monstrosities since it isn't something they have a lot of experience with or pay a lot of attention to. Those signs are pretty much standard expectation for TBTA, there is worse out there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 04, 2013, 11:44:48 AM
TBTA, like lots of agencies that just maintain bridges and their approaches, has given us plenty of signage monstrosities since it isn't something they have a lot of experience with or pay a lot of attention to. Those signs are pretty much standard expectation for TBTA, there is worse out there.

It would make far too much sense for the TBTA to just have NYSDOT do the sign work (or hire contractors to do it), right?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 04, 2013, 04:19:59 PM
Okay, so it's MTA B&T's fault, not NYSDOT; my error. Either way the sign is poorly engineered and not in compliance. The Port Authority does signing too and theirs is generally correct, such as in the Geo. Wash. Bridge complex. Anyone remember their signs with slightly tapered sides? Don't even know if they still build them that way. I should take note of that........
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 04, 2013, 09:21:31 PM
I wouldn't say the George Washington Bridge signage is right.  NYSDOT reverted I-95 back to mile-based exits years ago but the Port Authority signs still use the attempted sequential numbering scheme.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on September 04, 2013, 10:14:04 PM
Vdeane, I'm not sure if you're correct or not. My memory of G.W. Bridge signing goes back to way before you got here; you might be more current than I am. Years ago the Port Authority did not even use exit numbers. I'll take note next time I drive the bridge, though that might not be for a while.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 04, 2013, 10:46:37 PM
Right now the Port Authority uses 1, 2, 3, where the exits are officially 1A, 1B, 1C-D.  NYSDOT had planned to convert I-95 to sequential (seems more confusing to me to have the numbers reset where the Thruway takes over, and they must have seen that too, because the NYSDOT signs that had been converted reverted some time later).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on September 04, 2013, 11:57:34 PM
Psst, guys... that pair of signs was installed by MTA Bridges & Tunnels (a.k.a. TBTA), being physically located on the structure of the Triboro Bridge and all.  ;-)

TBTA, like lots of agencies that just maintain bridges and their approaches, has given us plenty of signage monstrosities since it isn't something they have a lot of experience with or pay a lot of attention to. Those signs are pretty much standard expectation for TBTA, there is worse out there.
All depends on the engineers designing the signs. Keep an eye out for the next couple of projects on the Verrazano. ;)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on September 05, 2013, 05:38:12 PM
Right now the Port Authority uses 1, 2, 3, where the exits are officially 1A, 1B, 1C-D.  NYSDOT had planned to convert I-95 to sequential (seems more confusing to me to have the numbers reset where the Thruway takes over, and they must have seen that too, because the NYSDOT signs that had been converted reverted some time later).

Yeah, NYSDOT's false start at renumbering the Cross Bronx caused that mess. PANYNJ when they replaced their signs did so with numbers which were correct at the time they were installed, consistent with NYSDOT's new numbers. Then NYSDOT changed their mind and redid the tabs on all the new signs they'd installed. Meanwhile PANYNJ said "we're not spending money to replace brand new exit tabs" and left their signs alone. Give it 20 years for those signs to get to their natural replacement cycle and then they'll be correct.

All depends on the engineers designing the signs. Keep an eye out for the next couple of projects on the Verrazano.  ;-)

There is a beautiful "Entering Staten Island" medallion coming of the upper level that I assume isn't going to be replaced with anything remotely similar. Dunno how much control you have over what happens to the old signs but that one is definitely worth preserving. You should have it added to your collection. ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on September 13, 2013, 01:06:32 PM
Perhaps somebody should introduce PANYNJ to this popular concept called an "overlay".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2013, 12:45:18 PM
Forbes.com: E-ZPasses Get Read All Over New York (Not Just At Toll Booths) (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/09/12/e-zpasses-get-read-all-over-new-york-not-just-at-toll-booths/)

Quote
After spotting a police car with two huge boxes on its trunk — that turned out to be license-plate-reading cameras — a man in New Jersey became obsessed with the loss of privacy for vehicles on American roads. (He’s not the only one.) The man, who goes by the Internet handle “Puking Monkey,” did an analysis of the many ways his car could be tracked and stumbled upon something rather interesting: his E-ZPass, which he obtained for the purpose of paying tolls, was being used to track his car in unexpected places, far away from any toll booths.

Quote
Puking Monkey is an electronics tinkerer, so he hacked his RFID-enabled E-ZPass to set off a light and a “moo cow” every time it was being read. Then he drove around New York. His tag got milked multiple times on the short drive from Times Square to Madison Square Garden in mid-town Manhattan…
Title: Re: New York
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 16, 2013, 07:00:01 PM
I thought it was common knowledge states used E-ZPasses for things like travel times?

From what I know about MA though, no identifying information is stored when a transponder is read for this purpose, and it's illegal to use E-ZPasses for law enforcement purposes.

In short, sure, yeah, this guy's E-ZPass gets read all the time driving around, but that doesn't mean he's being tracked, or the government is logging whis travels. It just means that E-ZPasses are a convenient source of data for calculating traffic conditions.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on September 16, 2013, 09:07:43 PM
I thought it was common knowledge states used E-ZPasses for things like travel times?

From what I know about MA though, no identifying information is stored when a transponder is read for this purpose, and it's illegal to use E-ZPasses for law enforcement purposes.

In short, sure, yeah, this guy's E-ZPass gets read all the time driving around, but that doesn't mean he's being tracked, or the government is logging whis travels. It just means that E-ZPasses are a convenient source of data for calculating traffic conditions.

Did you know that originally it was illegal for any agency or company to use social security numbers, except for the Social Security Administration?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on September 16, 2013, 09:11:01 PM
Did you know that originally it was illegal for any agency or company to use social security numbers, except for the Social Security Administration?
[citation needed]
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SidS1045 on September 16, 2013, 11:03:03 PM
I thought it was common knowledge states used E-ZPasses for things like travel times?

From what I know about MA though, no identifying information is stored when a transponder is read for this purpose, and it's illegal to use E-ZPasses for law enforcement purposes.

The travel-time signs in MA are driven by Bluetooth signals, not toll tags.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 17, 2013, 12:28:58 PM
I was told by people at the traffic operations center that they used both.

Note how nobody is upset about using bluetooth signals though,  only E-ZPass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on September 17, 2013, 02:21:07 PM

Did you know that originally it was illegal for any agency or company to use social security numbers, except for the Social Security Administration?


Nope.  From the Social Security Administration's FAQ:

•Didn't the government promise that SSNs wouldn't be used for ID?
 
For the first few decades that SSN cards were issued, they carried the admonition: "Not to be used for Identification." Unfortunately there was never any law passed instituting this as a policy.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: SidS1045 on September 18, 2013, 10:59:09 AM
I was told by people at the traffic operations center that they used both.

I'm pretty sure that PHLBOS explained a while back that they were using Bluetooth only.  But, I could be wrong.  I've been
wrong before.  I'm getting used to it.

There was an article a few days ago in The New York Times which explained that NYCDOT is reading E-ZPass tags for the purpose of traffic monitoring (and, of course, never told the tag holders it would be used for that purpose).  Supposedly, just as in MA, the tag is assigned a random number for tracking purposes which is purged a few minutes after the last valid read on the tag, so no information is being stored permanently and the tags' internal ID numbers are not being used, so they can't be matched to any personal information.

Note how nobody is upset about using bluetooth signals though, only E-ZPass.

Of course.  Bluetooth is used for what they want (handsfree phone usage and, in some cars, audio streaming) and toll tags are used for what they have to have to travel on certain roads (toll payments).  Naturally the one they have to have is the one they'll complain about.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on September 18, 2013, 08:59:03 PM
While I was looking for the law about using a TWLTL as a merge lane when turning onto a road in the Vehicle and Traffic Law of New York a few days ago, I found something interesting:

Quote from:  VAT, Title 7, Article 25, Section 1128, Paragraph B
Upon a roadway which is divided into three lanes and provides for two-way movement of traffic a vehicle shall not be driven in the center lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction when such center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance, or in preparation for making a left turn or where such center lane is at the time allocated exclusively to traffic moving in the same direction that the vehicle is proceeding and such allocation is designated by official traffic-control devices.

The first part seems to indicate that the law still allows for a shared passing lane ("suicide lane").  I was wondering if other people around here would interpret it the same way.

Going back to my original question, it seems that using a TWLTL as a merge lane is illegal in New York, but again, I'd like the opinions of others here.

Here's (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$VAT1128$$@TXVAT01128+&LIST=SEA5+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=03948791+&TARGET=VIEW) a link to the page on the New York law website, and if it doesn't work for some reason, use the table of contents (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/MENUGETF.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS+&TARGET=VIEW) to go the the section in my quote.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on September 19, 2013, 03:16:34 PM

Of course.  Bluetooth is used for what they want (handsfree phone usage and, in some cars, audio streaming) and toll tags are used for what they have to have to travel on certain roads (toll payments).  Naturally the one they have to have is the one they'll complain about.

It's more basic than that:  Bluetooth is recognized as a product of private industry, which is generally believed to do nothing wrong.  The E-ZPass tag is recognized as a product of government, which is generally believed to do nothing right.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on September 19, 2013, 03:24:21 PM
I'm pretty sure that PHLBOS explained a while back that they were using Bluetooth only.  But, I could be wrong.  I've been
wrong before.  I'm getting used to it.
I don't believe that I was ever involved in such of a discussion.  You might be right about the issue at hand but wrong on who explained it. :)
 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 01, 2013, 10:39:03 AM
Aiiieeeee!!!!  X-(

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5456/10038478183_d68b8988d1.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038478183/)
IMG_1631 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038478183/) by NateOMatic (http://www.flickr.com/people/44780657@N02/), on Flickr

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5343/10038474143_1675620f25.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038474143/)
IMG_1630 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038474143/) by NateOMatic (http://www.flickr.com/people/44780657@N02/), on Flickr
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on October 01, 2013, 10:56:30 AM
Obviously a new standard for reference routes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on October 01, 2013, 04:19:17 PM
Aiiieeeee!!!!  X-(

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5456/10038478183_d68b8988d1.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038478183/)
IMG_1631 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038478183/) by NateOMatic (http://www.flickr.com/people/44780657@N02/), on Flickr

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5343/10038474143_1675620f25.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038474143/)
IMG_1630 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44780657@N02/10038474143/) by NateOMatic (http://www.flickr.com/people/44780657@N02/), on Flickr

I have to admit that I have NEVER seen an upside down marker (other than NY 69 or NY 96) like that in the Empire State.

Wow.  Just Wow.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 01, 2013, 04:26:26 PM
For those wondering, the Port Authority Exit 1,2,3 signs on I-95/TME went up in late 2002-early 2003.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: hubcity on October 01, 2013, 04:57:37 PM
Obviously a new standard for reference routes.

That contractor owes me a new keyboard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 01, 2013, 06:17:36 PM
Of course.  Bluetooth is used for what they want (handsfree phone usage and, in some cars, audio streaming) and toll tags are used for what they have to have to travel on certain roads (toll payments).  Naturally the one they have to have is the one they'll complain about.

Bluetooth is also used as a tool to check and validate other travel time collection technology and systems, in particular Inrix. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on October 01, 2013, 06:39:01 PM

Did you know that originally it was illegal for any agency or company to use social security numbers, except for the Social Security Administration?
Nope.  From the Social Security Administration's FAQ:

•Didn't the government promise that SSNs wouldn't be used for ID?
 
For the first few decades that SSN cards were issued, they carried the admonition: "Not to be used for Identification." Unfortunately there was never any law passed instituting this as a policy.

You're right.  I was intentionally exaggerating, which I intended to signify by writing it as a question, but there's no way you and NE2 could have gotten that.  Sorry for unclear writing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on October 02, 2013, 01:05:52 AM
I have to admit that I have NEVER seen an upside down marker (other than NY 69 or NY 96) like that in the Empire State.

Wow.  Just Wow.

I mean, "NY" 990V was the original reference route-signed-as-touring route error (?), but since three others have since arisen, it's as if they felt the need to re-emphasize the erroneousness of 990V. Now, it's just so many shades of special...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on October 02, 2013, 07:15:31 AM
I have to admit that I have NEVER seen an upside down marker (other than NY 69 or NY 96) like that in the Empire State.

Wow.  Just Wow.

NY 337 in Rotterdam has a bunch of these upside down shields as well.  I shake my head every time I see that, which is somewhat often.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: hubcity on October 02, 2013, 07:23:11 AM
From the Social Security Administration's FAQ:

•Didn't the government promise that SSNs wouldn't be used for ID?
 
For the first few decades that SSN cards were issued, they carried the admonition: "Not to be used for Identification." Unfortunately there was never any law passed instituting this as a policy.

And I since I have a card that says that, I have a new entry for the "You know you're too old when..." thread.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PColumbus73 on October 17, 2013, 11:15:14 AM
I noticed on Google Maps that I-99 is labeled up to Corning, NY. Are they jumping the gun here?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 24, 2013, 09:49:59 PM
N.Y. Times: City to Fit All Streetlights With Energy-Saving LED Bulbs (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/nyregion/city-to-fit-all-streetlights-with-energy-saving-led-bulbs.html)

Quote
The amber glow of the New York City streetlight is going away. In an energy-saving effort, the city plans to replace all of its 250,000 streetlights with brighter, whiter, energy-saving, light-emitting diode fixtures in one of the nation’s largest retrofitting projects, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, said in a news conference on Thursday.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on October 24, 2013, 11:33:42 PM
I noticed on Google Maps that I-99 is labeled up to Corning, NY. Are they jumping the gun here?

Yep. The designation hasn't even been extended to WIlliamsport yet, much less Corning.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mr_Northside on October 28, 2013, 05:54:09 PM
N.Y. Times: City to Fit All Streetlights With Energy-Saving LED Bulbs (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/nyregion/city-to-fit-all-streetlights-with-energy-saving-led-bulbs.html)

Pittsburgh switched the streetlights on my street to LED either last Thursday or Friday. 
They had switched streetlights in city parks a few years ago, then along important streets in neighborhood business districts the last year or so.
The plan is to switch them all city-wide eventually.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 28, 2013, 07:35:43 PM
How do you like the LED streetlights so far? How do they compare to the previous (high or low pressure sodium vapor?) lights re: the way they illuminate the street? The town next to mine is changing over too and I'm curious as to what others think of the LED lights.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on October 28, 2013, 11:32:48 PM
Don't like ours installed a couple of years ago in Seattle.  They're way brighter than the previous lights.  I'm not sure why a front yard needs to be lit up like home plate at a night game.  Need heavy curtains.

The light is also an ugly greyish blue that makes people look about a week dead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on October 29, 2013, 12:17:58 AM
How do you like the LED streetlights so far? How do they compare to the previous (high or low pressure sodium vapor?) lights re: the way they illuminate the street? The town next to mine is changing over too and I'm curious as to what others think of the LED lights.
They are getting put up throughout Baltimore City and I'm not much of a fan.  They aren't as warm as the old lights and seem to be dimmer.  The orange glow from the old lights helped to see pedestrians and other things along the street.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 29, 2013, 12:30:44 AM
NJ seems to have been spared the glare of LEDs, at least in areas served by PSE&G. They opted for induction street lighting. Apparently its cheaper than LEDs and lasts about the same. It looks like they are targeting all the old mercury vapor cobra heads first. I haven't seen too many areas with HPS or even incandescent fixtures upgraded yet.

http://www.nj.com/news/local/index.ssf/2009/09/new_energy-efficient_streetlig.html
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110106005773/en/Lighting-Tech-Ships-100000th-Induction-Lighting-Unit

Biggest complaint with them is the sharp cutoff fixtures, but a lot less light pollution compared to HPS fixtures.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dlainhart on October 29, 2013, 01:35:12 AM
Not that any NYSDOT region is really normal, for that matter.  They all have some strange quirk.
You're definitely right. However,  given that I was raised in it and live in it, I'll never be able to put my finger on what makes NYSDOT Region 9 so Region 9.

What is it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 29, 2013, 11:02:42 AM
N.Y. Times: City to Fit All Streetlights With Energy-Saving LED Bulbs (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/nyregion/city-to-fit-all-streetlights-with-energy-saving-led-bulbs.html)

Quote
The amber glow of the New York City streetlight is going away. In an energy-saving effort, the city plans to replace all of its 250,000 streetlights with brighter, whiter, energy-saving, light-emitting diode fixtures in one of the nation’s largest retrofitting projects, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, said in a news conference on Thursday.

I'm actually going to miss those.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dlainhart on October 29, 2013, 01:00:21 PM
N.Y. Times: City to Fit All Streetlights With Energy-Saving LED Bulbs (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/nyregion/city-to-fit-all-streetlights-with-energy-saving-led-bulbs.html)

Quote
The amber glow of the New York City streetlight is going away. In an energy-saving effort, the city plans to replace all of its 250,000 streetlights with brighter, whiter, energy-saving, light-emitting diode fixtures in one of the nation’s largest retrofitting projects, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, said in a news conference on Thursday.

I'm actually going to miss those.
Hellooooooooo light pollution, and hi to circadian rhythm disorders too! I can't wait for the unintended consequences.

Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Henry on October 29, 2013, 02:09:48 PM
Don't like ours installed a couple of years ago in Seattle.  They're way brighter than the previous lights.  I'm not sure why a front yard needs to be lit up like home plate at a night game.  Need heavy curtains.

The light is also an ugly greyish blue that makes people look about a week dead.

Remember, though, that back in 1970, no one liked the yellowish-orange glow of sodium vapor lights either, but in the years since, most, if not all, have been accustomed to seeing them at night.

I may be in the minority here, but I actually favor the LED lights over the sodium, particularly because of that soft blue light compared to the harsh orange of the older ones.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dlainhart on October 29, 2013, 02:43:14 PM
Remember, though, that back in 1970, no one liked the yellowish-orange glow of sodium vapor lights either, but in the years since, most, if not all, have been accustomed to seeing them at night.

I may be in the minority here, but I actually favor the LED lights over the sodium, particularly because of that soft blue light compared to the harsh orange of the older ones.
Learn your lights. You're referring to low-pressure sodium. The modern lights are high-pressure sodium. There is a huge difference, and yes, LPS lights are awful.

Until recent renovations, the Cross Country Mall in Yonkers, NY, featured old LPS lamps. I know what the hell I'm talking about.

The effects of nocturnal blue light exposure on such a scale will be catastrophic. Go read up on the literature. We don't need the entire Big Apple pounding everyone's melanopsin receptors so hard it starts (subtly) killing people.

Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 29, 2013, 08:08:23 PM
Not that any NYSDOT region is really normal, for that matter.  They all have some strange quirk.
You're definitely right. However,  given that I was raised in it and live in it, I'll never be able to put my finger on what makes NYSDOT Region 9 so Region 9.

What is it?

Work zones without lowered speed limits?  The majority of work zones I've passed through in region 9 just left the posted speed limit intact (the only exceptions I can think of right now are Kamikaze Curve and some work NYSDOT was doing on I-88 near Belden in August 2011), in contrast to, well, anywhere else.

Also: not numbering freeway/freeway interchanges (though this used to be the norm in region 3 as well)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dlainhart on October 29, 2013, 08:12:27 PM
Work zones without lowered speed limits?  The majority of work zones I've passed through in region 9 just left the posted speed limit intact (the only exceptions I can think of right now are Kamikaze Curve and some work NYSDOT was doing on I-88 near Belden in August 2011), in contrast to, well, anywhere else.

Also: not numbering freeway/freeway interchanges (though this used to be the norm in region 3 as well)

Good point on both accounts. The former is definitely a new innovation that probably is really a reduction from 80 to 65.

The second is a time-honored tradition that always made sense to me.

Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on October 30, 2013, 09:52:10 PM
I've always hated sodium lights of all forms because they render color so poorly (that orange light you see is pretty much the only wavelength they emit, there is no spectral variety), and because orange is a hot color and it just clashes with the night. It's jarring. I always liked the mercury vapor lamps which were still somewhat common when I was a kid because the cool blue glow of them was soothing.

LEDs can come in all sorts of colors but the best ones should be close to white. Which is great because that means they render color better. And their brightness serves drivers, cyclists and pedestrians well, since it's easier to see stuff. Yeah, you don't want it shining in your face while you're trying to sleep, but it isn't... it's out on the street. And if outside light is bothering you, that's what curtains and blinds are for.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Henry on November 01, 2013, 11:53:19 AM
Remember, though, that back in 1970, no one liked the yellowish-orange glow of sodium vapor lights either, but in the years since, most, if not all, have been accustomed to seeing them at night.

I may be in the minority here, but I actually favor the LED lights over the sodium, particularly because of that soft blue light compared to the harsh orange of the older ones.
Learn your lights. You're referring to low-pressure sodium. The modern lights are high-pressure sodium. There is a huge difference, and yes, LPS lights are awful.

Until recent renovations, the Cross Country Mall in Yonkers, NY, featured old LPS lamps. I know what the hell I'm talking about.

The effects of nocturnal blue light exposure on such a scale will be catastrophic. Go read up on the literature. We don't need the entire Big Apple pounding everyone's melanopsin receptors so hard it starts (subtly) killing people.

Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.

I meant to say high-pressure sodium lights in my original post, but you were right about everything else. Mercury vapor lights were always my favorite, because of the soft blue light they gave off.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 01, 2013, 01:27:11 PM
FWIW, Caltrans had installed LED lighting at Exit 65, I-8, just down the street from me.  It's odd seeing a "cobra head" with a square illumination field.  The lighting seems just slightly blue of an outright white, it illuminated the pavement well, and had a greatly reduced light pollution aspect, which is very beneficial out here being that my area is becoming big into amature astronomy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PColumbus73 on November 04, 2013, 08:42:11 PM
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area? I was looking at I-95 with GSV and the section on 95 through Manhattan looks like the most frightening piece of Interstate in the country. I don't think other freeways (like the BQE) would be any better.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 04, 2013, 08:43:45 PM
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area?
By train.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 04, 2013, 08:59:13 PM
Quote
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area?

Staying well north, if your intent is to just pass through the region.  Unless I have something else going on, I often go all the way up to Troy to cross the Hudson on my trips up to Vermont.

Quote
By train.

As long as there isn't an issue under the Hudson or getting through the Harold Interlock...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 04, 2013, 09:05:11 PM
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area? I was looking at I-95 with GSV and the section on 95 through Manhattan looks like the most frightening piece of Interstate in the country. I don't think other freeways (like the BQE) would be any better.
Eh, it's not TOO bad.  Just make sure to hit it at an odd time, like early Sunday morning, and stay in the left lane at all costs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 04, 2013, 09:10:15 PM
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area? I was looking at I-95 with GSV and the section on 95 through Manhattan looks like the most frightening piece of Interstate in the country. I don't think other freeways (like the BQE) would be any better.

when I lived out east, I'd avoid it by taking I-84 to I-380 to I-81.

(I looked on Google Maps - is it just me or are 84 and 380 now cosigned so that 84 ends at 81?)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on November 04, 2013, 09:14:35 PM

when I lived out east, I'd avoid it by taking I-84 to I-380 to I-81.

(I looked on Google Maps - is it just me or are 84 and 380 now cosigned so that 84 ends at 81?)

Pretty sure they have since I-81S/E was dropped in favor of I-380.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PColumbus73 on November 04, 2013, 09:21:19 PM
I think the I-84/380 topic was discussed over in the Pennsylvania topic
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 04, 2013, 09:29:17 PM
Random question: What is the best way to get through the New York City metro area? I was looking at I-95 with GSV and the section on 95 through Manhattan looks like the most frightening piece of Interstate in the country. I don't think other freeways (like the BQE) would be any better.

Normally it's the part in the Bronx, not Manhattan, that you have to worry about. But at the moment, yeah, I'd avoid I-95 unless you're really sure about your timing. Even off-hours aren't safe right now, with the GWB subject to nighttime lane closures, and the Alexander Hamilton/Highbridge Interchange reconstruction is a serious drag. The irony is, the best part of your trip might well be the dreaded Cross Bronx Expressway (especially if you're eastbound).

That being said, what's you purpose for going through? To get to the other side, or to see what's in the middle? (I'm asking honestly here.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PColumbus73 on November 04, 2013, 09:38:05 PM
I'm not planning to go through NYC anytime soon, just something I was wondering. If I were to come up to NYC on I-95, it doesn't look like there's an easy way around the metro area, sure there's I-287, but that would go too far out of the way to make sense. Looking at Rand McNally now, maybe the Garden State Parkway to the Tappan Zee Bridge would be a decent alternative if I forgot to plan to avoid NYC.

But like I said, it's more or less a 'what if' for me, just curious  :biggrin:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 04, 2013, 09:39:07 PM
(I looked on Google Maps - is it just me or are 84 and 380 now cosigned so that 84 ends at 81?)
I think it's always been that way, certainly by 1970 (the PA official map says "I-81E junction I-80 to junction I-81 and Scranton" and "I-84 junction I-81 to New York state line").
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on November 04, 2013, 10:17:11 PM
I use I-287 across the Tappan Zee to avoid the city. Quite the detour but it avoids a lot of problems.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on November 04, 2013, 11:09:21 PM
Whenever I make the trip from Connecticut to Baltimore, I use the Saw Mill River Parkway or I-684 (I don't do the Saw Mill at night) to 287 and then take the Tappan Zee to the Garden State Parkway.  The bridge might get backed up but compared to sitting on 95 through the Bronx and the shitshow known as the George Washington Bridge it's nothing. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 04, 2013, 11:26:30 PM
(I looked on Google Maps - is it just me or are 84 and 380 now cosigned so that 84 ends at 81?)
I think it's always been that way, certainly by 1970 (the PA official map says "I-81E junction I-80 to junction I-81 and Scranton" and "I-84 junction I-81 to New York state line").
But poo. The original plan for I-84 would have crossed I-81E (1965 Rand McNally shows halfway between Elmhurst and Moscow) and hit I-81 near Moosic. The 1964 RMcN NJ page (http://web.archive.org/web/20060514222805/http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg377a/58a.jpg) barely shows it.

"In addition, the Anthracite Expressway will extend through the Borough; it will intersect with the proposed Interstate Route 84 in or near Moosic." (http://books.google.com/books?id=iQ_uAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Interstate+Route+84+in+or+near+Moosic%22) (1963)

http://books.google.com/books?id=QQ3uAAAAMAAJ&q=%22There+are+three+major+limited+access+interconnections%22 (1965):
Quote
There are three major limited access interconnections of the proposed Interstate System within Lackawanna County:
1. Interstate 81 and Interstate 81E in Dunmore Borough.
2. Interstate 81 and Interstate 84 in Moosic Borough.
3. Interstate 84 and Interstate 81E in the southeast corner of Roaring Brook Township.

The mountains probably killed this plan.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: hbelkins on November 05, 2013, 10:34:08 AM
I drove through NYC on I-95 once, southbound, early (like around 7 a.m.) on a Sunday morning. Had no issues whatsoever.

Given some of the horror stories I've heard about traffic backups northbound trying to get through the toll barrier on the GWB, if I was going north, I'd definitely do something that involved the Tappan Zee Bridge. Coming from my area, it would most likely be I-78 east to I-287 north to I-87 south.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PColumbus73 on November 05, 2013, 10:37:47 AM
Not to mention the tolls on the bridges and tunnels to get into NYC are ridiculous!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 05, 2013, 11:19:15 AM
Given some of the horror stories I've heard about traffic backups northbound trying to get through the toll barrier on the GWB,
If traffic is heavy, you can exit onto local streets and loop around to the separate toll on the Palisades Parkway entrance.

The Tappan Zee is significantly cheaper (for now) though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 05, 2013, 08:09:57 PM
I drove through NYC on I-95 once, southbound, early (like around 7 a.m.) on a Sunday morning. Had no issues whatsoever.

That's the best time to go, and usually works out OK. But things have definitely gotten worse than they likely were when you went through. If you had to do it, that's still the time I'd suggest, but it's not as sure a bet as it always used to be.

Quote
Given some of the horror stories I've heard about traffic backups northbound trying to get through the toll barrier on the GWB, if I was going north, I'd definitely do something that involved the Tappan Zee Bridge. Coming from my area, it would most likely be I-78 east to I-287 north to I-87 south.

It helps to have E-ZPass and not be a truck; more options that way (i.e., the lower deck, which is truck-free and at night is E-ZPass only). And yes, you can also duck the line by going over to the Palisades, or even just cutting through town and sneaking back into the bridge plaza farther down the line.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: spmkam on November 05, 2013, 08:20:29 PM
When I travel back to CT, I usually wind up taking I-287 over the Tappan Zee from either the Garden State Parkway or I-80 or I-78.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 05, 2013, 08:23:54 PM
anybody know if these gems are still around?
GCP EB Exit 23 C&D road.  There is another set just beyond these too.

https://www.google.com/maps?q=Grand+Central+Parkway,+Queens,+NY&hl=en&ll=40.741002,-73.736157&spn=0.000004,0.001725&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.903538,56.513672&oq=grand+centra&hnear=Grand+Central+Pkwy,+Queens,+New+York&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.741054,-73.73606&panoid=kX_wpqv5K05C2nPmdCgy9g&cbp=12,65.17,,0,-0.28
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 05, 2013, 08:47:07 PM
NE2, if you exit I-95 onto local streets in Fort Lee, where do you access the Palisades Pkwy. Southbound into the bridge? Looking at a street map it looks like you can only enter the Parkway northbound in Fort Lee.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 05, 2013, 08:52:44 PM
Doofy103, those GCP signs in your photo are the originals from when that GCP/Cross Is. Pkwy. interchange was rebuilt in about 1971. They were still there not long ago, but some resigning has been done in that area, the last couple of years, so I'll try to remember to look whenever I drive that road again. The ones on the C-D road in the westbound direction were replaced, and some legend changed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 05, 2013, 09:45:30 PM
NE2, if you exit I-95 onto local streets in Fort Lee, where do you access the Palisades Pkwy. Southbound into the bridge? Looking at a street map it looks like you can only enter the Parkway northbound in Fort Lee.
There's a southbound entrance from Hudson Terrace between Washington and Myrtle.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 05, 2013, 10:05:23 PM
Thanks NE2, you're right. I see it on Google Earth. You'd go east on the service road parallel to the toll plaza, then north on Hudson Terrace to the entrance. Interesting. Have you actually done this, and saved any substantial time?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 05, 2013, 10:39:37 PM
The easiest way to jump the line if there's traffic approaching the GWB is to use US 46. Assuming you're coming from the Turnpike, anyway.

I-287 is a fine way around the city if you're going to/from I-80 or I-78. But if you absolutely must get back to the Turnpike or I-95, it's kind of out of the way. For some trips it may even make sense to use I-84.

What's tricky is getting to Long Island. That there isn't always a good answer to, you kinda have to plan your trip around rush hour. (or better yet, ask yourself, "why am I going to Long Island?")

Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on November 05, 2013, 10:41:28 PM
I think to avoid huge tolls, I-84 would be the best.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 05, 2013, 10:55:43 PM
Thanks NE2, you're right. I see it on Google Earth. You'd go east on the service road parallel to the toll plaza, then north on Hudson Terrace to the entrance. Interesting. Have you actually done this, and saved any substantial time?
I've never driven over the GWB, but I remember this being discussed years ago on m.t.r.
Depending on where traffic begins, it might end up being faster to head north on US 9W to just past NJ 67 and then turn east.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 06, 2013, 12:35:10 AM
Thanks NE2, you're right. I see it on Google Earth. You'd go east on the service road parallel to the toll plaza, then north on Hudson Terrace to the entrance. Interesting. Have you actually done this, and saved any substantial time?

I get off at Broad and go north to Palisade and enter there. Don't know how much time I save, because in doing that, I forgo spending the time in the toll traffic to compare. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 06, 2013, 05:41:05 AM
Quote
I think to avoid huge tolls, I-84 would be the best.

No tolls incurred if you're heading westbound.

Speaking of which (and related to this sub-thread), my "usual" Vermont-back-to-Norfolk route these days involves the following:  I-84 to I-684 to the Saw Mill to Taipan Zee/87 to the GSP to the Turnpike.  Because it's already a 12-hour drive WITHOUT traffic, I'm not doing any roadgeeking and am mostly looking for the quickest route through the region.  I start checking my traffic apps before I hit Hartford and then adjust as needed.  But the route I listed above is usually the route I wind up taking.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: hbelkins on November 06, 2013, 10:30:14 AM
What's tricky is getting to Long Island. That there isn't always a good answer to, you kinda have to plan your trip around rush hour. (or better yet, ask yourself, "why am I going to Long Island?")

To visit Suffolk and Nassau counties and thus clinch New York, or at least that's why *I* will be going to Long Island if the opportunity ever presents itself.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 06, 2013, 11:23:40 AM
What's tricky is getting to Long Island. That there isn't always a good answer to, you kinda have to plan your trip around rush hour. (or better yet, ask yourself, "why am I going to Long Island?")

To visit Suffolk and Nassau counties and thus clinch New York, or at least that's why *I* will be going to Long Island if the opportunity ever presents itself.

A fun way to do that is to make it part of a trip to or from New England by using one of the two ferries that connect to the island.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 06, 2013, 03:22:49 PM
A little off topic but it's NY.

I ran across this sign today and was shocked to find a date on the back.  November, 1965 it said.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7397/10713772953_f2f9d5d475.jpg)

Also close by is the last known state named I-287 in the wild. 

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3803/10713568206_e77dff2326.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 06, 2013, 03:26:41 PM
Is that a two-digit blank improperly stretched? The curves look flatter than they should.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 06, 2013, 03:30:34 PM
nope.  through no linear manipulation can I get it to conform to a 24x24 interstate shield.  it is just too round.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 07, 2013, 08:35:48 AM
A little off topic but it's NY.

I ran across this sign today and was shocked to find a date on the back.  November, 1965 it said.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7397/10713772953_f2f9d5d475.jpg)

Also close by is the last known state named I-287 in the wild. 

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3803/10713568206_e77dff2326.jpg)

It looks like the interstate shield was added as an afterthought.  Where was this?  NY 22?  NY 100?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 07, 2013, 11:44:47 AM
It looks like the interstate shield was added as an afterthought.  Where was this?  NY 22?  NY 100?

This was US-1 SB in Port Chester.  I think it was an after thought.  Was the I-287 designation even in existance in 1965?  The sign date is 11-65.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dlainhart on November 07, 2013, 01:30:47 PM
Eh, it's not TOO bad.  Just make sure to hit it at an odd time, like early Sunday morning, and stay in the left lane at all costs.
In this context, "not TOO bad" means "f---ing awesome". It's quite the rush for a first timer and it never gets old. If it's the right time of night, I'll take the Cross Bronx anytime. It sure beats I-84, the Pocono Boreway, or I-84, the New York State Ticketway, or 87/287, which gets old after a while.

I-95 in Manhattan is not the scariest stretch of Interstate by a long shot. I-287 over the Goethals Bridge and on the greatest expressway on earth, the Gowanus, have it beat by a long shot.

If you're in NYC, go clinch the Clearview. It's nice and retro. And do the Sheridan, too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on November 07, 2013, 02:32:52 PM
I drove the Cross Bronx exactly once in late 1990, on an early Sunday morning.  Traffic was moderate but flowing well.  However, what really caught my attention were the signs that read "BREAKDOWN?  STAY IN YOUR LOCKED CAR"(or something to that effect) and the fact that, on this particular morning, one person who failed to heed that advice was being admonished by a officer in a police helicopter (yes) with a very loud bullhorn.

And, although I've always driven mechanically reliable cars, I've not ventured on the Cross Bronx since then.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: signalman on November 07, 2013, 03:54:21 PM
The Cross Bronx does indeed go through a rough area of the Bronx.  I've seen locals scaling down the wall in an attempt to sell their goods during a traffic jam.  Hundreds of potential customers were just sitting in their vehicles waiting for traffic to move again.  I suppose they figured it was a good time to try and make some sales of most likely hot merchandise. 

I've seen the signs about disabled vehicles before that roadman alluded to.  I too try to keep my car in good mechanical order. So far every trip across the Cross Bronx I've been fortunate enough to not break down.  My biggest concern along the Cross Bronx as far as my vehicle's well being is flat tires.  Last time I was through in July it was quite pothole ridden and reminded me of Swiss cheese.  Some holes are quite huge (as large as half a car) and are unavoidable.  That highway is in dire need of rehabilitation, but shutting down lanes at any time of day is next to impossible.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1995hoo on November 07, 2013, 05:56:42 PM
The last time we took I-95 across NYC I hit a pothole under the Apartments. Loud bang. No damage, thankfully, but what a horrible spot that is to hit a pothole and get worried about damage because there's nowhere to stop and because I wasn't about to pull off anywhere in the Bronx. If memory serves, we stopped at the first service area in Connecticut.

I normally never go that way, but traffic was moving nicely and so I had decided to go up I-95 through Connecticut (first time since 1985) and then go up I-395 into Massachusetts (never been that way). But we hit so much traffic near Milford that I bailed onto the Wilbur Cross. I've still never been on Connecticut's I-395. Doubt I'll ever get around to it. The potholes on I-95 in NYC were awful and I was reminded why the Merritt Parkway is a respite from I-95. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 07, 2013, 09:33:29 PM
I will concur that the Cross Bronx is a marvel, albeit one that suffers from notorious traffic problems. The Trans-Manhattan Expressway (aka I-95 in Manhattan) is a nice culmination to it and I feel to see what's scary about it unless driving under buildings unnerves you.

If you want to take the scariest drive in New York City, drive the outer roadway of the Queensboro Bridge:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 07, 2013, 10:19:39 PM
But we hit so much traffic near Milford that I bailed onto the Wilbur Cross. I've still never been on Connecticut's I-395. Doubt I'll ever get around to it. The potholes on I-95 in NYC were awful and I was reminded why the Merritt Parkway is a respite from I-95. 

I took I-95 from the New Jersey Turnpike all the way to the Portsmouth (N.H.) meet earlier this year.  The condition of the Cross-Bronx Expressway was terrible, but the Connecticut Turnpike was much worse in terms of delay, with a double lane closure in Fairfield County that delayed traffic by over an hour.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PColumbus73 on November 07, 2013, 10:47:03 PM
After watching a few YouTube videos of driving through Manhattan, I don't think I would stand a chance trying to drive through there  :-P

I-95 through Manhattan looks intimidating because of the narrow lanes and the amount of traffic, tunneling under the apartments isn't scary, but it does give it a claustrophobic feel when you add the other factors.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 07, 2013, 11:49:10 PM
The first time I drove the Cross Bronx was in October of 1988, I was going from DC to Norwalk CT for a Saturday morning liquidation auction of old 19c metalworking tools.  Hit the CB at about 11PM, there was a stripped car on the shoulder with an active fire in a stripped out hood compartment with 6-8 homeless using the fire to get warm.  Disturbing
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on November 08, 2013, 12:09:53 AM
The first time I drove the Cross Bronx was in October of 1988, I was going from DC to Norwalk CT for a Saturday morning liquidation auction of old 19c metalworking tools.  Hit the CB at about 11PM, there was a stripped car on the shoulder with an active fire in a stripped out hood compartment with 6-8 homeless using the fire to get warm.  Disturbing

Noted several stripped cars on cinder blocks during my first ever NYC roadtrip in September 1993 too. Saw some other intimidating things that night as well.

If you want or need to clinch the Cross Bronx Expressway and do not care about taking photos,  just do it at 3 am.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on November 08, 2013, 12:58:23 AM
I remember taking the bus from The City back to Hartford and we took the Cross Bronx and it was flooded…a BMW was stuck in water up to the top of its tires and only one lane was getting through on the shoulder.  After seeing that when I do drive through the area (going to/from Baltimore) I go through Westchester on the Tappan Zee.  The backups on 95 through the City and Fairfield County with the construction in New Haven makes 95 a nightmare.  The Merritt is OK during the day as long as there isn't an accident but the lack of merging space is problematic.  I guess that it's the price you have to pay for a scenic route. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 08, 2013, 02:00:52 AM
An important point being made here is that I-95 through NYC is absolutely worth seeing from its own road-geekly standpoint. Not to be missed.

Another important point is that the road has undergone rehabilitation lately and is not in particularly bad shape at all at the moment. The current jam-ups are at the perpetual work spots: the A.H. and G.W. bridges. The Cross Bronx itself will jam up residually because of these, especially westbound, so that's what you're looking to avoid. Check the lane closure schedule on the gee-dub in particular (the Hamilton bridge is just always iffy).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 08, 2013, 08:40:22 AM
But we hit so much traffic near Milford that I bailed onto the Wilbur Cross. I've still never been on Connecticut's I-395. Doubt I'll ever get around to it. The potholes on I-95 in NYC were awful and I was reminded why the Merritt Parkway is a respite from I-95. 

I took I-95 from the New Jersey Turnpike all the way to the Portsmouth (N.H.) meet earlier this year.  The condition of the Cross-Bronx Expressway was terrible, but the Connecticut Turnpike was much worse in terms of delay, with a double lane closure in Fairfield County that delayed traffic by over an hour.

Then you must have just hit the Connecticut Turnpike at a really bad time.  The Connecticut Turnpike can sometimes get backed up, but if you travel it when it's not rush hour then it's generally fine.  The Cross Bronx is pretty much always backed up, unless it's 3 AM or something like that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1995hoo on November 08, 2013, 09:08:50 AM
Noted several stripped cars on cinder blocks during my first ever NYC roadtrip in September 1993 too. Saw some other intimidating things that night as well.

....

"Cars on cinderblocks" is, of course, a common redneck stereotype. In Virginia, our law provides that all cars are presumed mobile as a matter of law. It matters for reasons of taxation, registration, and insurance. When that came up in the bar review class, the instructor noted "those of you in Southwest Virginia where people put cars up on cinderblocks will better understand this than the folks in Fairfax"!

I had never heard of wheel locks or pull-out radios until my relatives in Brooklyn got them (and they lived in Bay Ridge, which was always a reasonably safe area).

Regarding the Apartments (comment from PColumbus), it's not a true tunnel but rather a case of apartments being constructed over the already-built highway. I wonder how unhealthy that is for residents in terms of air pollution and the like. You get used to road noise quickly (trust me, I lived across from an at-grade railroad crossing for three years), but the bad air is a more insidious thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 08, 2013, 09:16:32 AM
Quote
double lane closure
a really bad time

yep.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on November 08, 2013, 10:41:13 AM
I've driven the Cross Bronx, and while it's roadgeek worthy, I'm glad I got it out of the way. ...but I'm still missing the Bruckner.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 08, 2013, 01:06:10 PM
One thing nobody's mentioned about the Cross Bronx Expwy. are its very interesting construction features, especially towards the west end. The road was blasted thru the solid rock cliffs of the west Bronx in one of the most difficult road construction projects in history in the late 1950's/early 1960's.

As you go east from the Alex. Hamilton Bridge, you're going down a long steep grade thru those cliffs (with huge retaining walls) to a valley where you go thru an underpass deep under another cliff where Grand Concourse runs along the top. Well worth seeing.

My suggestion: Drive it early Sunday morning with the least traffic, but in daylight so you can keep one eye on the road surface and the other on the construction features. BTW, that road is less than 5 miles long, and though it may be the worst 5 miles of highway in any city in America, you're thru it fairly quickly if you don't hit a traffic jam.  And yes, your car should be in top mechanical condition; you don't want to break down in that part of town. I drive that road several times a year, generally without any fear. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 08, 2013, 02:00:39 PM
OK, all of you people going "OMG, your car better be in good condition, you don't want to have a breakdown in The Bronx!"... chill. Note how the stories people are telling about seeing crazy stuff on the Cross Bronx are all from 20+ years ago. The Bronx, and New York City as a whole, is a much nicer place in 2013 than it was in 1993. If you have a breakdown on the Cross Bronx, it's the same as having a breakdown anywhere else. You call a tow truck and get the problem dealt with.

Now, granted, there are still some rough areas of The Bronx. But if you're on the highway you're fine. And don't be scared to poke around on city streets, either. There's lots to see and the risk to you in broad daylight is... really not that great. It's The Bronx, not Mogadishu.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 08, 2013, 02:02:38 PM
but holy crap hep cats
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on November 08, 2013, 02:40:53 PM
OK, all of you people going "OMG, your car better be in good condition, you don't want to have a breakdown in The Bronx!"... chill. Note how the stories people are telling about seeing crazy stuff on the Cross Bronx are all from 20+ years ago. The Bronx, and New York City as a whole, is a much nicer place in 2013 than it was in 1993. If you have a breakdown on the Cross Bronx, it's the same as having a breakdown anywhere else. You call a tow truck and get the problem dealt with.

Now, granted, there are still some rough areas of The Bronx. But if you're on the highway you're fine. And don't be scared to poke around on city streets, either. There's lots to see and the risk to you in broad daylight is... really not that great. It's The Bronx, not Mogadishu.
Actually one NYC highway incident a friend of my brother's had back in 1993 occurred along the Henry Hudson Parkway on a Sunday morning.  Two groups of people were coming down from MA to NYC (to attend Times Square Church on W 51st & Broadway) when one of the cars bumped the other car while in traffic.  The front bumper of the the car that rear-ended the other literally fell off.

No joke, while the two drivers were standing alongside the parked cars; a van approaches, stops a few feet ahead, two guys run out of the van, pick up the front bumper, and literally drive off.  It was like something straight out of a sitcom lol.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on November 08, 2013, 03:02:30 PM
OK, all of you people going "OMG, your car better be in good condition, you don't want to have a breakdown in The Bronx!"... chill. Note how the stories people are telling about seeing crazy stuff on the Cross Bronx are all from 20+ years ago. The Bronx, and New York City as a whole, is a much nicer place in 2013 than it was in 1993. If you have a breakdown on the Cross Bronx, it's the same as having a breakdown anywhere else. You call a tow truck and get the problem dealt with.

Now, granted, there are still some rough areas of The Bronx. But if you're on the highway you're fine. And don't be scared to poke around on city streets, either. There's lots to see and the risk to you in broad daylight is... really not that great. It's The Bronx, not Mogadishu.

So, have they taken down the "stay in locked car" signs then?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 08, 2013, 06:01:09 PM
OK, all of you people going "OMG, your car better be in good condition, you don't want to have a breakdown in The Bronx!"... chill. Note how the stories people are telling about seeing crazy stuff on the Cross Bronx are all from 20+ years ago. The Bronx, and New York City as a whole, is a much nicer place in 2013 than it was in 1993. If you have a breakdown on the Cross Bronx, it's the same as having a breakdown anywhere else. You call a tow truck and get the problem dealt with.

Now, granted, there are still some rough areas of The Bronx. But if you're on the highway you're fine. And don't be scared to poke around on city streets, either. There's lots to see and the risk to you in broad daylight is... really not that great. It's The Bronx, not Mogadishu.

If this were Facebook I'd be pressing Like right here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2013, 06:38:47 PM
But we hit so much traffic near Milford that I bailed onto the Wilbur Cross. I've still never been on Connecticut's I-395. Doubt I'll ever get around to it. The potholes on I-95 in NYC were awful and I was reminded why the Merritt Parkway is a respite from I-95. 

I took I-95 from the New Jersey Turnpike all the way to the Portsmouth (N.H.) meet earlier this year.  The condition of the Cross-Bronx Expressway was terrible, but the Connecticut Turnpike was much worse in terms of delay, with a double lane closure in Fairfield County that delayed traffic by over an hour.

Then you must have just hit the Connecticut Turnpike at a really bad time.  The Connecticut Turnpike can sometimes get backed up, but if you travel it when it's not rush hour then it's generally fine.  The Cross Bronx is pretty much always backed up, unless it's 3 AM or something like that.

Aside from that miserable double lane closure (on a Friday night, no less - taking away 2/3 of the lane capacity), the Connecticut Turnpike was fine northbound.

I came back on Sunday retracing my route north, except that I drove I-93 via the Big Dig through Boston instead of I-95/Mass. 128.

The Connecticut Turnpike southbound (westbound) got busier and busier the closer I got the to the New York border, with several spots where traffic came to a halt.  I did not bother with the Cross Bronx headed south (west), but took I-287 across the Tappan Zee to the Garden State Parkway south to the N.J. Turnpike, which worked out well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 08, 2013, 07:22:07 PM
I remember taking the bus from The City back to Hartford and we took the Cross Bronx and it was flooded…a BMW was stuck in water up to the top of its tires and only one lane was getting through on the shoulder.  After seeing that when I do drive through the area (going to/from Baltimore) I go through Westchester on the Tappan Zee.  The backups on 95 through the City and Fairfield County with the construction in New Haven makes 95 a nightmare.  The Merritt is OK during the day as long as there isn't an accident but the lack of merging space is problematic.  I guess that it's the price you have to pay for a scenic route. 

That's CT for ya closing 2 of 3 lanes during the day.  Problably for street sweeping.  I've seen it before, lane closures for the "Broom Bear" in a full 12 foot shoulder.

Although compared to some NYC parkways, the Merritt is in fine shape.  Most entrances have long merging lanes that have been expanded in recent years.  Also unlike NYC parkways there are places to pull over, although it's grass but how many parkways don't even have that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 08, 2013, 08:14:20 PM
I have to agree with Duke87's earlier post. Though I still wouldn't want to break down on the Cross Bx. Expwy, he is correct that NYC is a generally better/safer place today than it was 20 years ago.

