AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The next forum trivia night will take place on OCTOBER 30, 2019 at 8:15 PM Eastern.

Author Topic: New York  (Read 744278 times)

Alps

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

  • Posts: 12729
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:57 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3925 on: December 04, 2018, 01:09:33 AM »

I believe the MUTCD requires mileage based exit numbering on all freeways, (meaning all controlled access highways)  not just on the Interstate system. So yes, New York should do what the above poster suggested.

Negative. Not required.

Really?

Quote from: FHWA, in MUTCD 2009 2E.31.02
Standard:  Interchange numbering shall be used in signing each freeway interchange exit.  Interchange exit numbers shall be displayed with each Advance Guide Sign, Exit Direction Sign, and Exit Gore sign.

I am pretty sure the NPRM and NFR for the 2009 MUTCD make it clear that it is FHWA's intention to extend the requirement to provide exit numbering to non-Interstate freeways as well as Interstates.  In the MUTCD itself, the preceding paragraph in 2E.31 makes it clear that the only scenario in which FHWA envisions exit numbering not being provided on freeways or expressways is AASHTO expressways with a mixture of flat intersections and grade separations.  And even there provision of exit numbering is urged if there is "appreciable continuity of interchange facilities."
The MUTCD says that, but the FHWA has since stated that they are not enforcing it to many state agencies. Which makes it odd that MA hinged its exit renumbering on the sentiments of Cape Cod re: US 6.

Alps

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

  • Posts: 12729
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:57 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3926 on: December 04, 2018, 01:10:00 AM »

JNW hit the nail on the head with his quote from Sec. 2E-31. The MUTCD does not seem to distinguish between Interstate freeways and Non-Interstate freeways. The standards are the same for all freeways. And a freeway is defined as any highway with full control of access vs. an Expressway which is partial control of access.

And again, I'm not saying the FHWA enforces the standards equally among all freeways. I'm not sure what their priorities and policies are. I'm only saying how the Manual actually reads.

Our friend Mr. Alps would do well to read the Manual before making repeated mis-statements of fact concerning what the Manual does and doesn't say.
I'm a professional engineer whose job involves the MUTCD. I'm well aware what's inside. What are you?

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6385
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 06:25:06 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3927 on: December 04, 2018, 01:41:18 AM »

The MUTCD says that, but the FHWA has since stated that they are not enforcing it to many state agencies. Which makes it odd that MA hinged its exit renumbering on the sentiments of Cape Cod re: US 6.

Is there any indication that FHWA will remove this requirement from the MUTCD?  If they don't, then I take the view that agencies that don't currently number exits on non-Interstate freeways are on borrowed time.

From the late 1960's to about 1980, it took fifteen years to institute exit numbering on Interstates.  The pattern at the start with Interstates was similar to what it is now with non-Interstate freeways:  some early adopters (Georgia back then, North Carolina now) made advance provision, while others delayed.  By 1980, the last holdouts (like Kansas) finally caved in.
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

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6771
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:11:48 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3928 on: December 04, 2018, 09:08:37 AM »

I could swear there's another state or two that uses sequential for non-Interstates and distance-based for Interstates, but I may be mistaken.
Granted it's only highway in this particular state but the NJ Turnpike still uses sequential-based interchange numbering.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

cl94

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5664
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Troy, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 06:28:17 PM
    • The Albany Hiker
Re: New York
« Reply #3929 on: December 04, 2018, 09:29:05 AM »

JNW hit the nail on the head with his quote from Sec. 2E-31. The MUTCD does not seem to distinguish between Interstate freeways and Non-Interstate freeways. The standards are the same for all freeways. And a freeway is defined as any highway with full control of access vs. an Expressway which is partial control of access.

And again, I'm not saying the FHWA enforces the standards equally among all freeways. I'm not sure what their priorities and policies are. I'm only saying how the Manual actually reads.

Our friend Mr. Alps would do well to read the Manual before making repeated mis-statements of fact concerning what the Manual does and doesn't say.
I'm a professional engineer whose job involves the MUTCD. I'm well aware what's inside. What are you?

