I-787 News

[Dougtone]

From the Albany Business Review, there is study coming soon to transform I-787 north of Exit 2 (all the way to NY 7, a/k/a Alt 7) as a high speed boulevard.

http://m.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2014/08/25/a-new-interstate-787-in-albany-study-will-examine.html?ana=twt&r=full

[Zeffy]

This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.

[cl94]

I sure as hell hope they don't completely eliminate a limited-access option. The stretch north of I-90 bypasses congested areas of I-87 and I-90 and the remainder is the only road to downtown and the train station that isn't 2 lanes and/or hopelessly clogged. The bigger issue here is that Albany was first laid out 400 years ago and cannot handle the large amount of traffic that the state capitol creates. The rough terrain doesn't help matters. I'd be for putting it in a trench and capping it over, but remember that the ground under current I-787 is just above sea level and there's a set of railroad tracks under/in the median of I-787. Do we need the uncompleted expressways blocking stuff up? No. Are the bridge to nowhere and its access roads overbuilt? Without a doubt. But we'd need to accommodate the 100,000 cars using I-787 on any given day in some fashion and a boulevard can't do that. The West Side Highway has lower traffic counts and that's 6+ lanes and operating near LOS F most of the day.

[odditude]

This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.

29's bad enough as it is; rush-hour traffic around the signalized intersections backs up horribly (it can take over 15 minutes to get to 29 from 579). I wish they'd made it completely limited-access, not the other way around.

[xcellntbuy]

From the Albany Business Review, there is study coming soon to transform I-787 north of Exit 2 (all the way to NY 7, a/k/a Alt 7) as a high speed boulevard.

http://m.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2014/08/25/a-new-interstate-787-in-albany-study-will-examine.html?ana=twt&r=full

When I was little, there was no Interstate 787.  NY 32 (Pearl Street) and Broadway were the main north-south roads in and out of downtown Albany.  Broadway was constructed of Belgian block.  The State Street loop in front of the Delaware & Hudson Railway station (now the University of the State of New York headquarters) existed, also Belgian block.  Both city streets were two lanes, although Broadway was wide.  It took forever to get to Menands, Watervliet, Cohoes and Troy.  The trip is now a matter of minutes.  Removing Interstate 787 in some fashion has been ongoing claptrap for 30+years.

"Those are the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind."  Dr. Frodrick Frankenstein from the Mel Brooks film, "Young Frankenstein"

[dgolub]

I sure as hell hope they don't completely eliminate a limited-access option. The stretch north of I-90 bypasses congested areas of I-87 and I-90 and the remainder is the only road to downtown and the train station that isn't 2 lanes and/or hopelessly clogged. The bigger issue here is that Albany was first laid out 400 years ago and cannot handle the large amount of traffic that the state capitol creates. The rough terrain doesn't help matters. I'd be for putting it in a trench and capping it over, but remember that the ground under current I-787 is just above sea level and there's a set of railroad tracks under/in the median of I-787. Do we need the uncompleted expressways blocking stuff up? No. Are the bridge to nowhere and its access roads overbuilt? Without a doubt. But we'd need to accommodate the 100,000 cars using I-787 on any given day in some fashion and a boulevard can't do that. The West Side Highway has lower traffic counts and that's 6+ lanes and operating near LOS F most of the day.

Demolishing I-787 seems nonsensical.  I can see why they would do it with CT 34 in New Haven, since that one ends just after it begins, meaning that it serves almost no purpose.  I-787 is not a highway to nowhere, and I would expect that it would be bad for traffic to demolish it.

[dgolub]

This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.

I'd guess that it would become NY 787.  Not to be confused with NY 878, which was also downgraded from an interstate.

[cl94]

This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.

I'd guess that it would become NY 787.  Not to be confused with NY 878, which was also downgraded from an interstate.

Except one direction is still I-878 (as far as the feds are concerned)

[vdeane]

You'd have better results trying to turn the Northway into a boulevard.  Believe it or not, it has less problems than I-787 does.  I-787's congestion puts NYC to shame, which is really quite surprising, as it doesn't have any bad merges like the Northway does; the heaviest merge is from I-90, but those lanes continue for a ways, so there's no need for traffic to move over and disrupt the flow...