And doofy103 is correct also that the Merritt Pkwy. is a good road to drive nowadays. There has been some modernization and on a weekday, it can be a good alternative to playing tag with the big rigs on I-95 in Connecticut. Personally I prefer I-95 though, 'cause it's more interesting. Being a railroad buff, I like that it parallels Amtrak/Metro-North, and the rivers and bridges are interesting. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: spmkam on November 08, 2013, 09:25:22 PM
The Merritt is a better landscape for sure. I prefer the Merritt during the day and I-95 late at night, but will look at the Metro-North tracks that run near the highway on 95.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 08, 2013, 10:27:24 PM
So, have they taken down the "stay in locked car" signs then?

I don't even remember such signs so they've clearly been gone for a while.
...of course, I was rarely down the Cross Bronx as a kid because my father always avoided it whenever possible (it was just as much a traffic mess then as it is now).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Michael on November 09, 2013, 06:50:31 PM
Last week, NYSDOT launched the I-81 Viaduct project website (https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities) for I-81 through Syracuse.  Here's a link to the press release (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2013/11-01-2013).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on November 10, 2013, 12:45:58 AM
I just drove the expanded to three lanes section of I-87 between exits 23 and 24.  The southbound roadway is still at 55 MPH with the right-hand lane closed as there is still some work in progress around the Exit 23 interchange, but other than that, signs are in place and it looks complete.

The overhead signs on I-87 SB are really odd looking in that the arrows are abnormally small and the 87 marker is off center with the word "SOUTH" crammed up against the right hand margin of the sign.  I guess someone at the Thruway Authority has no idea how to work GuidSIGN or SignCAD.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 10, 2013, 04:46:26 PM
OK, all of you people going "OMG, your car better be in good condition, you don't want to have a breakdown in The Bronx!"... chill. Note how the stories people are telling about seeing crazy stuff on the Cross Bronx are all from 20+ years ago. The Bronx, and New York City as a whole, is a much nicer place in 2013 than it was in 1993. If you have a breakdown on the Cross Bronx, it's the same as having a breakdown anywhere else. You call a tow truck and get the problem dealt with.

Now, granted, there are still some rough areas of The Bronx. But if you're on the highway you're fine. And don't be scared to poke around on city streets, either. There's lots to see and the risk to you in broad daylight is... really not that great. It's The Bronx, not Mogadishu.

If this were Facebook I'd be pressing Like right here.

I was just on I-95 in NYC today, in the Bronx.  SB traffic was very light.  NB was at a stop just past this pic.  I was SB and stopped to take these pics and nobody scaled the walls to sell me anything.   :pan:

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5530/10786162156_a1fc215d34.jpg)

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5496/10786249354_3b43e92471.jpg)

Also I drove Bruckner Blvd and found a couple other goodies but felt safe doing so. 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

I took a pic of a NRBC Hutch sign on Bruckner Blvd and the sign has a "BW3" on the botton.  Did NY use codes to track their signs?

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7298/10786244594_e331d408a0.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on November 12, 2013, 11:43:33 AM
I just drove the expanded to three lanes section of I-87 between exits 23 and 24.  The southbound roadway is still at 55 MPH with the right-hand lane closed as there is still some work in progress around the Exit 23 interchange, but other than that, signs are in place and it looks complete.

The overhead signs on I-87 SB are really odd looking in that the arrows are abnormally small and the 87 marker is off center with the word "SOUTH" crammed up against the right hand margin of the sign.  I guess someone at the Thruway Authority has no idea how to work GuidSIGN or SignCAD.
This 6-lane expansion has been a long time in coming.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dlainhart on November 12, 2013, 05:10:04 PM
Also I drove Bruckner Blvd and found a couple other goodies but felt safe doing so.
Exactly. It's not 1989 anymore. If you want to find a neighborhood you'll be too uncomfortable to pull over in, well, the Bronx won't cut it anymore. You'll have to go somewhere far more dangerous, like Syracuse.

Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: dlainhart on November 12, 2013, 05:14:32 PM
I've driven the Cross Bronx, and while it's roadgeek worthy, I'm glad I got it out of the way. ...but I'm still missing the Bruckner.
Correct this IMMEDIATELY. The Bruckner is a glorious road. Old truss bridges on an Interstate! And make sure you drive both the Blvd and the Expwy.

Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on November 12, 2013, 07:13:25 PM
I just drove the expanded to three lanes section of I-87 between exits 23 and 24.  The southbound roadway is still at 55 MPH with the right-hand lane closed as there is still some work in progress around the Exit 23 interchange, but other than that, signs are in place and it looks complete.

The overhead signs on I-87 SB are really odd looking in that the arrows are abnormally small and the 87 marker is off center with the word "SOUTH" crammed up against the right hand margin of the sign.  I guess someone at the Thruway Authority has no idea how to work GuidSIGN or SignCAD.
This 6-lane expansion has been a long time in coming.

Indeed it has, I just wish they had used the opportunity to introduce a NB interchange (maybe E-ZPass only?) from I-87 north on the Thruway to I-87 north on the Northway. It would help ease the congestion at Exit 24.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 14, 2013, 03:22:39 PM
Drove the Whitestone to the Cross Island, GCP and I-295 & I-495.  Hardly any button copy left.  All replaced with "the worst of road signs" type signs.  Big arrows, off font, bubble interstate shields etc.  I'm really surprised at the shotty sign work that is popping up all over NY and NYC. 

The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so. 

I did find these, Idk if they are reflective or not: If you know, let me know.

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3689/10858999834_4b78a357f6.jpg)

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3747/10858747846_e0a3a815fa.jpg)

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2884/10858047716_f30c902625.jpg)

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7392/10864296374_5c21132674.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 14, 2013, 07:17:39 PM
The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so. 

What's NRBC?  They did a whole batch of sign replacements on the Cross Island Parkway at the end of last year, right around the time of Hurricane Sandy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 14, 2013, 11:03:11 PM
The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so. 

What's NRBC?  They did a whole batch of sign replacements on the Cross Island Parkway at the end of last year, right around the time of Hurricane Sandy.

Non-reflective button copy.  It's part of what gave NYC highways character.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 15, 2013, 08:39:18 AM
The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so. 

What's NRBC?  They did a whole batch of sign replacements on the Cross Island Parkway at the end of last year, right around the time of Hurricane Sandy.

Non-reflective button copy.  It's part of what gave NYC highways character.

Yep, they replaced most of the signs, at least from I-495 to I-678, just before the hurricane.  There was also one by the Throgs Neck Bridge (I-295) going north that had survived that replacement, but I noticed it was replaced more recently when I was on there this past weekend.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 15, 2013, 03:24:43 PM
The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so. 

What's NRBC?  They did a whole batch of sign replacements on the Cross Island Parkway at the end of last year, right around the time of Hurricane Sandy.

Non-reflective button copy.  It's part of what gave NYC highways character.

Yep, they replaced most of the signs, at least from I-495 to I-678, just before the hurricane.  There was also one by the Throgs Neck Bridge (I-295) going north that had survived that replacement, but I noticed it was replaced more recently when I was on there this past weekend.

So is there any non-reflective button copy left in the 5 boroughs of NYC?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 15, 2013, 06:16:05 PM
The NRBC on the Cross Island must've been replaced within the last month or so. 

What's NRBC?  They did a whole batch of sign replacements on the Cross Island Parkway at the end of last year, right around the time of Hurricane Sandy.

Non-reflective button copy.  It's part of what gave NYC highways character.

Yep, they replaced most of the signs, at least from I-495 to I-678, just before the hurricane.  There was also one by the Throgs Neck Bridge (I-295) going north that had survived that replacement, but I noticed it was replaced more recently when I was on there this past weekend.

So is there any non-reflective button copy left in the 5 boroughs of NYC?

The FDR Drive is still almost all button copy.  The Belt Parkway used to be, but the last time I was on there was back in 2006, so they might have replaced it since then.  I also can't say about the part of the Cross Island Parkway that's south of the expressway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 16, 2013, 01:36:53 AM
Belt and Cross Island both still have some left but a lot of it has been replaced. FDR Drive is the largest surviving collection these days.

Given how active NYSDOT has been with sign replacements in the city I expect most of the button copy will be gone in a few years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 16, 2013, 10:10:46 AM
Given how active NYSDOT has been with sign replacements in the city I expect most of the button copy will be gone in a few years.

Not to mention Long Island and Connecticut as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on November 18, 2013, 11:37:57 AM
Not sure if this is the proper thread to comment regarding recent NYSTA BGS' but I noticed a couple new ones erected near the Palisades Interstate Parkway (PIP) interchange (Exits 13 N-S) along I-87 North/287 West last night.

In addition to overuse of the Clearview font (numerals and all-Caps text), whatever reflectivity materials NYSTA is using on those new BGS'; it absolutely sucks in terms of night visibility

Whatever readability advantages the Clearview font provides is completely negated by the poor reflectivity materials used for the lettering.  In contrast, the lettering on the older (20 to 25-year-old) BGS (most of which are still present) are much more brighter & visable/readable at greater distance at night (when viewed w/low-beam headlights).

Which begs this underlying question: if the older BGS' are still in pristine condition and have the correct/current info. on them; why are these being replaced at all at this point?

A complete waste of money IMHO, especially if the new BGS have some nighttime readability issues from the get-go.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 18, 2013, 02:36:22 PM
I appreciate how you've illustrated the point about readability and the overuse of a type-style in the appearance of your post itself. Nicely done! :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 18, 2013, 05:42:11 PM
PHLBOS, that's incredible that the T'way Authority is replacing those signs in Rockland County when they are only a little over 20 years old and probably in good condition as you say. Especially considering, it took them 35 years to replace the original inadequately designed and deteriorated blue-background signs from the mid-1950's. They go from one extreme to the other!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 18, 2013, 06:23:16 PM
PHLBOS, that's incredible that the T'way Authority is replacing those signs in Rockland County when they are only a little over 20 years old and probably in good condition as you say. Especially considering, it took them 35 years to replace the original inadequately designed and deteriorated blue-background signs from the mid-1950's. They go from one extreme to the other!

Did they change what's written on the signs, or are they just new style?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 18, 2013, 07:36:16 PM
Not sure if this is the proper thread to comment regarding recent NYSTA BGS' but I noticed a couple new ones erected near the Palisades Interstate Parkway (PIP) interchange (Exits 13 N-S) along I-87 North/287 West last night.

In addition to overuse of the Clearview font (numerals and all-Caps text), whatever reflectivity materials NYSTA is using on those new BGS'; it absolutely sucks in terms of night visibility


I've noticed that with some new signs in CT, at night the reflectibility is awful.  When headlights shine on some of the signs with white letters on green background, the whole sign looks white.  It looks bleached out from the headlights. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Interstatefan78 on November 18, 2013, 08:08:29 PM
Drove the Northway in Albany County and there was a clearview sign that has a brown says entering Hudson River Valley National Heritage area and I think this is probably placed by the NYSTA on a NYSDOT freeway. Also clearview use in NY seems to go outside NYSTA roads and used in Suffolk County in Brookhaven area local roads
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 18, 2013, 08:16:59 PM
NYSTA doesn't have anything to do with the Northway, but it might be a locally provided sign.

As I mentioned in the clearview thread, Yates County also uses clearview.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 18, 2013, 09:48:17 PM
As I mentioned in the clearview thread, Yates County also uses clearview.

Now that's random. The most obscure county in New York goes and makes itself special.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on November 19, 2013, 08:37:59 AM
Not sure if this is the proper thread to comment regarding recent NYSTA BGS' but I noticed a couple new ones erected near the Palisades Interstate Parkway (PIP) interchange (Exits 13 N-S) along I-87 North/287 West last night.

In addition to overuse of the Clearview font (numerals and all-Caps text), whatever reflectivity materials NYSTA is using on those new BGS'; it absolutely sucks in terms of night visibility


I've noticed that with some new signs in CT, at night the reflectibility is awful.  When headlights shine on some of the signs with white letters on green background, the whole sign looks white.  It looks bleached out from the headlights. 
That wasn't the issue I encountered with my headlights aiming at the new Thruway's BGS.  The issue I had was that the white lettering was that it appears as a dark grey against the green background.  It's as if the white lettering wasn't reflectorized.

Did they change what's written on the signs, or are they just new style?
Other than the listing of Bear Mountain as Bear Mtn. (the older BGS' spell out the word Mountain); the BGS' messages are the same as the old BGS and are the exact same size in terms of height & width.

It's worth noting that a couple of BGS' for Exit 11 (US 9A) for Nyack were changed as well not too long ago and the reflectivity issues (or lack thereof) with the lettering and shields are the same.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on November 19, 2013, 12:43:26 PM
Every clearview sign the NYSTA has put up has been an unreadable ugly mess. They all look the same, and cheaply thrown together. I can't believe they've replaced those signs at the PIP. There was NOTHING wrong with them at all.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 19, 2013, 01:09:38 PM
The issue I had was that the white lettering was that it appears as a dark grey against the green background.  It's as if the white lettering wasn't reflectorized.
It IS dark grey lettering; that's the current NYSTA standard, luckily they don't replace signage as often as NYSDOT does.
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i90/100_5431.JPG)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 19, 2013, 06:57:54 PM
As I mentioned in the clearview thread, Yates County also uses clearview.

Now that's random. The most obscure county in New York goes and makes itself special.

I would have gone with Lewis County for most obscure, but I'll take Yates too. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 19, 2013, 07:37:56 PM
Now let me get this straight vdeane......... You're telling us that with a national standard (MUTCD Sec. 2E.05) specifying white lettering, the NYSTA goes and uses gray lettering !!! ???? You (or they) have got to be kidding! What planet are those people on????!!!!

I've noticed for the last 20 years that the Thuway's signing always seems to be a little off in various ways. For instance, in some areas they still have road names printed in all upper-case letters, a 1950's practice. It's like they're 50 years behind the times.......... Why don't they just do their signing the same as NYS DOT does, which isn't perfect either, but it is much better than NYSTA's work. Very strange.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on November 19, 2013, 09:24:32 PM
NYSTA doesn't have anything to do with the Northway, but it might be a locally provided sign.

As I mentioned in the clearview thread, Yates County also uses clearview.

There's actually Clearview scattered throughout the Empire State on all NYSDOT maintained roads, mostly because one of the contractors took it upon themselves to use Clearview instead of the FHWA alphabet. They thought they had to.

I believe the Hudson Valley heritage area sign might have been installed by the Thruway Authority as part of the Canal Corporation. All of the Erie Canal Corridor signs are in Clearview, regardless of whether they're on the Thruway or a NYSDOT road. In that instance I believe it's the Canal Corporation/Thruway Authority installing the signs as well.

The Thruway Authority has always been odd with their sign designs but they make a huge mess with Clearview. And if the new overhead signs in the Albany area are any indication, someone doesn't know how to maneuver sign legend around in GuidSIGN because the centering of markers, destinations, etc is all out of whack.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 19, 2013, 09:44:59 PM
I agree, Clearview font looks awful. Another attempt to fix something that wasn't broken.

And re: the Thruway signs, ya' have to wonder who approves this crap. Maybe the bosses just pencil whip their approvals without actually inspecting the plans drawn up by people who are possibly inexperienced and unskilled. Having worked for government, I can appreciate the problem they may have hiring competent people.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on November 19, 2013, 11:27:16 PM
It's not just NYSTA. Region 7 seems to have caught the bug. (x-post "The Worst of Road Signs")

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15727937/Road/DSC05790.JPG)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Interstatefan78 on November 21, 2013, 09:15:08 PM
NYSTA doesn't have anything to do with the Northway, but it might be a locally provided sign.

As I mentioned in the clearview thread, Yates County also uses clearview.

There's actually Clearview scattered throughout the Empire State on all NYSDOT maintained roads, mostly because one of the contractors took it upon themselves to use Clearview instead of the FHWA alphabet. They thought they had to.

I believe the Hudson Valley heritage area sign might have been installed by the Thruway Authority as part of the Canal Corporation. All of the Erie Canal Corridor signs are in Clearview, regardless of whether they're on the Thruway or a NYSDOT road. In that instance I believe it's the Canal Corporation/Thruway Authority installing the signs as well.

The Thruway Authority has always been odd with their sign designs but they make a huge mess with Clearview. And if the new overhead signs in the Albany area are any indication, someone doesn't know how to maneuver sign legend around in GuidSIGN because the centering of markers, destinations, etc is all out of whack.
There is a proof of these brown clear view signs it's actually found on the I-87 Northway in Albany county on the southbound side and in some cases clearview distance signs are found in random places from exit 15 to 24 on I-87 NY thruway
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 22, 2013, 10:07:26 AM
Now let me get this straight vdeane......... You're telling us that with a national standard (MUTCD Sec. 2E.05) specifying white lettering, the NYSTA goes and uses gray lettering !!! ???? You (or they) have got to be kidding! What planet are those people on????!!!!

I've noticed for the last 20 years that the Thuway's signing always seems to be a little off in various ways. For instance, in some areas they still have road names printed in all upper-case letters, a 1950's practice. It's like they're 50 years behind the times.......... Why don't they just do their signing the same as NYS DOT does, which isn't perfect either, but it is much better than NYSTA's work. Very strange.
Florida's new signing for street names on both I-95 and I-75 are now using upper cases as well.  So the NYSTA is not alone in that practice.  Also, I have seen NYSDOT box their street names on signs like for Taft Road in Syracuse area which is not standard anywhere, or at least anywhere I have traveled to in my years.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on November 22, 2013, 10:36:03 AM
I've noticed for the last 20 years that the Thuway's signing always seems to be a little off in various ways. For instance, in some areas they still have road names printed in all upper-case letters, a 1950's practice. It's like they're 50 years behind the times.......... Why don't they just do their signing the same as NYS DOT does, which isn't perfect either, but it is much better than NYSTA's work. Very strange.

That's not just the Thruway.  It also happens on a whole batch of the highways in Westchester County.  In many places, they also but boxes around the road names as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: hbelkins on November 22, 2013, 10:38:51 AM
I actually like NY's practice of putting road/street names in a box. Makes them look like route markers vs. destinations reached by the exit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on November 22, 2013, 12:22:13 PM
I actually like NY's practice of putting road/street names in a box. Makes them look like route markers vs. destinations reached by the exit.

Unfortunately, placing a box around the road name legend impedes any hopes of letter recognition from a distance. At night the whole thing turns into a big white blob.

I am very thankful that NYSDOT stopped the practice completely with the adoption of the 2009 MUTCD.

NYSDOT Region 3 patched several signs north of Syracuse (Taft Rd on I-81 and Circle Drive on I-481 being among them), placing mixed case lettering over the boxed road names. They did this while they were doing other work in the area.

NYSDOT Region 2 hasn't patched any of their existing signs, but new signs use mixed case lettering per the MUTCD.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 22, 2013, 08:05:07 PM
Well at least NYS DOT realized what a mistake they made with boxing street names of all upper-case letters. Yet another example of creating a problem where there hadn't been one. Fortunately Region-10 on Long Island did not do any of that. In fact on Long Island, they've had mixed-case street names and destinations on the same signs beginning in about 1964, and we've never had a problem recognizing which was a street name or a destination.

And as you can guess, I disagree with the Federal Manual's recommending not having a street name and destination on the same sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 22, 2013, 10:40:57 PM
Myself, I'm with H.B. on the boxed street names. I might side with J.P. if my observation matched his, but I haven't myself noticed any readability issue with the practice.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: spmkam on November 23, 2013, 03:52:11 PM
The boxed names are odd but if done correctly, there is not an issue. I do think having the street name and destination is not a bad idea.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 23, 2013, 08:23:10 PM
The Thruway has these signs on I-95.  They're essentially a hybrid.
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i95/100_8289.JPG)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 23, 2013, 09:44:08 PM
Vdeane, what do you mean by a hybrid? If memory serves, those signs on the New England Thruway went up in the 1980's replacing the original blue signs from the late 1950's. The legends are almost a carbon copy with no modernization, like maybe changing the street names to mixed-case.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 24, 2013, 12:05:58 AM

And as you can guess, I disagree with the Federal Manual's recommending not having a street name and destination on the same sign.
So do many agencies. NJDOT will mix route numbers and street names on a sign, as well as destinations. We have enough exits that lead to more than one road where that's necessary.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 24, 2013, 12:17:48 PM
Vdeane, what do you mean by a hybrid? If memory serves, those signs on the New England Thruway went up in the 1980's replacing the original blue signs from the late 1950's. The legends are almost a carbon copy with no modernization, like maybe changing the street names to mixed-case.
It's the same font and style as the boxed street name signs; they're just missing the box.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on November 25, 2013, 08:51:34 AM
I actually like NY's practice of putting road/street names in a box. Makes them look like route markers vs. destinations reached by the exit.
Actually, the boxing makes the street name listing resemble a street-sign blade; which may have been the intended effect.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 26, 2013, 03:01:25 AM
I actually like NY's practice of putting road/street names in a box. Makes them look like route markers vs. destinations reached by the exit.
Actually, the boxing makes the street name listing resemble a street-sign blade; which may have been the intended effect.

Yes. The hybrid is almost as good, but not quite.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on January 03, 2014, 09:41:21 AM
I was noticing something when I read Wikipedia's article on Lexington Avenue in NYC.  That not only is the avenue 110 city blocks long, but it exceeds 5 miles in length.  In fact, according to them, it is 5.5 miles in total from 131st Street to 21st Street.

If that is true then, twenty NYC blocks are equivalent to one mile, thus making Penn Station and Times Square one half mile apart.  In addition Pennsylvania Station is one tenth of a mile across the track layout.  You would never know it as a foot pedestrian as I have walked from Radio City all the way down to Herald Square and it really did not seem that far as one mile in my neighborhood seems further.

I am though interested in what the distance is between each numbered avenue?  I know all avenues (excluding Madison and Lexington for they are not part of the original 1811 street grid) are equally spaced apart. The distance between Park and both 3rd and 5th are the same as between 10th and 11th as Park is technically 4th Avenue in the 1811 grid.  Lexington and Madison are half of that away from their parallel avenues and of course Broadway cuts carelessly across the grid so it has no steady point (at least below 68th Street anyway) from numbered avenues.  Does anyone know the distance across town between avenues that is set by the 1811 street plan?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 03, 2014, 06:03:05 PM
I was noticing something when I read Wikipedia's article on Lexington Avenue in NYC.  That not only is the avenue 110 city blocks long, but it exceeds 5 miles in length.  In fact, according to them, it is 5.5 miles in total from 131st Street to 21st Street.

If that is true then, twenty NYC blocks are equivalent to one mile, thus making Penn Station and Times Square one half mile apart.  In addition Pennsylvania Station is one tenth of a mile across the track layout.  You would never know it as a foot pedestrian as I have walked from Radio City all the way down to Herald Square and it really did not seem that far as one mile in my neighborhood seems further.

I am though interested in what the distance is between each numbered avenue?  I know all avenues (excluding Madison and Lexington for they are not part of the original 1811 street grid) are equally spaced apart. The distance between Park and both 3rd and 5th are the same as between 10th and 11th as Park is technically 4th Avenue in the 1811 grid.  Lexington and Madison are half of that away from their parallel avenues and of course Broadway cuts carelessly across the grid so it has no steady point (at least below 68th Street anyway) from numbered avenues.  Does anyone know the distance across town between avenues that is set by the 1811 street plan?
The avenues aren't on a strict spacing apart, unlike the streets. It's more apparent when you play around in Google Maps and really go from Hudson to East, rather than when you focus in on Midtown and notice that 5-6-7-8 all appear the same distance apart.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on January 03, 2014, 07:00:42 PM
The avenues aren't on a strict spacing apart, unlike the streets. It's more apparent when you play around in Google Maps and really go from Hudson to East, rather than when you focus in on Midtown and notice that 5-6-7-8 all appear the same distance apart.

Actually, if you look really closely, the streets aren't a strict spacing apart, either. The width of private property between streets is constant (210 feet), but since the width of the streets themselves is not, the centerline to centerline distance between blocks varies. Usually it's 260 feet but when you have a major cross street (23rd, 34th, etc.) it goes up to about 280 feet. So, 20 blocks = 1 mile is not precisely true from a surveying perspective, but it's more than close enough for day to day purposes (off by at most 1%).


Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 08, 2014, 12:07:20 PM
Unless there's a thread strictly on NY 22, I'm posting this message here:

Over on the I Ride the Harlem Line website, the webmistress posted some history of the NYCRR Upper Harlem Division and mentioned a proposal by the Harlem Valley Transportation Association to put a bridge under NY 22 and over a creek next to the road for the proposed completion of the Harlem Valley Rail Trail. Aside from the fact that it's a stupid thing to put a bridge under a road next to a waterway, the girl raised a question about the former intersection with Black Grocery Road, which had a bridge over the creek.
http://www.iridetheharlemline.com/2013/03/23/remembering-the-upper-harlem-division-part-2/#comments

She speculates that the bridge might've been washed out in a flood and never replaced. I suspect that residents along Black Grocery Road and vicinity simply didn't want to have traffic coming from NY 22 anymore and demanded that NYSDOT remove the bridge. Who's right about this?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on January 08, 2014, 01:12:40 PM
The bridge was built in 1940 and still exists in the 2003 NBI, but is gone in 2007. Maybe Christie sat on it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on January 08, 2014, 01:30:41 PM
The bridge was built in 1940 and still exists in the 2003 NBI, but is gone in 2007. Maybe Christie sat on it.
Christie wasn't Governor of NJ in 2007.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on January 08, 2014, 02:09:46 PM
No, he was governor of NY.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on January 08, 2014, 02:37:07 PM
No, he was governor of NY.
I guess he had to be, since the real Gov. of NY (Spitzer) was too busy being *ahem* Client #9.  :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on January 08, 2014, 02:38:17 PM
And people say we're not a nation of prudes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on January 08, 2014, 02:42:06 PM
NYSDOT's apparently going to study the feasibility of connecting I-81 to I-87:

Quote
.@NYSDOT to undertake feasibility study on connecting I-81 in Watertown to I-87 in Champlain, improving #NorthCountry access #NYSOS14
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on January 08, 2014, 02:45:26 PM
NYSDOT's apparently going to study the feasibility of connecting I-81 to I-87:
Would the connection be a reroute/extension of I-81 (I-81 north of the connector would be redesignated as I-181) or designated as either I-181 or 187?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on January 08, 2014, 02:57:46 PM
I'd prefer to see it as I-81, or perhaps I-98.  But my guess is that it will be a long time before this feasibility study would lead to anything.  How long has it taken to get I-86 from expressway to what we have so far?  150 or so miles of brand new interstate seems much more expensive.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on January 08, 2014, 03:03:08 PM
I doubt there's enough traffic for a four-lane Rooftop Highway. Maybe a couple bypasses or widenings.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 08, 2014, 03:33:24 PM
While I disagree with the governor and NYSDOT's decision to do this, exactly why reroute I-81 from the Canadian border?

On a similar note, I have to agree with NE2 on this. Is US 11 that bad between Rouses Point and Watertown?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Brandon on January 08, 2014, 05:15:58 PM
While I disagree with the governor and NYSDOT's decision to do this, exactly why reroute I-81 from the Canadian border?

On a similar note, I have to agree with NE2 on this. Is US 11 that bad between Rouses Point and Watertown?

Wouldn't a better connection to ON-401 be a better idea?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on January 08, 2014, 05:18:31 PM

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/HAY/12/340-a

Maybe this is old news, but New York law defines the Interstate highway routing in New York. It's an interesting read if you haven't seen it before. I think the section of "505" from Watertown to Plattsburgh and the connection to Prescott, Ont. are the only sections that haven't already been built. The branches from Watertown to the Canadian border and from Watertown to Plattsburgh are given as the same route. I wonder if they were expecting I-81E and I-81W designations.

(Personally, I'd flop the I-781 designation to the section north of Watertown and extend I-81 from Fort Drum to I-87.)

--
Sam
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on January 08, 2014, 06:14:03 PM
Wouldn't a better connection to ON-401 be a better idea?

So perhaps an interstate connection from the bridge to Cornwall over to I-87 is a more (but probably still not) feasible option?  I don't cross the border enough to know if it would be worth the trouble for a Watertown to Plattsburgh traveler to take I-81, cross the border to 401, cross back at Cornwall, for this potential new interstate the rest of the way.  I'm thinking US 11 wouldn't seem all that bad by comparison to 2 border crossings.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 08, 2014, 06:58:56 PM
NYSDOT's apparently going to study the feasibility of connecting I-81 to I-87:

Quote
.@NYSDOT to undertake feasibility study on connecting I-81 in Watertown to I-87 in Champlain, improving #NorthCountry access #NYSOS14
They're really studying improvements to the US 11 corridor, not a new highway or certainly I-98.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on January 09, 2014, 12:13:06 AM
Wouldn't a better connection to ON-401 be a better idea?

So perhaps an interstate connection from the bridge to Cornwall over to I-87 is a more (but probably still not) feasible option?  I don't cross the border enough to know if it would be worth the trouble for a Watertown to Plattsburgh traveler to take I-81, cross the border to 401, cross back at Cornwall, for this potential new interstate the rest of the way.  I'm thinking US 11 wouldn't seem all that bad by comparison to 2 border crossings.


If I were the border guard, I'd probably single anyone out who did that for secondary and searches. If you don't need to cross the border, and you choose to just for the fun of it, that would definitely come across as suspicious, and not really a valid reason for entering Canada.  In otherwords, the border guard would likely think it is odd that you choose to subject yourself to border inspections and pay tolls twice when there is a perfectly good road that avoids that hassle and cost, so they may think you wanted to come in for another reason that you aren't telling them. At any rate, the secondary inspection and interrogations would then negate any Time savings that the freeway would offer.

Only time when crossing through Canada makes sense is when you save lots of miles (Buffalo to Detroit) or have no other option ( Alaska, Point Roberts).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 09, 2014, 09:44:42 AM
So perhaps an interstate connection from the bridge to Cornwall over to I-87 is a more (but probably still not) feasible option?  I don't cross the border enough to know if it would be worth the trouble for a Watertown to Plattsburgh traveler to take I-81, cross the border to 401, cross back at Cornwall, for this potential new interstate the rest of the way.  I'm thinking US 11 wouldn't seem all that bad by comparison to 2 border crossings.

If I were the border guard, I'd probably single anyone out who did that for secondary and searches. If you don't need to cross the border, and you choose to just for the fun of it, that would definitely come across as suspicious, and not really a valid reason for entering Canada.  In otherwords, the border guard would likely think it is odd that you choose to subject yourself to border inspections and pay tolls twice when there is a perfectly good road that avoids that hassle and cost, so they may think you wanted to come in for another reason that you aren't telling them. At any rate, the secondary inspection and interrogations would then negate any Time savings that the freeway would offer.

Only time when crossing through Canada makes sense is when you save lots of miles (Buffalo to Detroit) or have no other option ( Alaska, Point Roberts).

Well, it seems to me that's what Jim is suggesting (but then doubting): that the double crossing would be some kind of a time savings. Ultimately, yes, we all seem to agree it wouldn't, but it wasn't put forth as an option merely for its novelty.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Brandon on January 09, 2014, 10:53:34 AM
If I were the border guard, I'd probably single anyone out who did that for secondary and searches. If you don't need to cross the border, and you choose to just for the fun of it, that would definitely come across as suspicious, and not really a valid reason for entering Canada.  In otherwords, the border guard would likely think it is odd that you choose to subject yourself to border inspections and pay tolls twice when there is a perfectly good road that avoids that hassle and cost, so they may think you wanted to come in for another reason that you aren't telling them. At any rate, the secondary inspection and interrogations would then negate any Time savings that the freeway would offer.

Only time when crossing through Canada makes sense is when you save lots of miles (Buffalo to Detroit) or have no other option ( Alaska, Point Roberts).

You're coming from the wrong direction anyway (DC).  Those of us in the northern tier of states have a different view of the border.  Many of us would like border patrol to feck off and go away.  Seriously, there's no point to having customs or border patrol between two pretty much equal (in culture and standard of living) countries.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on January 09, 2014, 02:45:16 PM
If I were the border guard, I'd probably single anyone out who did that for secondary and searches. If you don't need to cross the border, and you choose to just for the fun of it, that would definitely come across as suspicious, and not really a valid reason for entering Canada.  In otherwords, the border guard would likely think it is odd that you choose to subject yourself to border inspections and pay tolls twice when there is a perfectly good road that avoids that hassle and cost, so they may think you wanted to come in for another reason that you aren't telling them. At any rate, the secondary inspection and interrogations would then negate any Time savings that the freeway would offer.

Only time when crossing through Canada makes sense is when you save lots of miles (Buffalo to Detroit) or have no other option ( Alaska, Point Roberts).

You're coming from the wrong direction anyway (DC).  Those of us in the northern tier of states have a different view of the border.  Many of us would like border patrol to feck off and go away.  Seriously, there's no point to having customs or border patrol between two pretty much equal (in culture and standard of living) countries.

Oh I agree. I would prefer something similar to a Schengen style agreement between the two countries, although the more liberal taxation and immigration laws in Canada make it more likely that NB smuggling of goods and SB illegal immigration could be a problem. I don't deny that the border is annoying, but for now, it is there, and the border guards will hassle you if they don't think you are crossing for a valid reason, on the most direct route, no matter how much we don't like it.

I cross more often than most people from DC, and even have a Nexus card to save some of the hassle. But I'm always asked purpose of trip, and if I said passing through from Watertown to Cornwall, I would certainly expect to be waved into secondary. Not saying I think I deserve to be sent to secondary, but I think I probably would be.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Brandon on January 09, 2014, 02:58:05 PM
^^ That's why the best answer is always "tourism".  Never ever tell the border guards anything more, and never tell them anything more than they ask.  The US customs folks don't need to know every little detail of where you've been in Canada (I find them far more obnoxious than the Canadian ones).  My grandmother made the mistake of opening her mouth at the Ambassador Bridge once (early 1970s) and got a secondary.  It was over dishes bought in Windsor.  The customs official was oblivious up until she opened her mouth.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on January 09, 2014, 03:03:16 PM
^^ That's why the best answer is always "tourism".  Never ever tell the border guards anything more, and never tell them anything more than they ask.  The US customs folks don't need to know every little detail of where you've been in Canada (I find them far more obnoxious than the Canadian ones).  My grandmother made the mistake of opening her mouth at the Ambassador Bridge once (early 1970s) and got a secondary.  It was over dishes bought in Windsor.  The customs official was oblivious up until she opened her mouth.

Oh yes, I know that much.  The only concern is that given the timestamps between entry into Canada and re-entry into the US for a transit trip, it will be obvious that you didn't have any time to "do anything touristy" in the other country. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on January 09, 2014, 04:48:56 PM
Does Canada stamp US passports now?  They didn't used to.  In the absence of a physical stamp, there is no way to tell that a trip is for transit purposes only unless the Canadian and US immigration authorities are sharing entry data in real time.  Are they?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Brandon on January 09, 2014, 05:06:19 PM
Does Canada stamp US passports now?  They didn't used to.  In the absence of a physical stamp, there is no way to tell that a trip is for transit purposes only unless the Canadian and US immigration authorities are sharing entry data in real time.  Are they?

I think it's the NEXUS card that has the "time stamp".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 09, 2014, 05:12:31 PM
Does Canada stamp US passports now?  They didn't used to.  In the absence of a physical stamp, there is no way to tell that a trip is for transit purposes only unless the Canadian and US immigration authorities are sharing entry data in real time.  Are they?
They are.  It's part of the Beyond the Border initiative.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on January 09, 2014, 05:15:44 PM
Passport stamping is a random event. Never in primary, randomly in secondary, typically via air. They do have a pilot program to swap data....entry into Canada sent to US as exit from US, and vice versa. Pilot program in effect at Niagara crossings for now, but eventually they will be able to see the time stamp on the records when they scan your ID.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Brandon on January 09, 2014, 05:26:36 PM
Does Canada stamp US passports now?  They didn't used to.  In the absence of a physical stamp, there is no way to tell that a trip is for transit purposes only unless the Canadian and US immigration authorities are sharing entry data in real time.  Are they?
They are.  It's part of the Beyond the Border initiative.

Since when?  I got no stamp crossing at the Blue Water Bridge last year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on January 09, 2014, 05:49:30 PM
They are sharing data in real time. They are not routinely stamping passports.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 09, 2014, 06:00:48 PM
But I'm always asked purpose of trip, and if I said passing through from Watertown to Cornwall, I would certainly expect to be waved into secondary.

Sure, in present-day real life you might expect that. But again, in the hypothetical scenario where some sort of corridor upgrade between Watertown and Plattsburgh happened to pass through this part of Canada, then these crossings would become routine and raise no suspicion, just like the Detroit-to-Buffalo route today. In this fictional world, "passing through from Watertown to Cornwall" would become a very ordinary thing to do.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 09, 2014, 06:29:06 PM
Passport stamping is a random event. Never in primary, randomly in secondary, typically via air. They do have a pilot program to swap data....entry into Canada sent to US as exit from US, and vice versa. Pilot program in effect at Niagara crossings for now, but eventually they will be able to see the time stamp on the records when they scan your ID.

I don't remember ever getting a passport stamped into Canada at a land crossing. 

I once asked for a passport stamp returning to the US, but they did not oblige.  after interrogating me for an hour and a half, it was the least they could have done!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 09, 2014, 07:10:56 PM
Does Canada stamp US passports now?  They didn't used to.  In the absence of a physical stamp, there is no way to tell that a trip is for transit purposes only unless the Canadian and US immigration authorities are sharing entry data in real time.  Are they?
They are.  It's part of the Beyond the Border initiative.

Since when?  I got no stamp crossing at the Blue Water Bridge last year.
All electronic.  It was that or set up exit booths, since the US wants to track who's leaving the country.  I was under the impression that it was supposed to rollout permanently on Jan 1, but now I can't find anything saying they went past the pilot state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on January 09, 2014, 07:53:24 PM
While I disagree with the governor and NYSDOT's decision to do this, exactly why reroute I-81 from the Canadian border?

On a similar note, I have to agree with NE2 on this. Is US 11 that bad between Rouses Point and Watertown?

I would agree with you on this as well.  US 11 between Rouses Point and Watertown isn't bad, but it could use some upgrades, especially through some of the main towns it traverses.  Yes, an Interstate highway connecting Plattsburgh with Watertown would be nice, but bypasses of some of the towns US 11 goes through would certainly be a reasonable goal (in my opinion).  It would also be more realistic and practical for completion, especially when it comes to the finances involved. 

As it is now, US 11 goes right through the downtowns of places like Gouverneur, Canton, Potsdam and Malone, while NY 37 bypasses downtown Ogdensburg and downtown Massena.  Building bypasses of the towns would be good for through traffic and truck traffic, but on the flip side, it may not be as good for the businesses that are in the towns, which have seen better days economically speaking.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on January 09, 2014, 08:05:26 PM
I'd prefer to see it as I-81, or perhaps I-98.  But my guess is that it will be a long time before this feasibility study would lead to anything.  How long has it taken to get I-86 from expressway to what we have so far?  150 or so miles of brand new interstate seems much more expensive.

I want to say that the I-86 conversion was originally supposed to be completed by 2012, but that was back during the 1990s.  I believe that the last key construction project will be converting NY 17 to Interstate standards between Deposit and Hancock, shoehorning the freeway through Hale Eddy somehow.  This is supposed to be completed by late 2020.  As an aside, construction in Binghamton is scheduled to be completed in 2018, so I think I-86 will be signed from Broome County west at that point.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 09, 2014, 08:18:44 PM
There are a few minor projects coming along on the Quickway as well; the ones I know of being the Neversink River Bridge (under construction), "exit 111" (and a few others like it) (not yet designed as far as I know), exit 122 (status unknown), and whatever issue is preventing designation between Windsor and Deposit.  Exit 131 is also on the I-86 upgrade banner, but I suspect that project is pure traffic management since the existing interchange looks fine.

Not sure why the 10 mile segment in Orange County with covered signs isn't designated yet; maybe NYSDOT doesn't want to have three I-86 segments?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on January 09, 2014, 08:42:08 PM
There are a few minor projects coming along on the Quickway as well; the ones I know of being the Neversink River Bridge (under construction), "exit 111" (and a few others like it) (not yet designed as far as I know), exit 122 (status unknown), and whatever issue is preventing designation between Windsor and Deposit.  Exit 131 is also on the I-86 upgrade banner, but I suspect that project is pure traffic management since the existing interchange looks fine.

Not sure why the 10 mile segment in Orange County with covered signs isn't designated yet; maybe NYSDOT doesn't want to have three I-86 segments?

My understanding about why the I-86 designation ends in Windsor instead of Deposit is that the Interstate should end at a highway that serves as part of the National Highway System.  I'm not sure if that is a valid argument, because NY 79 is not part of the National Highway System as it goes through Windsor, but NY 8 in Deposit is part of the National Highway System.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on January 09, 2014, 08:44:59 PM
I don't cross the border enough to know if it would be worth the trouble for a Watertown to Plattsburgh traveler to take I-81, cross the border to 401, cross back at Cornwall, for this potential new interstate the rest of the way.

Even if there were zero time delay to crossing the border, it still wouldn't be worth it. US 11 in the north country is a fairly quick moving road. Going up to ON 401 and then back into the US at Cornwall adds about 35 miles compared to just taking US 11 and, according to Google, also adds about 20 minutes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on January 10, 2014, 12:44:00 AM
The avenues aren't on a strict spacing apart, unlike the streets. It's more apparent when you play around in Google Maps and really go from Hudson to East, rather than when you focus in on Midtown and notice that 5-6-7-8 all appear the same distance apart.

Actually, if you look really closely, the streets aren't a strict spacing apart, either. The width of private property between streets is constant (210 feet), but since the width of the streets themselves is not, the centerline to centerline distance between blocks varies. Usually it's 260 feet but when you have a major cross street (23rd, 34th, etc.) it goes up to about 280 feet. So, 20 blocks = 1 mile is not precisely true from a surveying perspective, but it's more than close enough for day to day purposes (off by at most 1%).

As Duke87 said there are other ways of getting more accurate information, but I generally eyeball the distance to say that between 2 avenues west of 5th Avenue is about the distance of 4 short blocks, or 1/5 of a mile.  The distance between 5-Mad-Park-Lex-3rd is about half of that or 1/10 of a mile.  The distance betwwen avenues east of 3rd Av (3rd-2nd-1st, as well as Aves A,B,C,D) is like 3 short blocks or 3/20 of a mile.  Again, rough estimates.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 10, 2014, 01:17:33 AM
I don't cross the border enough to know if it would be worth the trouble for a Watertown to Plattsburgh traveler to take I-81, cross the border to 401, cross back at Cornwall, for this potential new interstate the rest of the way.

Even if there were zero time delay to crossing the border, it still wouldn't be worth it. US 11 in the north country is a fairly quick moving road. Going up to ON 401 and then back into the US at Cornwall adds about 35 miles compared to just taking US 11 and, according to Google, also adds about 20 minutes.
US 11 traffic varies by what's going on with the colleges.  Could be either nothing or long lines of cars depending on the day.  Gouverneur and Canton and never fun either (neither is Potsdam, but I never had the experience of driving straight through it).

ON 401 is also less likely be be snow covered due to wind patters.  Lake effect snow goes straight up US 11 but rarely reaches the 1000 Islands.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on January 12, 2014, 07:17:12 AM
NYSDOT's apparently going to study the feasibility of connecting I-81 to I-87:

Quote
.@NYSDOT to undertake feasibility study on connecting I-81 in Watertown to I-87 in Champlain, improving #NorthCountry access #NYSOS14
They're really studying improvements to the US 11 corridor, not a new highway or certainly I-98.

Apparently at least some "officials in northern New York" believe it's an I-98 study that Cuomo proposed.  This AP blurb was in this morning's Daily Gazette in Schenectady:

Quote
The Associated Press

Rekindled I-98 idea draws cheers from officials
    WATERTOWN — Officials in northern New York say they’re encouraged that the state plans to look into the feasibility of building an interstate highway across the North Country.
    Construction of a so-called “Rooftop Highway” that would be officially known as Interstate 98 has been discussed for years.
    Gov. Andrew Cuomo mentioned the I-98 idea during his State of the State speech this week. He’s proposing to have state transportation officials re-examine the feasibility of building the Rooftop Highway.
    Supporters say building a 140-mile highway between Watertown and the Canadian border at Champlain would boost the region’s economy.
    Opponents say an interstate would have the opposite effect by diverting traffic away from local communities. They say money should be spent to improve Route 11, the main east-west road spanning the North Country.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 14, 2014, 09:20:20 PM
In other news,

http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/70672/Page+010+++Manhattan++Bronx+++Map+No++2/New+York+City+1949+Five+Boroughs+Street+Atlas/New+York/

I've maintained for years that I saw a map with "Deegan Blvd." on it in the place that I-87 now occupies in NYC. This map finally proves me correct.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on January 14, 2014, 09:53:46 PM
http://www.nycgovparks.org/about/history/historical-signs/listings?id=8762
Quote
On April 30, 1937, Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia renamed the westerly approach to the Triborough Bridge the Major William F. Deegan Boulevard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 15, 2014, 02:42:04 PM
In other news,

http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/70672/Page+010+++Manhattan++Bronx+++Map+No++2/New+York+City+1949+Five+Boroughs+Street+Atlas/New+York/

I've maintained for years that I saw a map with "Deegan Blvd." on it in the place that I-87 now occupies in NYC. This map finally proves me correct.

As do some of the maps in this thread:
http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11260.0
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on January 15, 2014, 06:43:47 PM
There are several signing projects underway along Route 17 in Broome and Tioga Counties.  I noticed an overhead assembly in this location being removed by crane this morning, so I doubled back after work and managed to snap a quick photo.

(http://i.imgur.com/P5uOSMX.jpg) (http://imgur.com/P5uOSMX)

Two things stand out to me:  first, the "LEFT" flag.  I've never seen that used on a one-off ramp (i.e. where there are no other exits from the segment of highway).  Secondly, the control city for Route 17 west has changed from Elmira to Corning.  The control city is Elmira everywhere else between Binghamton and Elmira.  I'm wondering what the reason is, considering Corning is a solid 20 miles beyond Elmira.  I'm wondering if this ties in to future I-99 ending in Corning?

The timing is interesting too, considering that 17 shield will presumably have to be replaced with an I-86 one in the very near future.

Edit:  Thanks to Steve Alpert's treasure trove, I found a snapshot of the old sign.  I didn't even realize that the control city for Route 17C had changed from Endicott to Endwell.  This is also puzzling, though less so considering Endwell does actually come first.

(http://i.imgur.com/DCnjUqX.jpg) (http://imgur.com/DCnjUqX)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on January 15, 2014, 08:36:09 PM
Current MUTCD standard requires the "LEFT" tab on all left-hand exit signs regardless of other circumstances. I agree that it's redundant in this case with the arrow also displayed. FHWA seems to have over-engineered this issue of the "LEFT" tabs in an effort to maybe make up for previous inadequacy in this area. For years left exits were not sufficiently indicated in advance in many places.

Re: the destinations shown, I'm not familiar with this location but I note on the map that Elmira seems to be a larger city than Corning, so you might have a point. All through these forums there is controversy about whatever destinations are displayed. There is plenty of lack of consistency and no apparent logic in many locations nationwide.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 15, 2014, 11:31:20 PM
Re: the destinations shown, I'm not familiar with this location but I note on the map that Elmira seems to be a larger city than Corning, so you might have a point. All through these forums there is controversy about whatever destinations are displayed. There is plenty of lack of consistency and no apparent logic in many locations nationwide.

I absolutely assume it has to do with Corning being the junction with I-99 (although that's technically just west of Corning...). Corning also matches the southbound control city for I-390 as it heads towards I-86.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CANALLER on January 15, 2014, 11:47:27 PM
On my current project, the tabs are now being installed, although they say "LEFT EXIT ##".  So far, there has been no consistency to the design, as we have 4 different formats approaching the same interchange.  The design shown in the picture above would be the fifth different version I've seen.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: spmkam on January 20, 2014, 01:17:50 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/nyregion/a-colossal-bridge-will-rise-across-the-hudson.html?hp&_r=0


Interesting article in the Times on the New Tappan Zee.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 20, 2014, 05:02:13 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/nyregion/a-colossal-bridge-will-rise-across-the-hudson.html?hp&_r=0

Interesting article in the Times on the New Tappan Zee.

1) Love the before-and-after photos of the South Nyack interchange.

2):
Quote
The bridge will also have all-electronic toll collection, eliminating backups at tollbooths.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on January 20, 2014, 06:22:17 PM
Something intriguing in photo #5: it appears the bridge was originally tolled in both directions! That I did not know! Looking at Historic Aerials it seems the tolls switched to one way sometime between 1965 and 1974.

Poking around it appears this was the case for all Hudson River crossings back in the day. Huh.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 20, 2014, 06:35:24 PM
Something intriguing in photo #5: it appears the bridge was originally tolled in both directions! That I did not know! Looking at Historic Aerials it seems the tolls switched to one way sometime between 1965 and 1974.