Alps knows more about the MUTCD and its priorities than anybody else on that forum due to his professional activities. I can almost guarantee that. Guy is part of NCUTCD for crying out loud.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10818
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:45:00 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: New York
« Reply #3930 on: December 04, 2018, 11:21:27 AM »

^ I'd make a case for Mike Tantillo knowing more than Alps (IIRC, Mike has been on NCUTCD longer than Steve), but that's because goat...🙃

If Richard Moeur were on this forum, he'd have everyone beat hands down.  I defer to him on all things signage (though we often disagree about off-street bike paths).
Logged

seicer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1301
  • Last Login: Today at 04:44:46 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3931 on: December 04, 2018, 12:24:50 PM »

NCUTCD?
Logged

cl94

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5664
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Troy, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 06:28:17 PM
    • The Albany Hiker
Re: New York
« Reply #3932 on: December 04, 2018, 12:27:59 PM »

^ I'd make a case for Mike Tantillo knowing more than Alps (IIRC, Mike has been on NCUTCD longer than Steve), but that's because goat...🙃

If Richard Moeur were on this forum, he'd have everyone beat hands down.  I defer to him on all things signage (though we often disagree about off-street bike paths).

Tantillo isn't active any more, so Steve wins by default. But yes, if Tantillo were still active on the forum, he'd win.

NCUTCD?

National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. They basically write the MUTCD.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6771
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:11:48 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3933 on: December 04, 2018, 02:33:06 PM »

Tantillo isn't active any more, so Steve wins by default. But yes, if Tantillo were still active on the forum, he'd win.
Tantillo's most recent post is from this past Nov. 29.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1333
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: October 22, 2019, 10:11:57 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3934 on: December 04, 2018, 07:42:09 PM »

If Alps is a Professional Engineer who is regularly involved with the MUTCD, then why has he repeatedly made factual mis-statements about its standards? If anything, he should be the most knowledgable among us and should be able to explain the Manual correctly and accurately.

I may not be a P.E. but I can read and understand the English language and quote it correctly. Sorry if I find it annoying to be misinformed by professional people who I assumed would state the facts correctly.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 09:06:37 AM by SignBridge »
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5546
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:06:32 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3935 on: December 04, 2018, 09:23:19 PM »

Okay guys, I hate to get into a flaming war here, but if Alps is a Professional Engineer who is regularly involved with the MUTCD, then why has he repeatedly made factual mis-statements about its standards? If anything, he should be the most knowledgable among us and be able to explain the Manual correctly and accurately.

But what the heck, I've known defensive driving instructors who were misinformed about state traffic laws too so I guess this problem permeates many professions.

Even the best experts are not immune from error, I have seen that in the past.

I may not be a P.E. but I can read and understand the English language and quote it correctly. My apologies for this long winded post, but I really hate being lied to by professional people who should know better.

Why do you assume that someone "lied" rather than was possibly incorrect about something?  I am not an MUTCD expert so I can't weigh in on that matter.  I have met Steve several times at roads meets, including before he was an engineer and afterward.  Based on my interactions with him there and for many years on online highways forums, he always seems very sincere and knowledgeable about these highway topics.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to rest, and resting died.

seicer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1301
  • Last Login: Today at 04:44:46 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3936 on: December 04, 2018, 10:28:55 PM »

While the MUTCD may require such mileage-based exit numbers, the FHWA does not deem it be of high importance and does not enforce it. There is bigger fish to fry than to require a state to completely re-sign its highway exits at a high cost when there is no demonstrable benefit to the motoring public, versus having something that's phased in in a more cost-effective manner, such as what's been done with I-99 and now I-84.

SignBridge, your statement that the MUTCD requires mileage-based exit numbers is correct. But Steve also agrees upon that point, and is very much right in that the FHWA won't strictly enforce that particular MUTCD requirement because of legitimate issues. I wish that you would tone down your rhetoric of your own doing. Steve isn't lying or even misrepresenting, and he certainly is a Professional Engineer. That's a fact.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2018, 10:33:18 PM by seicer »
Logged

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1333
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: October 22, 2019, 10:11:57 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3937 on: December 04, 2018, 10:49:01 PM »

My apologies for coming on a little too strong. I've modified my previous post to make it a little less abrasive.
Logged