I sure as hell hope they don't completely eliminate a limited-access option. The stretch north of I-90 bypasses congested areas of I-87 and I-90 and the remainder is the only road to downtown and the train station that isn't 2 lanes and/or hopelessly clogged. The bigger issue here is that Albany was first laid out 400 years ago and cannot handle the large amount of traffic that the state capitol creates. The rough terrain doesn't help matters. I'd be for putting it in a trench and capping it over, but remember that the ground under current I-787 is just above sea level and there's a set of railroad tracks under/in the median of I-787. Do we need the uncompleted expressways blocking stuff up? No. Are the bridge to nowhere and its access roads overbuilt? Without a doubt. But we'd need to accommodate the 100,000 cars using I-787 on any given day in some fashion and a boulevard can't do that. The West Side Highway has lower traffic counts and that's 6+ lanes and operating near LOS F most of the day.

Demolishing I-787 seems nonsensical.  I can see why they would do it with CT 34 in New Haven, since that one ends just after it begins, meaning that it serves almost no purpose.  I-787 is not a highway to nowhere, and I would expect that it would be bad for traffic to demolish it.

If you give an inch, they'll take a mile, and that's exactly what they're doing.  I wouldn't be surprised if the end goal of these groups is to eliminate freeways entirely.

This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.

I'd guess that it would become NY 787.  Not to be confused with NY 878, which was also downgraded from an interstate.

Or NY 747, a new route serving Stewart Airport.

[cl94]

You'd have better results trying to turn the Northway into a boulevard.  Believe it or not, it has less problems than I-787 does.  I-787's congestion puts NYC to shame, which is really quite surprising, as it doesn't have any bad merges like the Northway does; the heaviest merge is from I-90, but those lanes continue for a ways, so there's no need for traffic to move over and disrupt the flow...

I sure as hell hope they don't completely eliminate a limited-access option. The stretch north of I-90 bypasses congested areas of I-87 and I-90 and the remainder is the only road to downtown and the train station that isn't 2 lanes and/or hopelessly clogged. The bigger issue here is that Albany was first laid out 400 years ago and cannot handle the large amount of traffic that the state capitol creates. The rough terrain doesn't help matters. I'd be for putting it in a trench and capping it over, but remember that the ground under current I-787 is just above sea level and there's a set of railroad tracks under/in the median of I-787. Do we need the uncompleted expressways blocking stuff up? No. Are the bridge to nowhere and its access roads overbuilt? Without a doubt. But we'd need to accommodate the 100,000 cars using I-787 on any given day in some fashion and a boulevard can't do that. The West Side Highway has lower traffic counts and that's 6+ lanes and operating near LOS F most of the day.

Demolishing I-787 seems nonsensical.  I can see why they would do it with CT 34 in New Haven, since that one ends just after it begins, meaning that it serves almost no purpose.  I-787 is not a highway to nowhere, and I would expect that it would be bad for traffic to demolish it.

If you give an inch, they'll take a mile, and that's exactly what they're doing.  I wouldn't be surprised if the end goal of these groups is to eliminate freeways entirely.

This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.

I'd guess that it would become NY 787.  Not to be confused with NY 878, which was also downgraded from an interstate.

Or NY 747, a new route serving Stewart Airport.

The biggest problem with I-787 is the concentration of traffic. Its numbers might not look like much, but most of that volume is over two short periods of time: one in each rush hour. Hit it at those times and the road is hell. Interchange spacing doesn't help matters, as the southernmost exits are closely spaced for such a small city and that's with some braiding of ramps. Even outside of that time, there's more than enough traffic to warrant a limited-access highway, especially for the suburbs. I've done the Albany-Cohoes trip on NY 32. What takes 5 minutes on I-787 takes over 20, and that's with the vast majority of traffic using I-787. I can't imagine how bad it would be without a limited-access alternative.

[dgolub]

This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.

I'd guess that it would become NY 787.  Not to be confused with NY 878, which was also downgraded from an interstate.

Except one direction is still I-878 (as far as the feds are concerned)

Yes, but it's signed as NY 878 and listed as such in state documents.

