AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: New York  (Read 703140 times)

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 955
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 04:32:31 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3825 on: August 19, 2018, 06:21:20 PM »

So the only goal is to restore what we have while other nations pass us up in creating adequate facilities that handle traffic flow get we're gridlocked because all we did was rebuilt what we currently have?
What we currently have can’t handle the demand, even if it is restored to its former glory. It’s a goose chase if that’s the only goal we have.

Let's not bring up the "what other countries are doing" argument.  Many areas in the U.S. are both maintaining and expanding their highway systems.

When it comes to unusually large and complex bridges and tunnels and their connecting highways, the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area recently upgraded and/or expanded 5 crossings (Elizabeth River and branch) at a total of $2.2 billion, has 2 under construction (I-64 Elizabeth River branch and CBBT) at a total of $1.3 billion, and another to be expanded (I-64 HRBT) at $3.4 billion starting in 2019.  The Third Hampton Roads Crossing (I-564 extension) is still in the long-range plan albeit is unfunded.
I understand there are places in the U.S. that are doing so. It is stil worth mentioning that we are being passed up by other nations or will be passed if we don’t do more than we are currently doing.

As a whole, our infrastructure is deteriorating and our cities are becoming grid locked due to lack of capacity and poor facilities. We shouldn’t be keeping up with countries, we should be an example, let alone have other countries build projects that seem too ambitious for us such as road tunnels. The few that we have shouldn’t be looked at in the negative light they have been. That’s all you seem to hear about them is how expensive they were and why you probably won’t see anymore anytime soon.

The “many areas” we have that are investing in freeways and infrastructure isn’t enough.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 955
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 04:32:31 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3826 on: August 19, 2018, 06:22:13 PM »

The bridge alternative was considered dead on arrival.  People on the north shore don't want to look at one.
The only thing that is dead is the imagination and initiative of the state and local officials that studied the crossing.
Not really.  A multi-billion dollar project for a new addition to the system is just fiscally out of the question.

Then get it on a long range plan.  Build consensus.  Maybe it takes 5 to 10 years, maybe more, to get it started.  The important thing is to make some progress even if it moves slowly.
The idea is broadly considered laughable.  Some squeaky wheels got a whole lot of money wasted on this last study, but there is really no political will to see this thing coming to fruition ever, especially when our existing infrastructure is eroding.

(personal opinion emphasized)
So the only goal is to restore what we have while other nations pass us up in creating adequate facilities that handle traffic flow get we're gridlocked because all we did was rebuilt what we currently have?

What we currently have can’t handle the demand, even if it is restored to its former glory. It’s a goose chase if that’s the only goal we have.
It is what NY can afford, keeping in mind that a huge chunk of funding for NYSDOT's capital program is now borrowed (I'd estimate about 20% per year now, on average). 

You want additional lanes paved?  Let's fully fund the program to stop conditions from declining first and then get more funding to do so. 

That means stop raiding gas taxes and then probably raising them.

(personal opinion emphasized)
I completely agree with this.
Logged

Roadgeek Adam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1049
  • Warren CR 14 - Warrensburg, NY

  • Age: 28
  • Location: East Amherst, New York
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 02:54:27 PM
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: New York
« Reply #3827 on: August 19, 2018, 06:43:15 PM »

The Northeast Corridor region needs rail transit. So does Chicago and LA. From there, its up in the air.

Regardless, the Northeast Corridor has some of the oldest infrastructure, not to mention the oldest roads in the country. While traffic in the northeast is bad in a lot of areas, the answers aren't cheap.
Logged
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University '17
B.A. History, Montclair State University '15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex County College '13

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4775
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:49:27 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3828 on: August 19, 2018, 09:36:23 PM »

I understand there are places in the U.S. that are doing so. It is stil worth mentioning that we are being passed up by other nations or will be passed if we don’t do more than we are currently doing.
As a whole, our infrastructure is deteriorating and our cities are becoming grid locked due to lack of capacity and poor facilities. We shouldn’t be keeping up with countries, we should be an example, let alone have other countries build projects that seem too ambitious for us such as road tunnels. The few that we have shouldn’t be looked at in the negative light they have been. That’s all you seem to hear about them is how expensive they were and why you probably won’t see anymore anytime soon.
The “many areas” we have that are investing in freeways and infrastructure isn’t enough.