Alps

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

  • Posts: 12729
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:57 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #3938 on: December 05, 2018, 12:26:47 AM »

My apologies for coming on a little too strong. I've modified my previous post to make it a little less abrasive.
It's still abrasive. To teach you a little more about how the MUTCD works, we design to the standards in Sections 2-4 (most typically), but there are plenty of times that state agency policies supersede or even contradict what's in the MUTCD. As far as the standards, I will beat you every time. As far as how they're applied by each state and enforced by the FHWA, you could catch me on that only because the FHWA's enforcement depends on their own policy, which depends on who's calling the shots. So no, they're not going to remove requirements about all exit numbering being mile-based, but they've made it very clear that is not their current enforcement policy.

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1333
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: October 22, 2019, 10:11:57 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3939 on: December 05, 2018, 05:57:42 PM »

Okay, thanks to Alps and Seicer for your informative posts. I do appreciate your explaining some of how things actually work between state DOTs and the FHWA. I've often been curious about that sort of thing. Good inside info that you can't get just from reading the Manual. So thanks again.
Logged

Buffaboy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1102
  • Make I-90 thru Buffalo 8 lanes NOW!

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Buffalo and Sacramento
  • Last Login: Today at 01:57:42 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3940 on: December 08, 2018, 10:25:08 PM »

Image from John Hickey/The Buffalo News



Imagine turning these intersections into roundabouts.

Quote
In a roundabout way, the Town of Tonawanda wants to make it easier for drivers, bus passengers and bicyclists to travel one of the main east-west thoroughfares in the Northtowns.

Town officials are discussing a host of changes to Sheridan Drive as it runs from Niagara Falls Boulevard to the Niagara River.

The wish list includes shrinking the number of driving lanes, creating dedicated bicycle lanes, bringing express bus service to the road and adding "smart" traffic signals.

And, yes, they envision installing a trio of roundabouts at the three-headed intersection of Sheridan Drive, Niagara Falls Boulevard and Eggert Road on the Tonawanda-Amherst border.

https://buffalonews.com/2018/12/08/rethinking-sheridan-drive-bike-lanes-smarter-traffic-signals-and-roundabouts/
Logged
What's not to like about highways and bridges, intersections and interchanges, rails and planes?

My Wikipedia county SVG maps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Buffaboy

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2919
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:33 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3941 on: December 08, 2018, 11:19:57 PM »

Image from John Hickey/The Buffalo News



Imagine turning these intersections into roundabouts.

Quote
In a roundabout way, the Town of Tonawanda wants to make it easier for drivers, bus passengers and bicyclists to travel one of the main east-west thoroughfares in the Northtowns.

Town officials are discussing a host of changes to Sheridan Drive as it runs from Niagara Falls Boulevard to the Niagara River.

The wish list includes shrinking the number of driving lanes, creating dedicated bicycle lanes, bringing express bus service to the road and adding "smart" traffic signals.

And, yes, they envision installing a trio of roundabouts at the three-headed intersection of Sheridan Drive, Niagara Falls Boulevard and Eggert Road on the Tonawanda-Amherst border.

https://buffalonews.com/2018/12/08/rethinking-sheridan-drive-bike-lanes-smarter-traffic-signals-and-roundabouts/

Just from bare numbers, it is going to be a cluster. two roads with 25-30k daily, plus 8 k on a smaller one... Is this going to be the first 5-lane roundabout ever?
Logged

Buffaboy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1102
  • Make I-90 thru Buffalo 8 lanes NOW!

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Buffalo and Sacramento
  • Last Login: Today at 01:57:42 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #3942 on: December 09, 2018, 12:54:08 AM »

Here's a 3 lane roundabout...which I would suspect is uncommon

« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 12:56:46 AM by Buffaboy »
Logged
What's not to like about highways and bridges, intersections and interchanges, rails and planes?

My Wikipedia county SVG maps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Buffaboy

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2919
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:33 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3943 on: December 09, 2018, 08:46:55 AM »

Here's a 3 lane roundabout...which I would suspect is uncommon
looks more like 4-lane with essentially slip lanes between the arms. And a nice touch from a roundabout design company:  poor placement of crosswalks requiring crossing guard being deployed.
Anyway, seems like a critical mass of evidence showing 3+ lane not being a viable design is out there, so my condolences to people of Buffalo area... Use them as needed after construction is complete.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10818
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:45:00 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: New York
« Reply #3944 on: December 09, 2018, 10:46:38 AM »

Some thoughts:

- Eggert Rd (the smaller road with 7-8.5K daily traffic) could easily see a 4-to-3 road diet.