Poking around it appears this was the case for all Hudson River crossings back in the day. Huh.
Surprised you didn't know that. No NJ crossings started out as one-way tolling, on any river.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on January 20, 2014, 07:27:41 PM
Quote
The bridge will also have all-electronic toll collection, eliminating backups at tollbooths.

And those that don't have EZPass?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 20, 2014, 07:50:57 PM
Quote
The bridge will also have all-electronic toll collection, eliminating backups at tollbooths.

And those that don't have EZPass?

Sorry; I've already quoted the entirety of the pertinent text from the article. Bit of a cliffhanger, I agree!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on January 20, 2014, 08:14:53 PM
No NJ crossings started out as one-way tolling, on any river.
The Ellis/Liberty Island ferries :bigass:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 20, 2014, 08:57:27 PM
Quote
The bridge will also have all-electronic toll collection, eliminating backups at tollbooths.

And those that don't have EZPass?
Bill by mail / photo tolling.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 20, 2014, 10:00:28 PM
Something intriguing in photo #5: it appears the bridge was originally tolled in both directions! That I did not know! Looking at Historic Aerials it seems the tolls switched to one way sometime between 1965 and 1974.

Poking around it appears this was the case for all Hudson River crossings back in the day. Huh.
Also the case with all Thruway barriers except the Grand Island bridges.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 20, 2014, 11:13:49 PM
Surprised you didn't know that. No NJ crossings started out as one-way tolling, on any river.

Also the case with all Thruway barriers except the Grand Island bridges.

All Maryland toll crossings and its one toll road (at the time) were two-way tolls up to the early 1990's, when then-Gov. William Donald Schaefer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer) ordered the MdTA to convert most of them to one-way tolls (the three crossings of the Baltimore Harbor remained (and remain) two-way tolls because there was concern that one-way tolling would result in excessive shunpiking through downtown Baltimore in the tolled direction).

I understand that Schaefer was especially irritated at the queues crossing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (U.S. 50/U.S. 301) westbound to pay the toll on his way back from summer weekends spent in Ocean City (Md.).

With cashless/open road tolling, I hope that toll authorities return to two-way toll collection.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1995hoo on January 21, 2014, 08:41:29 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/nyregion/a-colossal-bridge-will-rise-across-the-hudson.html?hp&_r=0


Interesting article in the Times on the New Tappan Zee.

I liked seeing the pictures of the existing bridge's construction. Thanks for posting that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on January 21, 2014, 07:36:39 PM
Surprised you didn't know that. No NJ crossings started out as one-way tolling, on any river.

Also the case with all Thruway barriers except the Grand Island bridges.

All Maryland toll crossings and its one toll road (at the time) were two-way tolls up to the early 1990's, when then-Gov. William Donald Schaefer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer) ordered the MdTA to convert most of them to one-way tolls (the three crossings of the Baltimore Harbor remained (and remain) two-way tolls because there was concern that one-way tolling would result in excessive shunpiking through downtown Baltimore in the tolled direction).

I understand that Schaefer was especially irritated at the queues crossing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (U.S. 50/U.S. 301) westbound to pay the toll on his way back from summer weekends spent in Ocean City (Md.).

With cashless/open road tolling, I hope that toll authorities return to two-way toll collection.
I haven't seen any indication of returning to two-way tolling. Then again, there are so many agencies up here that they would all have to agree to do it, all at once in a coordinated effort, to prevent mass shunpiking. So that's why.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 14, 2014, 09:38:42 PM
N.Y. Times: De Blasio’s Vow to End Traffic Deaths vs. Reality of New York Streets (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/nyregion/vow-to-end-traffic-deaths-vs-reality-of-city-streets.html)

Quote
The announcement was bold, if somewhat quixotic: Mayor Bill de Blasio, whose campaign was focused on reforming the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk practices, would commit his administration to reducing traffic deaths “literally” to zero.

Quote
In his administration’s first 40 days, that pledge translated into a series of ticket blitzes against drivers — and, in unusually large numbers, jaywalkers.

Quote
Jaywalking tickets grew nearly eightfold this year, despite the mayor’s insistence that his plan for safer streets did not include singling out pedestrians. Through Feb. 9, there were 215 jaywalking summonses issued, compared with 27 over the same period last year; tickets issued to drivers were down slightly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Flyer78 on March 24, 2014, 02:11:13 PM
Noticed new Welcome to NY signs on I-81 at the PA/NY line this weekend -- was not expecting it, so sorry no pictures. Haven't seen anything online about the switch, and the usual green sign was on the US-15 state line signs a week ago (3/14/14).

The new sign consists of a primary welcome sign, followed by three more I Love NY signs, each with a different message (reminded me a bit of the NJ-style select a toll lane concept), I believe they were "discover" "tour" and "taste" or something like that, followed by another I Love NY Welcome Center sign for the gateway rest area. Just a head's up for anyone in the area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on March 24, 2014, 07:12:03 PM
Noticed new Welcome to NY signs on I-81 at the PA/NY line this weekend -- was not expecting it, so sorry no pictures. Haven't seen anything online about the switch, and the usual green sign was on the US-15 state line signs a week ago (3/14/14).

The new sign consists of a primary welcome sign, followed by three more I Love NY signs, each with a different message (reminded me a bit of the NJ-style select a toll lane concept), I believe they were "discover" "tour" and "taste" or something like that, followed by another I Love NY Welcome Center sign for the gateway rest area. Just a head's up for anyone in the area.

I saw similar signs coming into New York from Connecticut on Interstate 84 a couple of weeks ago. I noticed them and at the time erroneously considered that they were another Thruway thing. Obviously I was wrong.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: nyratk1 on March 25, 2014, 12:57:23 AM
Not all that important but Suffolk County finally posted CR 56 shields on Victory Avenue in Brookhaven. It's been signed like that on paper for a while but I never saw posted shields for as long as I've been aware.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on March 26, 2014, 12:25:00 PM
The North-South Arterial in Utica is getting some new overhead signs this week between the Burrstone Rd and French Rd interchanges.

French Rd. used to be signed as French Rd. / St. Lukes Hosp, but now it's just French Rd.
Burrstone Rd. used to be signed as Burrstone Rd. / Faxton Hosp (covered with green out) / Utica College but now it's signed as Burrstone Rd. / Lincoln Ave.  (Lincoln Ave. was extended as part of the first phase of the North-South Arterial Project that goes full tilt this spring).

The NY 8 South / NY 840 West interchange has a new 1 mile advance sign as well (previously it had only a 1/2 mile advance) and the control cities are now Whitestown and New Hartford. All the other signs are for New York Miles and New Hartford, however, a bid was recently let for "Whitestown" overlays on all the other signs associated with the interchange.

An email exchange with NYSDOT R2 years ago indicated that R2 was going to be concentrating more on "location corridors" with signing in the area, the move of "New York Mills" to "Whitestown" on the 840 seems to indicate this, as "New York Mills" is now signed on the Burrstone Rd. interchange when headed south / westbound on the North-South Arterial.  That change was made last year with the installation of a new overhead exit advance sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 26, 2014, 06:54:05 PM
NY 440 is getting some service road completion. First time in awhile for downstate.
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/03/exclusive_west_shore_expresswa.html
(Thanks to Steve Anderson for finding)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 26, 2014, 11:55:54 PM
While I'm not 100% sure, it looks like the construction at the I-87/I-95 interchange in the Bronx is largely done. I noticed several new signs up near the south (west) end of the Cross Bronx Expressway (I-95/US Route 1) today. Amazingly, the bus I was on didn't experience a single slowdown or backup after 1 pm on that stretch today, from the interchanges of I-278 to I-87. That almost never happens!

(http://i.imgur.com/X6GoELg.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on March 27, 2014, 06:23:53 AM
Not all that important but Suffolk County finally posted CR 56 shields on Victory Avenue in Brookhaven. It's been signed like that on paper for a while but I never saw posted shields for as long as I've been aware.

Town Line Road in Hauppauge was only signed as Suffolk CR 76 on paper for years, then new county route shields started being posted about 10 years ago.  This wouldn't be a first for Suffolk County then.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 27, 2014, 10:21:46 AM
While I'm not 100% sure, it looks like the construction at the I-87/I-95 interchange in the Bronx is largely done. I noticed several new signs up near the south (west) end of the Cross Bronx Expressway (I-95/US Route 1) today. Amazingly, the bus I was on didn't experience a single slowdown or backup after 1 pm on that stretch today, from the interchanges of I-278 to I-87. That almost never happens!

(http://i.imgur.com/X6GoELg.jpg)
New York forgot US 9.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 27, 2014, 11:52:11 AM
They didn't forget it. US Route 9 hasn't joined the road just yet. (US Route 9 south joins the roadway soon afterwards and just before the G.W. Bridge itself.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on March 27, 2014, 12:09:20 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/X6GoELg.jpg)
Is it me or is something a tad odd regarding the font in that US 1 shield?

It appears unusually heavy/thick or maybe of a non-FHWA font.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 27, 2014, 12:35:29 PM
US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: nyratk1 on March 27, 2014, 05:42:16 PM
Not all that important but Suffolk County finally posted CR 56 shields on Victory Avenue in Brookhaven. It's been signed like that on paper for a while but I never saw posted shields for as long as I've been aware.

Town Line Road in Hauppauge was only signed as Suffolk CR 76 on paper for years, then new county route shields started being posted about 10 years ago.  This wouldn't be a first for Suffolk County then.

Wonder if they're gonna do it with more routes, particularly CR 29/Ronkonkoma Ave. There's still room for it on the old sign assembly on Lakeland Av. :P
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 27, 2014, 10:58:05 PM
US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system, but on the other hand, no one's really taking that exit to follow US 9. They're either heading into a Manhattan/Bronx neighborhood or taking a freeway like the Deegan or Henry Hudson to another exit.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 27, 2014, 11:57:01 PM
An odd question popped into my mind when reading this thread:  Did US 1 exist prior to the GW Bridge and if so what was it's route thru NYC?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 28, 2014, 12:36:53 AM
US Route 1 existed prior to the G.W. Bridge. However, New York City didn't sign US Route 1 within the city until December 1934, soon after the bridge opened.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 28, 2014, 07:35:18 AM
The original route was the Holland Tunnel. I do not recall offhand how it got to the Bronx, but since NYC didn't sign it, take any roads you want. Note that originally, US 9 continued up the NJ side to the Edgewater ferry at what's now NJ 5.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 28, 2014, 03:49:14 PM
US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 28, 2014, 10:59:49 PM
US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.
I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 29, 2014, 03:36:32 AM
US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.
I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.

181st Street, then.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 29, 2014, 06:12:31 PM
US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.
I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.

181st Street, then.
179th (it's even signed, albeit with an erroneous NY 9 shield), though upon further thinking, I think Alps means the southbound I-95 sign for exit 1A, since only the northbound 1A services US 9 (though the northbound 1A signs doesn't mention US 9 either until after the ramp leaves I-95).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 30, 2014, 03:28:51 AM
US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.
I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.

181st Street, then.
179th (it's even signed, albeit with an erroneous NY 9 shield), though upon further thinking, I think Alps means the southbound I-95 sign for exit 1A, since only the northbound 1A services US 9 (though the northbound 1A signs doesn't mention US 9 either until after the ramp leaves I-95).

No, 181st. As you say, we're talking about the southbound exit 1A (or 1); heck, 181st is even mentioned on the signage shown upthread.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 30, 2014, 09:31:43 AM

US 9 joins with exit 1A, so technically 1A is for US 9 north and staying on is for US 9 south.

Looks like the last vestiges of NYSDOT's attempt to convert I-95 to sequential numbers is gone (depending on the state of the northbound signs).
1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway. It's a discontinuity in the system
It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.
I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.

181st Street, then.
179th (it's even signed, albeit with an erroneous NY 9 shield), though upon further thinking, I think Alps means the southbound I-95 sign for exit 1A, since only the northbound 1A services US 9 (though the northbound 1A signs doesn't mention US 9 either until after the ramp leaves I-95).

No, 181st. As you say, we're talking about the southbound exit 1A (or 1); heck, 181st is even mentioned on the signage shown upthread.

You can get on from 179th right before the bridge, you just can't get off onto it. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on March 30, 2014, 12:10:19 PM
Oh dear; my point seems to have gotten lost amongst a nest of quotes...let me see if I can untangle:

1A isn't really for 9 north, there's no exit that leads conveniently to Broadway.

It goes via 178th Street, last I checked.

I'm looking at the SB (WB) sign, though.

181st Street, then.

Here's an illustration of how that connection is made:
https://goo.gl/maps/mWluM

True, it's not direct to Broadway, or necessarily "convenient", and the exit isn't marked as being for US 9 north. But at least in this direction there is a connection, and it's via 181st Street (and a little stub of Haven Ave.).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 30, 2014, 01:31:33 PM
I think we've all getting confused about whether we're talking about how to get from I-95 to US 9 north or how US 9 is a continuous route.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on March 30, 2014, 02:37:27 PM
What I've never understood is while on I-95 NB, the BGS for Exit 1(A) has always had a NY 9A shield but never a US 9 shield.  There is a small secondary sign on the GWB that says US 9 use Exit 1A.  The older version of the sign only had a NY 9A shield as well.  How does a SR get priority billing on a BGS over a US route? 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 30, 2014, 04:27:30 PM

What I've never understood is while on I-95 NB, the BGS for Exit 1(A) has always had a NY 9A shield but never a US 9 shield.  There is a small secondary sign on the GWB that says US 9 use Exit 1A.  The older version of the sign only had a NY 9A shield as well.  How does a SR get priority billing on a BGS over a US route?

Maybe because Henry Hudson Parkway (9A)  is a major limited-access major highway.  Broadway (9) is a surface street.  One of the most famous surface streets in the world, but amid this company perhaps lower priority given limited sign space.   
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 31, 2014, 03:17:48 PM
Also because NY has historically not cared a whole lot about the US route system.  In fact, most US routes are treated as state routes with a different shield here.  The only exceptions are the three duplicates, each of which is handled differently:
-US 2 is given the U suffix like interstates are given the I suffix
-US 15 used to be marked as a southern extension of NY 15; now the logs consider it to be I-99
-NYSDOT prefers to forget that US 220 technically enters NY
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 31, 2014, 11:19:59 PM
What I've never understood is while on I-95 NB, the BGS for Exit 1(A) has always had a NY 9A shield but never a US 9 shield.  There is a small secondary sign on the GWB that says US 9 use Exit 1A.  The older version of the sign only had a NY 9A shield as well.  How does a SR get priority billing on a BGS over a US route? 

The older version had US-9 on the 178th St. Sign. The new sign that replaced it in late-2002/early-2003 removed US-9.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Interstatefan78 on April 11, 2014, 08:30:07 PM
Another fact about new York is that interstate highways are given designations like 87I (I-87) or 495I (I-495) on their reference markers and I made this observation I when traveled I-87 from Albany to Lake George and I-495 from Queens to Selden or Calverton. This is different from PA's practice of giving it's interstates as State routes an excellent example would be SR0078 (I-78) or SR0081 (I-81)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on April 11, 2014, 09:31:52 PM
What about Interstate 508?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 11, 2014, 10:20:10 PM
-NYSDOT prefers to forget that US 220 technically enters NY

the only 220 shield I've ever seen of NY manufacture is this one:

(http://shields.aaroads.com/img/NY/NY19602201i1.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on April 12, 2014, 01:07:54 PM

What about Interstate 508?

I believe all of the interstates in New York have a legislative designation that is separate from designations like SR 781I. They're used to describe each route but for the life of me I don't recall their numbers. I know both 690 and 481 are written into law this way. 

The new references markers along Interstate 84 erroneously list the route number as I-84 instead of 84I. This stepping way from established standards for their own inventory system kind of makes me crazy.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 12, 2014, 01:29:56 PM
Last time I was on I-781 (around a year ago now) it didn't even have reference markers.  No idea what they're using there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on April 12, 2014, 01:49:07 PM
781I.

Reference markers have since been installed, along with mileposts (which are using Series C numbers despite there being plenty of room for Series D!)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on April 12, 2014, 03:31:04 PM
781I.

Reference markers have since been installed, along with mileposts (which are using Series C numbers despite there being plenty of room for Series D!)

Yes, I noticed that same thing. Interstate 781 is well signed, including town line signs and over/underpass location markers. Region 7 did a really good job with 781.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CANALLER on April 12, 2014, 04:28:46 PM
To answer the thoughts above, the correct layout for reference markers on interstate highways is ###I, so any that say I### are technically wrong.  That said, not all sign inspectors are as anal as I am, and even if the inspector rejected them, one of the suits would overrule him.  Another reason they may be there is that most inspectors bounce around between projects of completely different types of work.  Only a few of us have been able to do multiple sign contracts for long enough to be able to learn the most obscure requirements.

Also, N.Y.S. interstates can't be posted as state routes as in the Penn'a example above.  There are many N.Y.S. state routes that have the same numbers as interstates.  Some (390, 590, 690) are simply extensions of the interstates.  But others (81, 90) are completely separate routes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 20, 2014, 08:12:09 PM
Not all that important but Suffolk County finally posted CR 56 shields on Victory Avenue in Brookhaven. It's been signed like that on paper for a while but I never saw posted shields for as long as I've been aware.
I actually saw those back in November 2013 around Horse Block Road.

On another topic, did anybody notice that on NY 22, there are no signs telling you when you've entered either NYC or Mount Vernon?


Title: Re: New York
Post by: dgolub on April 21, 2014, 08:40:49 AM
On another topic, did anybody notice that on NY 22, there are no signs telling you when you've entered either NYC or Mount Vernon?

No, but it doesn't surprise me.  There is no signage when you enter Queens on Northern Boulevard (NY 25A), and there's no signage entering either Queens or Nassau on Union Turnpike (NY 25C).  In fact, for a while, there was no signage when you entered Queens on the Long Island Expressway (I-495).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 21, 2014, 12:11:00 PM
Heading east on that road last September, I couldn't even tell when I reached the Nassau county line. I did see the signs at the Nassau/Suffolk county line in both directions, however.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 21, 2014, 08:12:01 PM
Not all that important but Suffolk County finally posted CR 56 shields on Victory Avenue in Brookhaven. It's been signed like that on paper for a while but I never saw posted shields for as long as I've been aware.
I actually saw those back in November 2013 around Horse Block Road.

On another topic, did anybody notice that on NY 22, there are no signs telling you when you've entered either NYC or Mount Vernon?



Makes me wonder if NY 22 is state or city maintained inside the Bronx. The old sign on US 1 was definitely a state job, but that's 1, not 22, and maintenance can change over time. Both NYC and NYS would have reason to put up an "Entering New York" or "Bronx" sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on April 22, 2014, 10:19:24 PM
Makes me wonder if NY 22 is state or city maintained inside the Bronx.

I know for a fact that it is city maintained in Mount Vernon. Westchester County DPW map (http://planning.westchestergov.com/images/stories/MapPDFS/CountyStateRoadsParks.pdf) confirms this.

As for in The Bronx, I can only assume it is city maintained - NYSDOT's website does not show it on their map of state roads in Bronx County (https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region11/general-info/highways-in-bronx-county). Apparently, however, some of US 1 in The Bronx is secretly actually US 22. :pan:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 24, 2014, 11:55:29 PM
On another topic, did anybody notice that on NY 22, there are no signs telling you when you've entered either NYC or Mount Vernon?

No, but it doesn't surprise me.  There is no signage when you enter Queens on Northern Boulevard (NY 25A), and there's no signage entering either Queens or Nassau on Union Turnpike (NY 25C).  In fact, for a while, there was no signage when you entered Queens on the Long Island Expressway (I-495).
Funny, because I always thought street name signs and "NYC LAW: No Turn On Red" signs were reasonable substitutes. I certainly remember there being no NYC Border signage on the L.I.E. I didn't see those until the mid-1970's and until that time I though the New York City-Nassau County line stretched as far out as the New Hyde Park Road interchange (Hey, I was a little kid back then. Don't judge me).

Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 25, 2014, 08:41:59 AM
Google Maps seems to put the Queens/Nassau County border in the middle of Exit 32 for I-495 (L.I.E.).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on April 27, 2014, 08:04:05 PM
Google Maps seems to put the Queens/Nassau County border in the middle of Exit 32 for I-495 (L.I.E.).

For good reason, since that is in fact where it is!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on April 27, 2014, 08:38:47 PM
The county line is slightly east of exit 32. Maybe a quarter-mile east of the Little Neck Pkwy. overpass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 28, 2014, 03:16:59 PM
Yeah, just east of where 260th Street and Hewlett Street end at the service roads, around where the original westbound off-ramp and eastbound on-ramp were before they were set further away from the Little Neck Parkway bridge.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on April 28, 2014, 11:21:43 PM
Yeah, just east of where 260th Street and Hewlett Street end at the service roads, around where the original westbound off-ramp and eastbound on-ramp were before they were set further away from the Little Neck Parkway bridge.

Hence how the line is now in the middle of exit 32. The westbound offramp and eastbound onramp are squarely in Nassau county. The line matches up with the western edge of the golf course immediately south of the highway there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 08, 2014, 01:20:43 PM
Goethals Bridge replacement and widening to 3-lanes.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/05/08/4-year-goethals-bridge-replacement-project-begins/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 12, 2014, 10:08:32 PM
speaking of....LI & Queens have been replacing glorious old signs with half-baked new ones.  Is this the same on Staten Island?  Any non-reflective button copy left?

I remember one on Glen St and NY-440, also some on I-278 in Brooklyn by Atlantic Ave and Exit 28 BBridge area. GSV has them there in October 2013. Anyone know?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on May 12, 2014, 11:54:10 PM
speaking of....LI & Queens have been replacing glorious old signs with half-baked new ones.  Is this the same on Staten Island?  Any non-reflective button copy left?

This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.610057,-74.117009,3a,52.5y,106.05h,98.17t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sy76nyln2Qdaxgy-_U-WOkQ!2e0) ("Todt Hill Rd →") is still standing as of last week. So there's one.

This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.560917,-74.199199,3a,26.4y,208.64h,92.72t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHDzFVRu4QaMWmmqMerZ6Nw!2e0) on the West Shore is also still kicking last I checked.

As for Brooklyn, yep, the BQE still has a bunch through downtown in both directions.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 14, 2014, 03:21:02 PM
N.Y. Times: De Blasio Looks Toward Sweden for Road Safety (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/nyregion/de-blasio-looks-toward-sweden-for-road-safety.html)

Quote
STOCKHOLM — Across this Scandinavian capital of graceful cyclists and speed-regulating shrubbery, cabbies who drive Volvos and pedestrians who look over their shoulders before jaywalking, a simple figure rules:

Quote
Zero. It is the number of people permitted to die in Swedish traffic, according to national law.

Quote
For nearly two decades, every rising barrier and reduced speed limit has been tailored to this seemingly impossible goal, of eradicating traffic deaths and serious injuries, and its guiding premise: Every inch of street space must anticipate, and accommodate, human error.

Quote
While roadway deaths have not been eliminated, the country’s rate of fatalities has been whittled down to an international low. Now its approach faces perhaps its stiffest test: the streets of New York City.

Quote
In a bid to reverse generations of roadway unruliness, Mayor Bill de Blasio has put the strategy, known as Vision Zero, at the forefront of his transportation and policing agendas, targeting 2024 as the first year with no traffic deaths.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 14, 2014, 05:22:28 PM
And the reason this works in Sweden but won't in NY: NY pedestrians never look over their shoulders.  And that's really the most important factor.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on May 14, 2014, 05:35:58 PM
Ya look over yer shoulder, the driver knows he can cut ya off...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on May 15, 2014, 12:05:23 AM
Quote
The result: a hump every 20 meters in some neighborhoods, and some very slow trips home.

A veteran taxi driver, Nabil Bellar, 42, said he had never been asked to speed up.

“They say, ‘I have time, you don’t need to stress,’ ” he said of his typical passenger, as he waited outside Stockholm Central Station.

This right here is why this same concept will not work in New York. New Yorkers are the last people in the world to relax and slow down, and attempts to get people to do so only enrage them. Likewise, New York is a city where everyone acts as though the rules don't apply to them, and does everything they can to beat the system.

Given all this, the concepts proposed are not really compatible with the prevailing local attitude. New York is not Stockholm. De Blasio is a delusional asshole.


I've said this before, I'll say it again: you want to increase traffic safety in New York? Find ways to reduce the frequency of conflicts. Retime traffic signals so drivers don't hit a red light every other block. Use protected left turn phases in pedestrian heavy areas to prevent drivers from making rushed turns into the crosswalk, or prohibit left turns outright. Rethink the concept of alternate side parking, which forces people to move their cars when they have no need to use them. Add curb bumpouts at crosswalks so pedestrians have a shorter crossing distance.

And start slicing off the fingers of people you catch using their phones while driving. Such distractions are a bigger threat to safety than any other behavior out there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on May 15, 2014, 02:37:00 PM
Retime traffic signals so drivers don't hit a red light every other block.

In New York City, the traffic lights are actually timed correctly, at least when I was last there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 15, 2014, 10:24:48 PM
Traffic lights in NYC on main streets are timed in such a way that you either win or lose. If you hit it right, you can get a succession of green lights. I once got 9 greens in a row going 40 mph on Queens Blvd years ago. But if you hit it wrong, you get many reds like the poster said above.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 15, 2014, 11:36:32 PM
Traffic lights in NYC on main streets are timed in such a way that you either win or lose. If you hit it right, you can get a succession of green lights. I once got 9 greens in a row going 40 mph on Queens Blvd years ago. But if you hit it wrong, you get many reds like the poster said above.
That's confusing. NYC = Manhattan. You meant to say "Outer Boroughs."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 16, 2014, 11:29:11 AM
Driving in Harlem I got all the greens and was going faster than the FDR.


speaking of....LI & Queens have been replacing glorious old signs with half-baked new ones.  Is this the same on Staten Island?  Any non-reflective button copy left?

This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.610057,-74.117009,3a,52.5y,106.05h,98.17t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sy76nyln2Qdaxgy-_U-WOkQ!2e0) ("Todt Hill Rd →") is still standing as of last week. So there's one.

This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.560917,-74.199199,3a,26.4y,208.64h,92.72t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHDzFVRu4QaMWmmqMerZ6Nw!2e0) on the West Shore is also still kicking last I checked.

As for Brooklyn, yep, the BQE still has a bunch through downtown in both directions.

I 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?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 16, 2014, 04:32:17 PM
Alps, I think the traffic signals in all of NYC's boroughs work similarly on many main streets, whether it's Manhattan or Queens or wherever. Anybody knows different, please correct me.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on May 16, 2014, 04:34:11 PM
Doofy, I think it was I-78 or I-878, but I'm not positive. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on May 16, 2014, 06:54:20 PM
Driving in Harlem I got all the greens and was going faster than the FDR.

Manhattan avenues have well-timed signals, but they are the exception, not the rule as far as NYC goes. It is easy to coordinate them since they are one-way. Two way avenues (Park Ave, Broadway north of 59th) are not nearly as well coordinated. On these and other thoroughfares throughout the five boroughs, you are likely to hit a lot of red lights.

The problem is that many major roads have a signal at every intersection. If the blocks are short blocks, you can easily end up with a signal every 250 feet. Achieving good two-way progression in this situation is difficult since you cannot rely on resonant cycles. What you have to do is convert the roads to one way, or find a way to reduce the number of signals.

Quote
I 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.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SidS1045 on May 16, 2014, 11:23:22 PM
Manhattan avenues have well-timed signals, but they are the exception, not the rule as far as NYC goes. It is easy to coordinate them since they are one-way.

IIRC the one-way avenues are timed for a vehicle traveling 28mph.  (City's default speed limit is 30.)  If you stick to that speed you can literally drive almost the entire length of Manhattan Island without stopping for a red light.  I was once in a cab which drove up Madison Avenue from the 20's to the 90's without stopping once.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 18, 2014, 11:39:53 PM

This right here is why this same concept will not work in New York. New Yorkers are the last people in the world to relax and slow down, and attempts to get people to do so only enrage them.

Yeah I don't get that.  In CT, I was looking over the US-6 plans at the start of the 2-mile expresway portion with CT-66 and also the end of I-384 plans as well.

Both stated as a negative with the current configuration:  "high speed ramps" or "high speed turns"

Where I-384 becomes US-6/US-44 they envision the end to be a LOW-SPEED BLVD and CT-66 & US-66, they want to put in a traffic circle to force people to slow.

What is wrong with fast moving traffic?  What is wrong with getting from point A to B as quickly as possible?   Why not have high speed ramps?

Meanwhile on I-678 they are widening by the GCP and I read nothing about slowing people down, or bike lanes etc.  The project is to improve traffic flow plain and simple.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on May 19, 2014, 12:07:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 20, 2014, 07:09:26 PM
I 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.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on May 20, 2014, 11:52:10 PM
Based on your pictures (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/belt/e.html) 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.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 22, 2014, 03:05:03 PM
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/alternatives

I-81 teardown...but not really.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 23, 2014, 08:10:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 27, 2014, 12:44:31 PM
https://www.dot.ny.gov/i81opportunities/alternatives

I-81 teardown...but not really.  Thoughts?
Absolutely NO to the street-level alternatives!!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 27, 2014, 10:01:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 27, 2014, 10:51:34 PM
Based on your pictures (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/belt/e.html) 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.

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2925/14022863198_a386b3396d.jpg)


(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5478/14022861089_cffa027020.jpg)


(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5552/14022862158_815ea89f0c.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 31, 2014, 09:06:34 PM
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/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on June 01, 2014, 09:12:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 01, 2014, 09:52:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on June 01, 2014, 11:19:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Jim on June 02, 2014, 07:30:07 AM
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?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 02, 2014, 01:50:34 PM
Quote
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".

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.

Quote
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.

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

Quote
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?

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.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 02, 2014, 08:59:25 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on June 03, 2014, 12:12:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on July 04, 2014, 01:26:50 AM
Onondaga County ends "Parkway Sundays" (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/parkway_sundays_cancelled_this_year.html) - similar to Memorial Drive in Boston and many other jurisdictions that close off a road every Sunday to let people enjoy it on foot.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on July 04, 2014, 10:25:33 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. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 04, 2014, 10:29:51 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.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on July 05, 2014, 02:26:36 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?


Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 05, 2014, 03:38:41 PM
N.Y. Times: Falling for the Photo in Staten Island (http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/photo-verrazano-bridge-staten-island-brooklyn/)

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

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

Quote
He 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.

Quote
And almost fall off the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge in the process.

Quote
He was 19 and living in Bensonhurst with his mother, Stella. An employment agency’s classified ad for a lab assistant caught his attention.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 10, 2014, 03:14:55 PM
*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!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 10, 2014, 10:52:16 PM
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...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 10, 2014, 11:14:58 PM
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me.  The older clearview on the other hand...

Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on July 11, 2014, 02:16:59 PM
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me.  The older clearview on the other hand...

Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.

I actually had trouble reading some of the newer Clearview signs on the Thruway near Buffalo. There is something majorly wrong with them. It was dark, and the signs were not illuminated, just lit by headlights. The retroreflection made the signs just appear like one bright green blur, and you couldn't read the lettering on them. It wasn't until you were practically below them that the angle was such that you could make out the legend for a split second before driving under it. Luckily I knew exactly where I was going and didn't actually need to read the signs, but still, that was very disconcerting to say the least.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 11, 2014, 03:16:37 PM
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me.  The older clearview on the other hand...

Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.

I actually had trouble reading some of the newer Clearview signs on the Thruway near Buffalo. There is something majorly wrong with them. It was dark, and the signs were not illuminated, just lit by headlights. The retroreflection made the signs just appear like one bright green blur, and you couldn't read the lettering on them. It wasn't until you were practically below them that the angle was such that you could make out the legend for a split second before driving under it. Luckily I knew exactly where I was going and didn't actually need to read the signs, but still, that was very disconcerting to say the least.

It's as if they made them too reflective. The newest batch, between Exits 50 and 52A, is probably the worst. Not only are they illegible at night or when the sun is shining on them, but they're between the stretch of road connecting the airport to the mall and Niagara Falls. Ever since they went up, the amount of accidents on that accident-prone stretch has increased significantly,  especially at night, as people can't read the signs, even though the old signage was non-reflective. I-190's newer signage at I-290 isn't much better.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 11, 2014, 03:35:20 PM

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...

Why on earth doesn't the Thruway go to AET?  The one-time buyout of contract people would cost much less than perpetually adding future pension/health care obligations to its books.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on July 11, 2014, 03:41:14 PM
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me.  The older clearview on the other hand...

Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.

I actually had trouble reading some of the newer Clearview signs on the Thruway near Buffalo. There is something majorly wrong with them. It was dark, and the signs were not illuminated, just lit by headlights. The retroreflection made the signs just appear like one bright green blur, and you couldn't read the lettering on them. It wasn't until you were practically below them that the angle was such that you could make out the legend for a split second before driving under it. Luckily I knew exactly where I was going and didn't actually need to read the signs, but still, that was very disconcerting to say the least.

I've noticed the same thing with a few of the new Clearview signs on the Thruway around Utica and the Mohawk Valley. It's like the background reflectivity is much higher than the lettering reflectivity and even in the daytime it can be hard to read the lettering on the sign. I mentioned this to the Thruway Authority a few months ago but they never responded. They hardly ever respond to my emails.

As far as the numerals on the new route markers around Buffalo, I believe they're actually correct to the new New York standard, NYSDOT is now using Series D for route numerals instead of Series F and I think NYSTA is doing the same thing. It's part of an effort to standardize the NY Route marker on both standalone and guide signs because there was a LOT of variation in how the NY Route marker was presented up until about a year ago (stretched out shields, compressed shields, no uniformity to the black space around the shield, wild variations in lettering, etc.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 11, 2014, 03:48:13 PM

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...

Why on earth doesn't the Thruway go to AET?  The one-time buyout of contract people would cost much less than perpetually adding future pension/health care obligations to its books.

Civil servant unions in New York run the state. It's almost to the point where the main destination of toll revenue is the salaries of those involved in toll collection. The minute a politician suggests AET, the CSEA will make sure they don't serve another term. It's also part of the reason why there are so many redundant authorities, not just in transportation.

As with the numbers, a couple of the shields have numbers overlapping the outline. Still legible, but adds to the overall sloppiness of the signs. But if it's the new standard, I'll certainly take it over what we previously had. It doesn't help that they replaced the 1/4 mile advance sign for Exit 50A on the other end of that sign's gantry with one identical to the original (and just as wrong).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 11, 2014, 04:29:15 PM

Civil servant unions in New York run the state. It's almost to the point where the main destination of toll revenue is the salaries of those involved in toll collection. The minute a politician suggests AET, the CSEA will make sure they don't serve another term. It's also part of the reason why there are so many redundant authorities, not just in transportation.

Time for Occupy Albany.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on July 11, 2014, 05:11:54 PM
Not gonna happen in the (Union) Empire State...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 11, 2014, 05:44:44 PM
Not gonna happen in the (Union) Empire State...

Nope. There is one AET facility in the state (Henry Hudson Bridge), so they might be waiting to see how that fares/ how badly the unions react. Difference is that there were ~6-8 people on at a time max, compared to at least 2 at every exit on the Thruway plus significantly more at the major exits, mainline barriers, and bridges. The MTA can make up for one bridge by not replacing those who leave/retire. Not the Thruway and its several hundred toll takers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on July 11, 2014, 06:14:44 PM
I actually had trouble reading some of the newer Clearview signs on the Thruway near Buffalo. ... The retroreflection made the signs just appear like one bright green blur, and you couldn't read the lettering on them.

It could very well be that the NYSTA used brighter retro-reflective materials for the background and the legends - say a high intensity (Type III or IV) legend on a high intensity prismatic - HIP-  (Type VIII or better) background.  Combined with the fact that Clearview letters are narrower and taller than Highway Gothic, this could likely cause the problem you're describing.

If somebody out there in AARoads land has access to the spec sheets for these sign panels, I'd be interested in seeing them.  It might solve the mystery.

As a sidebar, when FHWA first issued their current guidance for fabricating overhead signs (i.e. using HIP for legends) in 2004, MassHighway made the decision to require use of HIP for both legend and background for all extruded guide signs (both overhead and ground-mounted), with the caveat that the legend and background both be the same grade of material (i.e. no Type VIII legend on Type XI background).  For most recent sign installations made according to these specs, it's interesting to note that, at night under headlight illumination, the signs not only get brighter as you approach them, but get more legible as well.  Legends on overhead signs do not become illegible until just as the front of your vehicle passes under the sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on July 11, 2014, 06:27:35 PM
If I remember correctly, the Teamsters is the representative bargaining unit for the Thruway's toll collectors.  The union has been historically known for its power.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on July 11, 2014, 06:28:11 PM
Not gonna happen in the (Union) Empire State...
They said the same thing for over a decade about the Massachusetts Turnpike - no AET ever.  However, that has since changed with the November 2009 MassDOT "merger".  At present, the MassPike and Boston Harbor tunnels are now scheduled to convert to AET sometime in 2016.  Of course, that doesn't mean that the toll taker unions won't try to block AET at the last minute.  However, so far, there's been no indications they plan to seriously fight AET implementation.

Admittedly, it took legislation filed by the Governor to eliminate the Turnpike Authority and create the present MassDOT, but the Legislature went along with it.  If the Union Commonwealth of Massachusetts can manage that, I'd say there's hope for New York State.
Title: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 11, 2014, 06:37:58 PM
Not gonna happen in the (Union) Empire State...
They said the same thing for over a decade about the Massachusetts Turnpike - no AET ever.  However, that has since changed with the November 2009 MassDOT "merger".  At present, the MassPike and Boston Harbor tunnels are now scheduled to convert to AET sometime in 2016.  Of course, that doesn't mean that the toll taker unions won't try to block AET at the last minute.  However, so far, there's been no indications they plan to seriously fight AET implementation.

Admittedly, it took legislation filed by the Governor to eliminate the Turnpike Authority and create the present MassDOT, but the Legislature went along with it.  If the Union Commonwealth of Massachusetts can manage that, I'd say there's hope for New York State.

I was going to bring that up but didn't want to start a pissing contest about which state is the most corrupt/intractable/etc.  There was also the typical resistance to outside thinking here, something which hopefully is eroding.  In 2008 the Turnpike's then-chairman Bernard Cohen went on at length about the unsuitability of AET for the Mass Pike, finally desperately joking, "Why would we want to do what they do in New Jersey?"

As roadman says, unions are big and vocal here.  And a bunch of their toll-taking members are going to soon be out of jobs. 

I'm sure elevator operators claimed public safety demanded them, much as the tolltakers will.  Maybe they'll end up next to each other in the same museum.  Or if people want to see living examples, I guess they'll have to go to New York.  Maybe they'll even become a tourist attraction when they're the only ones left.

I just hope it doesn't take the kind of crash that gave Connecticut a distaste for toll booths for New York to wake up and join the 21st century.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on July 11, 2014, 07:37:02 PM
I just hope it doesn't take the kind of crash that gave Connecticut a distaste for toll booths for New York to wake up and join the 21st century.

As vocal as the anti-toll lobby in Connecticut was following the 1983 Stratford toll plaza crash, the reason the tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike were eliminated was far simpler.  IIRC, the State used Federal funds to rebuild the Mianis River Bridge that had collapsed earlier that year.  Part of the Federal legislation authorizing that funding required Connecticut to permanently remove tolls from the Turnpike.

Of course, stating "We're going to remove tolls as the result of a fatal crash" makes the pols look much better, and also makes it more likely the media will actually cover the story, then "The Feds are making us remove tolls" does.

Sidebar -  I've always had an interest in the Stratford crash since it first happened - I recall seeing the TV new reports at the time.  However, I've never been able to find a copy of, or a link, to any NTSB report, brief, or recommendation letter on it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on July 12, 2014, 02:29:01 AM
As vocal as the anti-toll lobby in Connecticut was following the 1983 Stratford toll plaza crash, the reason the tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike were eliminated was far simpler.  IIRC, the State used Federal funds to rebuild the Mianis River Bridge that had collapsed earlier that year.  Part of the Federal legislation authorizing that funding required Connecticut to permanently remove tolls from the Turnpike.

Of course, stating "We're going to remove tolls as the result of a fatal crash" makes the pols look much better, and also makes it more likely the media will actually cover the story, then "The Feds are making us remove tolls" does.

That can't be the only reason. Tolls were also removed from the Merritt and from a few bridges near Hartford at about the same time.

Here's a page that seems to logically explain it. (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0122.htm)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on July 12, 2014, 08:20:12 AM
As vocal as the anti-toll lobby in Connecticut was following the 1983 Stratford toll plaza crash, the reason the tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike were eliminated was far simpler.  IIRC, the State used Federal funds to rebuild the Mianis River Bridge that had collapsed earlier that year.  Part of the Federal legislation authorizing that funding required Connecticut to permanently remove tolls from the Turnpike.

Of course, stating "We're going to remove tolls as the result of a fatal crash" makes the pols look much better, and also makes it more likely the media will actually cover the story, then "The Feds are making us remove tolls" does.

That can't be the only reason. Tolls were also removed from the Merritt and from a few bridges near Hartford at about the same time.

Here's a page that seems to logically explain it. (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0122.htm)

My experience of Nutmeg State toll booth backup (expletive) came on my summer 1980 trip to Nova Scotia.  My return route was the 495-290-Masspike-(then)86-84-91-Wilbur Cross-Merritt combo.  I don't remember if there were toll booth backups on the Wilbur Cross or the Merritt on that trip.

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 12, 2014, 08:51:22 AM
Getting slightly back on topic, were any of the downstate New York parkways ever tolled? 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 12, 2014, 10:53:06 AM
Getting slightly back on topic, were any of the downstate New York parkways ever tolled?

Yes. Hutchison River, Southern State, and the Robert Moses Causeway were tolled at one point. I think the Saw Mill may have been, but I'm not certain.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on July 12, 2014, 11:53:13 AM
Getting slightly back on topic, were any of the downstate New York parkways ever tolled?

Yes. Hutchison River, Southern State, and the Robert Moses Causeway were tolled at one point. I think the Saw Mill may have been, but I'm not certain.

The Hutch had a toll plaza between exits 7 (Boston Post Rd) and 8 (Sandford Blvd) which charged 25 cents each way. It was removed in 1995. I remember it well.

The Saw Mill had a toll plaza directly south of exit 3 (McLean Ave) which was removed at the same time, but I was never on the Saw Mill in those days so I don't personally remember it. I assume the toll was also 25 cents.

The toll on the Southern State was between exits 13 and 14, but likewise, I do not remember it personally. And could not, since unlike the other two it was removed in 1978, which was before I was born.

The theme seems to be you payed a toll when entering or leaving the five boroughs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 12, 2014, 12:12:55 PM
That's right -- I now remember the Hutch toll, though I didn't use that part of the Hutch before the removal. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 12, 2014, 12:15:30 PM
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me.  The older clearview on the other hand...

Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.
I don't know much about the Buffalo signs.  Of course, both NYSDOT and NYSTA have been known to erect old-standard signs that simply had their contract/project delayed.  When I think of their modern clearview, I typically think of this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.090804,-73.928697,3a,75y,315.59h,85.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sDdgTgrbvDm5ypiHHPszAZg!2e0
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 12, 2014, 01:35:47 PM
Their newer clearview signs don't look to bad to me.  The older clearview on the other hand...

Some of their recent signs, particularly those at Exit 51, are baaaaaaad. Negative contrast, improper shield font, recreation of incorrect signs that were replaced. Most of those will likely be out within 10 years or so when they reconstruct the entire stretch. With the exception of these, most of the Buffalo signs they replaced were mid-90s or newer.
I don't know much about the Buffalo signs.  Of course, both NYSDOT and NYSTA have been known to erect old-standard signs that simply had their contract/project delayed.  When I think of their modern clearview, I typically think of this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.090804,-73.928697,3a,75y,315.59h,85.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sDdgTgrbvDm5ypiHHPszAZg!2e0

That's how most of the signs installed 2013 or earlier are, along with many on I-190. It's the 2014 batch that's the problem. Probably 30 new signs and they're all bad.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: hbelkins on July 12, 2014, 04:53:51 PM
Seeing some of the discussions about unions and toll employees causes me to chime in.

I've said before that I'm glad Kentucky's state employees aren't unionized. I don't think a union would have too much success in getting much accomplished, since budget decisions such as pay increases are proposed by the governor and enacted by the legislature. Even if a union negotiated a raise, the legislature could refuse to fund it.

As Kentucky dropped tolls from its turnpike and parkways, the toll collectors who were displaced were absorbed into the state employee pool and found other jobs. Two of the last toll roads to go free were the Hal Rogers (f/k/a Daniel Boone) and Cumberland. That happened before I started with KYTC. There wasn't a toll booth on the Hal Rogers in our district, but we took a few of the employees. One didn't work out so well. She landed as a custodian in our building and was a few fries short of a Happy Meal. I think the final straw was when she went to one of the local dollar stores on her break and got caught shoplifting. Another was placed in our accounts office and she did really well. She was the sweetest lady, everyone loved her, and when she retired a couple of years ago, everyone was sad.

One of the displaced Cumberland Parkway toll collectors went to work in the Somerset office and handled a variety of programs, including Highway Safety (f/k/a Drive Smart). A number of us PIOs got to know and like her through our involvement with Drive Smart. When the PIO in District 8 retired, she got the job. Despite not having a journalism background, she does a really good job.

Having a union would have made no difference for these people. They were taken care of despite Kentucky state workers not being unionized.

The point is, the state agencies in the states with active unions and toll roads would probably take care of any workers displaced if they went to all-electronic collection.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 12, 2014, 05:51:50 PM
I think taking care of toll collectors is an easier pill to swallow than paying their successors indefinitely. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 12, 2014, 09:38:45 PM
In other news, two of Erie County's remaining county route shields are no longer with us. The shields on Clark Street in Hamburg and Armor Road in Orchard Park have disappeared at some point before I passed through there an hour ago. The CR 30 shield on NY 240 north of Springville remains and I obtained a mediocre cell phone picture of it. It is not in good shape. As of March, the two CR 580 shields in Tonawanda were still in place. Unless I'm missing something, those are the only three shields that remain standing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 13, 2014, 05:40:07 PM
I've said before that I'm glad Kentucky's state employees aren't unionized. I don't think a union would have too much success in getting much accomplished, since budget decisions such as pay increases are proposed by the governor and enacted by the legislature. Even if a union negotiated a raise, the legislature could refuse to fund it.
That's definitely different than how it works in NY.  Here, pay is a contract item negotiated between the union and the governor.  If the budget from the legislature/governor can't be met with the existing pay rate, a mass layoff happens (or a new contract, but there are enough senior people who would sooner vote themselves a pay raise than keep less senior workers employed, so a new contract is not likely to happen again like it did in 2011).

If someone loses a state job in NY due to layoffs/job elimination, their given priority over someone outside of the civil service system for open-competitive positions, but that's it.  And open-competitive positions only open up when the governor is up for election (though many have been vacant for years).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on July 13, 2014, 10:13:18 PM
I've said before that I'm glad Kentucky's state employees aren't unionized. I don't think a union would have too much success in getting much accomplished, since budget decisions such as pay increases are proposed by the governor and enacted by the legislature. Even if a union negotiated a raise, the legislature could refuse to fund it.
That's definitely different than how it works in NY.  Here, pay is a contract item negotiated between the union and the governor.  If the budget from the legislature/governor can't be met with the existing pay rate, a mass layoff happens (or a new contract, but there are enough senior people who would sooner vote themselves a pay raise than keep less senior workers employed, so a new contract is not likely to happen again like it did in 2011).

I dunno. Just because pay is defined by legislative action doesn't make the union useless. You can still endorse candidates based on their support of the interests of state employees. You can still threaten to go on strike if the legislature doesn't grant you raises.

Nonetheless, state politics are also an important factor. The state employee unions in New York can be effective because the people of New York will be sympathetic to them if their demands are realistic, and in the event of a labor dispute a lot of people will blame their elected officials for it. But Kentucky is a far less union-friendly state. If there is a reason a state employees union would be ineffective, it is because the court of public opinion is unlikely to be in their favor, and elected officials will be more likely to gain popularity by fighting the union than by negotiating with them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CANALLER on July 27, 2014, 12:59:25 AM
To clarify a few misconceptions:

C.L.:   The days of civil service unions running N.Y.S. are long gone, unless you consider having a choice of accepting 0%-0%-0% + 9 days' furlough + a 20% increase in health insurance contributions + yearly increases in taxes or losing your job a good deal.  When you have a governor that has no competition as far as the eye can see, he can dictate his terms.

Val:  There aren't any mass layoffs when contracts expire.  You just continue under the existing terms, and then back-date any adjustments whenever it's settled.  (usually 12-18 months)     You'll find out first hand next April.

Duke:  The public doesn't support us one bit, in part fuelled by the ignorance of the paper and other peoples' comments.  The perception amongst anyone who isn't a state employee is that we're underworked, overpaid and have golden benefits, all at their expense, while they have much less themselves.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 27, 2014, 01:15:56 AM
To clarify a few misconceptions:

C.L.:   The days of civil service unions running N.Y.S. are long gone, unless you consider having a choice of accepting 0%-0%-0% + 9 days' furlough + a 20% increase in health insurance contributions + yearly increases in taxes or losing your job a good deal.  When you have a governor that has no competition as far as the eye can see, he can dictate his terms.