[JakeFromNewEngland]

I-787 is a great bypass route for people who don't like paying the tolls at the I-90/I-87 interchange (atleast my family always uses I-787 for this reason.  ) If they ever removed it, it would be hell to get through Albany. The thing is, there isn't much to do to change it's routing since so many things are already built around it. I-91 through Springfield and Hartford has a similar situation.

[cl94]

I-787 is a great bypass route for people who don't like paying the tolls at the I-90/I-87 interchange (atleast my family always uses I-787 for this reason.  ) If they ever removed it, it would be hell to get through Albany. The thing is, there isn't much to do to change it's routing since so many things are already built around it. I-91 through Springfield and Hartford has a similar situation.

You could bury it or elevate it even more. Can't relocate it, as much of it was built on an old railroad ROW and there's development from 400 years ago. Both would improve river access, but neither would be remotely inexpensive. A tunnel would have to keep out the Hudson River and a bridge would worsen the "beautiful view" of factories in Troy and Rensselaer.

[kurumi]

A new editorial/blogpost: What if tearing down I-787 could actually improve traffic?

Has links to Albany highway plan history, much of it from Chris Jordan's Capital Highways site.

[D-Dey65]

A new editorial/blogpost: What if tearing down I-787 could actually improve traffic?

Has links to Albany highway plan history, much of it from Chris Jordan's Capital Highways site.

787 is part of a network that (thankfully) wasn't finished

Yeah, I don't think so. Your vehement anti-highway sentiment is showing, Sandy Johnston. The John Norquist "solution" is a total disaster waiting to happen.

[froggie]

He does have two valid points:  first, the lack of access points does contribute to the traffic problem.  Second, the Plaza, circle interchange, and Dunn Bridge are overbuilt eyesores.  Even if 787 is retained, these are issues that need to be addressed.

[cl94]

He does have two valid points:  first, the lack of access points does contribute to the traffic problem.  Second, the Plaza, circle interchange, and Dunn Bridge are overbuilt eyesores.  Even if 787 is retained, these are issues that need to be addressed.

It's overbuilt, but there's no easy way to rectify any of it. Even a rebuilt Bridge to Nowhere would have to be at a similar height for clearance. Get rid of the Arterial and go from there. The circle stack can come down piece by piece - not like traffic to/from the west can't be detoured. The bridge needs to stay in some fashion and a new bridge will have similar issues on the Rensselaer side, as there's no space to bring it down to sea level.

[Rothman]

Tear down I-787 and you end up with solid gridlock during rush hours and events (e.g., Tulipfest and July 4th).  Adding more access points to a boulevard (i.e., traffic lights) would just exacerbate the problem. It's a ridiculous idea.

That said, I personally don't mind the South Mall, but the Dunn Memorial Bridge is pretty ridiculous.  Like others have said, though, not sure what exactly can be done about that now that wouldn't be viewed as a waste of money.  Why spend gazillions tearing down and replacing a bridge when the current bridge at least works given how dinky Rensselaer is (a city of less than 10,000 people...).

[TravelingBethelite]

You'd have better results trying to turn the Northway into a boulevard.  Believe it or not, it has less problems than I-787 does.  I-787's congestion puts NYC to shame, which is really quite surprising, as it doesn't have any bad merges like the Northway does; the heaviest merge is from I-90, but those lanes continue for a ways, so there's no need for traffic to move over and disrupt the flow...

I sure as hell hope they don't completely eliminate a limited-access option. The stretch north of I-90 bypasses congested areas of I-87 and I-90 and the remainder is the only road to downtown and the train station that isn't 2 lanes and/or hopelessly clogged. The bigger issue here is that Albany was first laid out 400 years ago and cannot handle the large amount of traffic that the state capitol creates. The rough terrain doesn't help matters. I'd be for putting it in a trench and capping it over, but remember that the ground under current I-787 is just above sea level and there's a set of railroad tracks under/in the median of I-787. Do we need the uncompleted expressways blocking stuff up? No. Are the bridge to nowhere and its access roads overbuilt? Without a doubt. But we'd need to accommodate the 100,000 cars using I-787 on any given day in some fashion and a boulevard can't do that. The West Side Highway has lower traffic counts and that's 6+ lanes and operating near LOS F most of the day.