- While the two intersections with Eggert Rd could easily become roundabouts, they're too close to the Sheridan Dr/Niagara Falls Blvd intersection, so it would have to be an all-or-naught.  I'm not certain that a roundabout is the right idea for that intersection.

- Sheridan especially is what I would alternatively call a "traffic sewer" or "retail hell".  Way too many driveways and private access points for efficient traffic flow, and all those driveways add to the safety risk not just for bikes/pedestrians but drivers as well.

- Looking at the volumes along Sheridan and Niagara Falls, while upper 20s may seem high, its not out of the question for a 4-lane roadway.  We have 4-lane roadways in suburban D.C. that handle mid-30s fairly well, even during rush hour.  Especially on Sheridan to the east where there's a median, I think they could drop a lane without too much issue.  The problem with using it for buses or bikes, though, is the aforementioned multitude of driveways.
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6385
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: Today at 06:25:06 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3945 on: December 09, 2018, 11:32:31 AM »

Access management with driveway consolidation is an option.  I can see why roundabouts are considered attractive given intersection angles and spacing that presumably make it difficult to achieve "green wave" signal progression, but I have grave doubts about using them with volumes above 20,000 VPD, even with the use of ring junctions (similar to the Magic Roundabout in Swindon) to increase throughput or approach signalization to ensure traffic will continue to be processed under conditions that would otherwise result in lockup.

I can see the engineers going for a ring junction just to claim this-side-of-the-Atlantic bragging rights (the inverse of the not-invented-here syndrome).
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

Roadgeek Adam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1069
  • Warren CR 14 - Warrensburg, NY

  • Age: 28
  • Location: East Amherst, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 01:24:18 AM
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: New York
« Reply #3946 on: December 09, 2018, 11:46:17 AM »

I've lived on Sheridan Drive just west of here.

Roundabouts aren't going to fix things. Only way to fix this interchange is to raise Sheridan to an overpass and have NF Boulevard go under it. The problem with that is no one is going to pay that kind of money. There is not a single intersection along Sheridan that is roundaboutable.

Eggert cannot get a road diet, people already park on the curbside lane of Eggert, reducing it to two lanes. A road diet makes it one lane effectively.

« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 11:52:11 AM by Roadgeek Adam »
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

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10818
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:45:00 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: New York
« Reply #3947 on: December 09, 2018, 11:55:04 AM »

^ I thought about an overpass for Sheridan but it would require additional right-of-way, especially at the west end west of Eggert where it transitions back to the existing grade and where the existing right-of-way is narrower than it is at Niagara Falls.

Didn't realize that parking was allowed on Eggert.  Still seems like some improved delineation could be done on Eggert, though.
Logged

Roadgeek Adam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1069
  • Warren CR 14 - Warrensburg, NY

  • Age: 28
  • Location: East Amherst, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 01:24:18 AM
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: New York
« Reply #3948 on: December 09, 2018, 12:00:04 PM »

Sheridan would also benefit from better timed lights. Lights should favour Sheridan. Driving down the stretch, you hit usually no less than 5 lights between Colvin and Niagara Falls Boulevard. This keeps rush hour absolutely nuts.

Right now I live just north of the Sheridan Drive/Transit Road interchange, which itself is also a mess because of questionable ramps. Sheridan Drive was built in the 1920s by Erie County, which really affects the design.

Outside of an overpass, I don't think there's a serious fix here.   
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

02 Park Ave

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 697
  • Happy motoring!

  • Location: Cherry Hill, New Jersey
  • Last Login: September 20, 2019, 10:25:59 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #3949 on: December 10, 2018, 05:04:55 PM »

Here is a new article concerning the forthcoming renumbering of the exits on I-84:

https://www.recordonline.com/news/20181209/state-will-convert-current-i-84-exit-signs-to-mileage-based-numbers
Logged
C-o-H

 


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.