I don't doubt that more needs to be done in the U.S., but I still question that comparison to other countries.  If a factor was computed based on the number of miles of Interstate-standard highway and the average age of each mile, we would be far higher than any other county including China.  The same would be true for the number of major bridges and tunnels and the average age of each.

The average age of the Interstate mileage is high enough that just on rebab projects and major widening projects, that even in constant dollars we have basically paid for more than what the original system cost.  There are probably 2,000 to 3,000 miles of very needed but unfunded major widening projects.

Getting back to the subject of Long Island.  There needs to be at least a long-range plan to build a bridge sound crossing for northerly access, and to upgrade the Belt Parkway to an 8-lane freeway that can accomodate large trucks for modernized southerly access.
Logged
Scott Michael Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

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

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1279
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 09:24:08 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3829 on: August 19, 2018, 09:41:13 PM »

I was saying thirty years ago that the Belt Parkway needed to be rebuilt ten lanes wide even if it meant charging a toll to pay for it, but get it built!

So today the original six lane parkway is being rebuilt a short section at a time, still only six lanes wide. How friggin' short sighted!  :angry:
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4775
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:49:27 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3830 on: August 19, 2018, 10:03:15 PM »

I was saying thirty years ago that the Belt Parkway needed to be rebuilt ten lanes wide even if it meant charging a toll to pay for it, but get it built!
So today the original six lane parkway is being rebuilt a short section at a time, still only six lanes wide. How friggin' short sighted!  :angry:

Well, there are space limitations in various places imposed by water bodies and neighborhoods.  Eight lanes with full right and left shoulders might be the most feasible, and a minimum design speed of 50 mph.  If it could handle mixed traffic of cars, trucks and buses, it would be a vast improvement over the current highway.
Logged
Scott Michael Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

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

Laura

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 838
  • Mrs. MD Roads

  • Age: 31
  • Location: Baltimore, Maryland
  • Last Login: May 13, 2019, 05:05:41 PM
    • MD Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3831 on: August 19, 2018, 10:38:48 PM »

What I find most amusing about this thread is that the people arguing for another crossing are not locals, while the people who are being realistic on why this will never happen are the locals....
Logged
Disclaimer: All comments here represent my own personal opinion(s) as citizen Laura.

MD Roads
County Clinches

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4775
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:49:27 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3832 on: August 19, 2018, 11:31:52 PM »

What I find most amusing about this thread is that the people arguing for another crossing are not locals, while the people who are being realistic on why this will never happen are the locals....

Many non-locals comment on Norfolk/Hampton Roads area highways, just to use the example I used upthread.

Besides, two of the "locals" you refer to are in Albany, I believe, and that is not local  to Long Island.
Logged
Scott Michael Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

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

Alps

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

  • Posts: 12423
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 11:40:31 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3833 on: August 20, 2018, 12:44:27 AM »

The AADT and hourly volume figures for the Whitestone and Throgs Neck are readily available online through the MTA's website. A perusal of those should convince you that another crossing is not fiscally responsible. Basically, there is not nearly enough congestion at those bridges to suggest a need for a third crossing. It would simply be a matter of convenience for those going from the Island straight to CT or I-287. I don't buy 100,000 ADT anytime soon - maybe 40 years down the road, but that's with continued growth.

Should it stay on the radar? Every proposal thus far has been killed, so no. Not for now. If those other two bridges become truly clogged, then reopen the discussion.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4775
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:49:27 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3834 on: August 20, 2018, 12:53:30 AM »

The AADT and hourly volume figures for the Whitestone and Throgs Neck are readily available online through the MTA's website. A perusal of those should convince you that another crossing is not fiscally responsible. Basically, there is not nearly enough congestion at those bridges to suggest a need for a third crossing. It would simply be a matter of convenience for those going from the Island straight to CT or I-287. I don't buy 100,000 ADT anytime soon - maybe 40 years down the road, but that's with continued growth.
Should it stay on the radar? Every proposal thus far has been killed, so no. Not for now. If those other two bridges become truly clogged, then reopen the discussion.