Val:  There aren't any mass layoffs when contracts expire.  You just continue under the existing terms, and then back-date any adjustments whenever it's settled.  (usually 12-18 months)     You'll find out first hand next April.

Duke:  The public doesn't support us one bit, in part fuelled by the ignorance of the paper and other peoples' comments.  The perception amongst anyone who isn't a state employee is that we're underworked, overpaid and have golden benefits, all at their expense, while they have much less themselves.

Of course the civil service unions run the state. The teachers' unions get whatever they want. Why do you think the teachers here are among the highest paid in the nation? The LIRR almost-strike resulted in the unions getting most of what they wanted, with a significant raise even though they were already the highest-paid railroad workers in the country. We know that the City is run by unions and I'm pretty convinced that the Buffalo and Albany areas are as well, having lived in both.

As to public support of unions, Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse are more than supportive due to their blue collar environment. Right to work will never happen here. Just suggesting that I don't want to work for a union shop gets people up in arms.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: CANALLER on July 27, 2014, 01:35:27 AM
C.L.:  The vast majority of teachers are NOT state employees.  They're employees of their local districts, and each districts' residents have the opportunity to vote down the school's budget each and every year.  The railroad employees are in a better position because if there's an impasse, the feds can step in and impose a settlement.  The downstate area can't function without a rail system,as there's no room for a million more vehicles on the expressways, nor are there a million extra parking spaces.  Before you think the railroad's employees are overpaid, take a look at the M.T.A. brass's compensation packages and ask yourself what value those political hacks add to the organization for the huge sums of cash they're given.   

You are correct; N.Y.S. is nowhere near becoming a right-to-work state.  But that doesn't means state employees must join a union, because they don't have to.  Civil Service is NOT a union shop, but rather an agency shop.

And if you don't think the public hates us, come out on my crew for a summer and listen to the B.S. we hear every single night.  The public wants perfectly smooth, snow free, toll free autobahns 24-365 that cost them nothing.

Val:  If you take a Throughway job, you're still a P.E.F. employee.  You're just in a different bargaining unit with a different contract.  It doesn't really matter anyway, as negotiations with multiple unions are a lowest common denominator game.  Whatever the first group settles for, no one else gets a penny more.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 27, 2014, 08:10:28 PM
And dictate the governor does.  My boss is worried that the current PEF president will do something stupid, like trying to push through a contract that includes large raises and big benefits, provoking Cuomo into demanding large cuts from agencies that can only be fulfilled by mass layoffs (of course, he won't use that word, he'll pass the blame to the agencies).  The union has no problem with this because the majority of its members care only for themselves and their agencies and don't care about less senior employees (also massive corruption and cut-throat workplace politics; the current PEF president was elected only because she essentially bribed people).  This happened in 2011 and was only averted because the people affected picketed the union and forced a second contract vote, but the current president would never allow such a thing.

Teachers have a pretty crappy job all around; if the union controlled everything, don't you think they'd have better conditions and better pay?  Many teachers have to work a second job in the summers just to live, essentially work overtime every day, and have difficult working conditions, including dealing with parental harassment when their "little angel" gets a grade that isn't an A or gets reprimanded in class.  Teachers in private charter schools have it even worse and make even less, and many of the best teachers are leaving in droves, lowering the education quality for our kids.

People in private industry are being exploited left and right, and rather than fight for decent working conditions, they would rather drag us down too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on July 28, 2014, 10:41:39 AM
And here I was, thinking "PEF" stood for "private engineering firm" . . .
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on July 28, 2014, 06:27:57 PM
http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/crossing-info/e-zpass

Niagara Falls Bridge Commission to accept E-ZPass starting August 11, 2014. At Lewiston-Queenston and Rainbow Bridges, E-ZPass will read first, only if no E-ZPass is read will it look for a Nexus Toll account or Express Pass. On the Whirlpool Bridge, Nexus Toll accounts will be debited first (since it is required to scan the card to get onto the bridge), and if the Nexus card doesn't have a NFBC toll account established, or if there is a toll account without sufficient fare, then E-ZPass will be charged.

In other big NFBC news, the Canada-bound Whirlpool Bridge will be completely closed for several weeks in September and October, while they expand the Canadian Plaza to 2 lanes. Posted detour is via the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge, which will have its Nexus hours changed to match those of the closed Whirlpool Bridge. They already successfully reconfigured the lanes to allow those with Nexus cards to bypass the regular lane queues by using the truck lane.

More info: http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/news-links2/news-links/389-auto-generate-from-title
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 28, 2014, 06:51:50 PM
http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/crossing-info/e-zpass

Niagara Falls Bridge Commission to accept E-ZPass starting August 11, 2014. At Lewiston-Queenston and Rainbow Bridges, E-ZPass will read first, only if no E-ZPass is read will it look for a Nexus Toll account or Express Pass. On the Whirlpool Bridge, Nexus Toll accounts will be debited first (since it is required to scan the card to get onto the bridge), and if the Nexus card doesn't have a NFBC toll account established, or if there is a toll account without sufficient fare, then E-ZPass will be charged.

In other big NFBC news, the Canada-bound Whirlpool Bridge will be completely closed for several weeks in September and October, while they expand the Canadian Plaza to 2 lanes. Posted detour is via the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge, which will have its Nexus hours changed to match those of the closed Whirlpool Bridge. They already successfully reconfigured the lanes to allow those with Nexus cards to bypass the regular lane queues by using the truck lane.

More info: http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/news-links2/news-links/389-auto-generate-from-title

About time. Won't stop me from detouring to the Peace Bridge to avoid the waits, but it'll certainly be nice for my weekend jaunts to Niagara Falls, as we could use the Rainbow Bridge without cash.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on July 29, 2014, 12:22:04 PM
http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/crossing-info/e-zpass

Niagara Falls Bridge Commission to accept E-ZPass starting August 11, 2014. At Lewiston-Queenston and Rainbow Bridges, E-ZPass will read first, only if no E-ZPass is read will it look for a Nexus Toll account or Express Pass. On the Whirlpool Bridge, Nexus Toll accounts will be debited first (since it is required to scan the card to get onto the bridge), and if the Nexus card doesn't have a NFBC toll account established, or if there is a toll account without sufficient fare, then E-ZPass will be charged.

In other big NFBC news, the Canada-bound Whirlpool Bridge will be completely closed for several weeks in September and October, while they expand the Canadian Plaza to 2 lanes. Posted detour is via the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge, which will have its Nexus hours changed to match those of the closed Whirlpool Bridge. They already successfully reconfigured the lanes to allow those with Nexus cards to bypass the regular lane queues by using the truck lane.

More info: http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/news-links2/news-links/389-auto-generate-from-title

About time. Won't stop me from detouring to the Peace Bridge to avoid the waits, but it'll certainly be nice for my weekend jaunts to Niagara Falls, as we could use the Rainbow Bridge without cash.

Before I had Nexus, I would usually do the Peace Bridge into Canada because it was annoying to have to pay cash at the other crossings. Coming back, I would take whatever was convenient. NFBC website has wait times for all bridges, so if you have a Smartphone (with a data plan for the other country), you can check wait times as you approach.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 29, 2014, 02:22:11 PM
http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/crossing-info/e-zpass

Niagara Falls Bridge Commission to accept E-ZPass starting August 11, 2014. At Lewiston-Queenston and Rainbow Bridges, E-ZPass will read first, only if no E-ZPass is read will it look for a Nexus Toll account or Express Pass. On the Whirlpool Bridge, Nexus Toll accounts will be debited first (since it is required to scan the card to get onto the bridge), and if the Nexus card doesn't have a NFBC toll account established, or if there is a toll account without sufficient fare, then E-ZPass will be charged.

In other big NFBC news, the Canada-bound Whirlpool Bridge will be completely closed for several weeks in September and October, while they expand the Canadian Plaza to 2 lanes. Posted detour is via the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge, which will have its Nexus hours changed to match those of the closed Whirlpool Bridge. They already successfully reconfigured the lanes to allow those with Nexus cards to bypass the regular lane queues by using the truck lane.

More info: http://www.niagarafallsbridges.com/index.php/news-links2/news-links/389-auto-generate-from-title

About time. Won't stop me from detouring to the Peace Bridge to avoid the waits, but it'll certainly be nice for my weekend jaunts to Niagara Falls, as we could use the Rainbow Bridge without cash.

Before I had Nexus, I would usually do the Peace Bridge into Canada because it was annoying to have to pay cash at the other crossings. Coming back, I would take whatever was convenient. NFBC website has wait times for all bridges, so if you have a Smartphone (with a data plan for the other country), you can check wait times as you approach.

I use the bridge app all the time to check times. Greatest thing. Spending time in Buffalo, I've discovered that the wait in Lewiston is usually twice that of elsewhere, mainly because there are fewer customs lanes. Even going from UB to Toronto, it's often quicker to go down to the Peace Bridge and fly through customs than pop up to Lewiston and wait at both toll booths and customs for a combined 1-2 hours. During Bills games, the opposite is true and I avoid the Peace Bridge like the plague.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on July 31, 2014, 05:57:11 PM
I discovered earlier today that the Thruway has now joined NYSDOT in putting contract documents (including construction plans and proposals) online:

http://www.thruway.ny.gov/business/contractors/documents/index.shtml

Materials are currently available back to the letting of March 12, 2014.  Despite that, however, I think this page has been set up only very recently, in the last month or so, and the older material has been uploaded in arrears to fulfil a promise to keep older contracts available free of charge until six months after letting.

Edit:  It is as I suspected (http://www.thruway.ny.gov/business/contractors/plansales/index.shtml); online plans debuted on July 16, 2014.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on July 31, 2014, 06:39:19 PM
Is it just me, or are the signs in the top plans in FHWA font?  I guess I was right about the Thruway dropping Clearview.

There's some good stuff in there.  Looks like a new rest area and a new parking area on I-90.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on July 31, 2014, 08:41:55 PM
Is it just me, or are the signs in the top plans in FHWA font?  I guess I was right about the Thruway dropping Clearview.

This contract is D214331.  Looking at the plans, here is what I see:

*  Sheets 4-6 have sign sketches, all of which show the signs with Clearview.  Note 2 (all sheets) says that the new sign panels will be furnished by the Thruway Authority.  (Are the originals already Clearview?)

*  Sheet 12 has a schedule table for signs that are to be relocated.  The signs shown in the accompanying sketches all use Series E Modified.

The Thruway may very well be getting ready to dump Clearview, but I don't think that conclusion can be reached solely on the basis of this plans set.  Could they be treading water until FHWA actually pulls the trigger on revocation of the Clearview interim approval?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on July 31, 2014, 09:02:47 PM
Is it just me, or are the signs in the top plans in FHWA font?  I guess I was right about the Thruway dropping Clearview.

This contract is D214331.  Looking at the plans, here is what I see:

*  Sheets 4-6 have sign sketches, all of which show the signs with Clearview.  Note 2 (all sheets) says that the new sign panels will be furnished by the Thruway Authority.  (Are the originals already Clearview?)

*  Sheet 12 has a schedule table for signs that are to be relocated.  The signs shown in the accompanying sketches all use Series E Modified.

The Thruway may very well be getting ready to dump Clearview, but I don't think that conclusion can be reached solely on the basis of this plans set.  Could they be treading water until FHWA actually pulls the trigger on revocation of the Clearview interim approval?

NYSTA has been pretty interesting with their use of Clearview. One of the first signs in Buffalo using the font was replaced at the same time as another, located 1/4 mile west and part of the same contract, that uses Series EM. Since they did the full shift over, everything but numbers within shields has been Clearview. The rest area plans are pretty interesting in that regard. "Text Stop" (formerly known as service/parking area) signs installed within the past couple years are all-Clearview. The signs specified in the contract are E Modified. Again, it doesn't mean anything, but it certainly raises an eyebrow.

On another somewhat-related note, NYSDOT has joined every other state in using Series C for 3di shields. The new BGSes on NY 33 at I-90 have this style for I-290 shields. Regarding these installations, they new signs only feature route numbers, East/West, and control city. Thruway is not mentioned.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on August 05, 2014, 08:32:51 AM
The rest area plans are pretty interesting in that regard. "Text Stop" (formerly known as service/parking area) signs installed within the past couple years are all-Clearview. The signs specified in the contract are E Modified. Again, it doesn't mean anything, but it certainly raises an eyebrow.
If those signs are similar to ones I've seen along I-684; clearly the fabricator screwed up in using Clearview.  Since the lettering for those signs are in ALL CAPS; Clearview is not supposed to be used at all.  Yes, I'm aware that many agencies ignore that FHWA tid-bit; but such restrictions still exist nonetheless.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 05, 2014, 09:28:30 AM
The rest area plans are pretty interesting in that regard. "Text Stop" (formerly known as service/parking area) signs installed within the past couple years are all-Clearview. The signs specified in the contract are E Modified. Again, it doesn't mean anything, but it certainly raises an eyebrow.
If those signs are similar to ones I've seen along I-684; clearly the fabricator screwed up in using Clearview.  Since the lettering for those signs are in ALL CAPS; Clearview is not supposed to be used at all.  Yes, I'm aware that many agencies ignore that FHWA tid-bit; but such restrictions still exist nonetheless.

They are the exact same as those NYSDOT installed on I-86 and I-684, in addition to other highways. Only difference is the Clearview. Slightly more compliant than the Clearview "exit only" tabs on I-90.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on August 06, 2014, 03:28:29 AM
Is it just me, or are the signs in the top plans in FHWA font?  I guess I was right about the Thruway dropping Clearview.

This contract is D214331.  Looking at the plans, here is what I see:

*  Sheets 4-6 have sign sketches, all of which show the signs with Clearview.  Note 2 (all sheets) says that the new sign panels will be furnished by the Thruway Authority.  (Are the originals already Clearview?)

*  Sheet 12 has a schedule table for signs that are to be relocated.  The signs shown in the accompanying sketches all use Series E Modified.

The Thruway may very well be getting ready to dump Clearview, but I don't think that conclusion can be reached solely on the basis of this plans set.  Could they be treading water until FHWA actually pulls the trigger on revocation of the Clearview interim approval?

If I read these plans correctly, they want to move two existing signs back a ways. I don't think they're fabricating new signs for the ones being moved. Those signs are already Series E(M) so that's why they show that way.

Also interesting is that they're including a '09 MUTCD compliant left tab on the exit 12 panel for the NET, but NOT the exit 10 one.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 06, 2014, 08:05:44 AM
Speaking of plans...

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262671

D262671 will replace a section of the Robert Moses Parkway with a new "Riverway"
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 06, 2014, 08:13:30 AM
Speaking of plans...

https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D262671

D262671 will replace a section of the Robert Moses Parkway with a new "Riverway"

From the plans, it looks like they're mainly taking out the grade separation and replacing it with a roundabout. Knowing how people in Buffalo treat roundabouts, that might create some problems. They still haven't stopped complaining about the ones on NY 240.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 06, 2014, 08:19:41 AM
Uh oh. Given NYSDOT's pure love of roundabouts, there are many more coming I'm sure.   :no:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 06, 2014, 09:17:39 AM
Uh oh. Given NYSDOT's pure love of roundabouts, there are many more coming I'm sure.   :no:

I think they're great, but people in Buffalo are...different. I can't imagine how negative the reaction would be if a much-needed SPUI was installed. Really depends on the neighborhood. Those in the southern part of Erie County are fine with them, but move north of there and it's a mess. The double roundabout that replaced a nasty intersection on NY 240 continues to confuse people, even though the signage is clear and abundant. I've seen strange things at the ones in Niagara Falls and on the UB campus.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 06, 2014, 12:54:09 PM
Very good point. I have family in WNY (in Olean) and those types of intersections are not as prolific as in eastern NY around Albany - where they seem to be a dime a dozen  :-D - the NY 67 corridor with something like 5 or 6 in a row comes to mind ;)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 06, 2014, 01:50:49 PM
Very good point. I have family in WNY (in Olean) and those types of intersections are not as prolific as in eastern NY around Albany - where they seem to be a dime a dozen  :-D - the NY 67 corridor with something like 5 or 6 in a row comes to mind ;)

NY 67 has 8 in/around Malta. 5 of those are in ~3/4 mile. Leave one and you're queueing for the next. 2 in southern Warren County, a few more in Malta and Round Lake, and seemingly more in Albany County than I can count.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 06, 2014, 06:28:55 PM
Malta loves roundabouts.  There are 11 in the town.  I think they're even getting more.

The northern part of the Robert Moses State Parkway is also being ripped up entirely south of NY 104/NY 18/NY 18F: http://www.niagara-gazette.com/local/x1927887621/Parkway-design-posted
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on August 07, 2014, 01:16:00 AM
Ehm... that article is talking about the southern section, above the falls.

And even then they're not changing much: the western end will be one way westbound (as it already is), traffic calmed a bit compared to it current state, with the disused eastbound roadway removed in favor of a permanent pike/ped path.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on August 07, 2014, 09:12:28 AM
Ehm... that article is talking about the southern section, above the falls.

There are some documents in there pertaining to the northern section too.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 08, 2014, 09:49:05 PM
Ehm... that article is talking about the southern section, above the falls.

There are some documents in there pertaining to the northern section too.

They just did semi-major realignment work and turn lane installation on the northern section, completely removing traffic from the former southbound carriageway. I don't picture them taking out the super two that currently exists any time soon.

That being said, only alternatives 5 and 6 take out any significant amount of the parkway. I think they'd be stupid to take out the section north of the Whirlpool Bridge and retaining the road south of there, while parallel to residential Whirlpool Street, would keep traffic moving at a decent pace through the residential area.

I'm not particularly fond of the ideas put forth in Region 5 lately (NY 198, anyone?), but one would think that they'd want to keep park traffic off of the residential streets.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 10, 2014, 03:12:37 PM
Oddly enough, it seems that only alternative 2 uses that work; all the others would rip it up.

I've long been a proponent of if they're gonna do the super-2, they should do it right.  I liked it when they did the realignment work because it made it a permanent configuration rather than an indefinite work zone configuration (as the rest of it still is).  I favor alternative 2 with a modification to allow Parkway traffic to get to I-190 (ideally both directions, I never understood why the interchange never had the RMSP south to I-190 movement or how they consider it OK to have removed the RMSP north to I-190 movement).  I don't see the RMSP south of I-190 having enough traffic for four lanes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 10, 2014, 03:50:14 PM
Completely agree. As there is no Rochester connection as planned, none of it needs to be more than a super two. Even the section up north rarely has more than a few cars. As it currently exists, the local streets really can't handle any more traffic south of the power plant and it takes twice as long as the parkway. NY 104 is basically a residential street in this area. I wouldn't have a problem with fixing the parking lots and pedestrian crossings, as they could be at grade with button-operated signals.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on August 11, 2014, 07:39:21 PM
I've used the Parkway to get from downtown up to the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge, which requires overshooting the bridge and coming to the bridge on Whirlpool Street from the north. I've determined that the detour there means it is essentially faster to just use Whirlpool/Third from downtown.

My guess as to why they eliminated I-190 access...there is an alternative: the exit to NY 104 south of the power plant. From I-190 to the parkway south, there is no alternate.

I was up there this weekend, and there was a fair amount of traffic on the Parkway north of I-190 going up to Fort Niagara. But not enough to need 4 lanes. The interchange leading into Fort Niagara State Park was probably one of the most overbuilt interchanges I've ever seen. Really, we need a 55 MPH flyunder to connect a barely used road to a state park?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 11, 2014, 09:38:20 PM
I've used the Parkway to get from downtown up to the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge, which requires overshooting the bridge and coming to the bridge on Whirlpool Street from the north. I've determined that the detour there means it is essentially faster to just use Whirlpool/Third from downtown.

My guess as to why they eliminated I-190 access...there is an alternative: the exit to NY 104 south of the power plant. From I-190 to the parkway south, there is no alternate.

I was up there this weekend, and there was a fair amount of traffic on the Parkway north of I-190 going up to Fort Niagara. But not enough to need 4 lanes. The interchange leading into Fort Niagara State Park was probably one of the most overbuilt interchanges I've ever seen. Really, we need a 55 MPH flyunder to connect a barely used road to a state park?

The only movement at the I-190 interchange not provided within half a mile is RM south to I-190. I-190 to south still exists. I used it within the past couple months. The NY 104 interchange south of the power plant provides the movement removed when it became a super two.

That being said, most people using tbe parkway to access the park stuff wouldn't be able to use the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge because it requires a NEXUS membership, which most people up here do not have due to the cost. That movement is primarily locals who would just go up Whirlpool St anyway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 12, 2014, 05:46:32 PM
While looking around today, I found something pretty interesting: the Greater Buffalo-Niagara RTC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update (http://www.gbnrtc.org/planning/metropolitan-transportation-plan/). Located inside are a slew of projects to be completed, including:


Any thoughts?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on August 12, 2014, 06:15:56 PM
I've used the Parkway to get from downtown up to the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge, which requires overshooting the bridge and coming to the bridge on Whirlpool Street from the north. I've determined that the detour there means it is essentially faster to just use Whirlpool/Third from downtown.

My guess as to why they eliminated I-190 access...there is an alternative: the exit to NY 104 south of the power plant. From I-190 to the parkway south, there is no alternate.

I was up there this weekend, and there was a fair amount of traffic on the Parkway north of I-190 going up to Fort Niagara. But not enough to need 4 lanes. The interchange leading into Fort Niagara State Park was probably one of the most overbuilt interchanges I've ever seen. Really, we need a 55 MPH flyunder to connect a barely used road to a state park?

The only movement at the I-190 interchange not provided within half a mile is RM south to I-190. I-190 to south still exists. I used it within the past couple months. The NY 104 interchange south of the power plant provides the movement removed when it became a super two.

That being said, most people using tbe parkway to access the park stuff wouldn't be able to use the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge because it requires a NEXUS membership, which most people up here do not have due to the cost. That movement is primarily locals who would just go up Whirlpool St anyway.

The Parkway south to I-190 movement might be more than half a mile away, but it is on very high quality 4 lane road with only a couple of signals, connected to the parkway by a flyover. Definitely well served.

Very good point about different user bases for the park attractions and the Whirlpool Bridge. My point was basically that Whirlpool Street is a good fast road, as good (if not better because most of it is 4 lane and you can pass) as the parkway in that general stretch.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NYhwyfan on August 12, 2014, 06:20:14 PM
While looking around today, I found something pretty interesting: the Greater Buffalo-Niagara RTC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update (http://www.gbnrtc.org/planning/metropolitan-transportation-plan/). Located inside are a slew of projects to be completed, including:

  • I-90 widening between I-290 and I-190 to 8-10 lanes
  • Replacing I-90/I-290 interchange (Exit 50)
  • Widening and/or reconstructing the entire length of I-290 to improve LOS
  • Replacing South Grand Island Bridge on I-190

Any thoughts?

Thanks for posting!
I-290 could definitely use widening especially from I-990 to I-90 as well as widening between exits 50 and 53.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on August 12, 2014, 07:03:35 PM
While looking around today, I found something pretty interesting: the Greater Buffalo-Niagara RTC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update (http://www.gbnrtc.org/planning/metropolitan-transportation-plan/). Located inside are a slew of projects to be completed, including:

  • I-90 widening between I-290 and I-190 to 8-10 lanes
  • Replacing I-90/I-290 interchange (Exit 50)
  • Widening and/or reconstructing the entire length of I-290 to improve LOS
  • Replacing South Grand Island Bridge on I-190

Any thoughts?
I think I've heard about the I-290/I-90 interchange and South Grand Island Bridge projects before.  I wonder if the Thruway widening is related to their Buffalo Corridor Study that's been on their site since forever.

Of course, simply being on a metropolitan master plan doesn't mean much with NYSDOT in preservation mode.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 12, 2014, 07:42:41 PM
While looking around today, I found something pretty interesting: the Greater Buffalo-Niagara RTC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update (http://www.gbnrtc.org/planning/metropolitan-transportation-plan/). Located inside are a slew of projects to be completed, including:

  • I-90 widening between I-290 and I-190 to 8-10 lanes
  • Replacing I-90/I-290 interchange (Exit 50)
  • Widening and/or reconstructing the entire length of I-290 to improve LOS
  • Replacing South Grand Island Bridge on I-190

Any thoughts?
I think I've heard about the I-290/I-90 interchange and South Grand Island Bridge projects before.  I wonder if the Thruway widening is related to their Buffalo Corridor Study that's been on their site since forever.

Of course, simply being on a metropolitan master plan doesn't mean much with NYSDOT in preservation mode.

Certainly not. Thruway widening and I-90/I-290 interchange are related to the study that was due out a couple months ago, now expected later this year. Thruway Authority seems committed to these projects (as they should be, as both areas are at LOS E or worse).

With I-290, Region 5 is completely replacing a couple bridges around Exit 1, complete with temporary bridges. If someone can find the plans, we could see if there's anything more with that. I'll note that they did some preservation work this summer at the Maple Road bridge without widening, possibly the worst spot on the highway not counting the eastern terminus.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 12, 2014, 09:40:39 PM
FWIW, from what I read at City Data, Buffalo city has started to have small uptics in population.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 28, 2014, 10:39:49 PM
I found something interesting this week that is not on GSV. On Webster Road in Amherst, just west of NY 263, there is a reference marker for NY 952T (I think) in the median if one is heading east. From what I can tell, neither this section of road nor NY 263 was ever NY 952T, which is located over a mile away with no direct connection. While every road on the SUNY Buffalo campus is state-maintained, none are controlled by NYSDOT (with the exception of I-990 Exit 1, NY 263, and NY 952T) and thus none carry a route number. I'll try and get a picture this weekend.

Unlike the rest of Region 5, NY 263 in this area does have ramp reference markers, but this one was certainly for a reference route in the 952 series.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 28, 2014, 11:12:17 PM
That's interesting!

Speaking of Region 5 and reference routes, I found TWO NY950A's

One is at I-86 Exit 17 from interchange to PA state line.
The other is in Niagara Falls - First Street

I will post photos in my Flickr page shortly..
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 28, 2014, 11:29:16 PM
NY 950A - the Buffalo edition. Just look far bottom.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/17152429@N03/14882497160/in/photostream/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 28, 2014, 11:47:36 PM
NY 950A - the Buffalo edition. Just look far bottom.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/17152429@N03/14882497160/in/photostream/

Interesting. Except the real NY 950A is a hundred miles south of there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 29, 2014, 09:48:11 AM
Are there any plans to fix the bottleneck on I-95 by the Hutch and Pelham Pkwy?
It's a huge backup for a seemingly small issue. Ie: the on-ramps in the area
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 29, 2014, 05:11:26 PM
Here is the phantom RM for NY 952T. (https://flic.kr/p/oFLfJE) The one way sign is in the median of NY 263.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 29, 2014, 09:20:47 PM
WOW! Excellent find!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 29, 2014, 09:27:09 PM
WOW! Excellent find!

Had to have been installed since September 2007. That's the GSV date. Standard RM post with a spec reflector (of the wrong color). Given that said RM is missing from the northbound side of NY 952T (at least on GSV from 2011), it's very possible that someone grabbed it and moved it over.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on August 29, 2014, 11:01:06 PM
Are there any plans to fix the bottleneck on I-95 by the Hutch and Pelham Pkwy?
It's a huge backup for a seemingly small issue. Ie: the on-ramps in the area

Not to my knowledge. Seemingly small issue, yes, but any fixing it in a way that isn't expensive and highly objected to by members of the community might be rather difficult.

Here's one thing I could see as a reasonable solution:
- remove both of the ramps in the northeast quadrant of the I-95/Pelham Pkwy interchange and the current EB-NB loop
- make the NB to WB movement happen by taking the NB to EB ramp and using what's now just a park access point to turn left onto Pelham Parkway. This turn is already legal but would be beefed up to allow for it becoming the primary means of doing things.
- have the WB to NB movement happen by modifying the same park access to allow WB traffic to get into it. Then restripe the NB-EB ramp (there's a lot of spare space) to allow a lane of traffic going the other way, and build a connection off the back of it to curve that traffic onto I-95 NB
- have the EB to NB movement use this same extended loop.

So now you have something like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/QbGCAgc.jpg)

For extra effectiveness but also extra expense and disruption (probably requires eminent domain), add a C/D road to I-95 north.



I suppose you could also do something more boring and just make the interchange an ordinary parclo with the two ramps for 95 NB in the southeast quadrant.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on August 30, 2014, 09:02:55 AM
Had to have been installed since September 2007. That's the GSV date. Standard RM post with a spec reflector (of the wrong color). Given that said RM is missing from the northbound side of NY 952T (at least on GSV from 2011), it's very possible that someone grabbed it and moved it over.
[/quote]

I had not thought of that - very possible
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on August 30, 2014, 09:02:52 PM
Spotted this gem en route to a party (https://www.flickr.com/photos/48110267@N04/15062525986/). Erie CR 11 shield, East River Road in Grand Island. Northbound at Ransom Road. This one is pretty out of the way and I don't know of other pictures. Was pretty shocked to see one. I don't know where the other CR 11 sign is/was (the southbound one on Gribblenation), but I know of fewer than half a dozen that remain even if that one is included.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on September 01, 2014, 01:18:46 PM
Spotted this gem en route to a party (https://www.flickr.com/photos/48110267@N04/15062525986/). Erie CR 11 shield, East River Road in Grand Island. Northbound at Ransom Road. This one is pretty out of the way and I don't know of other pictures. Was pretty shocked to see one. I don't know where the other CR 11 sign is/was (the southbound one on Gribblenation), but I know of fewer than half a dozen that remain even if that one is included.
Good find, and that raises a topic: Erie County has too many designated County Roads (mostly unsigned, and only lasting a few miles at best), a situation that truly needs to be rectified/streamlined (no idea how offhand); also, go to the standard CR pentagon, like most everywhere else.   

And while I'm venting, whose bright idea was it for the "Ramp" signs that popped up about 6-7 years ago? (ex.: RAMP Harlem Rd. to NY33 West) Do NYS drivers really need that kind of nannying, or are we truly that stupid not to read the route markers already there? 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 01, 2014, 01:29:14 PM
Spotted this gem en route to a party (https://www.flickr.com/photos/48110267@N04/15062525986/). Erie CR 11 shield, East River Road in Grand Island. Northbound at Ransom Road. This one is pretty out of the way and I don't know of other pictures. Was pretty shocked to see one. I don't know where the other CR 11 sign is/was (the southbound one on Gribblenation), but I know of fewer than half a dozen that remain even if that one is included.
Good find, and that raises a topic: Erie County has too many designated County Roads (mostly unsigned, and only lasting a few miles at best), a situation that truly needs to be rectified/streamlined (no idea how offhand); also, go to the standard CR pentagon, like most everywhere else.   

And while I'm venting, whose bright idea was it for the "Ramp" signs that popped up about 6-7 years ago? (ex.: RAMP Harlem Rd. to NY33 West) Do NYS drivers really need that kind of nannying, or are we truly that stupid not to read the route markers already there?

I've been thinking the same thing. The county maintains everything outside of subdivisions, cities, and Amherst (who maintains almost everything in the town). That's probably why everything is in such bad shape. I have a reduced system planned out in my head. If I get around to it today, I'll start a thread with my system and open it to comments/suggestions.

The ramp signs are pretty common in Ohio, but many parts of New York uses ramp reference markers instead of those signs. Interestingly, R1, which is run out of the home office, uses them pretty sparingly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on September 01, 2014, 01:45:00 PM
Ramp signs are becoming norm in Niagara Region of Ontario as well.  It seems NYSDOT is wearing off on the MTO.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 02, 2014, 10:10:52 PM
NY 950A - the Buffalo edition. Just look far bottom.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/17152429@N03/14882497160/in/photostream/


Curious; this should be 952B or perhaps 951A.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 03, 2014, 09:46:39 AM
I was wondering if that was mismarked. (is that even a word?  :-D)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 03, 2014, 02:41:38 PM
Some streets in downtown Rochester that were converted to one-way in the 60s are about to be converted back: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/09/02/st-paul-north-clinton-become-two-way/14993773/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 03, 2014, 09:46:08 PM
Some streets in downtown Rochester that were converted to one-way in the 60s are about to be converted back: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/09/02/st-paul-north-clinton-become-two-way/14993773/

They recently did this to a short section of Main Street in Buffalo (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.895513,-78.871134,3a,49.2y,189.16h,85.5t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sG7rjjzE7PSzHzQ9x5yoINQ!2e0). As you can tell by the signage, it was one way northbound for a block from the mid-80s to a couple years ago and all SB traffic was forced to turn right. There's probably an article on it somewhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on September 03, 2014, 10:12:47 PM
Some streets in downtown Rochester that were converted to one-way in the 60s are about to be converted back: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/09/02/st-paul-north-clinton-become-two-way/14993773/

No shit? I've been out of town for a long time…
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 07, 2014, 11:29:21 AM
Staten Island NY-440 work:

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/03/exclusive_west_shore_expresswa.html

Not sure if this was discussed earlier. 

Also, this swath of cleared land in NJ, and the stub (Park and ride) at the south end of NY-44, are these connected to an expressway that was never built??

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4805791,-74.2903531,2613m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 07, 2014, 12:27:15 PM
 I believe that swath is the right-of-way of the Camden and Amboy, New Jersey's first railroad.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on September 07, 2014, 12:35:08 PM
Blast from the past:  as-builts for early NYC freeways (Bronx River Parkway extension, Major Deegan, Bruckner, Sheridan, Cross-Bronx, etc.) under "Supplemental Information" here:

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_DIGITAL_DOCS.show?p_arg_names=p_d_id&p_arg_values=D262631

Thank Santa Claus or, if you prefer, the uneasy ghost of Bob Moses, whose signature is on the title sheet of about half of these plans.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on September 07, 2014, 01:15:08 PM
To quote Jackie Gleason on The Honeymooners: "hummmmina-hummmmmina-abbabababaybababbb"
 :-D :clap:
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on September 07, 2014, 02:59:02 PM
I think it's interesting that Cuomo is talking about reducing congestion on NY 440 being critical to NYC and yet the West Shore Expressway was the least congested road I have ever seen in NYC.  It actually felt rural when I was on it on the way to the NYC meet.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 07, 2014, 04:39:41 PM
If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 07, 2014, 05:30:02 PM
If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.
I've been saying that for years. He should also extend the West Shore Expressway northeast to the Willowbrook Expressway, the Willowbrook Expressway to the Great Kills Park, and revive the Wolfe's Pond Parkway, and possibly even the Shore Front Drive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on September 07, 2014, 06:47:21 PM
If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.
I've been saying that for years. He should also extend the West Shore Expressway northeast to the Willowbrook Expressway, the Willowbrook Expressway to the Great Kills Park, and revive the Wolfe's Pond Parkway, and possibly even the Shore Front Drive.

He can't do that, at least not during an election year. His environmentalist friends would get everyone to vote for Teachout instead.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on September 07, 2014, 08:02:05 PM

I think it's interesting that Cuomo is talking about reducing congestion on NY 440 being critical to NYC and yet the West Shore Expressway was the least congested road I have ever seen in NYC.  It actually felt rural when I was on it on the way to the NYC meet.
440 is awesome. Newly paved and low volume. As for 278... While they are replacing the Goethals just blow up the whole damn road and start over. The condition of that road... I don't think anyone would notice if it was blown up. Maybe even make it smoother


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 07, 2014, 10:12:20 PM

If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.

What should he do if he wants to support a politically realistic proposal instead?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 29, 2014, 10:56:55 PM
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=4989&p_is_digital=Y

the ramp to I-84 from I-684 NB is being fixed.  The sharp curve and the mid-1980s reflecotized button copy are going away.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 01, 2014, 01:59:41 PM
Is something up with NY 279 in Waterport?  The 511 site doesn't show any closures, but Google Maps shows the bridge as not existing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 01, 2014, 02:49:17 PM

If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.

What should he do if he wants to support a politically realistic proposal instead?
It's pathetic that we've gotten to a point where converting limited-access highways into dead end streets is considered "realistic."


the ramp to I-84 from I-684 NB is being fixed.  The sharp curve and the mid-1980s reflecotized button copy are going away.
NYSDOT Region 10 should get rid of the sharp curve on the ramp between westbound Northern State Parkway and Sunken Meadow State Parkway. The last time I checked, there was still enough room to put a bridge for the ramp under Harned Road. While they're at it, they should do the same with the east to southbound ramp between the Southern State Parkway and NY 135 with a bridge under Seaman's Neck Road.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 01, 2014, 02:52:40 PM

If the governor really wanted to relieve congestion on Staten Island, he'd complete the Korean War Veterans Parkway up to the I-278.

What should he do if he wants to support a politically realistic proposal instead?
It's pathetic that we've gotten to a point where converting limited-access highways into dead end streets is considered "realistic."

Welcome to New York. Politics rule everything. Have to appease the special interest groups.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 01, 2014, 05:15:09 PM
Any attempt to revive the Korean War Veterans Parkway extension (or any NYC freeway project) would likely be met with stiff opposition, and the budget is tight anyways.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 01, 2014, 10:18:17 PM
Blast from the past:  as-builts for early NYC freeways (Bronx River Parkway extension, Major Deegan, Bruckner, Sheridan, Cross-Bronx, etc.) under "Supplemental Information" here:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_DIGITAL_DOCS.show?p_arg_names=p_d_id&p_arg_values=D262631

Excellent find J N! 
Now my OCD is settling in:

These two signs....

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3931/15411683011_2c33dd93e8_z.jpg)
and
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2949/15414500612_fc71a72124_z.jpg)

I have been able to find out based on J N Winkler's link is that the KEEP LEFT and KEEP RIGHT overlays and EXIT 6B exit tab were added on between 1975-1978.  The signs predate 1971 as the plans were first checked off as reviewed in 1971 and they say those signs are already existing. The contract was awarded in 1974 for the overlays and completed by June 1978.

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2943/15414834585_b570f15a21.jpg)

So my question is this, how far back do these signs go?  I ask because wasn't I-278 originally signed as I-878 in this area?  So if the sign is original did they replace the I-878 with a button copy I-278 shield?

These signs were taken down in August of this year sadly.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 03, 2014, 08:55:49 PM
Doofy, I think you might be mistaken about I-878 from the old days. The Bruckner Expwy. to the Triboro Br. I believe was always I-278, going all the way back to the first BGS's in the 1960's.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on October 04, 2014, 11:17:29 AM
I have a 1967 Hagstrom that shows I-878 on the Bruckner east of the Sheridan.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 04, 2014, 11:29:28 AM
I have a 1967 Hagstrom that shows I-878 on the Bruckner east of the Sheridan.
This is correct.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on October 06, 2014, 09:25:12 PM
Thanks guys; I stand corrected. But do those old maps show the Bruckner Expwy. as I-278 west of the Sheridan Expwy. to the Triboro Br?

And wasn't the Nassau Expwy. in Queens also signed as I-878 originally? Today it's signed as NY-878.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 06, 2014, 10:33:44 PM
What was the Sheridan Expressway shown as?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on October 07, 2014, 12:10:11 AM
The map I have has 278 on the Bruckner west of the Sheridan. It has no shield on the Sheridan itself, leaving it somewhat ambiguous.

Can't comment on what the current 878 was since it's only a map of The Bronx.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 07, 2014, 12:22:43 AM
I think at the time of Duke's 1967 map and at the time (mid-1970s) of the contract plans I posted earlier, the Nassau was signed as I-78.  Actually I think it was signed that way up until the mid-1980s.  The I-878 designation didn't come into play until the late 80s.  I'm not sure when NY-878 shields went up.

This photo shows a ghost I-78 shield....look closely.

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2924/14022861829_f2fdb10a94_z.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 07, 2014, 09:23:43 AM
New New York topic; Was the Suffolk County Department of Public Works ever planning to extend Nicolls Road (SCR 97) southeast of Montauk Highway into Blue Point itself? That widened median looks like an incomplete diamond interchange, and moreso when it was originally built.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on October 07, 2014, 11:51:30 AM
Drove the Cross Bronx from the GWB to the Whitestone Expy the other day. It looks like NYSDOT replaced all of the signage past from the PA's jurisdiction through to the Bruckner interchange. I think there were some pictures scattered in this thread earlier this year. I'm most impressed that they acutally acknowledge US1 on the BGS's at the Jerome Ave exit now. Also, it looks like they've fixed all the exit numbering back to mileage based and not sequential (if I'm not mistaken, the exits on the PA part under the apartments is still wrong, though).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 07, 2014, 01:00:55 PM
Some PA signs have been fixed back to mile-based due to the Alexander Hamilton Bridge project.  Most are still wrong.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 07, 2014, 07:40:07 PM
The map I have has 278 on the Bruckner west of the Sheridan. It has no shield on the Sheridan itself, leaving it somewhat ambiguous.

Can't comment on what the current 878 was since it's only a map of The Bronx.
278 used the Sheridan, Nassau was 78, as was the Clearview.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J Route Z on October 11, 2014, 08:33:04 PM
Not sure if this was mentioned before, but how come there is a "Dept. of Transportation" decal on every single traffic sign in NYC? (strangely except street signs attached to poles) Actually there are a few "one way" signs that don't have it. But a lot do. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 11, 2014, 09:00:08 PM
Not sure if this was mentioned before, but how come there is a "Dept. of Transportation" decal on every single traffic sign in NYC? (strangely except street signs attached to poles) Actually there are a few "one way" signs that don't have it. But a lot do.

Indicates ownership. If a sign is stolen, it will be recognized as a stolen sign if someone tries to sell it. Far from the only jurisdiction with an identifying mark. In New York, the Town of Hempstead puts "TOH" in the same location, NYSTA puts it's acronym at the bottom of (at least newer) signs, and Erie County puts "EC" on new signs.

TL;DR: It's a branding mark so it can't be stolen and resold as a generic sign
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 26, 2014, 02:11:44 PM
Another question;

Before the Throgs Neck Bridge was built, there used to be this bi-directional southbound off-ramp leading to Bell Boulevard. Should that ramp be revived, but only for traffic coming off the Throgs Neck Bridge?

Title: Re: New York
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on October 27, 2014, 12:48:17 PM
I think at the time of Duke's 1967 map and at the time (mid-1970s) of the contract plans I posted earlier, the Nassau was signed as I-78.  Actually I think it was signed that way up until the mid-1980s.  The I-878 designation didn't come into play until the late 80s.  I'm not sure when NY-878 shields went up.

This photo shows a ghost I-78 shield....look closely.

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2924/14022861829_f2fdb10a94_z.jpg)
Can BARELY see it - won't spoil it for other searchers...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 27, 2014, 08:09:14 PM
Another question;

Before the Throgs Neck Bridge was built, there used to be this bi-directional southbound off-ramp leading to Bell Boulevard. Should that ramp be revived, but only for traffic coming off the Throgs Neck Bridge?

No. It's a RIRO and it would be really hard to add a deceleration lane. I see it causing more problems than if one just got off the Clearview at the next exit and took local streets or immediately got back on, exiting at Willets Point Boulevard. I picture a bunch of rear-end accidents if the ramp is reopened.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: AMLNet49 on October 27, 2014, 10:20:00 PM
I don't know if anyone else is like me, but in New York/New Jersey, I see the state route versions of 3DIs as just part of the 3DI because most of the 3DIs don't even meet Interstate standards anyway so it really doesn't make a difference in my eyes if it says NY 878 or I-878, NJ-495 or I-495, because it's the interstate number in practice and in the eyes of everyone who drives it
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 27, 2014, 10:37:55 PM
It's likely that only a tiny minority thinks of New Jersey's I-495 anymore at all, and about as many think of NJ 495 in the same context as New York's present I-495. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on October 27, 2014, 10:40:33 PM
Is not NJ 495 still called Route 3?

Also is the section of I-495 that is technically NY 495 regarded as it because of the RIRO under the Pulaski Bridge near the Tunnel Plaza?  Even though it is signed as I-495, the maps still show it as NY 495 and that quick turn after the toll really would not qualify as interstate standards I would imagine.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 27, 2014, 10:46:25 PM
Is not NJ 495 still called Route 3?

Never heard it referred to as such. NJ 3 ends at US 1-9. I've always heard "495" or "Lincoln Tunnel approach".
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 27, 2014, 10:48:35 PM
I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it.  The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 27, 2014, 10:49:26 PM
(With "the Helix" referred to separately, of course.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 28, 2014, 12:13:53 AM
I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it.  The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation. 
I always say "take Route 3 to the tunnel." Picked it up from my parents, who predate 1980, but I still catch myself using it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on October 28, 2014, 12:55:08 PM
I don't know if anyone else is like me, but in New York/New Jersey, I see the state route versions of 3DIs as just part of the 3DI because most of the 3DIs don't even meet Interstate standards anyway so it really doesn't make a difference in my eyes if it says NY 878 or I-878, NJ-495 or I-495, because it's the interstate number in practice and in the eyes of everyone who drives it
That's how it works in NY, especially since everything is "route X".  Most people from Rochester don't consider I-590 and NY 590 to be separate roads but rather one continuous road (and the mileposts reflect that).  Ditto for 390, 690, 890, and 787.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on October 28, 2014, 08:17:52 PM
I don't know if anyone else is like me, but in New York/New Jersey, I see the state route versions of 3DIs as just part of the 3DI because most of the 3DIs don't even meet Interstate standards anyway so it really doesn't make a difference in my eyes if it says NY 878 or I-878, NJ-495 or I-495, because it's the interstate number in practice and in the eyes of everyone who drives it
That's how it works in NY, especially since everything is "route X".  Most people from Rochester don't consider I-590 and NY 590 to be separate roads but rather one continuous road (and the mileposts reflect that).  Ditto for 390, 690, 890, and 787.

Add I-481/NY 481 to that list, though it's only NY 481 that has mileposts and not I-481 at the moment.    I-690 and NY 690 both recently received new mileposts combining both routes into one milepost scheme.

I-790 and (future) NY 790 could probably be added to that list someday if the plan to extend NY 790 over NY 49 and NY 365 ever comes to fruition. :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on October 29, 2014, 12:38:10 AM
I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it.  The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation. 
I always say "take Route 3 to the tunnel." Picked it up from my parents, who predate 1980, but I still catch myself using it.

I don't see this phrasing as meaning to imply that 495 is part of 3 so much as it is just shorthand. "Take route 3 to route 495 to the tunnel" is more technically correct but also more wordy. "Take route 3 to the tunnel" ignores the 495 designation but sufficiently conveys the necessary information, because drivers will clearly see signs saying "Lincoln Tunnel" when they get to the 3/495 junction.

Hell, when I write down or describe my routes, I often omit and leave implied little steps. I've stated "I-80 to the George Washington Bridge" plenty of times. This neglects to explicitly state that one technically must get on I-95 first, but it isn't necessary to say that since there isn't another logical route to get from 80 to the GWB.

Indeed, this is something I find annoying about the "step by step" directions generated by computers. They relay the most obvious steps with equal prominence to the most counterintuitive ones. It's as if they are written for mindless idiots who have no clue how to navigate and are just blindly following instructions or something.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on October 29, 2014, 01:01:11 AM
I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it.  The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation. 
I always say "take Route 3 to the tunnel." Picked it up from my parents, who predate 1980, but I still catch myself using it.

I don't see this phrasing as meaning to imply that 495 is part of 3 so much as it is just shorthand. "Take route 3 to route 495 to the tunnel" is more technically correct but also more wordy. "Take route 3 to the tunnel" ignores the 495 designation but sufficiently conveys the necessary information, because drivers will clearly see signs saying "Lincoln Tunnel" when they get to the 3/495 junction.

Hell, when I write down or describe my routes, I often omit and leave implied little steps. I've stated "I-80 to the George Washington Bridge" plenty of times. This neglects to explicitly state that one technically must get on I-95 first, but it isn't necessary to say that since there isn't another logical route to get from 80 to the GWB.

Indeed, this is something I find annoying about the "step by step" directions generated by computers. They relay the most obvious steps with equal prominence to the most counterintuitive ones. It's as if they are written for mindless idiots who have no clue how to navigate and are just blindly following instructions or something.
No dude, I say "take Route 3 to Hoboken" too. Trust me, 495 never enters my consciousness. I've heard it as "I-495" more often than "Route 3", but nonzero times.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on October 29, 2014, 08:24:45 AM
Indeed, this is something I find annoying about the "step by step" directions generated by computers. They relay the most obvious steps with equal prominence to the most counterintuitive ones. It's as if they are written for mindless idiots who have no clue how to navigate and are just blindly following instructions or something.
They are and GPS navigational systems have further compounded the situation IMHO.

Then again, one needs to realize that not every driver out there is a road geek/enthusiast/historian nor a civil/transportation engineer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on October 29, 2014, 08:36:10 AM
On to something else speaking of the LIE.  I noticed that on Google maps that both the Queens- Midtown Tunnel and the LIRR East River Tunnels criss cross under the east shore of the East River.  Both the highway tubes and the rail tunnels cross paths with each other similar to the FDR Drive and the Brooklyn- Battery Tunnels do under the Staten Island Ferry Terminal in Manhattan.

I was wondering if anyone knows for sure which tunnels are on top and which ones are on the bottom?  I am guessing that the Railroad is on top because of the grade factor and that it was built first.  The Queens- Midtown was built in the late 40's decades after PRR built the rail under the river.  Trains as you know have to have a shallow grade over road vehicles so given where the portals of the rail tunnels located just to the north of the LIE just east of the Pulaski Bridge shows me that there is not enough distance for the LIRR to drop below the I-495 tunnels as well.

However, I cannot find any information on building designs for the underground tunnels and, of course, Google makes it all in one D so you cannot see which is higher and which is lower.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on October 29, 2014, 09:10:21 AM
On to something else speaking of the LIE.  I noticed that on Google maps that both the Queens- Midtown Tunnel and the LIRR East River Tunnels criss cross under the east shore of the East River.  Both the highway tubes and the rail tunnels cross paths with each other similar to the FDR Drive and the Brooklyn- Battery Tunnels do under the Staten Island Ferry Terminal in Manhattan.

I was wondering if anyone knows for sure which tunnels are on top and which ones are on the bottom?  I am guessing that the Railroad is on top because of the grade factor and that it was built first.  The Queens- Midtown was built in the late 40's decades after PRR built the rail under the river.  Trains as you know have to have a shallow grade over road vehicles so given where the portals of the rail tunnels located just to the north of the LIE just east of the Pulaski Bridge shows me that there is not enough distance for the LIRR to drop below the I-495 tunnels as well.

However, I cannot find any information on building designs for the underground tunnels and, of course, Google makes it all in one D so you cannot see which is higher and which is lower.

Not necessarily. Closest rail portal is ~1/4 mile east of the Midtown Tunnel portal. Google doesn't show the exact location, either. I can tell you that the tunnels don't line up with the actual location on the Manhattan end, as the rail tunnels are directly under 32nd and 33rd Streets. Having been through the rail tunnels, I'm pretty sure that they actually run under the toll plaza and/or elevated section, mainly because they have to align with the Manhattan street grid (and I can tell you from construction pictures that they do).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on October 29, 2014, 11:36:54 PM
Indeed, this is just fuzzy map data on Google's part. The tunnels in real life do not cross. The Queens Midtown tunnel is rendered correctly. The rail tunnels, however, continue under 32nd and 33rd Streets to the East River, proceed diagonally under the river towards Long Island City terminal, and then more or less follow the route of the above ground tracks to the tunnel portals in Sunnyside yard. As you say, they cross under the toll plaza.

The 11th Street cut on the R train isn't shown correctly either. It joins the N/Q west of Silvercup Studios, not east.

Google often doesn't render the location of rail tunnels quite right since they can't determine it from their satellite imagery and don't have access or rights to detailed drawings that would show it better. They really only know where the stations are and have to guess as to what's in between. Sometimes they guess wrong.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on November 01, 2014, 12:27:21 AM
I last heard someone refer to 495 as Route 3 in about 1980, but that doesn't mean no one says it.  The traffic reporters say "Bergen Viaduct" sometimes, but it is uncommon in everday conversation. 

I've always heard it called 495 (i.e., there's a 30 minute delay at the outbound Lincoln because of an accident on 495). The helix is the helix though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 01, 2014, 07:21:28 PM
Sad news from Niagara Falls: only one button copy sign remains on the North Grand Island Bridge (NB immediately after the toll booths). All button copy advance signs for Exit 21 have been replaced with Clearview.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on November 02, 2014, 01:46:44 AM
Is the Welcome to CITY OF Niagara Falls button copy sign still there or has that been replaced too?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 05, 2014, 01:02:29 PM
There was a MASSIVE accident on the Northway this morning, so bad that it closed all but one lane and backed traffic up all the way to Clifton Park.  This just highlights the need for an alternate route that can be used in the event of an incident that stops traffic on the Northway, because right now there really isn't one.  I've tried two possible ones and can't think of a third.  The first I tried is to get off at exit 5 (6-5 is rarely bad due to the exit only lane, and I rarely know about congestion in advance of there since that's where I get on; it can be bypassed with Wade Rd, but this is not practical if you don't already live there due to the exit only lane and the fact that a left from NY 7 to Wade requires sitting at a three minute long traffic light), continue straight down the c/d road to 4, and meander to Wolf Rd.  Problem: clearing the Albany-Shaker Rd interchange requires sitting through no less than 4 traffic lights, potentially sitting through multiple cycles for each one.  The only other possible detour that doesn't go way out of the way is Old Niskayuna Rd (accessible from exit 5) to Maxwell Rd to Wolf Rd via Albany-Shaker Rd.  Problem: this morning it took me two cycles to get through the light at Old Niskayuna and Maxwell, and at least FIVE to make the left onto Wolf Rd.  Clearly, some detours need to be signed/built, with the traffic lights dynamically controlled to prioritize Northway traffic in the event of an incident.

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Crash-plugs-the-Northway-5872484.php#photo-7101536
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 06, 2014, 08:40:39 AM
This situation certainly speaks to the need for adaptive traffic signals.  IMO, New York is among the worst states for signal timing/progression.  But aside from that, alternatives are limited and not really cost-effective given that these situations remain (thankfully) fairly rare, all things considered.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 06, 2014, 01:43:28 PM
Thankfully much of those issues will be resolved in the next decade with the Maxwell Rd extension (allowing traffic to bypass most of Wolf Rd) and the Exit 3/4 redesign that's coming up.  I've ended up attempting to bypass the Northway at least three other times in the morning this past six months and also a couple times in the evening; none of them nearly this bad, though.

Some election news: Elise Stefanic (R) beat out Aaron Wolfe (D) in the North Country's congressional race, which could have implications for any road improvements up there; Wolfe supported building I-98 but Stefanic wants traffic to stay on US 11.  Not that anything's likely to be done in the near term, but now it's even less likely.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 06, 2014, 04:45:14 PM
Thankfully much of those issues will be resolved in the next decade with the Maxwell Rd extension (allowing traffic to bypass most of Wolf Rd) and the Exit 3/4 redesign that's coming up.  I've ended up attempting to bypass the Northway at least three other times in the morning this past six months and also a couple times in the evening; none of them nearly this bad, though.

Some election news: Elise Stefanic (R) beat out Aaron Wolfe (D) in the North Country's congressional race, which could have implications for any road improvements up there; Wolfe supported building I-98 but Stefanic wants traffic to stay on US 11.  Not that anything's likely to be done in the near term, but now it's even less likely.
How often do you have a (D) pro-highway and an (R) anti-highway?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 06, 2014, 10:06:42 PM
Would the I-98 go as far east as the I-89 in Vermont?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 06, 2014, 10:39:01 PM
Would the I-98 go as far east as the I-89 in Vermont?

Doubtful. Everything I've seen has it staying in New York. Northern New England could certainly use an Interstate to parallel US 2, though. Same thing with cancelled I-92 and US 4.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 07, 2014, 08:44:07 AM
Quote
Northern New England could certainly use an Interstate to parallel US 2, though.  Same thing with cancelled I-92 and US 4.

Living here, I'd disagree.  There just isn't the population, traffic, or growth potential to justify the cost.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 07, 2014, 05:15:02 PM
Quote
Northern New England could certainly use an Interstate to parallel US 2, though.  Same thing with cancelled I-92 and US 4.

Living here, I'd disagree.  There just isn't the population, traffic, or growth potential to justify the cost.

I-92/US 4, yes. It would also pull traffic off VT-NH 9. I-98/US 2, no.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 07, 2014, 11:09:02 PM
How often do you have a (D) pro-highway and an (R) anti-highway?
I know. It's usually the opposite.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 07, 2014, 11:42:33 PM
Does Stefanic think that ON 401 is adequate for the needs of the area?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on November 08, 2014, 12:42:07 AM
Stefanik is a relative outsider bought by special interests; she knows very little about this district.

Of course, Mr. Woolf is an outsider as well, so...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 08, 2014, 10:37:37 AM
Quote
I-92/US 4, yes. It would also pull traffic off VT-NH 9. I-98/US 2, no.

US 4 could use some improvement, yes...but there isn't enough here to justify a full-fledged Interstate.  Not for the cost required to plow over the Whites and adjacent ridges.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 08, 2014, 10:44:44 AM
The I-98 debate has been going on in some form for decades. I'm assuming Stefanic was brought in by the small business owners in the towns along US 11, who believe that an expressway would reduce business [as if people don't already try and get around US 11...]. My counterargument is that I-98 would draw people from NY 37, ON 401, and A-20, actually increasing the amount of potential customers. If the Plattsburgh AFB was still open, you could use national defense as a reason to build it (fast route between Fort Drum and Plattsburgh). On paper, US 11 has relatively low traffic counts, but the small towns can't handle the through traffic. If you're really  lucky, it'll take under 3.5 hours to get between I-781 and I-87 and an hour and a half to travel the ~60 miles separating I-781 and Potsdam. That's too long, especially with the number of colleges up there and its status as the most direct route across the North Country.

Quote
I-92/US 4, yes. It would also pull traffic off VT-NH 9. I-98/US 2, no.

US 4 could use some improvement, yes...but there isn't enough here to justify a full-fledged Interstate.  Not for the cost required to plow over the Whites and adjacent ridges.

At least get a freeway from I-87 to past Rutland (I-187?). Much of the Vermont section is already built and there's support in that part of New York for a NY 149 / US 4 bypass.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 08, 2014, 10:49:49 AM
Quote
On paper, US 11 has relatively low traffic counts, but the small towns can't handle the through traffic.

I did not see this as an issue when I traveled the corridor this past spring.

Quote
At least get a freeway from I-87 to past Rutland (I-187?). Much of the Vermont section is already built and there's support in that part of New York for a NY 149 / US 4 bypass.

Connecting 87 to Rutland is probably justified, but Rutland to WRJ while busy is not enough to warrant a full freeway, nevermind that the topography would make it exhorbantly expensive.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 08, 2014, 10:57:09 AM
Quote
On paper, US 11 has relatively low traffic counts, but the small towns can't handle the through traffic.

I did not see this as an issue when I traveled the corridor this past spring.

Quote
At least get a freeway from I-87 to past Rutland (I-187?). Much of the Vermont section is already built and there's support in that part of New York for a NY 149 / US 4 bypass.

Connecting 87 to Rutland is probably justified, but Rutland to WRJ while busy is not enough to warrant a full freeway, nevermind that the topography would make it exhorbantly expensive.

Try going through there during the summer or when there's something at any one of the colleges. There have been times where it's taken me half an hour to travel less than 2 miles.

I know that part of Vermont pretty well. Terrain isn't nice, traffic is high enough to make it rough at times but not high enough for an Interstate, and it can be hell during summer or winter weekends. Ideally, I'd want it to be at least 3 lanes for as much of it as possible (the Quechee Gorge bridge could remain as-is due to cost) just so there's a chance to pass slow vehicles.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 08, 2014, 12:29:07 PM
Stefanic has been campaigning on the small business crowd that thinks the sky will fall if their towns are bypassed.  The Yes 11 group even wants to prohibit all vehicles except trucks from using the planned Canton/Potsdam bypass.  North Country politics is interesting because everyone in the area is either a farmer, small business owner, student, or professor.  Other professions are VERY rare compared to anywhere else in the state.  As such, most of the people who need to travel are somehow affiliated with the colleges.  There's some opposition from people who think there will be sprawl, but it's dwarfed by the small businesses who don't realize that the remoteness of the area has left it as depressed as the towns they claim are suffering due to the interstates and people who don't want the area connected to the rest of NY.

Honestly, the sprawl is there now.  Gouverneur, Potsdam, Malone, Massena, and Ogdensburg all have a bit of it (the former three because they're the largest towns on US 11 and the latter two because of traffic with Canada).  It would also provide the bypass Malone needs to ban trucks on US 11 like they've been wanting to do.  Traffic, while good much of the time, can get REALLY bad if all the colleges let out at once, as happens during Thanksgiving.  It used to take me an hour and a half to get from Clarkson to I-81 (I saw a decrease in 10-20 minutes of travel time when I-781 was finally finished), with most of the delays coming from Canton and Gouverneur.  US 11 can be very trying if you're stuck behind a slowpoke and don't have a gap in the traffic at a place where you can pass, and that happens nearly every time you leave the previously mentioned towns (as well as between I-781 and Philadelphia).

I think the idea of extending the US 4 freeway was to bypass Rutland.

Does Stefanic think that ON 401 is adequate for the needs of the area?
Believe it or not, the area is effectively a part of Canada every time there's a snowstorm, and it's very common for people who need to fly in or out to use Montreal's airport year round.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on November 08, 2014, 03:54:39 PM
Quote
I-92/US 4, yes. It would also pull traffic off VT-NH 9. I-98/US 2, no.

US 4 could use some improvement, yes...but there isn't enough here to justify a full-fledged Interstate.  Not for the cost required to plow over the Whites and adjacent ridges.
I think there is enough. There's more than many other places (I-91 in northern VT) that have justified Interstates. The terrain can't be any worse than I-89. Feds ought to contribute 80% and put it on the NHS.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on November 08, 2014, 04:33:47 PM
US 4 is on the NHS.

PS: it's debatable whether I-91 in northern VT, I-95 in northern Maine, etc. are justified.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 08, 2014, 05:10:47 PM
This debate happens over and over here, and somehow this is the first time I've seen it happen where no one has mentioned the biggest likely obstacle – community opposition. I do realize that not everyone in Vermont is a hippie, but there sure are enough people dedicated to environmental preservation there that this has about as much chance of being built as Killington has of moving to Iowa.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 08, 2014, 05:52:26 PM
In a way I have to admire Vermont in their preservation of their environment.  They were the only one to take a stand against the retail giant that many people hate as much as shop at when they first expanded to Vermont.

I have seen what development can do as Orlando and especially Clermont in Florida have had on the region. 

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 08, 2014, 06:22:54 PM
In a way I have to admire Vermont in their preservation of their environment.

Certainly isn't a bad thing. That's why New York made Adirondack and Catskill Parks- protect the natural environment for generations to come. You only have to look at Pennsylvania and West Virginia with their many abandoned mines to see that it certainly paid off for New York and Vermont. Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks. If the environment went down the drain, so would the economies of Vermont and New York north of I-90.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2014, 09:44:38 AM
In a way I have to admire Vermont in their preservation of their environment.

Certainly isn't a bad thing. That's why New York made Adirondack and Catskill Parks- protect the natural environment for generations to come. You only have to look at Pennsylvania and West Virginia with their many abandoned mines to see that it certainly paid off for New York and Vermont. Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks. If the environment went down the drain, so would the economies of Vermont and New York north of I-90.
Absolutely, that is why Vermont did not want WalMart to come in as it would have killed the Downtown Shopping that is a big part of the state's economy. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: shadyjay on November 09, 2014, 03:56:57 PM
At least get a freeway from I-87 to past Rutland (I-187?). Much of the Vermont section is already built and there's support in that part of New York for a NY 149 / US 4 bypass.

Agree there should be a connector between the end of the US 4 expressway on the VT/NY border and the Northway.  As far as extending it east of Rutland, I don't really see that need.  Rutland is a good stopping point for an expressway.  It would serve Rutland and during winter, ski traffic tends to split in the Rutland area, with some going south towards Okemo and others going east or north. 

A north/south bypass of Rutland would be nice, perhaps starting at the end of the present US 4 expressway, and heading east then north.  That would be enough for now. 

As far as extending the expressway into New York, how would it go?  A straight shot west towards the Northway, or a route roughly following US 4/NY 149 down to Glens Falls? 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 09, 2014, 04:14:36 PM
Following US 4 and NY 149 would be easier due to the Adirondack Park boundaries and Lake George.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 09, 2014, 04:15:37 PM
At least get a freeway from I-87 to past Rutland (I-187?). Much of the Vermont section is already built and there's support in that part of New York for a NY 149 / US 4 bypass.

Agree there should be a connector between the end of the US 4 expressway on the VT/NY border and the Northway.  As far as extending it east of Rutland, I don't really see that need.  Rutland is a good stopping point for an expressway.  It would serve Rutland and during winter, ski traffic tends to split in the Rutland area, with some going south towards Okemo and others going east or north. 

A north/south bypass of Rutland would be nice, perhaps starting at the end of the present US 4 expressway, and heading east then north.  That would be enough for now. 

As far as extending the expressway into New York, how would it go?  A straight shot west towards the Northway, or a route roughly following US 4/NY 149 down to Glens Falls?

Given what the Town of Queensbury and Warren County want, it would probably be best if it paralleled NY 149 to the Northway. Run it on the south side and there could be very little impact to residences or protected land. Being from the town, I'd have it break off just south of current Exit 20, parallel Glen Lake Road on undeveloped land up to NY 149, and stay far enough away from NY 149 to avoid entering Adirondack Park. Once it hits Washington County, it's a pretty straight shot up US 4 to Vermont. Exits at US 9 (to/from east), Warren CR 7 or 63, NY 9L, current US 4 just north of Fort Ann, NY 22, Washington CR 12 or
18, and VT 4A

You'd never be able to build it straight over. Not only would the expressway run straight into the Adirondacks and Lake George, but it would avoid population centers entirely. Part of the reason for a bypass is to get some of the medium-distance traffic off of NY 149, which is at/above capacity west of US 4, in addition to bypassing US 4 north of Fort Ann.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on November 09, 2014, 08:06:57 PM
Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks.

Which is bullshit. It's your land, that you own...why should a government agency have the right to dictate what you can and can not build on it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 09, 2014, 08:31:39 PM
Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks.

Which is bullshit. It's your land, that you own...why should a government agency have the right to dictate what you can and can not build on it?

That's an ongoing issue. The original purpose of the Adirondack Park Agency was to prevent large-scale housing development that nearly occurred after I-87 was built. Their main concern is land outside of already-developed areas, but everything has to go through them. Controversial? Yes. Has it stopped a LOT of large housing projects and golf courses? Yes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 09, 2014, 11:19:01 PM
What is the process for getting an improvement approved? Is it a rubber stamp (as long as it's something like a shed) or is it common for the government to not allow you to build a shed in your backyard?

And for my money, I'd say that the stretch from the Adirondacks in New York across to the White Mountains in New Hampshire is the most beautiful area in the country.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 09, 2014, 11:39:18 PM
What is the process for getting an improvement approved? Is it a rubber stamp (as long as it's something like a shed) or is it common for the government to not allow you to build a shed in your backyard?

And for my money, I'd say that the stretch from the Adirondacks in New York across to the White Mountains in New Hampshire is the most beautiful area in the country.

Stuff like that is usually approved, but it still has to go through APA. A property owner actually has to submit plans to the APA's office near Saranac Lake for approval. They don't care much about what happens in the incorporated villages or built-up areas, but once you get away from civilization, they'll pretty much decline new construction unless it's replacing something else or there's a darn good reason to build it (read: recreation and tourist facilities).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 03:53:26 AM
Hey here in Florida we have homeowners groups that you need permission from just to paint your house a different color.  Also sheds are forbidden and even satellite dishes were originally banned from being set up on the side of your house until the technology war won out.  Then there are some where you cannot even fly a large flag of the US on your own property and in one case a guy, who was a proud veteran, received a notice from his association to kindly not fly it or face a fine.

If homeowners groups down here can do it, I would bet they can do it in New York as well.  Even more so being that its at a state level that the bans are made.  With homeowner groups its not and yet they managed to stop a man with his own flag which is your First Amendment right to do so and, of course, the flag is one of the most important freedom emblems around and has been respected by our law since George Washington's time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 10, 2014, 07:42:54 AM

Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks.

Which is bullshit. It's your land, that you own...why should a government agency have the right to dictate what you can and can not build on it?

How is this any different from zoning?  Just because you own your house, you should be able to knock it down and put up a 24-hour gas station/strip club/liquor store right in the middle of your residential street?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 10, 2014, 07:49:46 AM
Quote
As far as extending the expressway into New York, how would it go?  A straight shot west towards the Northway, or a route roughly following US 4/NY 149 down to Glens Falls?

Personally, I'd take a different approach.  Continue south from Fort Ann along or near the canal, then cut west near Fort Edward parallel to NY 197, meeting I-87 in the vicinity of Exit 17.  More direct for Rutland-bound traffic and it's easier terrain.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 09:07:22 AM

Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks.

Which is bullshit. It's your land, that you own...why should a government agency have the right to dictate what you can and can not build on it?

How is this any different from zoning?  Just because you own your house, you should be able to knock it down and put up a 24-hour gas station/strip club/liquor store right in the middle of your residential street?
  This is not a free nation as many of us want it to be.  Even our founding fathers realized that we have to give up some of our own personal liberties for the overall good of our fellow man.

True our nation got more controlled over time as at one time you could build anything on your own land without applying for a building permit and have the building department (which never existed in the 18th and 19th centuries) tell you when, how, and if you could build it like now.  If you owned land and wanted to put up a log cabin on it you could do it and build it yourself.  Now you have to apply for permits.  Be subject to inspection along the way.  Even have them tell you when you can occupy it when completed.

However, this is all for control for not just to be a communist nation as some would say, but for safety and to protect our resources at the same time.  Just like the FCC only gives out X amount of radio station licenses per area.  This is to control frequencies not to put caps on the amount of radio stations, but so each one has its own frequency that no one else can take and it controls the amount of stuff on the dial to keep things sort of uniform.

Freedom comes with a price tag.  There is no such thing as FREE remember. We are a free nation, but not completely.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 10, 2014, 10:02:54 AM


Hell, you can't even build a shed in your backyard without having the Adirondack/Catskill Park Commission approve it if you live inside one of the New York parks.

Which is bullshit. It's your land, that you own...why should a government agency have the right to dictate what you can and can not build on it?

How is this any different from zoning?  Just because you own your house, you should be able to knock it down and put up a 24-hour gas station/strip club/liquor store right in the middle of your residential street?
  This is not a free nation as many of us want it to be.  Even our founding fathers realized that we have to give up some of our own personal liberties for the overall good of our fellow man.

True our nation got more controlled over time as at one time you could build anything on your own land without applying for a building permit and have the building department (which never existed in the 18th and 19th centuries) tell you when, how, and if you could build it like now.  If you owned land and wanted to put up a log cabin on it you could do it and build it yourself.  Now you have to apply for permits.  Be subject to inspection along the way.  Even have them tell you when you can occupy it when completed.

However, this is all for control for not just to be a communist nation as some would say, but for safety and to protect our resources at the same time.  Just like the FCC only gives out X amount of radio station licenses per area.  This is to control frequencies not to put caps on the amount of radio stations, but so each one has its own frequency that no one else can take and it controls the amount of stuff on the dial to keep things sort of uniform.

Freedom comes with a price tag.  There is no such thing as FREE remember. We are a free nation, but not completely.

Well yes, you can have 100% freedom, or any amount of government.  The thing is, this is only theoretical, because it implies "freedom" is only freedom from the state.  As history bears out well, your neighbors can use their freedom to limit or eliminate yours. 

Funny thing is, one of the impetuses for the creation of Adirondack Park was the protection of commercial shipping in the Erie Canal from sediment runoff from denuded slopes in the Adirondacks.  You might say it was the constraint on some private interests for the protection of others.  However, there are other places to get timber, and not another place to transship via water across the Appalachians.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 10, 2014, 11:43:49 AM
Quote
As far as extending the expressway into New York, how would it go?  A straight shot west towards the Northway, or a route roughly following US 4/NY 149 down to Glens Falls?

Personally, I'd take a different approach.  Continue south from Fort Ann along or near the canal, then cut west near Fort Edward parallel to NY 197, meeting I-87 in the vicinity of Exit 17.  More direct for Rutland-bound traffic and it's easier terrain.

Easier terrain, but the business area along US 9 between Exits 19 and 20 is a big draw for Vermont-bound travelers. You'd still have to upgrade US 9 and NY 149 quite a bit. The NY 149 route would kill 2 birds with one stone and it's relatively undeveloped as well. Buy the area between the Great Escape and Glen Lake Rd from Six Flags and that pretty much bypasses the development. *Might* have to take away 10 homes and rebuild a small amount of wetlands.

A southerly route would have to break away from the Northway south of Exit 17, head due east to avoid Fort Edward and Hudson Falls, and make a sharp turn north to avoid running into Vermont. There's a Hudson River bridge you'd have to build in there (current one on I-87 has more than enough capacity) and you'd have to do major upgrades to the roads for exits (unless you limit them to only existing state routes, which would leave the Fort Ann issue unsolved). Hudson Falls and Fort Edward don't want a bypass. Queensbury does and they have the congestion to warrant it. Fort Ann-Northway section is twice as long, which might outweigh the cost of building through 3 miles of mountains (only rough part you'd have to build through is between I-87 and NY 9L).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 10:47:09 PM
Is not the Pine Barrens in South Jersey sort of like the Parks in New York?  Is not development limited there to preserve what is left of rural New Jersey that is the state with the most people per square mile.

If it is how is Ocean County growing at an astronomical rate as it is one of New Jersey's fastest growing counties?  Separate question here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 10, 2014, 11:13:14 PM
Is not the Pine Barrens in South Jersey sort of like the Parks in New York?  Is not development limited there to preserve what is left of rural New Jersey that is the state with the most people per square mile.

If it is how is Ocean County growing at an astronomical rate as it is one of New Jersey's fastest growing counties?  Separate question here.

Eh, kind of. The Pine Barrens Preserve is not being developed, but other areas of Ocean County are, even if they reside in the colloquial "pine barrens" area.

For example, in the Adirondacks, Warren County is mostly within Adirondack Park. The city of Glens Falls and most of the Town of Queensbury are not, the latter housing many commuters working in Albany or southern Saratoga Counties. The entire county is in the Adirondacks and the terrain is uneven, yet the two municipalities with territory outside of Adirondack Park are fully developed in said areas, except for state- or town-owned protected land within Queensbury. Lake George, Lake Placid, and Saranac Lake, in particular, were vacation towns long before the park came into existence and were allowed to continue expansion and redevelopment within the village borders.

The main purpose of Adirondack Park was to limit mining and lumber operations in the mountain range, effectively preventing what happened to Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Such operations already in existence were allowed to continue (especially for defense purposes).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 10, 2014, 11:18:20 PM
Would it be impossible to just upgrade US 7 to interstate standards south of Rutland and run that south to Bennington and then construct a connector that runs from Bennington to Albany?

Not as direct and you'd be skirting to the outside of the Green Mountain National Forest so it wouldn't likely happen but it would serve a dual purpose, providing a decent north-south highway in Vermont and connecting Rutland to Albany via what I assume would be a 3di for I-87.

It would probably also help the Manchester, VT outlet mall as well as it'll make it more accessible to NYC traffic.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 11, 2014, 08:47:19 AM
In short, yes it would be impossible.  The economics aren't there.  The traffic isn't there (enough to warrant improvements but not enough to justify a freeway).  The local/political support isn't there, especially in Vermont.  Plus, 7 runs just fine as-is between Bennington and Rutland, though signal timing through Clarendon and south Rutland leaves something to be desired.

An improved NY 7 would be nice, but a freeway-grade facility is probably asking too much.  Plus it would be very difficult to tie it into I-87 or I-90 due to city/suburban development in and around Troy and Rennselaer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on November 11, 2014, 12:13:17 PM
Yeah, Super 7 ends right in downtown Troy and there's no good way to extend it.  The only way you'd get a freeway anywhere near that corridor is to bypass it a few miles to the north.  Granted, that would have a nice side effect of significantly lowering the amount of traffic at the Twin Bridges and separate the two largest merges onto the Northway if it were tied into an extension of 787, but it's pretty much not happening.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on November 11, 2014, 01:15:11 PM
The possibility of making NY 7/VT 9 a 37-mile expressway has been debated intermittently since 1966.  The only section ever built is the current NY 7 from Interstate 87 to the Collar City Bridge into Troy.  It took 20 years to finally build and open after years of lawsuits by homeowners in the Maplewood section of the Town of Colonie, Albany County, when they were finally persuaded to give up and take the offers from the State of New York.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 11, 2014, 01:57:36 PM
The possibility of making NY 7/VT 9 a 37-mile expressway has been debated intermittently since 1966.  The only section ever built is the current NY 7 from Interstate 87 to the Collar City Bridge into Troy.  It took 20 years to finally build and open after years of lawsuits by homeowners in the Maplewood section of the Town of Colonie, Albany County, when they were finally persuaded to give up and take the offers from the State of New York.

Yeah. Entire thing was supposed to be I-88. Glad it exists, though, as it provides a nice bypass of the Exit 1/24 clusterf***. I *think* the NY 7 surface expressway in Schenectady is part of the routing, as well, but it was not built to Interstate standards.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2014, 12:09:12 PM
I was just recently looking at Arkansastravelguy's FB photos of his NYC road trip, and saw that NYCDOT now conforms to MUTCD standards on Park Avenue between 57th and 45th Streets where in the past one four way tower signal existed at all intersections without even pedestrian signals.

I guess that story about the fact the MTA Metro North Tunnels are beneath Park Avenue preventing normal installations was hogwash as his photos show regular NYC assemblies on mast arms.  The usual double guy but painted green both the poles and the signal heads now grace Park Avenue in that 12 block section.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 12, 2014, 01:34:33 PM
I was just recently looking at Arkansastravelguy's FB photos of his NYC road trip, and saw that NYCDOT now conforms to MUTCD standards on Park Avenue between 57th and 45th Streets where in the past one four way tower signal existed at all intersections without even pedestrian signals.

I guess that story about the fact the MTA Metro North Tunnels are beneath Park Avenue preventing normal installations was hogwash as his photos show regular NYC assemblies on mast arms.  The usual double guy but painted green both the poles and the signal heads now grace Park Avenue in that 12 block section.

It's not hogwash (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/22/nyregion/22walkdontwalk.html).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on November 12, 2014, 07:41:15 PM
Well that only took about 50 years for all the agencies involved to work out. That's about how long the city has had pedestrian signals.........
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 12, 2014, 08:46:05 PM
Yeah, but not shocking. You have Metro North (under both FRA and state jurisdiction) and the city, all of whom have to be in agreement before anything gets done. They probably had to go through Washington to get the FRA approval for any modifications to the tunnel.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 09:24:55 AM
I am surprised that originally they did not adopt the rest of NY's signaling practice like they did on Staten Island at the end of the Korean War Vets Parkway by using NYS span wire there.

The poles could have been placed on the sidewalk of the side street off of the tunnel roof deck and strung across Park Avenue to the other opposing corner.  It would not be the first time span wire used in urban areas as Baltimore has had them even after MD went mast arms outside the city limits there.  Even in the Business District Baltimore had the span wiring where most cities usually do not like the clutter of overhead wiring.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 13, 2014, 11:16:37 AM
I am surprised that originally they did not adopt the rest of NY's signaling practice like they did on Staten Island at the end of the Korean War Vets Parkway by using NYS span wire there.

The poles could have been placed on the sidewalk of the side street off of the tunnel roof deck and strung across Park Avenue to the other opposing corner.  It would not be the first time span wire used in urban areas as Baltimore has had them even after MD went mast arms outside the city limits there.  Even in the Business District Baltimore had the span wiring where most cities usually do not like the clutter of overhead wiring.

New York has had a pretty strict "no overhead wiring" policy in densely-settled areas for over a century. This included trolley wires and electrical lines.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 11:31:11 AM
Than how did Westchester, Rockland,  and even Nassau fit all into this with their many populated areas?  Also Staten Island uses span wires on Richmond Avenue at the Korean War Vets Parkway terminus and that is part of NYC, even though some want to secede and someday we may have that vote to become their own city independent of the other 4 boroughs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 13, 2014, 12:16:32 PM
Than how did Westchester, Rockland,  and even Nassau fit all into this with their many populated areas?  Also Staten Island uses span wires on Richmond Avenue at the Korean War Vets Parkway terminus and that is part of NYC, even though some want to secede and someday we may have that vote to become their own city independent of the other 4 boroughs.

New York City doesn't use overhead wires for anything in the densest areas. Never said anything about the state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 14, 2014, 08:46:26 PM
I am surprised that originally they did not adopt the rest of NY's signaling practice like they did on Staten Island at the end of the Korean War Vets Parkway by using NYS span wire there.

The poles could have been placed on the sidewalk of the side street off of the tunnel roof deck and strung across Park Avenue to the other opposing corner.

Wouldn't have been that simple. The tunnel runs under Park Ave all the way up to Harlem. The rest of the way up, there already were signals mounted on the sidewalks, off the edge of the tunnel, and yes, it wasn't a problem. South of 57th street, though, the tunneling fans out as the tracks lead into Grand Central. From GCT itself to 57th street, the yard occupies the entire two blocks between Lexington and Vanderbilt Avenues. In this area, Park Avenue and all of the buildings on either side of it are built on air rights over the Metro-North (ex-NY Central) trackage. There is no place to stick a pole without hitting tunnel along that stretch of Park Ave, period.

For some perspective here, this is a picture of the yard north of Grand Central from shortly after it opened:
(http://i.imgur.com/uksWUiW.jpg)
All of those tracks are still there, buried under everything else later built above it. Park Ave runs smack down the middle of all that. Off to the side of the tunnel? Hah!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 15, 2014, 12:30:02 PM
Interesting, I did not know that the yard goes for 14 blocks.  That explain why from 57th north the signals were never a problem.

However, if memory serves me correct, before the tower poles were erected was there not the original Red and Green signal heads hanging from a mast arm on two corners?  You know the one's that did not have yellow, but both a simultaneous red and green to denote the orientation change from green to red.  Those tower lights were only erected in the mid or early 80's and before that my memory is vague on what was there previously.

Also at 46th Street the mast arms were still there even in the late 80's housing the red-yellow-green, but nonetheless over the deck that houses the street and buildings beside it.  That was not vague, but vivid to me as I remember it was not typical NYC double guy arms, but classic arms you see on some street poles.  Sorry I am not that familiar with art or design terms.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 15, 2014, 11:22:26 PM
For some perspective here, this is a picture of the yard north of Grand Central from shortly after it opened:
(http://i.imgur.com/uksWUiW.jpg)
All of those tracks are still there, buried under everything else later built above it. Park Ave runs smack down the middle of all that. Off to the side of the tunnel? Hah!

I wonder if you can trace the yard footprint at all from aerial photos today?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2014, 11:52:17 PM
N.Y. Times: M.T.A. Expected to Raise Fares and Tolls (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/nyregion/mta-expected-to-raise-fares-and-tolls.html)

Quote
Subway and bus fares will rise again in March. The only questions are by how much and for which riders.

Quote
When the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s board members meet this week, they are expected to discuss proposals for a 4 percent increase in fares and tolls across the system’s trains, buses, tunnels and bridges. The fares are scheduled to rise every two years as part of the authority’s long-term revenue plans, but details of the upcoming increase are still being worked out. Riders will have a chance to weigh in at public hearings next month.



Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 18, 2014, 11:44:43 AM
Per wgrz.com :

US 219 closed north of NY 242
NY 400 closed in its entirety
NY 5 closed between Tifft St and I-190
I-290 closed east of Exit 6, ramps to/from south at WT closed

You know it's bad when Buffalo closes every road
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on November 27, 2014, 09:23:05 AM
Interesting question about cross traffic during the Macy's Parade on Thanksgiving Day.  As many of us know that the route of the Parade is over 3 miles from Uptown to Midtown which is well over 30 blocks, thus preventing cross traffic where the parade goes.

Isn't there places every so many blocks that stop the parade for a few moments to allow traffic to cross the route which I imagine is what gives NBC the chance to have dance routines in Herald Square every so many parade acts that you see aired on TV?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on November 27, 2014, 09:34:42 AM
Given how huge of an attraction the parade is, I can't imagine there's a lot of cross-traffic during that time.  The parade has also been an institution for over 80 years so it's not like folks don't know it's happening and can't plan around it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on November 28, 2014, 05:18:56 PM
Whenever NYC hosts parades they close off all the minor the cross streets but keep the major ones open for cross traffic. Basically when the light turns red the parade stops and bikes/peds/cars get to cross. The parade resumes forward progress when the light turns green again. Although in practice there will be cops to assist in directing traffic so the phases of the signal are not necessarily strictly followed.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 28, 2014, 07:57:07 PM
Whenever NYC hosts parades they close off all the minor the cross streets but keep the major ones open for cross traffic. Basically when the light turns red the parade stops and bikes/peds/cars get to cross. The parade resumes forward progress when the light turns green again. Although in practice there will be cops to assist in directing traffic so the phases of the signal are not necessarily strictly followed.

It's not like the parade is constantly moving. Each float/band/act stops in front of Macy's to do their thing for NBC viewers at home. They can get stuff across when everything is stopped for the performances, as long as floats don't block the box.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 29, 2014, 08:01:36 PM
Clearview alert: One of the Exit 1 advances on I-490 EB was replaced with a new Clearview sign at some point within the past year or two. Don't know how recently, as I'm rarely on that stretch of highway, especially going EB, but I figured I'd mention it as I saw it today on my way to drive the Inner Loop one last time.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: WNYroadgeek on November 29, 2014, 11:30:08 PM
Has to have been no later than 10/2012, it's on Street View: http://goo.gl/maps/ME3yC (and considering it's right after the Thruway Exit 47 toll plaza, it's almost certainly NYSTA's doing).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 29, 2014, 11:34:55 PM
Has to have been no later than 10/2012, it's on Street View: http://goo.gl/maps/ME3yC (and considering it's right after the Thruway Exit 47 toll plaza, it's almost certainly NYSTA's doing).

As I said, I'm never on that side of Rochester, so "new" means "within past 3 years". I do know that there's a bunch of relatively-new signage between I-390 and I-590, inclusive. Some of that has gone up within the past year.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on November 30, 2014, 12:17:56 AM
Most certainly a NYSTA job. The obnoxiously-huge lettering (and the super-tiny "1/4 MILE" text underneath) disproportionate to the rest of the sign gives it away.

NYSTA has always had letter sizing issues, it just wasn't as obvious until they started using Clearview.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on November 30, 2014, 12:40:25 AM
I have a picture of the sign going back to August, 2008. :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on November 30, 2014, 12:43:52 AM
Clearview alert: One of the Exit 1 advances on I-490 EB was replaced with a new Clearview sign at some point within the past year or two. Don't know how recently, as I'm rarely on that stretch of highway, especially going EB, but I figured I'd mention it as I saw it today on my way to drive the Inner Loop one last time.

I'm pretty sure that sign is around six to eight years or so old. It's one of the first Clearview signs I ever saw in New York State and it turned up right when the Thruway Authority just started using Clearview.  I'm certain it's an NYSTA sign.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on November 30, 2014, 12:46:46 AM
Has to have been no later than 10/2012, it's on Street View: http://goo.gl/maps/ME3yC (and considering it's right after the Thruway Exit 47 toll plaza, it's almost certainly NYSTA's doing).

As I said, I'm never on that side of Rochester, so "new" means "within past 3 years". I do know that there's a bunch of relatively-new signage between I-390 and I-590, inclusive. Some of that has gone up within the past year.

I just drove through Rochester this evening and I noticed that Region 4 has put up a lot of new signs on NY 390, I-490, NY 590 and NY 104 over the past couple of years and they are really well done. The habit of left justifying the route shield on the sign at the exit ramp seems to have been dropped and they're using control destinations where they hadn't before (for example, "Greece" on NY 104 WB at NY 590).

I also like the larger Series D post interchange mileage signs on Interstate 490.

While I was out there I drove the entire Inner Loop for the last time. :)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on November 30, 2014, 12:48:29 AM
Do locals still refer to the Inner Loop as 'the moat'?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on November 30, 2014, 07:28:23 AM
Whenever NYC hosts parades they close off all the minor the cross streets but keep the major ones open for cross traffic. Basically when the light turns red the parade stops and bikes/peds/cars get to cross. The parade resumes forward progress when the light turns green again. Although in practice there will be cops to assist in directing traffic so the phases of the signal are not necessarily strictly followed.

It's not like the parade is constantly moving. Each float/band/act stops in front of Macy's to do their thing for NBC viewers at home. They can get stuff across when everything is stopped for the performances, as long as floats don't block the box.

I can't find the article now, but I believe that 57th Street and 49/50 Street are kept open for this purpose.  Intermittent openings so traffic can cross through.

Before the pedestrianization of Broadway, 42nd Street was also opened, but now part of the parade uses 42nd between 7th and 6th.

Even with the openings, it'll probably be easier to make a wide detour far away from the parade area, if you need to go from east to west in the city.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 30, 2014, 06:40:34 PM
Do locals still refer to the Inner Loop as 'the moat'?

Did we ever?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on November 30, 2014, 08:09:57 PM
Do locals still refer to the Inner Loop as 'the moat'?

Did we ever?

None of my Rochester friends knew of anyone calling it that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on November 30, 2014, 09:39:34 PM
Do locals still refer to the Inner Loop as 'the moat'?

Did we ever?

None of my Rochester friends knew of anyone calling it that.

The term did tend to appear in the press to illustrate a negative perception of the road, but I don't recall ever hearing it referred to colloquially that way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on December 01, 2014, 04:23:30 PM
Gotcha - just curious.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on December 01, 2014, 04:27:21 PM
Do locals still refer to the Inner Loop as 'the moat'?

Did we ever?

None of my Rochester friends knew of anyone calling it that.

Now I'm wondering where I heard the term or where I got it?  :-D My apologies to all
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J Route Z on December 02, 2014, 07:32:28 PM
Does the NYSDOT have a page on their website to report a maintenance issue on a state highway? I could not locate it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 02, 2014, 11:06:33 PM
I have a quick question about the I-95/I-87 junction in the Bronx: How long has Exit 1D been there? I don't remember seeing that before!

(http://i.imgur.com/ruWz12e.jpg)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 02, 2014, 11:18:22 PM
Pretty sure it always has been. Bridge the ramp uses is certainly old enough.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 02, 2014, 11:33:01 PM
I have a quick question about the I-95/I-87 junction in the Bronx: How long has Exit 1D been there? I don't remember seeing that before!

I think that's brand-new. Always used to just be 1C for the whole exit. But, ya know, every ramp gets a number. GSP southbound 130 is now 130A/B because two ramps. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that you should number diverges from the mainline, not splits downwind from there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 03, 2014, 12:37:12 AM
There was a ton of construction on this interchange in the last few years. Those ramps were completely (or very nearly) reconstructed. The age of that gantry is fairly obvious.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 03, 2014, 01:40:27 PM
Looks like one of the "temporarily closed" rest areas is re-opening: https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2014/2014-12-24

Does the NYSDOT have a page on their website to report a maintenance issue on a state highway? I could not locate it.
Best I can think of is the contact page for the residencies: https://www.dot.ny.gov/about-nysdot/faq/residencies

I could have sworn there was a way to contact them with a web form or email and have it forwarded to the appropriate person, but that was a site redesign or two ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on December 03, 2014, 04:02:36 PM
I have a quick question about the I-95/I-87 junction in the Bronx: How long has Exit 1D been there? I don't remember seeing that before!

(http://i.imgur.com/ruWz12e.jpg)

That's within the past year. For a while it was 3N-S because NYSDOT (or the PA, I never remember which) was going to switch the numbering to sequential exits, with 9A being Exit 1, the HRD being 2, and the Deegan being 3. They since reversed on that call and went back. The PA part of the roadway (under the apartments on the Trans Manhattan Expwy) still has the sequential numbers on their signs, so that's a little confusing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on December 03, 2014, 04:14:38 PM
From today's NY Times: For New Tappan Zee, Questions Persist Over How High the Tolls Will Climb (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/nyregion/for-new-tappan-zee-questions-persist-over-how-high-the-tolls-will-climb.html)

Quote
By one rough calculation — dividing the $3.9 billion amortized at 4 percent interest by the 24,539,849 vehicle round trips taken in 2012 — paying off construction bonds could add more than $6 to the amount paid for each trip through the tollbooths. That is why state officials are trying hard to find alternative financing.

One transportation consultant, who asked not to be identified because of a potential role in helping the state set the new toll, said a ballpark estimate was that for every $1 billion in outside financing, the per-car price could be reduced by $2.50.

Either way, it's going to hurt a lot more to cross the new Tappan Zee.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 03, 2014, 04:52:56 PM
I have a quick question about the I-95/I-87 junction in the Bronx: How long has Exit 1D been there? I don't remember seeing that before!

(http://i.imgur.com/ruWz12e.jpg)

That's within the past year. For a while it was 3N-S because NYSDOT (or the PA, I never remember which) was going to switch the numbering to sequential exits, with 9A being Exit 1, the HRD being 2, and the Deegan being 3. They since reversed on that call and went back. The PA part of the roadway (under the apartments on the Trans Manhattan Expwy) still has the sequential numbers on their signs, so that's a little confusing.

The sign's probably from the past year, but the numbering's been there a little longer. At least as long as I've lived in the borough (3 1/2 years).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on December 04, 2014, 08:21:00 PM
I don't have any (original) pictures yet, but the new Exit 72 on NY 17 westbound opened today.  According to the Facebook page for the Prospect Mountain project, phase one of the project is now 80 percent complete.  Remaining for next season is the opening of the Exit 72 onramp, two new bridges (one for I-81 NB and another for I-81 SB.

Here is the new signage for the exit, courtesy of the Prospect Mountain contractors:

(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10616662_606943829417682_4390073928759756017_n.jpg?oh=9e4add93798f2b7be06610fb3b9306ff&oe=54FC6A23)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on December 05, 2014, 09:25:44 AM
Here is the new signage for the exit, courtesy of the Prospect Mountain contractors:

(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10616662_606943829417682_4390073928759756017_n.jpg?oh=9e4add93798f2b7be06610fb3b9306ff&oe=54FC6A23)
Why is that cantilevered gantry so unusually thick?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman on December 05, 2014, 09:47:52 AM
Here is the new signage for the exit, courtesy of the Prospect Mountain contractors:

(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10616662_606943829417682_4390073928759756017_n.jpg?oh=9e4add93798f2b7be06610fb3b9306ff&oe=54FC6A23)
Why is that cantilevered gantry so unusually thick?
Likely designed to AASHTO 2009 (with 2010 and 2011 addenda) wind speed and fatigue requirements.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on December 05, 2014, 10:53:42 AM
Here is the new signage for the exit, courtesy of the Prospect Mountain contractors:

(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10616662_606943829417682_4390073928759756017_n.jpg?oh=9e4add93798f2b7be06610fb3b9306ff&oe=54FC6A23)
Why is that cantilevered gantry so unusually thick?
Likely designed to AASHTO 2009 (with 2010 and 2011 addenda) wind speed and fatigue requirements.
Assuming that other new or recently-erected gantries and structures (examples: the new BGS gantries along I-95 & 93 in MA and along I-95 & US 202 in PA) are designed for such requirements; I still think that the above-gantry is grossly overdesigned.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 05, 2014, 11:37:30 AM
That has been the standard in New York for 15 years. Nothing recent. At this point, a significant amount of gantries have changed to that style. Everything new since the turn of the century has been that style, both NYSDOT and NYSTA. The latter might be changing to monotubes based on a set of plans I saw, but that's another story altogether.

I'm more concerned by the mile marker. Given that I've seen nearly-identical ones in Region 5, I (unfortunately) believe that those boxy things are the new standard.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on December 05, 2014, 12:28:12 PM
The milemarker is a new FHWA standard enhanced location marker. R7's been using them for ten years now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 05, 2014, 01:18:43 PM
The milemarker is a new FHWA standard enhanced location marker. R7's been using them for ten years now.

Good to know. I thought they were just typical R5 crappy signage.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 05, 2014, 01:34:26 PM
There are a few enhanced location tenth mile markers in R3.  R1 uses the regular MUTCD tenth mile markers for new installs and enhanced location markers on the Northway.  R4 also uses the enhanced location markers, as do R8 and R9.  R6 uses regular MUTCD mile markers.

Honestly, I prefer the old R1 green/white tenth mile markers better.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 05, 2014, 02:57:18 PM
R1s are what I grew up with. Numbers appear larger. Maybe it's the different look that I don't like.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on December 05, 2014, 03:50:38 PM
The mile marker is temporary.  Similar permanent ones have gone up on I-81 just south of this location, but they look less cheap and better overall.

Additionally, regarding the cantilever, these have really come into vogue here in the Binghamton area over the last several months.  Nearly every sign in Broome County was replaced (sign bridge and all) over the summer, and quite a few full overhead gantries were replaced by these cantilever assemblies.  In a couple locations, it seems ill fitting, because the overhead gantry provided additional information that is now either absent or present only on locally installed ground mounted signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 05, 2014, 11:08:06 PM
The mile marker is temporary.  Similar permanent ones have gone up on I-81 just south of this location, but they look less cheap and better overall.

Additionally, regarding the cantilever, these have really come into vogue here in the Binghamton area over the last several months.  Nearly every sign in Broome County was replaced (sign bridge and all) over the summer, and quite a few full overhead gantries were replaced by these cantilever assemblies.  In a couple locations, it seems ill fitting, because the overhead gantry provided additional information that is now either absent or present only on locally installed ground mounted signs.

Are there any going up like these?

(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcms.esi.info%2FMedia%2FproductImages%2F42984_1315302566451_PF.jpg&f=1)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 05, 2014, 11:23:38 PM
The mile marker is temporary.  Similar permanent ones have gone up on I-81 just south of this location, but they look less cheap and better overall.