The congestion problem isn't really the bridges themselves, but the 35+ miles of connecting highways that serve (poorly) in lieu of the unbuilt western crossing.
Logged
Scott Michael Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

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

seicer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1261
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 01:48:51 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3835 on: August 20, 2018, 09:06:40 AM »

At least the toll booth removals have eliminated one of the biggest traffic bottlenecks.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10519
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 10:00:49 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: New York
« Reply #3836 on: August 20, 2018, 09:14:41 AM »

Quote from: Beltway
Many non-locals comment on Norfolk/Hampton Roads area highways, just to use the example I used upthread.

If you're referring to me, recall that I was stationed there.  Twice.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4775
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:49:27 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3837 on: August 20, 2018, 09:47:15 AM »

Quote from: Beltway
Many non-locals comment on Norfolk/Hampton Roads area highways, just to use the example I used upthread.
If you're referring to me, recall that I was stationed there.  Twice.

I was referring to a variety of ones that to my knowledge have never lived there.  I don't know the details of naval deployments but that they do spend part of the year in the ship's home port, i.e. live there.

For that matter, even though I live only about 100 miles from there, I can't say that am a local as I have never lived there even part time.
Logged
Scott Michael Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

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

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6279
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 12:54:49 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3838 on: August 20, 2018, 09:57:15 AM »

My response to the "what other countries are doing" argument is to ask what they will be doing beginning in twenty years when their currently almost brand-new infrastructure is beginning to wear out.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4775
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:49:27 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3839 on: August 20, 2018, 10:11:42 AM »

My response to the "what other countries are doing" argument is to ask what they will be doing beginning in twenty years when their currently almost brand-new infrastructure is beginning to wear out.

Exactly.  Especially when it is 40 to 50 years old.  One of the reasons why the U.S. built so much turnpike and Interstate mileage so quickly (70% of the Interstate mileage was completed by 1970) is because in the first 15 or so years relatively little major maintenance is needed, and they removed the bulk of the traffic off of the old highway (in most cases) thereby removing the need to upgrade the old highway.

Nowadays much of the Interstate system has reached the total-rebuild age, and many of those old highways that were bypassed now carry heavy local traffic and need major upgrades of their own.

« Last Edit: August 20, 2018, 10:17:34 AM by Beltway »
Logged
Scott Michael Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

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

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2771
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 08:44:40 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3840 on: August 20, 2018, 10:47:51 AM »

My response to the "what other countries are doing" argument is to ask what they will be doing beginning in twenty years when their currently almost brand-new infrastructure is beginning to wear out.
I would twist it a bit differently.
What is percentage of total resources we are willing to dedicate to infrastructure? Resources as in man hours, tons of steel and concrete, barrels of oil for fuel and tar etc. What is the total production of those resources   and how efficiently they are used (I hear that procedures today make one man-hour today equal to 10 minutes worth compared to few decades ago); and how much maintenance is actually worth in terms of these resources.
I deliberately exclude money from discussion as it is meaningless to talk dollars when price of steel and cement is changing - possibly above inflation.
From the very basic point of view, it is possible to have a stable infrastructure at fixed number of road feet per person (currently we have 0.8 feet of interstate per person) with growth consistent with population size - that is currently 0.7%/year.
It may very well turn out that travel is more expensive than we think, and either travel has to be reduced, or percentage of spending on travel - and infrastructure in general - has to be increased compared to what we spend right now....
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6279
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 12:54:49 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3841 on: August 20, 2018, 05:33:08 PM »

"How much is enough?" is a very big question.  Another variable to consider is the extent to which we have to become carbon-negative (not only closing the carbon loop, but actually removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) to counteract the negative externalities of global warming.  There is a future for roads no matter what, and I believe there is also a future for powered POV travel even if autonomous cars propelled by renewable energy technologies become dominant, but our priorities for infrastructure investment are unlikely to remain what they are with current technology.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1279
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 09:24:08 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3842 on: August 20, 2018, 08:52:33 PM »

Re: Laura's earlier comment on locals vs. out-of-towners arguing about a Long Island Sound crossing. I am a local, a senior-citizen who has lived in central Long Island my entire life and I believe there needs to be a Sound crossing (preferably a bridge) and that it might still happen someday, though probably not in my lifetime.
Logged

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 965
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 07:14:04 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3843 on: August 21, 2018, 07:50:51 PM »

Best bet for a new crossing would be from Narragansett to Montauk or Westerly to Montauk.  Get Boston and Providence-departing traffic away from I-95.  Next would be a crossing from the Rockaways to Sandy Hook and connect it to an extended NJ 18. Sunrise Highway (NY 27) could be brought up to Interstate Standards and designated I-995.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4650
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 09:44:19 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3844 on: August 21, 2018, 11:23:48 PM »