Additionally, regarding the cantilever, these have really come into vogue here in the Binghamton area over the last several months.  Nearly every sign in Broome County was replaced (sign bridge and all) over the summer, and quite a few full overhead gantries were replaced by these cantilever assemblies.  In a couple locations, it seems ill fitting, because the overhead gantry provided additional information that is now either absent or present only on locally installed ground mounted signs.

Are there any going up like these?

[Pic snipped]


Please tell me that's in Pennsylvania
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 05, 2014, 11:35:50 PM

The mile marker is temporary.  Similar permanent ones have gone up on I-81 just south of this location, but they look less cheap and better overall.

Additionally, regarding the cantilever, these have really come into vogue here in the Binghamton area over the last several months.  Nearly every sign in Broome County was replaced (sign bridge and all) over the summer, and quite a few full overhead gantries were replaced by these cantilever assemblies.  In a couple locations, it seems ill fitting, because the overhead gantry provided additional information that is now either absent or present only on locally installed ground mounted signs.

Are there any going up like these?

[Pic snipped]


Please tell me that's in Pennsylvania

Actually it's in the UK, I found it on Google.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Zeffy on December 06, 2014, 12:37:40 PM
Out of curiosity, does anyone here know if NYSDOT / NYSTA used to use Series E for their state route shields on overhead guide signs, or Series F? I've been toying around with some NYSDOT-style signs, and looking at pictures of older signs, part of me wants to think they used F, but it seems more likely that they would've used E. I can't find anything in the state supplement of the MUTCD either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on December 06, 2014, 12:45:52 PM
Out of curiosity, does anyone here know if NYSDOT / NYSTA used to use Series E for their state route shields on overhead guide signs, or Series F? I've been toying around with some NYSDOT-style signs, and looking at pictures of older signs, part of me wants to think they used F, but it seems more likely that they would've used E. I can't find anything in the state supplement of the MUTCD either.

NYSDOT used straight Series F in the past.  I don't think you would find anything in the state supplement because New York stopped being an own-manual state around the time it changed to Series D for guide-sign state route marker digits and stopped putting street names in boxed all-uppercase Series D.  You would have to go to the NYSMUTCD (last full revision in 1984, with updates available by subscription until the supplement was introduced) for illustrations showing that New York-specific stuff.

NYSDOT should also have had a companion volume similar to Standard Highway Signs, but I do not remember ever seeing it advertised for sale or anyone on any of the roadgeek forums bragging about having a copy.  My guess is that it is either a "secret" manual, like Missouri DOT's, or a collection of drawings kept in an office somewhere, like Nebraska DOR's.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 06, 2014, 05:34:42 PM
Additionally, regarding the cantilever, these have really come into vogue here in the Binghamton area over the last several months.  Nearly every sign in Broome County was replaced (sign bridge and all) over the summer, and quite a few full overhead gantries were replaced by these cantilever assemblies.  In a couple locations, it seems ill fitting, because the overhead gantry provided additional information that is now either absent or present only on locally installed ground mounted signs.
Did they finally fix the missing gantries on I-88 between exits 1 and 2?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on December 06, 2014, 06:36:06 PM
Did they finally fix the missing gantries on I-88 between exits 1 and 2?

Nope, I was very surprised to see that they didn't, and didn't even build mounting brackets to possibly put them up next year.  The gantries have been missing for nearly ten years, since they were taken out by a couple of trucks.  A gantry on the expressway portion of NY-26 in Vestal had been missing just as long for the same reason, but was replaced this summer.

The gantries at exit 2 westbound and exit 1 westbound were both replaced, with some good and some bad signs.  Again, if I can ever get my girlfriend to agree to drive me around, I'll snag some pictures.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on December 07, 2014, 05:25:26 PM
Did they finally fix the missing gantries on I-88 between exits 1 and 2?

Nope, I was very surprised to see that they didn't, and didn't even build mounting brackets to possibly put them up next year.  The gantries have been missing for nearly ten years, since they were taken out by a couple of trucks.  A gantry on the expressway portion of NY-26 in Vestal had been missing just as long for the same reason, but was replaced this summer.

The gantries at exit 2 westbound and exit 1 westbound were both replaced, with some good and some bad signs.  Again, if I can ever get my girlfriend to agree to drive me around, I'll snag some pictures.

I just drove under the new gantries today and while I couldn't snap any photos, I didn't see anything alarming with the design of the sign panels.  I did notice that the up arrow on the Exit 1 panel was in the upper right hand corner of the sign (like Connecticut does) over the word "Binghamton". I always appreciate that because it reduces the size of the panel without really compromising legibility.

As mentioned before the two other overhead signs are still missing but the nifty temporary signs are still there.

I did notice that the Exit 2 WB overhead sign at the gore now has markers for both NY 12 A and To NY 12.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on December 07, 2014, 07:18:26 PM
I just drove under the new gantries today and while I couldn't snap any photos, I didn't see anything alarming with the design of the sign panels.  I did notice that the up arrow on the Exit 1 panel was in the upper right hand corner of the sign (like Connecticut does) over the word "Binghamton". I always appreciate that because it reduces the size of the panel without really compromising legibility.

As mentioned before the two other overhead signs are still missing but the nifty temporary signs are still there.

I did notice that the Exit 2 WB overhead sign at the gore now has markers for both NY 12 A and To NY 12.

Nothing horribly off-putting, just strange alignment of shields and weird use of space.  The sign that says "To 81/To 17" is tiny compared to the one it replaced, and the shields are at the farthest edges with a large space in between.  Something was strange about the Exit 2 sign but I haven't been to Oneonta lately so I can't remember exactly what.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 08, 2014, 12:58:00 PM
That sign is probably meant to say "To 81/To 86/To 17" in the near future ;)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on December 09, 2014, 06:52:46 AM
I foolishly hadn't considered that, but the custom in this area so far has been to have it on the sign and green it out, or just put a 17 shield and worry about it later.  Hopefully that's indeed the case because another shield would make it look much better.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on December 09, 2014, 03:43:49 PM
I foolishly hadn't considered that, but the custom in this area so far has been to have it on the sign and green it out, or just put a 17 shield and worry about it later.  Hopefully that's indeed the case because another shield would make it look much better.

There's quite a few signs in R2 with that awful spacing. I firmly believe that there are some in NYSDOT who have no idea how to use GuidSIGN, but in this case I agree that it's probably extra space for To 86. On the bright side, at least the space for 86 is in the right place, because R9 seems uneven with deciding of it's going to be 86-17 or 17-86, the former being correct, of course.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Bumppoman on December 10, 2014, 07:21:07 AM
In Tioga County it appears that Region 9 has decided on I-86 as a lone wolf.  All of the NY-17 shields, by ramps and on the road itself, have been removed and then replaced directly on top of I-86 shields to be popped off once the extension is approved.  It's an interesting approach, instead of having I-86 mounted on a separate assembly à la Region 6.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 10, 2014, 12:59:10 PM
Makes one wonder if there are plans to officially decommission NY 17 on the Southern Tier Expressway once we get a Grand Unified I-86 all the way from I-90 through Binghamton to NY 79.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 10, 2014, 03:03:02 PM
Wouldn't shock me if they're planning to decommission. No reason for the duplication and it's more signs to maintain. The newer BGSes in Regions 5 and 6 don't show NY 17, either.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on December 10, 2014, 06:38:47 PM
The elimination of NY 17 everywhere west of Harriman is a known plan. It is simply a question of waiting for the I-86 designation to be extended enough that you no longer need the NY 17 designation to maintain continuity.

I don't expect any truncation to be reflected in the logbook until after I-86 is 100% complete, though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 10, 2014, 06:56:58 PM
The logbook is different from signage. While it isn't typical practice for a non-reference route to be unsigned, US 11's north end, I-478 and I-878 tell us that it can happen here in the Empire State. I-86 won't be complete until they get rid of the at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock, which hasn't even started construction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 10, 2014, 07:27:48 PM
In Tioga County it appears that Region 9 has decided on I-86 as a lone wolf.  All of the NY-17 shields, by ramps and on the road itself, have been removed and then replaced directly on top of I-86 shields to be popped off once the extension is approved.  It's an interesting approach, instead of having I-86 mounted on a separate assembly à la Region 6.
Paging CapHwys (though he apparently hasn't posted here).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on December 10, 2014, 08:47:58 PM
Have any Clearview signs turned up on the Clearview Expressway (I-295 in Queens) yet?  Clearview on the Clearview IOW? (Hopefully motorists have a clear view thereof)

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 10, 2014, 09:33:00 PM
Have any Clearview signs turned up on the Clearview Expressway (I-295 in Queens) yet?  Clearview on the Clearview IOW? (Hopefully motorists have a clear view thereof)

ixnay

Not gonna happen until NYSDOT adopts Clearview, which probably won't happen (if it ever does) before interim approval is rescinded.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on December 10, 2014, 09:55:21 PM
Have any Clearview signs turned up on the Clearview Expressway (I-295 in Queens) yet?  Clearview on the Clearview IOW? (Hopefully motorists have a clear view thereof)

ixnay

Not gonna happen until NYSDOT adopts Clearview, which probably won't happen (if it ever does) before interim approval is rescinded.

I've had some conversations over the years with some of the folks that maintained the NYSMUTCD and the current NYS supplement to the National MUTCD and they said there are no plans to ever adopt Clearview (other than the CorCraft signs that CorCraft went out and switched themselves).  The only reason NYS requested interim approval for Clearview was to accommodate the Thruway signs.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 10, 2014, 11:06:17 PM
Have any Clearview signs turned up on the Clearview Expressway (I-295 in Queens) yet?  Clearview on the Clearview IOW? (Hopefully motorists have a clear view thereof)

ixnay

Not gonna happen until NYSDOT adopts Clearview, which probably won't happen (if it ever does) before interim approval is rescinded.

I've had some conversations over the years with some of the folks that maintained the NYSMUTCD and the current NYS supplement to the National MUTCD and they said there are no plans to ever adopt Clearview (other than the CorCraft signs that CorCraft went out and switched themselves).  The only reason NYS requested interim approval for Clearview was to accommodate the Thruway signs.

Doesn't shock me. Of course, because the interim approval is for the entire state, New York City and Westchester County decided to adopt it because it's the new hip thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 11, 2014, 01:19:48 PM
The logbook is different from signage. While it isn't typical practice for a non-reference route to be unsigned, US 11's north end, I-478 and I-878 tell us that it can happen here in the Empire State. I-86 won't be complete until they get rid of the at-grade section between Deposit and Hancock, which hasn't even started construction.
Plus there's the numerous routes where NYSDOT internal documents and signage disagree on what path they take, such as the southern end of NY 12E.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on December 11, 2014, 06:45:14 PM
Have any Clearview signs turned up on the Clearview Expressway (I-295 in Queens) yet?  Clearview on the Clearview IOW? (Hopefully motorists have a clear view thereof)

ixnay

Not gonna happen until NYSDOT adopts Clearview, which probably won't happen (if it ever does) before interim approval is rescinded.

I've had some conversations over the years with some of the folks that maintained the NYSMUTCD and the current NYS supplement to the National MUTCD and they said there are no plans to ever adopt Clearview (other than the CorCraft signs that CorCraft went out and switched themselves).  The only reason NYS requested interim approval for Clearview was to accommodate the Thruway signs.


For whatever odd reason, FHWA only seems to like to deal with state DOT's, and no one else. So the toll authorities have to go through the state DOT for FHWA matters, even though the state DOTs have no authority over the toll authorities (in NY anyway). FHWA even goes so far as to threaten to revoke the state DOT's Federal highway funding for toll roads' non-compliance with the MUTCD and other federal requirements, as if the state DOT has any control over what the toll authorities do.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: SignBridge on December 11, 2014, 08:31:18 PM
Yeah well, the reason the NJ Turnpike Authority is finally changing to MUTCD signage had something to do with what you're talking about, though I don't know the exact details. But apparently some sort of pressure was brought to force compliance by a toll authority. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mtantillo on December 11, 2014, 08:50:43 PM
They probably threatened NJDOT.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 12, 2014, 12:38:50 AM
Yeah well, the reason the NJ Turnpike Authority is finally changing to MUTCD signage had something to do with what you're talking about, though I don't know the exact details. But apparently some sort of pressure was brought to force compliance by a toll authority. 
They probably threatened NJDOT.
No to both. The agency wanted to do this to stay ahead of the game before the FHWA comes knocking.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 14, 2014, 10:08:25 PM
At some point in the past couple of months, NY 954L in Buffalo (Broadway) between Fillmore Ave and US 62/NY 130 got a road diet. Knew this was going to happen, but thought it was a year or two out. As part of a resurfacing project, 4-lane road with extra-wide curb lanes was restriped as 2 with a center turn lane, plus dedicated parking and bike lanes. Unlike most signs on this stretch of NYSDOT-maintained road, new signage as part of this project is NYSDOT-standard, complete with U-poles and Z-bars.

Road diets are becoming pretty common in Buffalo (a city-maintained stretch of NY 384 is another example), but this is the first I know of by NYSDOT in the area other than the Robert Moses Parkway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 15, 2014, 04:02:26 PM
At some point in the past couple of months, NY 954L in Buffalo (Broadway) between Fillmore Ave and US 62/NY 130 got a road diet. Knew this was going to happen, but thought it was a year or two out. As part of a resurfacing project, 4-lane road with extra-wide curb lanes was restriped as 2 with a center turn lane, plus dedicated parking and bike lanes. Unlike most signs on this stretch of NYSDOT-maintained road, new signage as part of this project is NYSDOT-standard, complete with U-poles and Z-bars.

Road diets are becoming pretty common in Buffalo (a city-maintained stretch of NY 384 is another example), but this is the first I know of by NYSDOT in the area other than the Robert Moses Parkway.

Are roads in the area being shrinked because of the declining population, or something else, because I'm sure bike lanes could still be incorporated into regular road sizes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 16, 2014, 01:00:11 PM
Traffic calming is a likely explanation.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on December 16, 2014, 01:35:54 PM
Traffic calming is one possibility.  Another is simply right-sizing the road to the traffic (Rochester Inner Loop being one example of this).  As a general rule, you don't need 4 lanes for an urban street with ADT less than 15K (and especially less than 10K).  2 lanes with a center left turn lane will work just fine, especially if there is an appreciable volume of left-turning traffic...studies have found that the 3-lane is more efficient than a 4-lane in this scenario.

The Broadway example that cl94 cited earlier appears to have an ADT level just under 15K.  Barring other potential factors/issues, it's an appropriate candidate for downsizing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 16, 2014, 02:30:26 PM
None of NY 954L needs four lanes. Most of the day, it's empty, and it's not like there's much along it. Its main use is an alternate to I-190 and NY 33, as the area west of Fillmore is burned-out with several empty lots. Speeds were quite high, as people would pass those going remotely close to the speed limit. Turn volumes were an issue, especially in the blocks surrounding the Broadway Market. Granted, I was there on a Sunday, but I don't forsee any problems. If anything, it might help balance traffic counts on major East Side streets.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 16, 2014, 11:21:31 PM
Traffic calming is one possibility.  Another is simply right-sizing the road to the traffic (Rochester Inner Loop being one example of this).  As a general rule, you don't need 4 lanes for an urban street with ADT less than 15K (and especially less than 10K).  2 lanes with a center left turn lane will work just fine, especially if there is an appreciable volume of left-turning traffic...studies have found that the 3-lane is more efficient than a 4-lane in this scenario.

The Broadway example that cl94 cited earlier appears to have an ADT level just under 15K.  Barring other potential factors/issues, it's an appropriate candidate for downsizing.


15K for an urban street, I would stick with four lanes. During your peak hours you'll have 700 or 800 people in a single lane, which is really pushing the boundaries of what you want. The fourth lane comes in handy at a traffic signal. I've never run into a 4-to-3 diet with those kinds of volumes where I said, hm, okay, I'll take the shitty traffic in exchange for community improvement.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 16, 2014, 11:47:49 PM
Traffic calming is one possibility.  Another is simply right-sizing the road to the traffic (Rochester Inner Loop being one example of this).  As a general rule, you don't need 4 lanes for an urban street with ADT less than 15K (and especially less than 10K).  2 lanes with a center left turn lane will work just fine, especially if there is an appreciable volume of left-turning traffic...studies have found that the 3-lane is more efficient than a 4-lane in this scenario.

The Broadway example that cl94 cited earlier appears to have an ADT level just under 15K.  Barring other potential factors/issues, it's an appropriate candidate for downsizing.


15K for an urban street, I would stick with four lanes. During your peak hours you'll have 700 or 800 people in a single lane, which is really pushing the boundaries of what you want. The fourth lane comes in handy at a traffic signal. I've never run into a 4-to-3 diet with those kinds of volumes where I said, hm, okay, I'll take the shitty traffic in exchange for community improvement.

I think the motivation for the diet was the addition of a center turn lane. Given the location of the counts, the street loses about 40% of its volume in about a mile, dropping from 14576 at Mohr St to 9002 at Guilford St (both projections for 2012 based on 2008 counts). Before the diet, I couldn't go down the road without getting stuck behind someone making a left or a bike/pedestrians hogging the right lane. Except for the lights at and just east of Fillmore, I rarely get stopped at a red light.

There's probably a newer set of counts that isn't on the data viewer and, given the depopulation of the neighborhood and the closing of the largest office building in Buffalo and the outsourcing of its jobs, it's very possible that volumes are much lower. Just look at an aerial of the area to see how many empty lots there are (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8935825,-78.8424874,2217m/data=!3m1!1e3), and that's 2+ years ago.

Long story short, half of the road (the part not yet converted) doesn't get much traffic and the other half was in dire need of turn lanes. As the on-street parking is used quite often, the sidewalks can't be easily narrowed, and bike traffic is high, it's probably the best solution, especially with the high speeds of vehicles on the street. At a signal, if two lanes are occupied, one is/was almost certainly blocked by someone turning left.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on December 17, 2014, 07:42:25 AM
Quote
15K for an urban street, I would stick with four lanes. During your peak hours you'll have 700 or 800 people in a single lane, which is really pushing the boundaries of what you want. The fourth lane comes in handy at a traffic signal. I've never run into a 4-to-3 diet with those kinds of volumes where I said, hm, okay, I'll take the shitty traffic in exchange for community improvement.

FHWA mentions that 4-to-3s are doable up to about 20K, though the particulars will depend on the specific scenario.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on December 17, 2014, 01:24:32 PM
There's probably a newer set of counts that isn't on the data viewer and, given the depopulation of the neighborhood and the closing of the largest office building in Buffalo and the outsourcing of its jobs, it's very possible that volumes are much lower. Just look at an aerial of the area to see how many empty lots there are (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8935825,-78.8424874,2217m/data=!3m1!1e3), and that's 2+ years ago.
Latest count on Broadway from Fillmore to US 62, taken 100' E of Mohr St in April 2014, has a total AADT of 16,310 (8029 EB, 8217 WB) with peak hour volumes of 761 EB and 721 WB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 17, 2014, 02:23:11 PM
Which means the PHV is still acceptable with one lane. Vehicles are spaced 4.73 seconds apart on average, which would be well under jam density, even at 30 mph.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on December 17, 2014, 11:06:10 PM
Quote
15K for an urban street, I would stick with four lanes. During your peak hours you'll have 700 or 800 people in a single lane, which is really pushing the boundaries of what you want. The fourth lane comes in handy at a traffic signal. I've never run into a 4-to-3 diet with those kinds of volumes where I said, hm, okay, I'll take the shitty traffic in exchange for community improvement.

FHWA mentions that 4-to-3s are doable up to about 20K, though the particulars will depend on the specific scenario.
You're right about the latter, but FHWA are not traffic engineers per se. Will traffic get through there? Yes, but a lot more unhappily. I don't buy the new-age hippy-dippy BS.
Which means the PHV is still acceptable with one lane. Vehicles are spaced 4.73 seconds apart on average, which would be well under jam density, even at 30 mph.
I'm looking at traffic lights in a suburban to semiurban area. If not, you get US 30 in PA, which is an absolutely dreadful road with all the trucks (or just one slow driver) and no passing zones. 800/hr is a LOT to get through a traffic light in one lane.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 17, 2014, 11:35:10 PM
I'm not saying I think there shouldn't be two travel lanes, but the left lane was rarely usable at intersections due to people turning left and the lack of PPLT phasing. I've rarely seen an intersection along that street that didn't have someone turning left and forcing everyone else into one lane. Also, I think the expectation/hope was that people coming from Walden Avenue would use parallel (and underutilized) Sycamore Street instead of Broadway, as the latter would no longer be a speedway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on December 18, 2014, 01:17:02 AM
I'm not saying I think there shouldn't be two travel lanes, but the left lane was rarely usable at intersections due to people turning left and the lack of PPLT phasing. I've rarely seen an intersection along that street that didn't have someone turning left and forcing everyone else into one lane. Also, I think the expectation/hope was that people coming from Walden Avenue would use parallel (and underutilized) Sycamore Street instead of Broadway, as the latter would no longer be a speedway.

Will they do it to Exchange St.? I know they've been using it as a drag strip and it's probably part of the "revitalization plan."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on December 18, 2014, 08:08:47 PM
It looks like the aging button copy near Rome, N.Y. in NYSDOT region 2 is finally getting replaced. The signs being replaced as part of D262792 have been up since the original building of the NY 49/365 interchange in the mid-late 1970s.

I had a conversation with NYSDOT about 18 months ago about new overhead panels on NY 49 East approaching NY 5/8/12 and it looks like there were some redesigning of the panels as a result of our conversation. Chatting with NYSDOT does make a difference.

The designs have a few R2 quirks but overall I'm comfortable with the results. I look forward to seeing these panels go up.

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=6704&p_is_digital=Y
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J N Winkler on December 21, 2014, 11:08:12 AM
NYSDOT's "striping shields" get a mention on Slate's "What's That Thing?" recurring feature:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/12/18/what_s_that_thing_demystifying_new_york_road_signs.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on December 22, 2014, 01:03:38 AM
NYSDOT's "striping shields" get a mention on Slate's "What's That Thing?" recurring feature:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/12/18/what_s_that_thing_demystifying_new_york_road_signs.html

I, of course, figured those out without having to read an article. :-)

(A similar system is that of single and double delineators in different colors—white, yellow, green—showing snowplows where the edge of the roadway and of guide rails is.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on December 30, 2014, 04:49:19 PM
Plans posted for NY 400 bridge reconstruction over NY 240 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=6929&p_is_digital=Y). Being widened to include shoulders and standard-width travel lanes. No added lanes, but it appears that the curve radius for the NB-EB movement may be increased slightly. Plans include the first Region 5 APL sign I've seen for NB 400 at I-90, as the left lane is an option lane. Will require some weekend closures with lengthy detours. Work supposed to begin this summer.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on January 07, 2015, 09:26:18 PM
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/all-electronic-tolls-inch-forward-in-new-york-city-1420512727)

Two key issues are:
1) Some legal agreement bars the MTA from pursuing scofflaws with Connecticut plates at all
2) New York lacks a law allowing the DMV to suspend registrations of people with unpaid tolls, thus making collections difficult and expensive.

Apparently they are working on 1 and lobbying Albany to fix 2, but won't move further until both are taken care of.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 03:43:42 PM
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/all-electronic-tolls-inch-forward-in-new-york-city-1420512727)

Two key issues are:
1) Some legal agreement bars the MTA from pursuing scofflaws with Connecticut plates at all
2) New York lacks a law allowing the DMV to suspend registrations of people with unpaid tolls, thus making collections difficult and expensive.

Apparently they are working on 1 and lobbying Albany to fix 2, but won't move further until both are taken care of.

It's too bad they implemented cashless toll on the Henry Hudson as that is a toll bridge that leads to Connecticut (not directly). 

There probably are relatively few Connecticut plates at the Verrazano Bridge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 10, 2015, 08:09:23 PM
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/all-electronic-tolls-inch-forward-in-new-york-city-1420512727)

Two key issues are:
1) Some legal agreement bars the MTA from pursuing scofflaws with Connecticut plates at all
2) New York lacks a law allowing the DMV to suspend registrations of people with unpaid tolls, thus making collections difficult and expensive.

Apparently they are working on 1 and lobbying Albany to fix 2, but won't move further until both are taken care of.

It's too bad they implemented cashless toll on the Henry Hudson as that is a toll bridge that leads to Connecticut (not directly). 

There probably are relatively few Connecticut plates at the Verrazano Bridge.

They did it on Henry Hudson because it's only passenger cars and nearly 90% of cars crossing have E-ZPass. Easier to implement if you don't have to worry about different vehicle classes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: mrsman on January 18, 2015, 08:07:58 AM
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/all-electronic-tolls-inch-forward-in-new-york-city-1420512727)

Two key issues are:
1) Some legal agreement bars the MTA from pursuing scofflaws with Connecticut plates at all
2) New York lacks a law allowing the DMV to suspend registrations of people with unpaid tolls, thus making collections difficult and expensive.

Apparently they are working on 1 and lobbying Albany to fix 2, but won't move further until both are taken care of.

It's too bad they implemented cashless toll on the Henry Hudson as that is a toll bridge that leads to Connecticut (not directly). 

There probably are relatively few Connecticut plates at the Verrazano Bridge.

They did it on Henry Hudson because it's only passenger cars and nearly 90% of cars crossing have E-ZPass. Easier to implement if you don't have to worry about different vehicle classes.

Sorry for the late response, but that's a terrible excuse.  There are plenty of AET gantries for multiple vehicle classes out there, so the technology is available.

THe busiest crossings should get the technology first, and I believe that the Verrazano is probably the busiest under MTA's jurisdiction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 18, 2015, 02:20:02 PM
Apparently some obstacles other than simple MTA incompetence are preventing further implementation of cashless tolls at NYC crossings. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/all-electronic-tolls-inch-forward-in-new-york-city-1420512727)

Two key issues are:
1) Some legal agreement bars the MTA from pursuing scofflaws with Connecticut plates at all
2) New York lacks a law allowing the DMV to suspend registrations of people with unpaid tolls, thus making collections difficult and expensive.

Apparently they are working on 1 and lobbying Albany to fix 2, but won't move further until both are taken care of.

It's too bad they implemented cashless toll on the Henry Hudson as that is a toll bridge that leads to Connecticut (not directly). 

There probably are relatively few Connecticut plates at the Verrazano Bridge.

They did it on Henry Hudson because it's only passenger cars and nearly 90% of cars crossing have E-ZPass. Easier to implement if you don't have to worry about different vehicle classes.

Sorry for the late response, but that's a terrible excuse.  There are plenty of AET gantries for multiple vehicle classes out there, so the technology is available.

THe busiest crossings should get the technology first, and I believe that the Verrazano is probably the busiest under MTA's jurisdiction.

I'm just giving the MTA's logic. Certainly does make more sense from their perspective to do it somewhere with very few cash users in case they discover issues with the license plate system that result in free crossings or overcharging.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 18, 2015, 09:05:55 PM
Sorry for the late response, but that's a terrible excuse.  There are plenty of AET gantries for multiple vehicle classes out there, so the technology is available.

THe busiest crossings should get the technology first, and I believe that the Verrazano is probably the busiest under MTA's jurisdiction.
Keep in mind that the AET system at the Henry Hudson was, in fact, a TRIAL.  It makes sense to try things where the impact is minimized if something goes wrong.  I'd say that the MTA considers the trial a success given that they plan to demolish the booths soon.  They don't yet have plans to expand it, though, because of difficulties collecting tolls/fees from NY and CT residents who don't pay.  I'm sure it will expand once they can get the NY legislature to pass a bill suspending the registrations of people with unpaid tolls and a revised agreement with CT allowing them to bill CT cars by licence plate.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on January 19, 2015, 06:52:42 PM
Sorry for the late response, but that's a terrible excuse.  There are plenty of AET gantries for multiple vehicle classes out there, so the technology is available.

THe busiest crossings should get the technology first, and I believe that the Verrazano is probably the busiest under MTA's jurisdiction.
Keep in mind that the AET system at the Henry Hudson was, in fact, a TRIAL.  It makes sense to try things where the impact is minimized if something goes wrong.  I'd say that the MTA considers the trial a success given that they plan to demolish the booths soon.  They don't yet have plans to expand it, though, because of difficulties collecting tolls/fees from NY and CT residents who don't pay.  I'm sure it will expand once they can get the NY legislature to pass a bill suspending the registrations of people with unpaid tolls and a revised agreement with CT allowing them to bill CT cars by licence plate.

Also note that NYSTA will begin adopting AET this year and has been pushing the related legislation in Albany with the assistance of downstate lawmakers. If that bill does go through and NYSTA makes the switch south of Harriman as is planned, I fully expect every TBTA crossing to go AET within the next decade.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on January 20, 2015, 01:03:11 PM
Yeah, the MTA definitely wants to make the switch at this point; they're just waiting on the legal issues being resolved.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 30, 2015, 03:06:54 PM
I saw a VMS yesterday stating new traffic pattern at the Major Deegan interchange with Monsholu Parkway. I didn't drive up that far anybody know what it is?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on January 30, 2015, 04:13:01 PM
I saw a VMS yesterday stating new traffic pattern at the Major Deegan interchange with Monsholu Parkway. I didn't drive up that far anybody know what it is?

The Deegan bridges over the Mosholu are being re-decked, so there are lane shifts on both roads along with some re-striping. Three lanes each way are maintained on the Deegan. Actually, the acceleration lane from Mosholu SB to I-87 SB has been made longer as a result; I hope that stays.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 02, 2015, 03:33:59 PM
I just read that Kew Gardens Interchange project is halfway done.  Do you think it will actually help on the Van Wyck? 

http://www.timesledger.com/stories/2014/50/interchange_tl_2014_12_12_q.html

Granted the article goes back to December.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 04, 2015, 11:10:15 PM
Also noticed, there is a lane drop SB on the Bronx River Pkwy at Exit 5, E. 177th St/I-895.  3-lanes used to go through now the 3rd drops to an exit only for the Sheridan Expy.

However, the old BGSs for Exit 5 are still there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on February 07, 2015, 07:29:12 PM
(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10616662_606943829417682_4390073928759756017_n.jpg?oh=9e4add93798f2b7be06610fb3b9306ff&oe=54FC6A23)

Hmm, "Mygatt St". 

Is there a Mynafta Street somewhere in this fair land?  Get it?  My GATT?  My NAFTA?  (Trade agreement pun)

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on February 07, 2015, 07:34:04 PM
And speaking of silly Empire State toponyms, negotiating this flyover from NB NY 14 onto NB NY 14A sends you on your way to Penn Yan.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Watkins+Glen,+NY/@42.421858,-76.904351,3a,72.3y,126.17h,61.24t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-tpxa4DyqWDdpHf_mGVRzg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89d0590a7bd9618f:0xd42cbd119e511709

Point of this post:  When was this flyover built?  Early or mid-60s, I imagine.  (Too bad NY doesn't put years of completion on overpasses a la NJDOT, MassDOT, or Maryland's SHA or MdTA).

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: NE2 on February 07, 2015, 07:49:07 PM
Point of this post:  When was this flyover built?  Early or mid-60s, I imagine.  (Too bad NY doesn't put years of completion on overpasses a la NJDOT, MassDOT, or Maryland's SHA or MdTA).
http://uglybridges.com/1376885
Thanks, Feds!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: jemacedo9 on February 07, 2015, 08:09:38 PM
^^  That flyover was replaced either last year or the year before...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on February 07, 2015, 09:12:48 PM
^^  That flyover was replaced either last year or the year before...

It was still there in early October 2012 when I vacationed in Watkins Glen (4 years after the Google Street View pic I linked).  It was flimsy by 2008.   I just looked at Google Satellite and it showed the replacement (which was no doubt needed) in an early phase of construction.

I guess the dualization of NY 14 also took place in 1964...

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J Route Z on February 09, 2015, 12:12:35 AM
It's strange that the Street View made a u-turn at the Lakeside Resort and didn't continue south on Route 14. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 15, 2015, 10:14:54 PM
Any updates with I-86 and NY-17 and when it'll be complete? I noticed bridge work over I-84. Plus there are future I-86 END signs at I-84 but the DOT site says I-86 ends at I-87.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 15, 2015, 11:04:58 PM
Any updates with I-86 and NY-17 and when it'll be complete? I noticed bridge work over I-84. Plus there are future I-86 END signs at I-84 but the DOT site says I-86 ends at I-87.

That end sign has been there for several years. When the work in the area finishes, a segment in western Orange County will be signed as I-86. As to when it'll all be done, they haven't even started construction on the last bypass segment just east of the current ET. I'm thinking 10 years, minimum.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 16, 2015, 03:33:33 PM
Wasn't the reconstruction project from NY 17K to I-84 finished years ago?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: roadman65 on February 16, 2015, 03:57:14 PM
I would like to know what is so sub standard about NY 17 in Orange County anyway that the feds will not let be signed as such?

Considering that PA has many interstates that are no wheres near interstate standards (ie Interstate 70 from I-79 to the PA Turnpike, I-78 from PA 61 to PA 100,  I-68 in Cumberland, and how about I-278 in the very same state) that have been signed for over 50 plus years.

NY 17 is more to standard between Monticello and Harriman then I-70 is from Washington, PA and New Stanton.  Plus the former is built for freeway when the latter was built for expressway grade poorly upgraded later on for interstate use.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 16, 2015, 04:02:17 PM
I know there are issues with exit 122 that Region 8 is working to rectify.  There's also a reconstruction project for exit 131 under the I-86 upgrade banner.  Other than that, it's just the upcoming Hale Eddy upgrades, the ongoing reconstruction in Binghamton, the spot upgrades in Tioga County, and miscellaneous spot upgrades in Region 9 (including the Neversink River bridge replacement that is likely done).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 16, 2015, 05:52:49 PM
As seen elsewhere, the feds won't let anything else be grandfathered into the system. While everything except the Deposit-Hancock (Hale Eddy) stretch meets old Interstate standards, they're not going to let it in without upgrades (which are needed or in progress at a couple of key locations).

Supposedly, the 17K-84 stretch will be in after the Exits 121-122 reconstruction is done. That whole area is a mess right now and they appear to be improving the cloverleaf.

There's also the Exit 111 RIRO that local businesses and residents are giving a stink about because NYSDOT wants to close it and send all traffic to Exit 110 a mile away.

There are a lot of covered I-86 shields east of NY 30, possibly giving an indication that Region 9 intends to sign it in the near future. I fully expect the 55 sections in Delaware County and near Wurtsboro to remain in place due to geographical constraints, so there's nothing else I can think of.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on February 16, 2015, 08:30:31 PM
What's the end of the designation east of Elmira? My understanding is that it's the Tioga County line, but in forum discussions a segment of I-86 is regularly cited in Bradford County, PA. Has it been extended to US 220?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 16, 2015, 08:46:00 PM
What's the end of the designation east of Elmira? My understanding is that it's the Tioga County line, but in forum discussions a segment of I-86 is regularly cited in Bradford County, PA. Has it been extended to US 220?

Tioga County line at the east end of the stretch in PA. It spends a very short amount of time in Tioga County before it dips into PA. Effectively ends at NY 34, which is very close to US 220.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on February 17, 2015, 02:16:23 PM
NYSDOT replaces sign on route 104 in Webster due to spelling error.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2015/01/23/phillips-road-sign-webster-mistake/22232375/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on February 17, 2015, 04:36:49 PM
NYSDOT replaces sign on route 104 in Webster due to spelling error.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2015/01/23/phillips-road-sign-webster-mistake/22232375/
Can we get a cleaner link without all the pop-up/survey mumbo-jumbo?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on February 17, 2015, 04:46:58 PM
NYSDOT replaces sign on route 104 in Webster due to spelling error.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2015/01/23/phillips-road-sign-webster-mistake/22232375/
Can we get a cleaner link without all the pop-up/survey mumbo-jumbo?
http://www.13wham.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/misspelled-exit-sign-replaced-rt-104-19517.shtml

The newspaper one is a real pain.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on February 17, 2015, 06:21:48 PM
Northway Exit 4 construction is happening starting February 23. Well, the overpasses are being replaced this year at least, probably because it's time to replace them anyway.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on February 17, 2015, 06:52:41 PM
What's the end of the designation east of Elmira? My understanding is that it's the Tioga County line, but in forum discussions a segment of I-86 is regularly cited in Bradford County, PA. Has it been extended to US 220?

Tioga County line at the east end of the stretch in PA. It spends a very short amount of time in Tioga County before it dips into PA. Effectively ends at NY 34, which is very close to US 220.

OK. I had read (here (http://www.tiogacountyny.com/whats-new/business/interstate-86.html)) that the designation was due to be extended to US 220, but I never heard that it actually took place. Wikipedia still shows the end at the Chemung/Tioga County line—but of course, it also says elsewhere that it still ends at NY 352 in Elmira, whereas the exit listing shows the Bradford/Tioga terminus.

Can you give a source for the new terminus? It would be nice to have Wikipedia up to date on this. (FWIW, this link (http://www.the-leader.com/article/20150110/News/150119991) still says that the route is "awaiting designation" in Tioga County.)

EDIT: Another source (http://www.stargazette.com/story/news/local/2015/01/09/push-interstate-completion-cuomo/21518607/) corroborates that it isn't I-86 east of Chemung County yet, according to the chariman of the I-86 coalition.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 17, 2015, 07:38:49 PM
What's the end of the designation east of Elmira? My understanding is that it's the Tioga County line, but in forum discussions a segment of I-86 is regularly cited in Bradford County, PA. Has it been extended to US 220?

Tioga County line at the east end of the stretch in PA. It spends a very short amount of time in Tioga County before it dips into PA. Effectively ends at NY 34, which is very close to US 220.

OK. I had read (here (http://www.tiogacountyny.com/whats-new/business/interstate-86.html)) that the designation was due to be extended to US 220, but I never heard that it actually took place. Wikipedia still shows the end at the Chemung/Tioga County line—but of course, it also says elsewhere that it still ends at NY 352 in Elmira, whereas the exit listing shows the Bradford/Tioga terminus.

Can you give a source for the new terminus? It would be nice to have Wikipedia up to date on this. (FWIW, this link (http://www.the-leader.com/article/20150110/News/150119991) still says that the route is "awaiting designation" in Tioga County.)

EDIT: Another source (http://www.stargazette.com/story/news/local/2015/01/09/push-interstate-completion-cuomo/21518607/) corroborates that it isn't I-86 east of Chemung County yet, according to the chariman of the I-86 coalition.

I was going by the signage, which is uncovered west of US 220. AASHTO has not posted any records stating that an extension has been improved. As with much of the rest of the corridor, the current status is unclear.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 17, 2015, 07:43:00 PM
In NYC, there is the Kew Gardens untanglement project, Goethals replacement which will add a lane and the Kosusco Bridge expansion/replacement, which will help congestion and add capacity.  Any other big scale road projects coming down the pike in NYC?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on February 17, 2015, 08:39:59 PM
In NYC, there is the Kew Gardens untanglement project, Goethals replacement which will add a lane and the Kosusco Bridge expansion/replacement, which will help congestion and add capacity.  Any other big scale road projects coming down the pike in NYC?
Verrazano Bridge redecking, removal of median barrier and addition of reversible lane on the Upper Level, and construction of a Bus/HOV ramp on the east side
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 24, 2015, 07:57:40 PM
What is it about NY that they can't make good looking interstate shields?!
I've seen many on all interstates where the numbers are too low, too big, a large space in between them etc etc.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.537221,-73.781158,3a,75y,267.96h,84.81t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s90SXtjMQMpcA6TrDcaH2kg!2e0
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 24, 2015, 08:07:00 PM
What is it about NY that they can't make good looking interstate shields?!
I've seen many on all interstates where the numbers are too low, too big, a large space in between them etc etc.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.537221,-73.781158,3a,75y,267.96h,84.81t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s90SXtjMQMpcA6TrDcaH2kg!2e0

Most are fine, even in the same region (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.382937,-73.601514,3a,19.4y,226.73h,85t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1saJC1lioYSjBY2kR-fkDjvQ!2e0)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on February 25, 2015, 07:23:00 PM
I see those same issues on state shields, too. Also there are 4 or 5 different state shield shape variations of there. Height vs. width, depth of curve, border width, etc.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on February 25, 2015, 08:21:08 PM
I see those same issues on state shields, too. Also there are 4 or 5 different state shield shape variations of there. Height vs. width, depth of curve, border width, etc.

NYSDOT has tried to reel the varying state route marker designs since they adopted the 2009 MUTCD. While there used to be a wild assortment of shapes and sizes, there's probably less than a half-dozen variations now on new installs. Plus, the marker used on guide signs more closely resembles the standalone markers, complete with series D numerals (instead of series F).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on February 25, 2015, 09:53:56 PM
I wish they'd keep the series D 3di shield numerals.  IMO they look better than series C.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Sam on February 26, 2015, 11:56:30 AM
http://shields.aaroads.com/thumbs.php?state=NY (http://shields.aaroads.com/thumbs.php?state=NY) Too lazy to document it myself.

28 and 17 show the most variation, 7 shows the most contrast (Don't count the cutouts, obviously.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on February 26, 2015, 06:46:35 PM
http://shields.aaroads.com/thumbs.php?state=NY (http://shields.aaroads.com/thumbs.php?state=NY) Too lazy to document it myself.

28 and 17 show the most variation, 7 shows the most contrast (Don't count the cutouts, obviously.)

Part of 17's and 28's variation is that they pass through many regions and have signs dating back 50 years. Both pass through 4 NYSDOT regions (only NY 5, US 9, US 20, and NY 22 have more and the variation is as great on them). NY 17 in particular was built in many sections, with each contractor putting up their own style of shield.

The differences have been disappearing in recent years as NYSDOT has actually decided to standardize the shield.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 25, 2015, 06:13:16 PM
WKTV (http://www.wktv.com/news/5-8-12_arterial_construction_is_right_on_schedule.html): Arterial construction (Utica) right on schedule. Working at a breakneck speed crews are plugging away on a complete reconstruction of Utica's arterial system.

If anyone has pictures, do share!!! I can't go down there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on March 25, 2015, 08:32:43 PM
WKTV (http://www.wktv.com/news/5-8-12_arterial_construction_is_right_on_schedule.html): Arterial construction (Utica) right on schedule. Working at a breakneck speed crews are plugging away on a complete reconstruction of Utica's arterial system.

If anyone has pictures, do share!!! I can't go down there.


I'll try to grab a GoPro video of the area this week.  I must admit that I like the way they're handling traffic and I'm surprised at how quickly they're coming along. The only disappointing aspect of this project to me is that when it's done there will still be two traffic lights on the Arterial, which are suppose to be addressed in the next phase, which has absolutely no funding or timeline at the moment. Other than that, I think this will be a great boost to the area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 27, 2015, 05:27:41 PM
WKTV (http://www.wktv.com/news/5-8-12_arterial_construction_is_right_on_schedule.html): Arterial construction (Utica) right on schedule. Working at a breakneck speed crews are plugging away on a complete reconstruction of Utica's arterial system.

If anyone has pictures, do share!!! I can't go down there.


I'll try to grab a GoPro video of the area this week.  I must admit that I like the way they're handling traffic and I'm surprised at how quickly they're coming along. The only disappointing aspect of this project to me is that when it's done there will still be two traffic lights on the Arterial, which are suppose to be addressed in the next phase, which has absolutely no funding or timeline at the moment. Other than that, I think this will be a great boost to the area.

Great!

Quote
In a dramatic makeover, the Peace Bridge will be redecked, adding a fourth traffic lane as vehicles approach the Canadian inspection plaza and a revamped sidewalk/bike path that includes an overlook at the international line where the U.S. and Canada meet over the Niagara River.

The first phase of the $80 million project will begin this year and be stretched over the next few years to limit impacts on traffic flows between Buffalo and Fort Erie. The work is part of an ongoing $167 million capital improvement plan that the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority has undertaken in recent years.

http://m.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2015/03/27/80m-peace-bridge-work-to-feature-new-deck-added.html

Peace Bridge to be re decked with half of a fourth-lane to be added. Pretty pointless IMo without constructing a twin. It's polishing a turd.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on March 27, 2015, 05:42:17 PM
Quote
In a dramatic makeover, the Peace Bridge will be redecked, adding a fourth traffic lane as vehicles approach the Canadian inspection plaza and a revamped sidewalk/bike path that includes an overlook at the international line where the U.S. and Canada meet over the Niagara River.

The first phase of the $80 million project will begin this year and be stretched over the next few years to limit impacts on traffic flows between Buffalo and Fort Erie. The work is part of an ongoing $167 million capital improvement plan that the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority has undertaken in recent years.

http://m.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2015/03/27/80m-peace-bridge-work-to-feature-new-deck-added.html

Peace Bridge to be re decked with half of a fourth-lane to be added. Pretty pointless IMo without constructing a twin. It's polishing a turd.
What are you twinning here? Peace Bridge isn't the constraint, Customs is.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 27, 2015, 07:48:13 PM
Quote
In a dramatic makeover, the Peace Bridge will be redecked, adding a fourth traffic lane as vehicles approach the Canadian inspection plaza and a revamped sidewalk/bike path that includes an overlook at the international line where the U.S. and Canada meet over the Niagara River.

The first phase of the $80 million project will begin this year and be stretched over the next few years to limit impacts on traffic flows between Buffalo and Fort Erie. The work is part of an ongoing $167 million capital improvement plan that the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority has undertaken in recent years.

http://m.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2015/03/27/80m-peace-bridge-work-to-feature-new-deck-added.html

Peace Bridge to be re decked with half of a fourth-lane to be added. Pretty pointless IMo without constructing a twin. It's polishing a turd.
What are you twinning here? Peace Bridge isn't the constraint, Customs is.

From talking with the Peace Bridge Authority's engineering firm, I agree. The plan is to eventually twin it, but that's 15-20 years out. Right now it's building queuing capacity for the American side because of how hard local residents are pushing back. They just finished widening the American approach until just before the through truss span to accommodate trucks queuing (pretty amazing, considering that they were only putting girders up when I was on the site 6 months ago). By widening the Canadian approach, they can make it 2 lanes into the US at all times to prevent traffic from backing up into Fort Erie.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 27, 2015, 07:50:23 PM
Northway Exit 4 construction is happening starting February 23. Well, the overpasses are being replaced this year at least, probably because it's time to replace them anyway.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html)
I believe the overpasses are original from 1962 and are they narrow.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 27, 2015, 07:57:42 PM
Northway Exit 4 construction is happening starting February 23. Well, the overpasses are being replaced this year at least, probably because it's time to replace them anyway.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html)
I believe the overpasses are original from 1962 and are they narrow.

They are. They're one of only 4 sets south of Exit 17 that are original (including the Twin Bridges and NY 146, which I think are). As with every other replacement project south of Saratoga, they're building in capacity for 8 lanes if they every decide to widen. I don't know about NY 146, but I know the bridge over NY 29 is likely on the list because it only has a 14 foot actual clearance (if not also in bad shape).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on March 27, 2015, 08:13:25 PM
Quote
In a dramatic makeover, the Peace Bridge will be redecked, adding a fourth traffic lane as vehicles approach the Canadian inspection plaza and a revamped sidewalk/bike path that includes an overlook at the international line where the U.S. and Canada meet over the Niagara River.

The first phase of the $80 million project will begin this year and be stretched over the next few years to limit impacts on traffic flows between Buffalo and Fort Erie. The work is part of an ongoing $167 million capital improvement plan that the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority has undertaken in recent years.

http://m.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2015/03/27/80m-peace-bridge-work-to-feature-new-deck-added.html

Peace Bridge to be re decked with half of a fourth-lane to be added. Pretty pointless IMo without constructing a twin. It's polishing a turd.
What are you twinning here? Peace Bridge isn't the constraint, Customs is.

From talking with the Peace Bridge Authority's engineering firm, I agree. The plan is to eventually twin it, but that's 15-20 years out. Right now it's building queuing capacity for the American side because of how hard local residents are pushing back. They just finished widening the American approach until just before the through truss span to accommodate trucks queuing (pretty amazing, considering that they were only putting girders up when I was on the site 6 months ago). By widening the Canadian approach, they can make it 2 lanes into the US at all times to prevent traffic from backing up into Fort Erie.

Yeah, they really pushed back against the truck plaza because of exhaust fumes I believe. But these intermittent improvements would really help for Bills and to a lesser extent Sabres games.

P.S. I just now realized that Alps is the Alps from Alpsroads. Funny, because I learned about your photo galleries quite a while before I learned about this site! It's like the Wikipedia of highways.

P.P.S. By any chance, does anyone know who Roadwaywiz is?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 27, 2015, 08:48:27 PM
Northway Exit 4 construction is happening starting February 23. Well, the overpasses are being replaced this year at least, probably because it's time to replace them anyway.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html)
I believe the overpasses are original from 1962 and are they narrow.

They are. They're one of only 4 sets south of Exit 17 that are original (including the Twin Bridges and NY 146, which I think are). As with every other replacement project south of Saratoga, they're building in capacity for 8 lanes if they every decide to widen. I don't know about NY 146, but I know the bridge over NY 29 is likely on the list because it only has a 14 foot actual clearance (if not also in bad shape).
I thought so.  If I remember correctly, the concrete pillars are also the round type, which I do not think are placed any longer.  These were also placed in the days when the concrete was painted white.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on March 27, 2015, 09:44:37 PM
Northway Exit 4 construction is happening starting February 23. Well, the overpasses are being replaced this year at least, probably because it's time to replace them anyway.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html (http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/02/17/construction-to-start-on-northway-exit-4-bridges.html)
I believe the overpasses are original from 1962 and are they narrow.

They are. They're one of only 4 sets south of Exit 17 that are original (including the Twin Bridges and NY 146, which I think are). As with every other replacement project south of Saratoga, they're building in capacity for 8 lanes if they every decide to widen. I don't know about NY 146, but I know the bridge over NY 29 is likely on the list because it only has a 14 foot actual clearance (if not also in bad shape).
I thought so.  If I remember correctly, the concrete pillars are also the round type, which I do not think are placed any longer.  These were also placed in the days when the concrete was painted white.

They didn't stop placing the round pillars until 15 or so years ago, so that really says nothing. The bridge at Exit 19 has them and that was built in the late 90s.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: xcellntbuy on March 27, 2015, 10:34:22 PM
Oh, OK.  You learn something new every day!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alex on March 28, 2015, 09:35:11 AM
P.P.S. By any chance, does anyone know who Roadwaywiz is?

Roadwaywiz is Dan Murphy.

He has a facebook page for his road videos as well: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Roadwaywiz/257582354410961?fref=ts
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on March 28, 2015, 04:39:01 PM
He's also active in the Facebook groups.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: J Route Z on March 31, 2015, 07:10:18 PM
P.P.S. By any chance, does anyone know who Roadwaywiz is?

Roadwaywiz is Dan Murphy.

He has a facebook page for his road videos as well: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Roadwaywiz/257582354410961?fref=ts

He has the best videos up and down the east coast. He is venturing into Florida pretty soon, going down I-95.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 01, 2015, 11:41:43 AM
Heard somewhere that a study will be conducted in the near future to determine if a beltway will be needed to serve the developing suburbs around Buffalo. The study was triggered due to the fact that Erie County's population is on the rise...

So... if this were to happen, it wouldn't be the "Mile Strip Expressway" from the '70s. They'd have to start it in a more undeveloped, southernly point and continue around the county. It would have to pass through Elma and straddle the Lancaster border. Then you talk about how many lanes will it have? 8? 10 including an HOV/ 4 express lanes? Maybe 12?

I'm sure it wouldn't go past the 90 going north for now, OR they would start in the north towns and connect to the 90.

Either way this project and study is long overdue and I can't wait till funding for the EFIS is earmarked into the budget!!!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 01, 2015, 12:49:31 PM
Hold it with the foaming. Way too early for that and, if anything ever gets built, a southern bypass that serves the dual purpose of rerouting through traffic and getting trucks off of US 20 is more likely. There also isn't an available number unless they renumber I-690.

At this point, anything to the south would have to begin west of Hamburg and run in the remaining undeveloped, relatively flat area between there and Pembroke. Might be too far east for most people. A northern bypass could use the LaSalle Expressway,  but it'd have to stay in Niagara County until around NY 78 to avoid Amherst and Clarence and not merge into I-90 until near Pembroke. Again, it might be too far out to do anything and you'd be committing everyone to one river crossing that has no expansion plans.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 01, 2015, 12:58:26 PM
Hold it with the foaming. Way too early for that and, if anything ever gets built, a southern bypass that serves the dual purpose of rerouting through traffic and getting trucks off of US 20 is more likely. There also isn't an available number unless they renumber I-690.

At this point, anything to the south would have to begin west of Hamburg and run in the remaining undeveloped, relatively flat area between there and Pembroke. Might be too far east for most people. A northern bypass could use the LaSalle Expressway,  but it'd have to stay in Niagara County until around NY 78 to avoid Amherst and Clarence and not merge into I-90 until near Pembroke. Again, it might be too far out to do anything and you'd be committing everyone to one river crossing that has no expansion plans.

 :pan: Have you checked your calendar? It's April 1st!

Seriously however, your idea makes the most sense, a bypass (maybe 400 extension) could get traffic to the 390 and NYC faster via 86/17.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 01, 2015, 08:20:21 PM
Similarly, Rochester intends to complete its highway plan and build an intermodal freeway to finish I-390.
http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2015/04/southern-communities-active-transportation-plan-rochester-to-henrietta/
Title: Re: New York
Post by: DeaconG on April 02, 2015, 05:47:25 PM
Similarly, Rochester intends to complete its highway plan and build an intermodal freeway to finish I-390.
http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2015/04/southern-communities-active-transportation-plan-rochester-to-henrietta/

Well played.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 02, 2015, 06:45:01 PM
Similarly, Rochester intends to complete its highway plan and build an intermodal freeway to finish I-390.
http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2015/04/southern-communities-active-transportation-plan-rochester-to-henrietta/

Haha wow! This is funny!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: kkt on April 02, 2015, 11:22:52 PM
Similarly, Rochester intends to complete its highway plan and build an intermodal freeway to finish I-390.
http://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2015/04/southern-communities-active-transportation-plan-rochester-to-henrietta/

Excellent!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 03, 2015, 07:15:22 PM
Some permanent-looking emergency detour signs went up along I-290 at Exit 3 pretty recently. I'm assuming yesterday, as that's the date on the back of them. Detour A turns onto US 62 NB from the WB exit ramp and a Detour B sign is posted at the SB-WB entrance ramp. Anyone know what's up with these signs or if they're being posted elsewhere?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 04, 2015, 12:00:28 AM
Some permanent-looking emergency detour signs went up along I-290 at Exit 3 pretty recently. I'm assuming yesterday, as that's the date on the back of them. Detour A turns onto US 62 NB from the WB exit ramp and a Detour B sign is posted at the SB-WB entrance ramp. Anyone know what's up with these signs or if they're being posted elsewhere?

Could it be highway widening? Bridge work? I'm just throwing out guesses.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 04, 2015, 08:58:05 PM
Those wouldn't be permanent.  It's probably something like the "emergency detour E" signage in Utica.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on April 10, 2015, 09:17:53 AM
For those interested in the progress of the Utica North-South Arterial project, I did a dash cam video last night.  Here's part 1, heading north/east to south/west with a little bit extra.  It's in real time and there's no groovy music but you'll get an idea of what's going on.

https://youtu.be/D_h0M4gCk50 (https://youtu.be/D_h0M4gCk50)

I'll post part 2 later today or tomorrow, which has the other direction and some of the side streets around the project.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 13, 2015, 04:39:30 PM
For those interested in the progress of the Utica North-South Arterial project, I did a dash cam video last night.  Here's part 1, heading north/east to south/west with a little bit extra.  It's in real time and there's no groovy music but you'll get an idea of what's going on.

https://youtu.be/D_h0M4gCk50 (https://youtu.be/D_h0M4gCk50)

I'll post part 2 later today or tomorrow, which has the other direction and some of the side streets around the project.

It definitely captures the work being done and having driven by it yesterday it seems they are moving at a good clip.

Will the bridges themselves be asphalt bridges or concrete?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 13, 2015, 08:25:57 PM
Probably concrete.  I don't know if NY has any pure asphalt bridges, at least on state roadways.  They're pretty much all concrete or overlays.  The new Arterial lanes are concrete, so the bridges should be as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 13, 2015, 10:23:16 PM
Probably concrete.  I don't know if NY has any pure asphalt bridges, at least on state roadways.  They're pretty much all concrete or overlays.  The new Arterial lanes are concrete, so the bridges should be as well.

"Asphalt" bridges have an overlay because the deck slab is a structural element. Typically, concrete is underneath the asphalt, but it could be steel. Flexible pavement (asphalt) can't carry a load by itself. Most of the asphalt-decked bridges out there are simple overlays over concrete.

New York traditionally uses a concrete wearing surface for new construction or major reconstruction of high-volume roads, but this isn't always the case. I-781 and NY 17 around Exit 98 opened with asphalt lanes and I'm pretty sure that the Northway through the Adirondacks opened with asphalt. It's actually more of a shock to see something big that isn't concrete.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: qguy on April 14, 2015, 09:10:04 AM
Like the word "never," "always" is a strong word, disproved by just one example, but it would be exceedingly difficult to find a modern highway bridge that doesn't have a concrete deck. The configuration is steel or concrete beams mounted on piers and/or abutments, with a concrete deck mounted on the beams (typically poured onto pan forms which lay atop the beams). Sometimes the concrete deck directly serves as the wearing surface; sometimes the concrete deck is topped with an asphalt wearing surface.

An asphalt surface is never laid directly on the beams (be they steel or concrete).

This all may be obvious already (if so, feel free to eye-roll to your heart's content), but having worked for a state transportation agency and observed bridge construction many times, I just wanted to clarify.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 14, 2015, 10:07:46 PM
Probably concrete.  I don't know if NY has any pure asphalt bridges, at least on state roadways.  They're pretty much all concrete or overlays.  The new Arterial lanes are concrete, so the bridges should be as well.

After reading this I think I mean overlay now.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Big John on April 14, 2015, 10:25:40 PM
^^ There are no pure asphalt bridges.  Asphalt is a "flexible" pavement and a bridge made of that would not hold up.  You can place an asphalt overlay over a concrete or timber deck, but as a non-structural component.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on April 15, 2015, 12:25:49 AM
^^ There are no pure asphalt bridges.  Asphalt is a "flexible" pavement and a bridge made of that would not hold up.  You can place an asphalt overlay over a concrete or timber deck, but as a non-structural component.
There are also steel grate decks, and I've seen those with a coat of asphalt (it sinks in and you end up with a composite steel-asphalt surface). Finally, you have "plastic timber" decks starting to pop up, and composites will form an ever-increasing component of future structures. Between steel, concrete, wood, and composites, every bridge has at least one of the four. (And concrete for bridges always has steel inside.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 16, 2015, 11:15:01 PM
has anybody asked for signing plans from the NY DOT that are currently under construction?  I'm talking about plans where the documents are no longer available on the letting page. 

There are some "spot sign" replacements at 70 locations around the NYC and am curious to see where.

It seems new signs are popping up on the FDR Drive weekly. 

I use the contact us page at the bottom of the specific project page, but never get a response.  I think it's a public information officer anyway.  Does anyone ever contact specific engineers?  (That's a good thing about CTDOT, they always seem willing to share their knowledge and documents.)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 17, 2015, 03:55:11 AM
^^ There are no pure asphalt bridges.  Asphalt is a "flexible" pavement and a bridge made of that would not hold up.  You can place an asphalt overlay over a concrete or timber deck, but as a non-structural component.
There are also steel grate decks, and I've seen those with a coat of asphalt (it sinks in and you end up with a composite steel-asphalt surface). Finally, you have "plastic timber" decks starting to pop up, and composites will form an ever-increasing component of future structures. Between steel, concrete, wood, and composites, every bridge has at least one of the four. (And concrete for bridges always has steel inside.)

That's interesting. New materials like nanotubes are being implemented in a lot of different structures for strength, and because of the way snow corrodes bridges maybe that can be modified into a solution.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 17, 2015, 02:51:25 PM
I'm down in Orange County right now and Region 8's highways are in miserable shape, as is the Palisades. 9W north of Highland Falls and the Parkway have some potholes that could swallow a small car. Any timeline as to when they'll get around to patching or a mill and fill?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on April 20, 2015, 05:16:22 PM
Also, any update on what the designation is or will be for the old US 219 alignment from NY 39-Springville to Peters Road?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 20, 2015, 05:43:36 PM
Also, any update on what the designation is or will be for the old US 219 alignment from NY 39-Springville to Peters Road?

It has a CH designation on both sides, but no signed designation as of now (unless I'm missing something). Probably isn't worth even making a CR designation. Erie County doesn't post CRs and the Cattaraugus County segment is quite short.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: route17fan on April 20, 2015, 07:08:21 PM
gotcha - makes sense - I was just curious. :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 20, 2015, 09:16:21 PM
Plus the counties do NOT want that bridge.  They are fighting Region 5 at ever turn on that.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 20, 2015, 09:52:57 PM
Plus the counties do NOT want that bridge.  They are fighting Region 5 at ever turn on that.

Erie County might have the money to maintain it if they didn't maintain every flipping road south of US 20A or in the eastern border towns
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 21, 2015, 07:15:50 PM
Does anyone know why the ramp from the HRD NB to E. 125th st (Exit 19) is closed? 

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7616/17228646011_d97754d4a7_c.jpg)

and what are they doing on the Deegan Expwy up by Yankee Stadium?  Looks like there's room for another lane there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 21, 2015, 10:47:43 PM
Does anyone know why the ramp from the HRD NB to E. 125th st (Exit 19) is closed?

Construction is ongoing in that area, related to the Willis Avenue Bridge project. I don't know if this closure is related to that work, or a separate but adjacent project.

…And now I do: Article (http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141110/east-harlem/125th-street-headed-for-3-years-of-detours-amid-harlem-river-drive-repairs)

Quote
and what are they doing on the Deegan Expwy up by Yankee Stadium?  Looks like there's room for another lane there.

Another construction project, upgrading the viaduct that the highway sits on alongside Bronx Terminal Market.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 23, 2015, 02:11:35 AM
Plus the counties do NOT want that bridge.  They are fighting Region 5 at ever turn on that.

Erie County might have the money to maintain it if they didn't maintain every flipping road south of US 20A or in the eastern border towns

I can't wait for the day when we see EC highway shields dotted around the county.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 02 Park Ave on April 23, 2015, 09:40:02 AM
The Deegan should be 4 lanes northbound from the Stadium to the GWB.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on April 23, 2015, 09:40:52 AM
That brings up an interesting question:  disregarding the 5 boroughs, which New York counties lack county route signage?  The only one I know of offhand is Onondaga (CR 57/Old NY 57 doesn't count since it's officially a different county route number).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 23, 2015, 11:48:48 AM
The Deegan should be 4 lanes northbound from the Stadium to the GWB.

I believe there is room, some of the side streets could be narrowed in spots.  They may have to blast some rock, land and fix grading but it could be done.  At the very least expand some of the off-ramps so traffic doesn't stack up into the mainline.  Exit 9 SB comes into mind. 

I'm surprised the DOT is fixing the HRD E 125th Street ramps, I mean, there's lots of other spots that could use a quick fix other than that spot. 
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 23, 2015, 12:14:46 PM
Also, I found this future project:

A 4th lane on I-95 NB just before the HRP.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=X73127

Hopefully this will help the bottleneck there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 23, 2015, 12:27:35 PM
That brings up an interesting question:  disregarding the 5 boroughs, which New York counties lack county route signage?  The only one I know of offhand is Onondaga (CR 57/Old NY 57 doesn't count since it's officially a different county route number).

-Nassau
-Westchester
-Niagara
-Orleans
-Monroe
-Wayne
-Ontario
-Cayuga
-Oneida
-Cortland
-Seneca
-Genesee
-Wyoming
-Erie (if you disregard the 4-5 remaining shields)

Nassau used to post and, while Erie County once had more shields, I do not know if they were present in more than a few locations.

Shields are more common in the Southern Tier, northern, and eastern parts of the state, being rare in Western New York.
Title: New York
Post by: Sam on April 23, 2015, 02:59:34 PM
Ontario renamed all the county roads to County Road XX. I guess that makes them self-signing :) Wayne and Seneca include CR XX in a corner of the blades,  but no shields.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on April 23, 2015, 06:47:33 PM
Clinton County doesn't sign them either, with one exception.

Franklin County doesn't use the pentagon, but rather, a green square, to sign county routes.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 25, 2015, 04:59:16 PM
Oneida actually started using the pentagon a couple years ago.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on April 26, 2015, 09:18:31 AM
Montgomery County doesn't use the standard marker but if you look closely, there's little tenth-type markers at an interval I have yet to determine with county route numbers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 26, 2015, 05:00:49 PM
Montgomery County doesn't use the standard marker but if you look closely, there's little tenth-type markers at an interval I have yet to determine with county route numbers.

Speaking of markers, I just saw this interesting video today about how to interpret the NYS markers (I've only known how to interpret the simple Interstate ones)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 26, 2015, 10:25:31 PM
WOW! Awesome! Are we going to get quizzed on that later on? :)

I wonder how Connecticut would do that with a mere 8 counties? I don't know how we do the districts here.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 26, 2015, 10:51:42 PM
Montgomery County doesn't use the standard marker but if you look closely, there's little tenth-type markers at an interval I have yet to determine with county route numbers.

Speaking of markers, I just saw this interesting video today about how to interpret the NYS markers (I've only known how to interpret the simple Interstate ones)


You know there's a website for that, doncha? ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on April 27, 2015, 03:47:59 PM
Montgomery County doesn't use the standard marker but if you look closely, there's little tenth-type markers at an interval I have yet to determine with county route numbers.

Speaking of markers, I just saw this interesting video today about how to interpret the NYS markers (I've only known how to interpret the simple Interstate ones)


You know there's a website for that, doncha? ;-)

Right here?

WOW! Awesome! Are we going to get quizzed on that later on? :)

I wonder how Connecticut would do that with a mere 8 counties? I don't know how we do the districts here.

Hah, I hope not...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 28, 2015, 08:52:08 PM
I may be late to the party here, but only last month did I notice that at the southbound Cross Bronx/Bruckner split the Cross Bronx control city is now "Newark NJ." 

It's about $&@£ing time.

I'm just going to remember my MTR rants of about fifteen years ago, and graciously tell NYSDOT "you're welcome."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ixnay on April 28, 2015, 09:13:52 PM
Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?

ixnay
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 28, 2015, 09:26:45 PM
Those are the state highway ones.  I actually have my own page on them too: http://nysroads.com/ref-markers.php

Here's the official manual: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/rmm
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 28, 2015, 09:31:12 PM

Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?

ixnay

Yep, that's me! It's pretty much an antique website anymore, but it used to be the only place on the internet you could find out about this stuff. :-)


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 28, 2015, 09:33:16 PM


Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?

ixnay

Yep, that's me! It's pretty much an antique website anymore, but it used to be the only place on the internet you could find out about this stuff. :-)

Holy crap, I used to eagerly look forward to the Interchange of the Week.  Belated thanks.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 28, 2015, 09:56:23 PM


Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?

ixnay

Yep, that's me! It's pretty much an antique website anymore, but it used to be the only place on the internet you could find out about this stuff. :-)

Holy crap, I used to eagerly look forward to the Interchange of the Week.  Belated thanks.

Ah yes, when aerial imagery had to be manually downloaded and mosaicked. That site today would basically a collection of Google Maps links. ;-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 28, 2015, 11:04:47 PM


Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?

ixnay

Yep, that's me! It's pretty much an antique website anymore, but it used to be the only place on the internet you could find out about this stuff. :-)

Holy crap, I used to eagerly look forward to the Interchange of the Week.  Belated thanks.

Ah yes, when aerial imagery had to be manually downloaded and mosaicked. That site today would basically a collection of Google Maps links. ;-)

I love your site. Still the best New York-oriented page out there.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 29, 2015, 09:27:02 AM
Those are the state highway ones.  I actually have my own page on them too: http://nysroads.com/ref-markers.php

Here's the official manual: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/rmm

Same basic source I used; although I had to order a hard copy of it.

My write-up on the Monroe County markers is here: http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/monroemark.html

And a complete official list of these markers is here: https://www.monroecounty.gov/Image/MCBIBookWebVersion2013.pdf

I love your site. Still the best New York-oriented page out there.

*blush* :-)

I am glad people still find it informative. I turned down an offer once to sell the domain name, so at least that's not for nothing. Unfortunately I really don't work on it anymore, except that I did finally compile the Nassau County highway listing a few years ago, thus filling probably the biggest outstanding informational hole on the site (I still haven't found a county highway map of any validity, so I made my own (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/nassaumaps.html) out of NYSDOT topo quads):
http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crnassau.html
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on April 29, 2015, 03:53:51 PM


Re the little green signs, is empirestate (or buffaboy) referring to http://www.empirestateroads.com/rm/ ?

ixnay

Yep, that's me! It's pretty much an antique website anymore, but it used to be the only place on the internet you could find out about this stuff. :-)

Holy crap, I used to eagerly look forward to the Interchange of the Week.  Belated thanks.

Ah yes, when aerial imagery had to be manually downloaded and mosaicked. That site today would basically a collection of Google Maps links. ;-)

I love your site. Still the best New York-oriented page out there.

Well!  :)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 29, 2015, 09:04:08 PM
I am glad people still find it informative. I turned down an offer once to sell the domain name, so at least that's not for nothing. Unfortunately I really don't work on it anymore, except that I did finally compile the Nassau County highway listing a few years ago, thus filling probably the biggest outstanding informational hole on the site (I still haven't found a county highway map of any validity, so I made my own (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/nassaumaps.html) out of NYSDOT topo quads):
http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crnassau.html
Hmm... makes me wonder if I should create county/reference route lists after all.  Where did you go for county route data?  I imagine most of it can be found on the NYSDOT highway inventory.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on April 29, 2015, 11:11:59 PM
I am glad people still find it informative. I turned down an offer once to sell the domain name, so at least that's not for nothing. Unfortunately I really don't work on it anymore, except that I did finally compile the Nassau County highway listing a few years ago, thus filling probably the biggest outstanding informational hole on the site (I still haven't found a county highway map of any validity, so I made my own (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/nassaumaps.html) out of NYSDOT topo quads):
http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crnassau.html
Hmm... makes me wonder if I should create county/reference route lists after all.  Where did you go for county route data?  I imagine most of it can be found on the NYSDOT highway inventory.

That's where I've gotten it recently. But it used to all come, primarily, from the counties' own highway maps (which I had an ongoing, partially-completed goal to collect in person at the county highway office), and I find I miss the sense of authority that comes with using the info straight from the source instead of filtered through the state's databases. On the other hand, not all counties used to record their data with that much precision, so it's a balancing act.

(If you're interested in particulars, each county's sources are listed at the bottom of its page on my site.)

And I should probably add that I was always partial to J.P.'s site myself. :-)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on April 29, 2015, 11:18:01 PM
I am glad people still find it informative. I turned down an offer once to sell the domain name, so at least that's not for nothing. Unfortunately I really don't work on it anymore, except that I did finally compile the Nassau County highway listing a few years ago, thus filling probably the biggest outstanding informational hole on the site (I still haven't found a county highway map of any validity, so I made my own (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/nassaumaps.html) out of NYSDOT topo quads):
http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crnassau.html
Hmm... makes me wonder if I should create county/reference route lists after all.  Where did you go for county route data?  I imagine most of it can be found on the NYSDOT highway inventory.

That's where I've gotten it recently. But it used to all come, primarily, from the counties' own highway maps (which I had an ongoing, partially-completed goal to collect in person at the county highway office), and I find I miss the sense of authority that comes with using the info straight from the source instead of filtered through the state's databases. On the other hand, not all counties used to record their data with that much precision, so it's a balancing act.

(If you're interested in particulars, each county's sources are listed at the bottom of its page on my site.)

And I should probably add that I was always partial to J.P.'s site myself. :-)

The University at Buffalo actually has both your site and J.P.'s linked on a library page ( http://library.buffalo.edu/maps/buffalo-wnymaps/location/wny-maps.html#reg )
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on April 30, 2015, 08:19:55 PM
But not mine?  Someone needs to get them to update the list!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 07, 2015, 11:17:38 AM
Downtown Utica to undergo a road diet. Thoughts?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on May 07, 2015, 06:08:08 PM
Downtown Utica to undergo a road diet. Thoughts?

I have been saying for a long time that they need to do exactly as they described in that news story and I plan on attending the public meetings. One of the biggest issues of downtown Utica is that it's not pedestrian friendly at all, especially since they pushed NY 5S through there as a boulevard (there are sections where it's three lanes in one direction and five in the other). Traffic frequently sails through there way above the posted speed limit. I welcome this approach. Good for region 2!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Zeffy on May 08, 2015, 10:33:41 AM
Feds tell New York City to remove iconic Times Square billboards or face funding cuts (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/05/05/times-square-billboards-highway-beautification-act/)

Quote
You can call it a bureaucratic blunder … or a Washington blooper.

But any way you slice it a move by the federal government to make the city remove Times Square’s iconic billboards falls in the category of “whose bright idea is this?”

Quote
The feds say many of Times Square’s huge and neon-lit billboards must come down or the city will lose about $90 million in federal highway money.

Quote
The edict comes from a 2012 law that makes Times Square an arterial route to the national highway system. And that puts it under the 1965 Highway Beautification Act, which limits signs to 1,200 square feet. It took the feds until now to realize that Times Square was included, Kramer reported.



My thoughts on this, are pretty plain and simple: bullshit. I would be disgusted if the federal government forced New York City to remove those billboards in Times Square. That's what practically makes it Times Square. I hope the City doesn't play ball with the feds. Sometimes the feds aren't in the right.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 08, 2015, 12:07:29 PM
Feds tell New York City to remove iconic Times Square billboards or face funding cuts (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/05/05/times-square-billboards-highway-beautification-act/)

My thoughts on this, are pretty plain and simple: bullshit. I would be disgusted if the federal government forced New York City to remove those billboards in Times Square. That's what practically makes it Times Square. I hope the City doesn't play ball with the feds. Sometimes the feds aren't in the right.

Of more concrete relevance than simple aversion to Federal involvement in the city's affairs is going to be the fact that city zoning ordinances actually establish minimum standards of size and illumination for advertising signs in Times Square. While Federal law would presumably trump city zoning, you can bet there are many millions of dollars' worth of private contracts and covenants in place among the "local" landowners that are based on these regulations. It would make a thorny thicket indeed for the Feds to untangle if they really want to pursue this.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: DeaconG on May 08, 2015, 12:48:44 PM
How long have those billboards been there...since the late 1910s, early 20s? They want to remove nearly one hundred years of precedent just because?

Tell the feds to piss off.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: storm2k on May 08, 2015, 01:01:25 PM
I'm fairly certain that the city will get a quick exemption for this and this nonsense will be forgotten. Love it or hate it, Times Square is a part of Americana at this point. I'm sure that they'll move on from this and the bonehead at the DOT will be a nice stern lecture about splitting hairs a bit too closely.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 08, 2015, 01:03:35 PM
I have been saying for a long time that they need to do exactly as they described in that news story and I plan on attending the public meetings. One of the biggest issues of downtown Utica is that it's not pedestrian friendly at all, especially since they pushed NY 5S through there as a boulevard (there are sections where it's three lanes in one direction and five in the other). Traffic frequently sails through there way above the posted speed limit. I welcome this approach. Good for region 2!

Having only recently seen Utica with my own eyes (and sometimes skeptical of plans for road "diets"), I think this might be a good idea for the core area of Utica.  Struck me as peculiar that N.Y. 5S goes pretty quickly from being a freeway-class road east of town to an urban street, with relatively little in the way of warning to drivers.

Wonder why there was apparently no consideration given to a direct, high speed connection between 5S and the Thruway in Utica?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 08, 2015, 01:13:57 PM
I'm fairly certain that the city will get a quick exemption for this and this nonsense will be forgotten. Love it or hate it, Times Square is a part of Americana at this point. I'm sure that they'll move on from this and the bonehead at the DOT will be a nice stern lecture about splitting hairs a bit too closely.

Well yeah, the other thing is, it's a pretty enormous question from this report as to how much of a thing this actually is. There's only the briefest reference to an "edict" stemming from a 2012 law, but the source, content or motivation of that edict don't bear the slightest mention.

EDIT: Here's another, earlier article (http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/05/8567170/federal-act-pressures-city-remove-oversize-times-square-billboards); again, there's vague mention of Federal "pressure" to remove billboards, but pretty much all the article goes into is how the recent inclusion of certain streets in the NHS happens to have the effect of making Times Square non-compliant with the Beautification Act, but it doesn't refer to any specific Federal action actually intended to bring it into compliance.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on May 08, 2015, 01:27:06 PM
I have been saying for a long time that they need to do exactly as they described in that news story and I plan on attending the public meetings. One of the biggest issues of downtown Utica is that it's not pedestrian friendly at all, especially since they pushed NY 5S through there as a boulevard (there are sections where it's three lanes in one direction and five in the other). Traffic frequently sails through there way above the posted speed limit. I welcome this approach. Good for region 2!

Having only recently seen Utica with my own eyes (and sometimes skeptical of plans for road "diets"), I think this might be a good idea for the core area of Utica.  Struck me as peculiar that N.Y. 5S goes pretty quickly from being a freeway-class road east of town to an urban street, with relatively little in the way of warning to drivers.

Wonder why there was apparently no consideration given to a direct, high speed connection between 5S and the Thruway in Utica?

There was a "phase 3" of the late 1980s MUD project (the project that reconfigured I-790) to connect the freeway end at Leland Ave to either Routes 5 or 5S near Dyke Rd. (sources differ as to whether it was 5 or 5S) but that phase of the project never came to fruition.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 08, 2015, 05:47:30 PM
Downtown Utica to undergo a road diet. Thoughts?

I have been saying for a long time that they need to do exactly as they described in that news story and I plan on attending the public meetings. One of the biggest issues of downtown Utica is that it's not pedestrian friendly at all, especially since they pushed NY 5S through there as a boulevard (there are sections where it's three lanes in one direction and five in the other). Traffic frequently sails through there way above the posted speed limit. I welcome this approach. Good for region 2!

Well I will tell you my experiences with the Bagg's Sq. area from October.

Coming from Union Station, I wanted to walk to the bus terminal to go to my university. There are bushes that create a blind spot from cars rushing westward on Oriskany St, so if I wasn't careful I could've been roadkill. Fortunately I timed things right to cross across. Plus, the Genesee St bridge bypasses that area where there are businesses coming out of the ground (Utica Roasters, Tailor and Cook). The city should look to Buffalo to see how to redo that area.

If the Utica planners wanted to put NY 5S through Utica as a highway, it should've been submerged like the Inner Loop. Not at grade!!!

Also I was on the Thruway today coming home for the summer. I'll post later with thoughts, questions and notes about things I saw.

Edit: and quickly, I know people love to disagree with this but I still think there should be an exit at Judd Rd.


I have been saying for a long time that they need to do exactly as they described in that news story and I plan on attending the public meetings. One of the biggest issues of downtown Utica is that it's not pedestrian friendly at all, especially since they pushed NY 5S through there as a boulevard (there are sections where it's three lanes in one direction and five in the other). Traffic frequently sails through there way above the posted speed limit. I welcome this approach. Good for region 2!

Having only recently seen Utica with my own eyes (and sometimes skeptical of plans for road "diets"), I think this might be a good idea for the core area of Utica.  Struck me as peculiar that N.Y. 5S goes pretty quickly from being a freeway-class road east of town to an urban street, with relatively little in the way of warning to drivers.

Wonder why there was apparently no consideration given to a direct, high speed connection between 5S and the Thruway in Utica?

There was a "phase 3" of the late 1980s MUD project (the project that reconfigured I-790) to connect the freeway end at Leland Ave to either Routes 5 or 5S near Dyke Rd. (sources differ as to whether it was 5 or 5S) but that phase of the project never came to fruition.

Edit 2: I made a post a few pages back either here or on the NYST thread with my vision for how to reconfigure the NY5S thing.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 08, 2015, 05:55:53 PM
I'm fairly certain that the city will get a quick exemption for this and this nonsense will be forgotten. Love it or hate it, Times Square is a part of Americana at this point. I'm sure that they'll move on from this and the bonehead at the DOT will be a nice stern lecture about splitting hairs a bit too closely.

CityLab.com: No, the Feds Are Not Requiring Times Square to Remove Its Billboards - But why are Broadway and 7th Avenue now classified as national highways? (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/05/no-the-feds-are-not-requiring-times-square-to-remove-its-billboards/392657/)
Title: New York
Post by: empirestate on May 09, 2015, 08:43:43 AM
I'm fairly certain that the city will get a quick exemption for this and this nonsense will be forgotten. Love it or hate it, Times Square is a part of Americana at this point. I'm sure that they'll move on from this and the bonehead at the DOT will be a nice stern lecture about splitting hairs a bit too closely.

CityLab.com: No, the Feds Are Not Requiring Times Square to Remove Its Billboards - But why are Broadway and 7th Avenue now classified as national highways? (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/05/no-the-feds-are-not-requiring-times-square-to-remove-its-billboards/392657/)

As I suspected.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Duke87 on May 09, 2015, 11:40:26 PM
In other news, the 3rd Ave exit right before the Whitestone Bridge has just reopened at some point within the last 24 hours. I was by there at about 1:30 AM last night and it was closed. A couple hours ago I was tipped off by Roadgeek_Adam that it had reopened and my girlfriend and I just went on a quick excursion to see for ourselves. It's open!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 21, 2015, 01:19:38 PM
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 21, 2015, 08:51:59 PM
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!

Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.

On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 21, 2015, 10:01:56 PM
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!

Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.

On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.

Speaking of counters, I went over some on Rt. 75 earlier today, though I could never see a diet happening on that road.

While we're on the topic of Hamburg, will CR 204 McKinley Pkwy ever get resurfaced or widened? I don't think I've ever seen it with fresh asphalt.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 21, 2015, 10:38:21 PM
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!

Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.

On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.

Speaking of counters, I went over some on Rt. 75 earlier today, though I could never see a diet happening on that road.

While we're on the topic of Hamburg, will CR 204 McKinley Pkwy ever get resurfaced or widened? I don't think I've ever seen it with fresh asphalt.

I'm talking about human counters with Jamar TDCs. Only way to get counts at intersections. NY 75 is not getting a diet.

Erie County DPW is really bad about keeping PSIs/PCIs at a reasonable level. They're just getting to some stuff up north that has been a mess since I moved here in 2007. Bowen Road has gotten little more than a couple crappy overlays and much of the surface consists of cold-mix pothole fill. Tonawanda Creek Road has been closed because it's been falling into the creek for a decade with a reopening not occurring until at least 2018. Goodrich Road will supposedly be redone this year, but I'm not holding my breath. Hell, even their reconstruction projects have had crappy results. The surface of the reconstructed North French and Robinson Roads corridor is already seeing distress and that was completed last fall. William Street in Lancaster, reconstructed top-down 5 years ago, is in similar shape to parallel US 20, which hasn't been resurfaced in 15 years (IINM).

Basically, Erie County maintains too much mileage, so nothing gets done when it should be done and a highway has to have devolved to gravel before they'll even touch it. McKinley Parkway, while not nice, is a hell of a lot better than most county-maintained roads here. We probably have quite a while before that'll be redone. To give you an idea, they just redid Losson Road in Cheektowaga last year. The bumps could destroy your suspension and some of the cracks and holes could swallow a small child. It was significantly worse than McKinley Parkway is now. Of course, I could be wrong, but this is Erie County we're talking about and road maintenance is not a top priority.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 21, 2015, 11:33:36 PM
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!

Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.

On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.

Speaking of counters, I went over some on Rt. 75 earlier today, though I could never see a diet happening on that road.

While we're on the topic of Hamburg, will CR 204 McKinley Pkwy ever get resurfaced or widened? I don't think I've ever seen it with fresh asphalt.

I'm talking about human counters with Jamar TDCs. Only way to get counts at intersections. NY 75 is not getting a diet.

Erie County DPW is really bad about keeping PSIs/PCIs at a reasonable level. They're just getting to some stuff up north that has been a mess since I moved here in 2007. Bowen Road has gotten little more than a couple crappy overlays and much of the surface consists of cold-mix pothole fill. Tonawanda Creek Road has been closed because it's been falling into the creek for a decade with a reopening not occurring until at least 2018. Goodrich Road will supposedly be redone this year, but I'm not holding my breath. Hell, even their reconstruction projects have had crappy results. The surface of the reconstructed North French and Robinson Roads corridor is already seeing distress and that was completed last fall. William Street in Lancaster, reconstructed top-down 5 years ago, is in similar shape to parallel US 20, which hasn't been resurfaced in 15 years (IINM).

Basically, Erie County maintains too much mileage, so nothing gets done when it should be done and a highway has to have devolved to gravel before they'll even touch it. McKinley Parkway, while not nice, is a hell of a lot better than most county-maintained roads here. We probably have quite a while before that'll be redone. To give you an idea, they just redid Losson Road in Cheektowaga last year. The bumps could destroy your suspension and some of the cracks and holes could swallow a small child. It was significantly worse than McKinley Parkway is now. Of course, I could be wrong, but this is Erie County we're talking about and road maintenance is not a top priority.

It sounds like the county has a bias against the northtowns :D

But in all seriousness, between the snow that pummels the roads every winter, a federal government tied in a knot with every big county in the country begging for money and a state that is trying to balance between a renaissance and bankruptcy, it doesn't add up well for the county. Then you have TIGER grants which aren't put to good use as well. I'm not studying to be a politician though.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on May 22, 2015, 12:25:40 AM
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!

Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.

On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.

Speaking of counters, I went over some on Rt. 75 earlier today, though I could never see a diet happening on that road.

While we're on the topic of Hamburg, will CR 204 McKinley Pkwy ever get resurfaced or widened? I don't think I've ever seen it with fresh asphalt.

I'm talking about human counters with Jamar TDCs. Only way to get counts at intersections. NY 75 is not getting a diet.

False. Camera technology can track vehicle paths.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 22, 2015, 08:33:05 AM
cl94, do you have any idea on what is going on with US 62 in Hamburg? It looks like a mill and overlay, but it also looks like a road diet is in progress. They are adding grates and aprons as well. But at the moment, I'm pissed off because my windshield is cracked!!!

Website says simple mill-and-fill. I'll ask around the office on Tuesday. One of my bosses at the MPO probably knows if there's a road diet going on over there. I wouldn't be shocked if a diet is part of it. Rest of US 62 has either been dieted or never had 4 lanes to begin with. Judging by the peak hour diagram at the NY 179 intersection, a diet certainly wouldn't hurt things. See here (http://gbnrtc.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Gbnrtc&mod=) for more peak hour diagrams and the like.

On somewhat-related note, the road diet of Delaware Avenue may be extended north (the already-dieted section is being counted next week to see if it's working as intended) and a diet is planned for Niagara Street (NY 266) (we're doing counts over there this summer to see if there's an LOS reduction with fewer through lanes. I hope I'm not one of the people assigned over there because the neighborhood is quite horrible). I'm pretty sure that the part of Broadway west of US 62 that hasn't been dieted is also on the list when it gets resurfaced in the relatively near future. All of these diets include bike lanes.

Speaking of counters, I went over some on Rt. 75 earlier today, though I could never see a diet happening on that road.

While we're on the topic of Hamburg, will CR 204 McKinley Pkwy ever get resurfaced or widened? I don't think I've ever seen it with fresh asphalt.

I'm talking about human counters with Jamar TDCs. Only way to get counts at intersections. NY 75 is not getting a diet.

False. Camera technology can track vehicle paths.

I probably should have phrased it differently. It's not cost-effective to install the cameras is most cases.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 22, 2015, 10:09:00 AM
The camera installations that I'm aware of are temporary, not permanent....and used for origin-destination studies.  That's probably along the lines of what Alps was alluding to.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 22, 2015, 05:56:33 PM
The camera installations that I'm aware of are temporary, not permanent....and used for origin-destination studies.  That's probably along the lines of what Alps was alluding to.

True. I don't want to give the MPO any ideas, though. Traffic counting is the only thing remotely related to transportation in Buffalo that hires student interns and doesn't involve bridge design and the University has enough trouble as it is trying to expand the transportation program.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 23, 2015, 01:28:00 PM
Bridge replacement project on I-290 at NY 265/384 is making progress. Exit 1 (NY 384) has been converted to a partial diamond for the duration of construction and no entrance is provided to WB I-290, requiring a 10 minute detour to access I-190 from NY 384. 4 lanes total through the site. NYSDOT borrowed something I've only seen in Ohio- instead of running all lanes over one span or building a temporary span to keep all lanes together, one EB lane runs contraflow through the site and the other runs on the EB side.

Needless to say, the area is quite a mess right now and US 62 and NY 384 are clogged as a result. If you're going to Niagara Falls and don't want to get stuck in it, I'd recommend using I-190 or NY 33 and NY 198 to bypass it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 24, 2015, 12:55:47 AM
Bridge replacement project on I-290 at NY 265/384 is making progress. Exit 1 (NY 384) has been converted to a partial diamond for the duration of construction and no entrance is provided to WB I-290, requiring a 10 minute detour to access I-190 from NY 384. 4 lanes total through the site. NYSDOT borrowed something I've only seen in Ohio- instead of running all lanes over one span or building a temporary span to keep all lanes together, one EB lane runs contraflow through the site and the other runs on the EB side.

Needless to say, the area is quite a mess right now and US 62 and NY 384 are clogged as a result. If you're going to Niagara Falls and don't want to get stuck in it, I'd recommend using I-190 or NY 33 and NY 198 to bypass it.

Sounds pretty busy. How is the Cleveland Dr. project going?

Also, question that just jumped into my head: could the Buffalo area implement HOV lanes on highways, and if it could, where and if not, why?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 24, 2015, 11:04:22 AM
Bridge replacement project on I-290 at NY 265/384 is making progress. Exit 1 (NY 384) has been converted to a partial diamond for the duration of construction and no entrance is provided to WB I-290, requiring a 10 minute detour to access I-190 from NY 384. 4 lanes total through the site. NYSDOT borrowed something I've only seen in Ohio- instead of running all lanes over one span or building a temporary span to keep all lanes together, one EB lane runs contraflow through the site and the other runs on the EB side.

Needless to say, the area is quite a mess right now and US 62 and NY 384 are clogged as a result. If you're going to Niagara Falls and don't want to get stuck in it, I'd recommend using I-190 or NY 33 and NY 198 to bypass it.

Sounds pretty busy. How is the Cleveland Dr. project going?

Also, question that just jumped into my head: could the Buffalo area implement HOV lanes on highways, and if it could, where and if not, why?

Bridge is down. I have a picture of the monotube that I've yet to post. It'll be done by the end of the summer.

Region 5 won't implement HOV lanes. I can almost guarantee it. There aren't enough HOVs and, due to ROW constraints, construction would be prohibitively expensive, especially given how little they'd be used. Heck, there are only a few places where another general purpose lane is needed (and many of those are currently 4 lanes). Main issues around here are related directly to interchange geometry. I-90 Exit 51's auxiliary lanes are very substandard and Exit 50 doesn't have enough lanes to accommodate the main movement.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 24, 2015, 02:39:12 PM
Bridge replacement project on I-290 at NY 265/384 is making progress. Exit 1 (NY 384) has been converted to a partial diamond for the duration of construction and no entrance is provided to WB I-290, requiring a 10 minute detour to access I-190 from NY 384. 4 lanes total through the site. NYSDOT borrowed something I've only seen in Ohio- instead of running all lanes over one span or building a temporary span to keep all lanes together, one EB lane runs contraflow through the site and the other runs on the EB side.

Needless to say, the area is quite a mess right now and US 62 and NY 384 are clogged as a result. If you're going to Niagara Falls and don't want to get stuck in it, I'd recommend using I-190 or NY 33 and NY 198 to bypass it.

Sounds pretty busy. How is the Cleveland Dr. project going?

Also, question that just jumped into my head: could the Buffalo area implement HOV lanes on highways, and if it could, where and if not, why?

Bridge is down. I have a picture of the monotube that I've yet to post. It'll be done by the end of the summer.

Region 5 won't implement HOV lanes. I can almost guarantee it. There aren't enough HOVs and, due to ROW constraints, construction would be prohibitively expensive, especially given how little they'd be used. Heck, there are only a few places where another general purpose lane is needed (and many of those are currently 4 lanes). Main issues around here are related directly to interchange geometry. I-90 Exit 51's auxiliary lanes are very substandard and Exit 50 doesn't have enough lanes to accommodate the main movement.

I saw your concept for Exit 51 awhile ago in the Fantasy forum, it's definitely appropriate for the 21st century. Great? Yes. Feasible? Probably no time soon.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on May 28, 2015, 11:25:57 AM
I came across the history of the Adirondack Northway (I-87), including a number of different ways that it could have been routed, plus the story of the missing  Exit 3.

http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/05/27/northway-history (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/05/27/northway-history)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 28, 2015, 07:35:16 PM
I came across the history of the Adirondack Northway (I-87), including a number of different ways that it could have been routed, plus the story of the missing  Exit 3.

http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/05/27/northway-history (http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2015/05/27/northway-history)

What it doesn't mention is the reason for the odd design of Exits 4-5 on the SB side. Per the plans I've seen (can't remember where), I-687 was to branch off of or weave around the C/D road between Exits 5 and 4. The Exit 1 reconstruction removed the necessity of the freeway, but things would have been interesting.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 28, 2015, 09:01:12 PM
It would be interesting to see how commuting patterns would change if I-687 had been built.  On the one hand, the merges at I-90 and NY 7 would be less intense; on the other, there would be yet another big merge added in right on top of the exit 4 big merge.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 28, 2015, 09:40:08 PM
And there would still be a bottleneck at the bridges, except the backup would extend onto another expressway. Really, not much would be different unless there was another major Mohawk River crossing which, from what I can tell, was never in the plans.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 29, 2015, 03:30:59 PM
From the times I've had to go north of the Twin Bridges during rush hour, it seems like the bridges themselves don't actually cause the backup, and that reporting backups as such is more an anomaly of traffic reporters than anything else.  The evening backups start as isolated backups at I-90, NY 5, Albany-Shaker Rd, NY 2/NY 7, and NY 7, and eventually merge into one big backup, with traffic picking up north of NY 7 and remaining slow through exit 9.  The morning backups are at exits 9, 8A, and 8, with slow traffic all the way down to NY 7.

NY 7 currently backs up to Troy.  I-90 can back up all the way to Everett Rd depending on the number of tourists.  I-90's issues seem to be caused more by the Thruway having toll booths than anything else.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 29, 2015, 03:41:47 PM
From the times I've had to go north of the Twin Bridges during rush hour, it seems like the bridges themselves don't actually cause the backup, and that reporting backups as such is more an anomaly of traffic reporters than anything else.  The evening backups start as isolated backups at I-90, NY 5, Albany-Shaker Rd, NY 2/NY 7, and NY 7, and eventually merge into one big backup, with traffic picking up north of NY 7 and remaining slow through exit 9.  The morning backups are at exits 9, 8A, and 8, with slow traffic all the way down to NY 7.

NY 7 currently backs up to Troy.  I-90 can back up all the way to Everett Rd depending on the number of tourists.  I-90's issues seem to be caused more by the Thruway having toll booths than anything else.

Yeah, I know. The Northway needs 8+ general purpose lanes south of Malta regardless of what Region 1 is willing to admit. I don't have the peak hour volumes to run the calculations myself, but I'm pretty certain that, to ensure LOS D or better, more lanes are needed. I know the Twin Bridges are the main thing preventing that from happening, but it's been a cluster for decades. It was a cluster when my mom was growing up in the area back in the 70s and 80s. Daily backups were happening for as long as I can remember. One of my earliest memories is being stuck in rush hour traffic in the mid-late 90s near the bridges when going home from Crossgates. The Exits 24/1 project in the late 80s helped a bit, but the surge in population made things worse than they were before.

The bridges might not be what's causing the issue, per se, but they're a bottleneck, even if it's only virtual.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 29, 2015, 03:46:51 PM
One thing I thought of was the idea of setting up movable barriers on the Northway to create a reversible 4/2 lane situation rather than the current 3/3.  During non-peak times it would remain 3/3 just as it is now, but in rush hour an "express" lane could be carved out from the opposite direction carriageway.

There's probably a million reasons not to do that, but it's something I thought of when commuting one day.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 29, 2015, 04:14:08 PM
One thing I thought of was the idea of setting up movable barriers on the Northway to create a reversible 4/2 lane situation rather than the current 3/3.  During non-peak times it would remain 3/3 just as it is now, but in rush hour an "express" lane could be carved out from the opposite direction carriageway.

There's probably a million reasons not to do that, but it's something I thought of when commuting one day.

I had another idea that would allow them to only build one new Mohawk River bridge while keeping the capacity. Build a new 4 lane arch bridge with full shoulders and the capacity for an additional lane for SB traffic and split the northbound carriageway into two 2-lane sections for the bridge. Might be weird, but it would certainly be cheaper and faster than replacing both spans.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 29, 2015, 05:51:54 PM
A little off topic, but in my fantasyland, I imagine I-90 running from St. Johnsville, through Gloversville and Saratoga Springs to connect with MA 2 in Erving, MA. Why? I don't have a practical reason other that the fact that it seems "complete."
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 29, 2015, 08:06:45 PM
How many hours of congestion does the Northway have in each direction?  Unless it's more than 2-3 hours a day, probably not worth the expense of widening.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on May 31, 2015, 01:26:33 PM
During normal rush hour times, heavy traffic usually doesn't last more than 3 hours. However the summer months cause bottlenecks on the weekends. Friday and Sunday evenings can be pretty rough, and if there's an accident then you can expect to be stuck awhile.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 31, 2015, 02:03:01 PM
And, while you might not get more than 3 hours, the traffic caused on the few parallel bridges would likely be alleviated if the Northway had more capacity. US 9 is quite bad if the Northway is bad.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 31, 2015, 03:05:11 PM
Parallel roadways too.  Wolf Rd, Maxwell Rd, and Old Niskayuna Rd can all be BRUTAL if people are trying to bypass the Northway on them.  It's so bad that it's faster to take the Northway even when it's a parking lot.  Heck, it's so bad that it even has me considering a move to downtown Albany after a life spent in the suburbs!
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on May 31, 2015, 04:04:43 PM
Quote
Heck, it's so bad that it even has me considering a move to downtown Albany after a life spent in the suburbs!