Best bet for a new crossing would be from Narragansett to Montauk or Westerly to Montauk.  Get Boston and Providence-departing traffic away from I-95.  Next would be a crossing from the Rockaways to Sandy Hook and connect it to an extended NJ 18. Sunrise Highway (NY 27) could be brought up to Interstate Standards and designated I-995.
If you bet for that to happen, I will gladly bet against it. 
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Roadgeek Adam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1049
  • Warren CR 14 - Warrensburg, NY

  • Age: 28
  • Location: East Amherst, New York
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 02:54:27 PM
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: New York
« Reply #3845 on: August 22, 2018, 12:22:00 AM »

Best bet for a new crossing would be from Narragansett to Montauk or Westerly to Montauk.  Get Boston and Providence-departing traffic away from I-95.  Next would be a crossing from the Rockaways to Sandy Hook and connect it to an extended NJ 18. Sunrise Highway (NY 27) could be brought up to Interstate Standards and designated I-995.

I'm now on the floor laughing maniacally. This is as likely to happen as gravity reversing itself.
Logged
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University '17
B.A. History, Montclair State University '15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex County College '13

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5200
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Queens, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 01:03:08 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3846 on: August 22, 2018, 12:40:10 AM »

The congestion problem isn't really the bridges themselves, but the 35+ miles of connecting highways that serve (poorly) in lieu of the unbuilt western crossing.

This. The Throggs Neck bridge is not a significant bottleneck because the rate limiting factors on its usage are congestion on I-95 on the Bronx side, and congestion on the narrow, curvy ramps connecting the Clearview and Cross Island to the LIE on the Queens side (as well as congestion on the LIE itself).

The Whitestone, likewise, is limited by capacity through the interchange with the Cross Island on the Queens side.

Improvements to these specific bottlenecks would enable more capacity to be extracted out of those two bridges. However these improvements are also unlikely to happen for similar reasons as a new crossing (would require the use of eminent domain and spending money New York doesn't have).

Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Roadgeek Adam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1049
  • Warren CR 14 - Warrensburg, NY

  • Age: 28
  • Location: East Amherst, New York
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 02:54:27 PM
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: New York
« Reply #3847 on: August 22, 2018, 01:02:52 AM »

The congestion problem isn't really the bridges themselves, but the 35+ miles of connecting highways that serve (poorly) in lieu of the unbuilt western crossing.

This. The Throggs Neck bridge is not a significant bottleneck because the rate limiting factors on its usage are congestion on I-95 on the Bronx side, and congestion on the narrow, curvy ramps connecting the Clearview and Cross Island to the LIE on the Queens side (as well as congestion on the LIE itself).

The Whitestone, likewise, is limited by capacity through the interchange with the Cross Island on the Queens side.

Improvements to these specific bottlenecks would enable more capacity to be extracted out of those two bridges. However these improvements are also unlikely to happen for similar reasons as a new crossing (would require the use of eminent domain and spending money New York doesn't have).



You missed the richer part of Queens part. They'd fight tooth and nail. Plus, for rebuilding exit 16/36, holy mama that would probably in the billions, if not double digits.
Logged
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University '17
B.A. History, Montclair State University '15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex County College '13

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4117
  • Last Login: June 13, 2019, 09:41:23 AM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3848 on: August 22, 2018, 02:30:11 PM »

Best bet for a new crossing would be from Narragansett to Montauk or Westerly to Montauk.  Get Boston and Providence-departing traffic away from I-95.  Next would be a crossing from the Rockaways to Sandy Hook and connect it to an extended NJ 18. Sunrise Highway (NY 27) could be brought up to Interstate Standards and designated I-995.

I'm now on the floor laughing maniacally. This is as likely to happen as gravity reversing itself.

I'm assuming this is merely a fictional proposal; the "best bet" wording is probably just a misleading figure of speech, rather than indicating the real probability of this happening.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10519
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: June 17, 2019, 10:00:49 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: New York
« Reply #3849 on: August 22, 2018, 03:23:36 PM »

Does anyone know if there's any construction going on in Lake Placid this summer?  Google Maps won't do any directions routing through town on NY 86 and I'm curious as to why.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.