To be fair, if you're going to be Region 1's Bike/Ped Coordinator (as you'd mentioned on Facebook), this might not be a bad thing...
Title: BREAKING: NY 198 (Scajaquada Expressway) speed limit lowered to 30 MPH!!!
Post by: Buffaboy on May 31, 2015, 05:17:46 PM
In a perfect world, I think that Delaware Park should be lidded across the 198, like that highway in San Fransisco, or the lid on St. Louis. Unfortunately, Buffalo is not SFO and NY is not Texas, so there likely will be no money for such a thing. But in the interim, what do you make of this?

Quote
The speed limit on the section of the Scajaquada Expressway where a car jumped a curb, crossed a grassy median and killed a 3-year-old boy on Saturday was lowered to 30 mph Sunday on orders of the governor.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo directed state Transportation Commissioner Joan McDonald to immediately lower the speed limit from the current 50 mph and install “park-appropriate” guard rails where the expressway passes through Delaware Park.

In his letter, sent late Sunday, Cuomo also directed the department to install speed messaging boards to alert drivers of the change, which is effective immediately.

“I am deeply saddened to learn of the tragic car crash in Buffalo on Saturday that claimed the life of a young child and severely injured another,” Cuomo wrote in his letter. “While law enforcement agencies are still investigating the circumstances surrounding this terrible crash, it is clear that immediate action needs to be taken to improve safety for motorists and pedestrians on the portion of the Scajaquada Expressway that passes through Delaware Park.”

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/police-courts/speed-limit-lowered-to-30-after-deadly-delaware-park-accident-20150531

I like thinking about things from a practical standpoint. Does it make sense to tear it up, or would it be better to submerge it?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on May 31, 2015, 07:40:27 PM
Yeesh.  More politicians just pulling numbers out of their rears.  When will Cuomo start letting the agencies do their jobs instead of doing it for them?

Any idea of the specific limits of where it will be 30?  The limits of the park appear to be rather ambiguous on Google Maps, the western side in particular, and the location of the eastern end leaves me wondering if it will be before or after the intersection.

Quote
Heck, it's so bad that it even has me considering a move to downtown Albany after a life spent in the suburbs!

To be fair, if you're going to be Region 1's Bike/Ped Coordinator (as you'd mentioned on Facebook), this might not be a bad thing...

Well, it will be a bit of time before I move if I do anyways.  My current lease goes through next April.  Next year isn't looking like an opportune time to move, which will push it out another year.  That's probably a good thing; the rent at the place I'm looking at is a couple hundred more a month for the cheapest unit (compensated with included internet, however) than what I have now and I'm not sure how utility costs will pan out (especially since my current apartment includes heat in the rest and the one I'm looking at comes with a washer and dryer in the unit; my salary increases a bit each year until I reach top of grade).  Between the off street parking (some of which is indoors), the in-unit washer/dryer (which has been on my wish list for a year now), and the wonderful location (right on top of both I-787 and the bus line that goes to NYSDOT, and right in the heart of Albany) makes it seem too good to be true.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 31, 2015, 08:57:17 PM
Yeesh.  More politicians just pulling numbers out of their rears.  When will Cuomo start letting the agencies do their jobs instead of doing it for them?

Any idea of the specific limits of where it will be 30?  The limits of the park appear to be rather ambiguous on Google Maps, the western side in particular, and the location of the eastern end leaves me wondering if it will be before or after the intersection.

I'll check it out when I drive into work tomorrow. The MPO has me on Elmwood all week, so I may as well drive through the area instead of taking 190. Personally, I think it's BS. Install the Jersey barriers that should have been there all along and that would stop it. Problem is that people in Buffalo don't know how to stay in their lanes or control their vehicles. Someone drives into a building at least 1-2 times a week around here.

Oh, and the GBNRTC did a study on what would happen if the speed limit was lowered to 30 on NY 198. LOS F during weekday rush hour. Things are going to be pretty bad come 8:00 tomorrow morning.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 31, 2015, 09:23:10 PM
Yeesh.  More politicians just pulling numbers out of their rears.  When will Cuomo start letting the agencies do their jobs instead of doing it for them?

Any idea of the specific limits of where it will be 30?  The limits of the park appear to be rather ambiguous on Google Maps, the western side in particular, and the location of the eastern end leaves me wondering if it will be before or after the intersection.

I'll check it out when I drive into work tomorrow. The MPO has me on Elmwood all week, so I may as well drive through the area instead of taking 190. Personally, I think it's BS. Install the Jersey barriers that should have been there all along and that would stop it. Problem is that people in Buffalo don't know how to stay in their lanes or control their vehicles. Someone drives into a building at least 1-2 times a week around here.

Oh, and the GBNRTC did a study on what would happen if the speed limit was lowered to 30 on NY 198. LOS F during weekday rush hour. Things are going to be pretty bad come 8:00 tomorrow morning.

I can only imagine how bad the commute tomorrow will be. The good news is that it appears the limit doesn't go past Elmwood. While its certainly a tragic accident, knee jerk reactions from deadly accidents can have long term impacts. A portion of US 20 in Hamburg was lowered from 50 to 45 due to an accident. This happened about 10 years ago and it's still the same.

At the same time, is it feasible to submerge the 198 to Elmwood, which would include going under a creek?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on May 31, 2015, 09:28:57 PM
Off topic again, but I was on Lakeview Road in Lakeview the other day, and noticed a quarter mile of it was signed as a 55 MPH road. It's pretty cool, it almost felt like I went on a test track after I came off some railroad tracks. But why is such a short stretch of road signed so high?

(http://gyazo.com/82ec90181b0d884375640d721326cf37.png)
(http://gyazo.com/c16340103d6ce2b6dfe0324387970031.png)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on May 31, 2015, 09:40:08 PM
It was never lowered and there's no reason for it to be higher. Seriously. Same reason there are a bunch of short default speed zones all over the country.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 01, 2015, 07:44:51 AM
NY 198 is 30 east of Grant St. Basically the entire thing. Some people are going 30, others 60, so it's very unsafe. Nowhere for a cop to sit, either, so it's the wild west out there. I expect accidents to skyrocket.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 01, 2015, 12:29:29 PM
NY 198 is 30 east of Grant St. Basically the entire thing. Some people are going 30, others 60, so it's very unsafe. Nowhere for a cop to sit, either, so it's the wild west out there. I expect accidents to skyrocket.

Pardon the expression, but do you know what's even more retarded? There are people who insist that they have a DOT planner in their head, saying "the 198 just serves to shave a couple of minutes off of the crosstown commute. They should just rip it up." Where are the traffic counts to back up such a bold statement?

My heart aches for both the boy that was killed and his family. His sister will be scarred for life and we can't imagine the pain they will have to go through. Nobody wants their child to go before them.

At the same time, we have to protect the interests of both pedestrians and commuters, or should I just say law-abiding motor vehicle operators.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 01, 2015, 02:18:48 PM
If anything, just read the study. Bad things will happen. My bosses don't like how it was done and neither do I. I fully expect the parallel roadways to be much worse and accidents to increase. Part of me is actually hoping for a bunch of accidents caused by the speed differentials to shut people up.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 01, 2015, 03:10:09 PM
In my late teens I was hanging out in that part of Buffalo and used to ask why 198 was not at least below grade through the park?  Locals always told me that had been the plan but they ran into a high water table aquifer that would have required continuous pumping.  Is that true?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 01, 2015, 04:14:28 PM
In my late teens I was hanging out in that part of Buffalo and used to ask why 198 was not at least below grade through the park?  Locals always told me that had been the plan but they ran into a high water table aquifer that would have required continuous pumping.  Is that true?

Wouldn't shock me. Light rail has major water problems in the area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Snappyjack on June 01, 2015, 05:58:42 PM
Meanwhile, when a road is dangerously over capacity for the amount of space there is(geographic/physical limitations not withstanding), and major accidents are a common occurrence(US 4/NY 149 to VT come to mind), nothing is done. Not to take away from this tragedy, it is a sad thing that happened for sure. You have to look at the flip side as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 01, 2015, 08:33:28 PM
Meanwhile, when a road is dangerously over capacity for the amount of space there is(geographic/physical limitations not withstanding), and major accidents are a common occurrence(US 4/NY 149 to VT come to mind), nothing is done. Not to take away from this tragedy, it is a sad thing that happened for sure. You have to look at the flip side as well.

I found the news on the 198 last night on WKBW (ABC 7) in Buffalo because I am staying with my parents. Unfortunately, I argue a guard rail could've prevented this accident. There's absolutely no need to reduce the 198 to 30 mph and while this might sound outrageous, I wouldn't mind numerous accidents just to prove to the state that a guard rail was sufficient years ago!

I've biked on the ring road these kids were killed on in Delaware Park. A guard rail would've saved their lives.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 01, 2015, 08:55:00 PM
There have been rumors that King Cuomo II is just as interested in low speed limits as his father was.  In fact, after his election there were even conspiracy theories that the speed limit on ALL roads in the state (including rural interstates) would be reduced to 50.

In any case, guiderail isn't sexy, and Cuomo loves publicity.  Why else would he require his office to announce EVERYTHING, even the most mundane, day to day things?  I'm surprised we haven't seen things like "Governor Cuomo announces that your lunch break begins right now".

It's possible that he's trying to make some kind of point about freeway teardowns.  Our new commissioner is the former mayor of Syracuse, and there's been some speculation that this might affect any urban freeway that is under study for removal.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: PHLBOS on June 02, 2015, 08:35:15 AM
As mentioned in the Speed Limit thread regarding Maryland's recent gubernatorial election (which had a completely different outcome and result than for NYS); elections do have consequences.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Dougtone on June 02, 2015, 12:11:58 PM
Billu Joel is getting part of NY 107 in Nassau County named after him.

http://m.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/pols-vote-rename-part-n-y-highway-billy-joel-article-1.2242177 (http://m.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/pols-vote-rename-part-n-y-highway-billy-joel-article-1.2242177)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 02, 2015, 12:19:40 PM

Billu Joel is getting part of NY 107 in Nassau County named after him.

http://m.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/pols-vote-rename-part-n-y-highway-billy-joel-article-1.2242177 (http://m.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/pols-vote-rename-part-n-y-highway-billy-joel-article-1.2242177)

He is in a New York State of Mind... haha.

Also, could you imagine this being the new NY 198? People actually like this idea, but they just don't get it.


Quote
What I want:

30 mph posted speed limit.
One lane in each direction.
Bike lanes in each direction.
Parallel parking on the street, to alleviate parking pressure in the park itself and the frequent illegal parking on the grass along Nottingham.
Sidewalks and pedestrian-scaled streetlights (not highway standards) to really drive home that this is a slow parkway through the park, and NOT meant as a through road connecting 33 and 190.
Build the park right up to the new road so it really feels like the park surrounds the street, rather than being divided by it.

I can take or leave the roundabouts and medians.




iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: 1 on June 02, 2015, 03:20:48 PM


Quote
What I want:

30 mph posted speed limit.

One lane in each direction.
Bike lanes in each direction.

Parallel parking on the street, to alleviate parking pressure in the park itself and the frequent illegal parking on the grass along Nottingham.
Sidewalks and pedestrian-scaled streetlights (not highway standards) to really drive home that this is a slow parkway through the park, and NOT meant as a through road connecting 33 and 190.
Build the park right up to the new road so it really feels like the park surrounds the street, rather than being divided by it.

I can take or leave the roundabouts and medians.

Therefore, no car lanes in either direction.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: vdeane on June 02, 2015, 08:55:59 PM
Where do those people want the traffic to go?  I doubt they're interested in the state demolishing homes and spending a ton of money it doesn't have to built another freeway around the park.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 02, 2015, 10:10:07 PM
I don't know, but I think it's unfortunate that it takes a deadly accident to act as the match that lights the tinderbox for a road diet.

One thing I do know is that the 198 will look weird transitioning from Main St. and east of Grant St., from a 4 lane elevated expressway interchange to a 2 lane street.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 02, 2015, 10:20:06 PM
Region 5 has eliminated any alternative containing fewer than four lanes. Less than 4 and the model shows that most of the surrounding streets are at LOS F. I saw the model myself. It isn't pretty. Imagine the George Washington Bridge on a weekday morning if a deck was closed and that's kind of what it looked like. Traffic much worse than anything you'd ever see in Buffalo.

These people might want 2 lanes, but I'd expect hell to freeze over before Region 5 builds it and the money has to come from somewhere.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 02, 2015, 10:42:10 PM

Region 5 has eliminated any alternative containing fewer than four lanes. Less than 4 and the model shows that most of the surrounding streets are at LOS F. I saw the model myself. It isn't pretty. Imagine the George Washington Bridge on a weekday morning if a deck was closed and that's kind of what it looked like. Traffic much worse than anything you'd ever see in Buffalo.

These people might want 2 lanes, but I'd expect hell to freeze over before Region 5 builds it and the money has to come from somewhere.

I haven't studied highway capacity yet, but I can imagine that if the 198 looks jammed have the time at 50 MPH and 4 lanes, it would be backed up to Fillmore during rush hour with 2 lanes at 30 MPH.


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 02, 2015, 11:00:20 PM
How much of a traffic reduction are they modeling with the reduction to 2 lanes?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 03, 2015, 12:53:31 AM
N.Y. Post: Suit calls out car service pocketing E-ZPass discounts (http://nypost.com/2015/06/01/suit-calls-out-car-service-pocketing-e-zpass-discounts/)

Quote
A city resident wants to slam the brakes on car services that charge passengers the full toll for bridges and tunnels — even though their drivers get E-ZPass discounts.

Quote
Ralph Gemelli, a retired criminal investigator for the state Department of Taxation and Finance, says in a Manhattan lawsuit that he hired Carmel Car and Limousine Service four times between October and March.

Quote
On each trip, the Queens man noticed his driver using a windshield-mounted E-ZPass device to pay the toll, the suit says.

Quote
But when Gemelli received an itemized bill for the trips, he discovered that he had been charged the full toll price.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on June 03, 2015, 09:18:44 PM
It looks like the Utica area is getting the "Highway Info" signs along some of the expressways over the next couple of weeks.  I noticed that NY 49 EB between NY 291 and Cavanaugh Rd, NY 840 EB between NY 5A and NY 5/8/12 and a couple of other places now have empty sign posts near some ground work that looks like electrical work was done. The mounts are definitely not for VMSes but they look to be the right size for the Highway Info signs, like as found on the Thruway. I haven't found any plans online but when the installations are complete I'll snap a photo.

I'm curious if they'll be "Highway Info" / "Traffic Advisory When Flashing" or "Urgent Message When Flashing", as I've seen both variations in the Empire State.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 03, 2015, 09:44:05 PM
It looks like the Utica area is getting the "Highway Info" signs along some of the expressways over the next couple of weeks.  I noticed that NY 49 EB between NY 291 and Cavanaugh Rd, NY 840 EB between NY 5A and NY 5/8/12 and a couple of other places now have empty sign posts near some ground work that looks like electrical work was done. The mounts are definitely not for VMSes but they look to be the right size for the Highway Info signs, like as found on the Thruway. I haven't found any plans online but when the installations are complete I'll snap a photo.

I'm curious if they'll be "Highway Info" / "Traffic Advisory When Flashing" or "Urgent Message When Flashing", as I've seen both variations in the Empire State.

Do you mean electronic billboards or flashers (e.g. Tune to 1610 AM)?

Also, how is the Arterial doing?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: upstatenyroads on June 03, 2015, 09:59:20 PM
It looks like the Utica area is getting the "Highway Info" signs along some of the expressways over the next couple of weeks.  I noticed that NY 49 EB between NY 291 and Cavanaugh Rd, NY 840 EB between NY 5A and NY 5/8/12 and a couple of other places now have empty sign posts near some ground work that looks like electrical work was done. The mounts are definitely not for VMSes but they look to be the right size for the Highway Info signs, like as found on the Thruway. I haven't found any plans online but when the installations are complete I'll snap a photo.

I'm curious if they'll be "Highway Info" / "Traffic Advisory When Flashing" or "Urgent Message When Flashing", as I've seen both variations in the Empire State.

Do you mean electronic billboards or flashers (e.g. Tune to 1610 AM)?

Also, how is the Arterial doing?

I believe they'll be the flasher type (tune to 540 AM) and probably be in conjunction with the Thruway system, if my suspicions are right.

Work continues on the Court Street bridge approaches on the Arterial. Cement has been poured on the span over NY 5A/5S (Oriskany St).  The northbound lanes leading up to the Court Street bridge are being poured as well, with current traffic NB reduced to one lane between Noyes and the old Warren Street intersection.

NYSDOT originally required the Court Street/Arterial at-grade intersection to be re-opened during the July 4th and Boilermaker Road race weekends, but they have since changed their minds and they no longer require the contractor to do that.  There was also an article in the newspaper (http://www.uticaod.com/article/20150524/NEWS/150529643/11669/NEWS) about the fact that the City of Utica is going to have a hard time maintaining the pedestrian bridge landscaping and snow removal when the state turns it over at the end of the construction project.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 03, 2015, 11:34:36 PM
I read about the inability of the City to pay for the landscaping, I thought they just had their credit rating improved? Certainly you would think that could attract businesses to the city.


iPhone
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 04, 2015, 01:53:09 PM
Bridge replacement project on I-290 at NY 265/384 is making progress. Exit 1 (NY 384) has been converted to a partial diamond for the duration of construction and no entrance is provided to WB I-290, requiring a 10 minute detour to access I-190 from NY 384. 4 lanes total through the site. NYSDOT borrowed something I've only seen in Ohio- instead of running all lanes over one span or building a temporary span to keep all lanes together, one EB lane runs contraflow through the site and the other runs on the EB side.

Needless to say, the area is quite a mess right now and US 62 and NY 384 are clogged as a result. If you're going to Niagara Falls and don't want to get stuck in it, I'd recommend using I-190 or NY 33 and NY 198 to bypass it.

I wasted a shytton of gas today taking care of some errands up north and came across this construction. Is the bridge slated to be 8 lanes or still 6?
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 04, 2015, 02:08:19 PM
More 198 stuff...

Quote
Traffic lights, crosswalks and speed bumps will be installed along the Scajaquada Expressway/Route 198 in the next few months, with the ultimate goal of turning its full length into a parkway.

Assemblyman Sean Ryan outlined those plans during a news conference Thursday near the pedestrian overpass of Route 198.

Since the death of three-year-old Maksym Sugorovskiy Saturday when he was hit by a car that veered off the expressway and into Delaware Park, Ryan has led the charge to implement long-talked-about changes along the road.

“One thing we know for sure: 30 miles an hour will be the speed limit,” Ryan said.

The day after the fatal incident, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo directed state Transportation Commissioner Joan McDonald to immediately lower the speed limit, from 50 to 30 mph, and install “park-appropriate” guard rails where the expressway passes through the park.

Though numerous signs and message boards alerting motorists to the new speed limit also were installed, many vehicles still exceed that limit, according to roadside signs that record oncoming vehicle speed.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/scajaquada-to-become-parkway-with-crosswalks-and-speed-bumps-ryan-says-20150604
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 04, 2015, 02:41:48 PM
More 198 stuff...

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/scajaquada-to-become-parkway-with-crosswalks-and-speed-bumps-ryan-says-20150604

I know it's tragic when someone gets killed but why is there so much "action" to reduce the express of the expressway?!  Or are they using this incident to finally get what they want?  Politicians are jumping in and if they don't revolt the highway they'd be considered not politically correct. 

So if a train or bicyclist ran off and struck somebody would they want to reduce the bike lane or train track?!

Usually it's driver error that causes this and not the road itself.  In CT, a passing zone was removed b/c somebody was drunk and weaving in/out of traffic and killed a child.  It was tragic but it's the driver and not the passing zone that was the problem.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 04, 2015, 04:22:52 PM
They're trying to buy votes. District is very wealthy and they want the traffic to be routed through poor neighborhoods. That's what it boils down to. people in that neighborhood want it gone and everyone else wants it to stay, but money talks.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 04, 2015, 05:05:05 PM
I'm disappointed in the Governor and Ryan. They are making an embarrassment to anyone who knows anything about highway capacity and transport engineering. It's no wonder that the DOT hasn't talked to the media.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 04, 2015, 08:37:56 PM
NYSDOT is keeping mum because the media is ready to pounce on them. They're doing another study to see what happens (read: 30 was never in the plans and the models they spent 2 years building have to be redone). This afternoon a little after 6, the westernmost mile or two was at LOS E from my educated estimation after driving on it. Normally at that time, it's C (maybe D). We're already seeing the effects. From some of the reports I've heard, it's already at F during the peak hour. I-190 and I-290 have been much worse than normal this week, possibly because people are avoiding NY 198. Keep in mind that I-290 is down to 4 lanes, so it was getting to LOS E-F on a daily basis at the construction zone before this nonsense started.

Basically, people who live in the neighborhood want the thing gone and have wanted it gone since it was built. The politicians, relying on their donations, will do anything required to appease them. Just about everybody who actually uses the thing wants it to stay because removing/altering it will probably add 15+ minutes to crosstown travel while congesting everything and making traffic a nightmare everywhere but the one neighborhood the expressway runs through. I'll also mention that the people who want the expressway gone also want the (much-used) light rail system to be removed because "nobody rides it".

As I/we predicted, the speed limit change isn't doing much more than making it more dangerous. People still go 60, but now we have a very small amount willingly going 20-30 (no exaggeration). I think there's already been at least one accident and I expect more. That's what happens when you have people who don't understand traffic flow theory pulling the strings. Even Robert Moses was better than most of these people.

New York politics are corrupt and always have been. Buffalo has long been one of the most crooked towns in the country. I'm not shocked one bit and I'm quite glad that I'll likely be leaving this state in 7 months for grad school so I don't have to see any of this nonsense actually happen before my eyes.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 04, 2015, 09:00:32 PM
It looks like you've done your research on all of this. I am not a fan of the local political scene on either side of the aisle either. On a personal note I'm from the area but attend college in the Mohawk Valley. Did you complete concentration-specific courses in your sophomore or junior year if I may ask?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 04, 2015, 09:24:51 PM
And the decision to lower the speed limit by not 5 but a whole 20mph....how do they know that'll solve the problem? The decision was made within hours and those signs were made quickly. Amazing. Idk why the gov chose this accident over others. Plus stoplight sand speed bumps too. Definitely not thinking of the region as a whole
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 04, 2015, 09:54:24 PM
It looks like you've done your research on all of this. I am not a fan of the local political scene on either side of the aisle either. On a personal note I'm from the area but attend college in the Mohawk Valley. Did you complete concentration-specific courses in your sophomore or junior year if I may ask?

I took stuff early and I'm graduating a semester early. I've already taken just about every transportation course UB offers. Concentration-specific stuff is mainly taken senior year thanks to the wonderful SUNY gen ed requirements that ABET happens to hate. Taking the last one in the fall.

What's funny is that, not one month ago, someone from the MPO did a presentation in my traffic operations class. Spent 20 minutes showing us the NY 198 model and what would happen if any one of the things these people want were implemented. Heck, the old (2005) study posted online has it being bad and traffic in the area has only gotten worse as Elmwood Village has become more hip.

Do any of the NYSDOT people here know if there's a gag order over there? My agency is keeping quite the low profile during all of this and I haven't heard anything from the normally attention-seeking Region 5.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 04, 2015, 10:00:39 PM
And the decision to lower the speed limit by not 5 but a whole 20mph....how do they know that'll solve the problem? The decision was made within hours and those signs were made quickly. Amazing. Idk why the gov chose this accident over others. Plus stoplight sand speed bumps too. Definitely not thinking of the region as a whole

Buying votes. Expressway runs in the middle of the only wealthy and predominantly-white neighborhood in the city. Full of political donors. Politicians have been drooling at this opportunity for years to get their hands on donor money.

Do note that, for the past few years, there has been a car going off the road almost daily in the vicinity of Buffalo that hits a person or building. This is not an isolated incident by any means. The day after this happened, a kid was hit in a small town in southern Erie County. Certainly isn't anybody jumping on the bandwagon to do traffic calming or modifications NY 16 (which really needs them, especially in that area).
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 04, 2015, 10:03:45 PM
It looks like you've done your research on all of this. I am not a fan of the local political scene on either side of the aisle either. On a personal note I'm from the area but attend college in the Mohawk Valley. Did you complete concentration-specific courses in your sophomore or junior year if I may ask?

I took stuff early and I'm graduating a semester early. I've already taken just about every transportation course UB offers. Concentration-specific stuff is mainly taken senior year thanks to the wonderful SUNY gen ed requirements that ABET happens to hate. Taking the last one in the fall.

What's funny is that, not one month ago, someone from the MPO did a presentation in my traffic operations class. Spent 20 minutes showing us the NY 198 model and what would happen if any one of the things these people want were implemented. Heck, the old (2005) study posted online has it being bad and traffic in the area has only gotten worse as Elmwood Village has become more hip.

Do any of the NYSDOT people here know if there's a gag order over there? My agency is keeping quite the low profile during all of this and I haven't heard anything from the normally attention-seeking Region 5.

I wonder if it would look good if I took other courses at UB not offered at my school just to "add to my resume," or actually learn more skills that employers would look for.

With regards to what I bolded, we may be witnessing political corruption right before our eyes.


And the decision to lower the speed limit by not 5 but a whole 20mph....how do they know that'll solve the problem? The decision was made within hours and those signs were made quickly. Amazing. Idk why the gov chose this accident over others. Plus stoplight sand speed bumps too. Definitely not thinking of the region as a whole

Buying votes. Expressway runs in the middle of the only wealthy and predominantly-white neighborhood in the city. Full of political donors. Politicians have been drooling at this opportunity for years to get their hands on donor money.

Do note that, for the past few years, there has been a car going off the road almost daily in the vicinity of Buffalo that hits a person or building. This is not an isolated incident by any means. The day after this happened, a kid was hit in a small town in southern Erie County. Certainly isn't anybody jumping on the bandwagon to do traffic calming or modifications NY 16 (which really needs them, especially in that area).

It would be like the complete opposite of the 33 dig of the 1960s, in a way.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 04, 2015, 10:24:23 PM
I've been keeping mum publicly for two reasons: can't fix stupid and I don't want to lose my job. The Buffalo News just posted a story about how the 2005 study recommended a "tree-lined parkway". There were a couple key details they left out or minimized:

*Old study recommended 4 lanes, not 2
*Article was critical of importance NYSDOT placed on traffic flow. Believe it or not, that is the main concern.
*Stuff has changed for the most recent model

The most recent model shows the facility failing if the current grade separations are eliminated. As the surface roads already fail at each crossing due to surrounding intersections, this is quite true. The best model I saw, IMHO, gave the three middle interchanges quadrant roadways on the south side. Roundabouts at NY 198, signals at the surface road. Easily had the best flow. In doing this, there was an uninterrupted pathway along the creek and north side of the roadway. I think there was an unsignalized superstreet or something similar at Lincoln Parkway, as well. Kept through traffic moving while slowing things down. Interchanges at each end were unchanged.

Honestly, nobody will suggest this, but I'd be in favor of capping it east of Delaware Avenue and keeping the expressway at a decent speed, with quadrant roadway intersections from there west. They're already looking at capping NY 33 and this would allow them to really rebuild Humboldt Parkway.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 05, 2015, 01:55:37 AM
I've been keeping mum publicly for two reasons: can't fix stupid and I don't want to lose my job. The Buffalo News just posted a story about how the 2005 study recommended a "tree-lined parkway". There were a couple key details they left out or minimized:

*Old study recommended 4 lanes, not 2
*Article was critical of importance NYSDOT placed on traffic flow. Believe it or not, that is the main concern.
*Stuff has changed for the most recent model

The most recent model shows the facility failing if the current grade separations are eliminated. As the surface roads already fail at each crossing due to surrounding intersections, this is quite true. The best model I saw, IMHO, gave the three middle interchanges quadrant roadways on the south side. Roundabouts at NY 198, signals at the surface road. Easily had the best flow. In doing this, there was an uninterrupted pathway along the creek and north side of the roadway. I think there was an unsignalized superstreet or something similar at Lincoln Parkway, as well. Kept through traffic moving while slowing things down. Interchanges at each end were unchanged.

Honestly, nobody will suggest this, but I'd be in favor of capping it east of Delaware Avenue and keeping the expressway at a decent speed, with quadrant roadway intersections from there west. They're already looking at capping NY 33 and this would allow them to really rebuild Humboldt Parkway.

I don't blame you for being reticent; it's a tough position to be in (in more ways than one).

Capping is a great idea, but it seems the state is tied up for funding ATM...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 05, 2015, 07:29:23 PM
I saw some "road porn" on the 90 today. They were widening it between exit 50 and 51, something I never really expected to see.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 05, 2015, 11:26:12 PM
I saw some "road porn" on the 90 today. They were widening it between exit 50 and 51, something I never really expected to see.

If by "widening", you mean reconfiguring an entrance ramp. They're just adding a short auxillary lane for entering traffic at 50A and removing the striping forcing entering traffic at Exit 50 to merge over. Far less than what needs to be done, but it'll get the area to no worse than LOS E for the entire day. Now, there are a couple hours it's at F. They know very well what needs to be done, but we're probably a good 15-20 years away from that. Do note that the new Cleveland Drive bridge can probably just fit 10 lanes underneath it.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 06, 2015, 12:54:35 AM
I biked along the 198 today from Delaware Park. A little late after rush hour to get the right shots, but:

(https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/11392949_806968799402036_216040283702630201_n.jpg?oh=34df9f5c98bdfd4f76c818759866fb24&oe=55F9D732)
New 30 mph signage.

(https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10462454_806968742735375_1985845418103735413_n.jpg?oh=e94afe9b0d94cc66fb5f7aefe59069d6&oe=55F22E1B)
One of those not cordoned off sections.

(https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11407316_806968299402086_2434110642377391144_n.jpg?oh=a2ed83eb65f57fa6dd23098260079029&oe=55EED80B)
VMS noting about the 30 mph speed limit at Parkside Drive.

(https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/11377084_806968552735394_6568001665263869691_n.jpg?oh=be2ec93457d3b4edf517231c2e97283d&oe=55FBA54E)
The very small memorial for Maksym S. on the Jersey barrier of all things.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 08, 2015, 07:21:13 PM
Found another Erie County CR shield this morning. Along NY 5 in the Town of Evans (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.691825,-79.000556,3a,43.5y,217.28h,76.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_0jkp0ZGRueVpSEhNWBG_w!2e0). Only one I know of in the 400s and the road is quite minor.

Until now, most of the shields I knew of are/were on relatively major roads. This changes the whole game. You never know where you could find one of these things and there's no way in hell one person could drive every mile of Erie County's immense system.

Which raises another question: did Erie County once sign every county route? I understand the shields in Tonawanda (former state route) and what was once in Hamburg (major connector highway), but this road goes nowhere.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 08, 2015, 11:21:18 PM
Found another Erie County CR shield this morning. Along NY 5 in the Town of Evans (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.691825,-79.000556,3a,43.5y,217.28h,76.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_0jkp0ZGRueVpSEhNWBG_w!2e0). Only one I know of in the 400s and the road is quite minor.

Until now, most of the shields I knew of are/were on relatively major roads. This changes the whole game. You never know where you could find one of these things and there's no way in hell one person could drive every mile of Erie County's immense system.

Which raises another question: did Erie County once sign every county route? I understand the shields in Tonawanda (former state route) and what was once in Hamburg (major connector highway), but this road goes nowhere.

That's pretty crazy. The only time I have seen a county shield is somewhere around Springville or East Otto, which may actually fall in this category of "unaccounted" shields, if that's what you're implying.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 09, 2015, 05:52:21 AM
Found another Erie County CR shield this morning. Along NY 5 in the Town of Evans (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.691825,-79.000556,3a,43.5y,217.28h,76.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_0jkp0ZGRueVpSEhNWBG_w!2e0). Only one I know of in the 400s and the road is quite minor.

Until now, most of the shields I knew of are/were on relatively major roads. This changes the whole game. You never know where you could find one of these things and there's no way in hell one person could drive every mile of Erie County's immense system.

Which raises another question: did Erie County once sign every county route? I understand the shields in Tonawanda (former state route) and what was once in Hamburg (major connector highway), but this road goes nowhere.

That's pretty crazy. The only time I have seen a county shield is somewhere around Springville or East Otto, which may actually fall in this category of "unaccounted" shields, if that's what you're implying.

The one on NY 240 north of Springville is well-known
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 09, 2015, 12:08:56 PM
Found another Erie County CR shield this morning. Along NY 5 in the Town of Evans (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.691825,-79.000556,3a,43.5y,217.28h,76.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_0jkp0ZGRueVpSEhNWBG_w!2e0). Only one I know of in the 400s and the road is quite minor.

Until now, most of the shields I knew of are/were on relatively major roads. This changes the whole game. You never know where you could find one of these things and there's no way in hell one person could drive every mile of Erie County's immense system.

Which raises another question: did Erie County once sign every county route? I understand the shields in Tonawanda (former state route) and what was once in Hamburg (major connector highway), but this road goes nowhere.

CR 512 (Electric Avenue) in Blasdell is still signed, which heads to Ridge Road in Lackawanna.

(https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10415556_724128531019397_5339760656968550587_n.jpg?oh=beee7c08b81a7e11ce33829e60312cbc&oe=55E742D4)

Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 09, 2015, 12:10:21 PM
Wow. I've driven by Electric many times in my life but have never been down it. I'll have to head over there sometime this week.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 09, 2015, 12:22:40 PM
Wow. I've driven by Electric many times in my life but have never been down it. I'll have to head over there sometime this week.

That's where it's fun, you search around, you never know where you find them. Right now I have:

CR 30 (NY 240) in Glenwood
CR 41 (Versailles Plank Road) in Evans
CR 51 (McKinley Parkway) in Hamburg
CR 118 (Colvin Boulevard) in Tonawanda (<500 feet from my place)
CR 307 (Kenmore Avenue) in Buffalo
CR 477 (Delamater Road) in Derby
CR 512 (Electric Avenue) in Blasdell
CR 580 (Ellicott Creek Road) in Tonawanda (Two of them; as well as a remnant NY 356 reference marker at the west end)

CR 11 (East River Road) in Grand Island (status unknown - when I was on CR 11 in 2008, there was no sign of it.)
CR 370 (Powers Avenue) in Armor is gone.

Those are the statuses I know.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 09, 2015, 12:39:03 PM
CR 51 is gone and has been for a while.

There's at least one on East River Road in Grand Island as of last August.

Unless there's one hiding somewhere on a road I missed, there are NONE in the towns bordering Genesee and Wyoming Counties, Clarence, Lancaster, Cheektowaga, Elma, or Aurora.

Forgot about the Colvin one-I know I've seen it before. I'm rarely south of Buffalo, so I knew nothing about most of the other ones
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 09, 2015, 12:43:27 PM
CR 51 is gone and has been for a while.

There's at least one on East River Road in Grand Island as of last August.

Forgot about the Colvin one-I know I've seen it before. I'm rarely south of Buffalo, so I knew nothing about most of the other ones

I suspected the CR 51 shield might have been gone. It was standing in 2008, but was not in Street View. I was in Hamburg on Friday and forgot to go check for it while doing other things.

Yeah, I meant East River Road. For some reason, I put West River Road, which isn't even correct. When Alps and I were on it in 2008, we couldn't find it, far as I remember.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 09, 2015, 12:52:15 PM
Ransom Rd. My Flickr has a picture https://flic.kr/p/oX2ocU
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 09, 2015, 02:21:40 PM
Where is the one on Kenmore Avenue? I've certainly been on it enough to have likely seen it
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 09, 2015, 03:27:37 PM
Where is the one on Kenmore Avenue? I've certainly been on it enough to have likely seen it

Just after NY 5. In front of 71 Kenmore.

(https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11008436_802913116474271_3151659998341286125_n.jpg?oh=cc2c39e0f5d135a16b17da0ed707e242&oe=5603CEAE)

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 09, 2015, 03:59:03 PM
Still, it raises a question: was stuff once posted regularly? If I were the DPW, I'd just make a new set of public numbers and post those with the pentagon, but certain areas at least seem to have a concentration of the shields that makes me wonder  (Tonawanda/Grand Island, Hamburg/Evans)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 09, 2015, 05:08:22 PM
Still, it raises a question: was stuff once posted regularly? If I were the DPW, I'd just make a new set of public numbers and post those with the pentagon, but certain areas at least seem to have a concentration of the shields that makes me wonder  (Tonawanda/Grand Island, Hamburg/Evans)

I don't know if our generation is really going to know. I will note, Erie County still uses the current number system, even if unsigned for the most part.

As you pointed out this morning, it would take forever to drive every CR in the county. What I've found I've done by bicycle for the most part (except CR 41).
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 09, 2015, 07:12:12 PM
Oh, I know the number system is still in use and NYSDOT recognizes it. Former US 219 south of Springville does not have a number (at least not in NYSDOT's database). Their network might even be larger than Suffolk County's network
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 09, 2015, 10:49:23 PM
Oh, I know the number system is still in use and NYSDOT recognizes it. Former US 219 south of Springville does not have a number (at least not in NYSDOT's database). Their network might even be larger than Suffolk County's network

Onondaga would give them a run for their money.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 10, 2015, 09:27:44 AM
Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close. Hell, my home county (Warren County) only maintains 245 miles, but most of that mileage meets or comes close to NYSDOT standards and pavement conditions tend to be very good to excellent.

Most of the state follows the New England system, where towns maintain almost everything, but Erie County is like the midwest and west, with the counties controlling everything outside of developed areas.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 10, 2015, 10:16:19 AM
Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close.

Not by mileage, no. But in terms of number of routes or segments, I don't think anyone will beat Nassau County.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 10, 2015, 03:12:14 PM
Quote
but Erie County is like the midwest and west, with the counties controlling everything outside of developed areas.

More like the West and the South/Southeast.  Most Midwestern states have townships where jurisdiction and road maintenance responsibility begins.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 10, 2015, 05:27:11 PM
Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close.

Not by mileage, no. But in terms of number of routes or segments, I don't think anyone will beat Nassau County.

Onondaga might come close, again, but I don't have the details in front of me. It would be nice if Nassau kept their old system to make it easier to compare and contrast, and if both counties would sign them.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 10, 2015, 06:17:44 PM
Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close.

Not by mileage, no. But in terms of number of routes or segments, I don't think anyone will beat Nassau County.
Nassau changes route numbers when street names change. That system is crazy.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 10, 2015, 06:49:21 PM
Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close.

Not by mileage, no. But in terms of number of routes or segments, I don't think anyone will beat Nassau County.
Nassau changes route numbers when street names change. That system is crazy.

I completely agree that Nassau probably has the highest number of "numbered routes" with its crazy alphanumeric numbering system. Seemingly no pattern or anything (most counties with a lot of routes seem to have some sort of pattern). Has anyone bothered to count how many they actually have (including the reference routes they maintain)? I know Erie is in the neighborhood of 400, but Nassau is probably closer to 500
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 11, 2015, 12:31:41 AM
Onondaga County has 808 miles. Erie County has well over 1000. Hell, Erie has about 70% more mileage than NYSTA. no other county is remotely close.

Not by mileage, no. But in terms of number of routes or segments, I don't think anyone will beat Nassau County.
Nassau changes route numbers when street names change. That system is crazy.

I completely agree that Nassau probably has the highest number of "numbered routes" with its crazy alphanumeric numbering system. Seemingly no pattern or anything (most counties with a lot of routes seem to have some sort of pattern). Has anyone bothered to count how many they actually have (including the reference routes they maintain)? I know Erie is in the neighborhood of 400, but Nassau is probably closer to 500

Count away (http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crnassau.html)…though it would probably be easier just to download the inventory file into Excel and see what the row number goes up to.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 11, 2015, 11:11:31 AM
When I get home from work. Need to make a set of pivot tables to get an accurate count, as some routes have multiple lines.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 11, 2015, 11:20:04 PM
Nassau County has 263 different CR designations, plus 2 reference routes under county jurisdiction. Erie County has 380 numerical designations plus 2 unnumbered CRs. Since it was mentioned earlier, Onondaga is around 290. Most other counties (including Suffolk, which has a seemingly-large system) have under 100 route numbers.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: Alps on June 12, 2015, 12:36:06 AM
I completely agree that Nassau probably has the highest number of "numbered routes" with its crazy alphanumeric numbering system. Seemingly no pattern or anything (most counties with a lot of routes seem to have some sort of pattern).
The pattern is street names. If a street name does not alphabetically match up to its alpha number, that means the name was changed more recently. Of course, the regular-numbered routes are much less patterned...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 12, 2015, 01:00:58 AM
Nassau County has 263 different CR designations, plus 2 reference routes under county jurisdiction. Erie County has 380 numerical designations plus 2 unnumbered CRs. Since it was mentioned earlier, Onondaga is around 290. Most other counties (including Suffolk, which has a seemingly-large system) have under 100 route numbers.

Of Nassau County's 263 different designations, how many are applied separately to two or more entirely different roads? A quick scan suggests something like 20% of them do (somewhat less as the numbers go higher, though).
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 12, 2015, 10:36:45 AM
Any dollars lying around to fix Tonawanda Creek Rd? It looks like an expensive but important project.

Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 12, 2015, 01:59:44 PM
Nassau County has 263 different CR designations, plus 2 reference routes under county jurisdiction. Erie County has 380 numerical designations plus 2 unnumbered CRs. Since it was mentioned earlier, Onondaga is around 290. Most other counties (including Suffolk, which has a seemingly-large system) have under 100 route numbers.

Of Nassau County's 263 different designations, how many are applied separately to two or more entirely different roads? A quick scan suggests something like 20% of them do (somewhat less as the numbers go higher, though).

I'll cross-reference the ID numbers later to find out how many different names there are. Not as east because some physical roads change nanes while retaining the same alignment and CR number.

Any dollars lying around to fix Tonawanda Creek Rd? It looks like an expensive but important project.

Funny that you ask. Erie County is trying to download it to Clarence, so they're dragging their heels. Not that much money exists, anyway. Everything is falling apart. they're finally replacing some bridges in Elma that have needed it for decades, to give you an idea.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 12, 2015, 04:20:51 PM
Alright, have a couple of project updates for Region 5:

* Niagara Street complete streets project  ( http://www.gbnrtc.org/blog/niagara-street-upgrade-bus-priority-technology/ ). Redoing everything south of Ontario Street (near north city line) and installing new signals. Bus preemption will be installed. I'll likely be doing work with this project, so I'll keep you updated as I learn more

* I-290 Bridge Replacements: Piers for new EB bridges are up, as are abutments. Steel erection will likely begin shortly.

* Irving Bridge Replacements: Bridge over Silver Creek project is wrapping up. NY 438 bridge is up with railings. Milestrip Road bridge has steel up.

*As far as signal coordination goes, a big project will be going on along US 62 and NY 265 in Niagara Falls to improve flow. I'll be there starting next week to get counts for the new timing scheme.

*Peace Bridge access project is progressing nicely. There is a Canadian-style single lane APL before the ramp splits. I'll grab a picture if I'm not driving through there. I have a friend who's a structural intern with the firm in charge of the project, so I'll pass on what I learn.

*Robert Moses Parkway SB back open south of the Falls. Partial Y replaced with a roundabout near the casino.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 13, 2015, 02:08:03 AM
There doesn't seem to be a shortage of projects happening in the area, that's good to see.

How widespread are these style of lights in NY? I saw this at Union and Main in West Seneca:

(http://gyazo.com/a567e962b2e7d0c9fdb0a15dac83e0a4.png)

A wider variant can be found at the Sheridan Walmart entrance in Amherst:

(http://gyazo.com/27609b1a430087403eba897397190fee.png)
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on June 13, 2015, 06:17:47 AM
There doesn't seem to be a shortage of projects happening in the area, that's good to see.

How widespread are these style of lights in NY? I saw this at Union and Main in West Seneca:

Image Snipped
Those have been showing up in the Rochester area in recent years although still rare. The new signals they just installed on NY 33 in Gates have back plates with the yellow surround. The signals they installed at the diverging diamond at I 590 Exit 1 may be the first ones with back plates in the Rochester area.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on June 13, 2015, 09:34:38 AM
They've been showing up in the North Country, too. Wonder if it's a new NYSDOT standard...
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 13, 2015, 10:01:55 AM
From what I can tell, the reflective backplate is the new standard. Ohio has adopted it as well.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: empirestate on June 13, 2015, 10:31:56 AM

I'll cross-reference the ID numbers later to find out how many different names there are. Not as east because some physical roads change nanes while retaining the same alignment and CR number.

In my listing I have it separated into numbered sub-entries where they are actually different streets, vs. continuous alignments which are grouped together.

In other words, you'd just need to count all the (2)s and (3)s and add them to what you've counted so far. :-)


iPhone
Title: Re: New York
Post by: froggie on June 13, 2015, 11:55:41 AM
Buffaboy:  when you said " these style of lights" earlier, are you referring to the doghouse signals or the mast arms?
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 13, 2015, 02:35:39 PM

I'll cross-reference the ID numbers later to find out how many different names there are. Not as east because some physical roads change nanes while retaining the same alignment and CR number.

In my listing I have it separated into numbered sub-entries where they are actually different streets, vs. continuous alignments which are grouped together.

In other words, you'd just need to count all the (2)s and (3)s and add them to what you've counted so far. :-)


iPhone

Approximately 45 of those, which makes ~308 total CRs in Nassau County
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 13, 2015, 05:07:34 PM
Buffaboy:  when you said " these style of lights" earlier, are you referring to the doghouse signals or the mast arms?

I meant both the signals and arms. From my experience there aren't many in Region 5 nor are there many in Region 2 and 3. Most are string lights. I know Cleveland has switched many of their lights over, but I can't tell if there's an advantage over the standard.

This website (http://trafficsignals.net/east.htm) has an interesting overview of lights by state.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: steviep24 on June 13, 2015, 05:22:11 PM
Buffaboy:  when you said " these style of lights" earlier, are you referring to the doghouse signals or the mast arms?

I meant both the signals and arms. From my experience there aren't many in Region 5 nor are there many in Region 3. Most are string lights. I know Cleveland has switched many of their lights over, but I can't tell if there's an advantage over the standard.

This website (http://trafficsignals.net/east.htm) has an interesting overview of lights by state.
I really thought you were talking about the use of back plates on the lights. Those are rather uncommon in NY.

Mast arms are very common here in the Rochester area mainly because that is the standard for signals owned by Monroe County since the '90's. County owned signals on span wire are over 20 years old. However, NYSDOT signals are still mostly span wire for new signals but plenty of mast arms here too for their signals.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cl94 on June 13, 2015, 06:38:51 PM
Buffaboy:  when you said " these style of lights" earlier, are you referring to the doghouse signals or the mast arms?

I meant both the signals and arms. From my experience there aren't many in Region 5 nor are there many in Region 3. Most are string lights. I know Cleveland has switched many of their lights over, but I can't tell if there's an advantage over the standard.

This website (http://trafficsignals.net/east.htm) has an interesting overview of lights by state.
I really thought you were talking about the use of back plates on the lights. Those are rather uncommon in NY.

Mast arms are very common here in the Rochester area mainly because that is the standard for signals owned by Monroe County since the '90's. County owned signals on span wire are over 20 years old. However, NYSDOT signals are still mostly span wire for new signals but plenty of mast arms here too for their signals.

I also thought backplates. Mast arms are not uncommon in several NYSDOT regions. Northern parts of Region 1 (Warren, Washington, Essex Counties) have had several for some time. They are quite common in Nassau County. Buffalo has a lot of mast arm NYSDOT signals in the downtown area.

If we're talking about local municipalities, Buffalo, New York, Nassau County, and Glens Falls, among many others, use mostly mast arms. New NYSDOT assemblies in Region 5 are mast arms and have been since at least 2012. From what I can tell by plans, this is the case in several other regions. Additionally, reflective backplates are now standard for NYSDOT assemblies (including beacons), at least in R4 and R5.
Title: New York
Post by: Buffaboy on June 13, 2015, 06:50:01 PM
After thinking about it, I actually did mean back plates. The mast arms aren't common but they aren't uncommon AFAIK. Especially in villages or at busy off-ramps.

Back plates on the other hand, the two I posted on the previous page and at Milestrip Road and the 219 are the only ones I can come up with off the top of my head.
Title: Re: New York
Post by: cu2010 on June 13, 2015, 06:59:23 PM
R7 seems to have adopted them as the current standard as well. Lots more mast arms in the area...though they're still fairly uncommon, since R7 is notoriously slow at replacing things.

On the topic of R7, a few other notes of interest:

-Franklin County, after only posting little green signs on its county routes for years, is now using the standard blue pentagon...very few of the old green signs remain. This appears to have been done within the past month...

-On a similar note, NY374 is no longer signed north of Chateau