Demolishing I-787 seems nonsensical.  I can see why they would do it with CT 34 in New Haven, since that one ends just after it begins, meaning that it serves almost no purpose.  I-787 is not a highway to nowhere, and I would expect that it would be bad for traffic to demolish it.

If you give an inch, they'll take a mile, and that's exactly what they're doing.  I wouldn't be surprised if the end goal of these groups is to eliminate freeways entirely.

This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.

I'd guess that it would become NY 787.  Not to be confused with NY 878, which was also downgraded from an interstate.

Or NY 747, a new route serving Stewart Airport.

A little O/T, but was it intentional to have it numbered 747, considering it serves an airport? 

[cl94]

You'd have better results trying to turn the Northway into a boulevard.  Believe it or not, it has less problems than I-787 does.  I-787's congestion puts NYC to shame, which is really quite surprising, as it doesn't have any bad merges like the Northway does; the heaviest merge is from I-90, but those lanes continue for a ways, so there's no need for traffic to move over and disrupt the flow...

I sure as hell hope they don't completely eliminate a limited-access option. The stretch north of I-90 bypasses congested areas of I-87 and I-90 and the remainder is the only road to downtown and the train station that isn't 2 lanes and/or hopelessly clogged. The bigger issue here is that Albany was first laid out 400 years ago and cannot handle the large amount of traffic that the state capitol creates. The rough terrain doesn't help matters. I'd be for putting it in a trench and capping it over, but remember that the ground under current I-787 is just above sea level and there's a set of railroad tracks under/in the median of I-787. Do we need the uncompleted expressways blocking stuff up? No. Are the bridge to nowhere and its access roads overbuilt? Without a doubt. But we'd need to accommodate the 100,000 cars using I-787 on any given day in some fashion and a boulevard can't do that. The West Side Highway has lower traffic counts and that's 6+ lanes and operating near LOS F most of the day.

Demolishing I-787 seems nonsensical.  I can see why they would do it with CT 34 in New Haven, since that one ends just after it begins, meaning that it serves almost no purpose.  I-787 is not a highway to nowhere, and I would expect that it would be bad for traffic to demolish it.

If you give an inch, they'll take a mile, and that's exactly what they're doing.  I wouldn't be surprised if the end goal of these groups is to eliminate freeways entirely.

This reminds me of an idea floated around to turn NJ 29 into a boulevard and city streets in Trenton. Personally, I want it to happen, but we all knew that. Here, I think this is a much larger scale then in Trenton, since this an Interstate we're talking about and a whole lot of freeway too. If they were to do this, would I-787's designation be removed? Seems kind of pointless for it to exist if over half of it isn't a freeway.

I'd guess that it would become NY 787.  Not to be confused with NY 878, which was also downgraded from an interstate.

Or NY 747, a new route serving Stewart Airport.

A little O/T, but was it intentional to have it numbered 747, considering it serves an airport? 

It was intentional.

Tear down I-787 and you end up with solid gridlock during rush hours and events (e.g., Tulipfest and July 4th).  Adding more access points to a boulevard (i.e., traffic lights) would just exacerbate the problem. It's a ridiculous idea.

That said, I personally don't mind the South Mall, but the Dunn Memorial Bridge is pretty ridiculous.  Like others have said, though, not sure what exactly can be done about that now that wouldn't be viewed as a waste of money.  Why spend gazillions tearing down and replacing a bridge when the current bridge at least works given how dinky Rensselaer is (a city of less than 10,000 people...).

I agree completely. Rensselaer's main draw is the Amtrak station, which if the state gets its way, will see quite a few more trains, but that's off topic. Due to the clearance requirements, we'd probably be talking over $30 million for a new bridge, which could be much better spent replacing other bridges in the region (cough...Twin Bridges...cough).

[silverback1065]

They should add another bridge to connect Albany and rennselaer, redo the overpowered circle interchange, and have 87 connect with 787 and 90 directly.  also add more exits downtown on 787.  A signalized boulevard is the best idea these new urbanists can come up with these days. 

[cl94]

They should add another bridge to connect Albany and rennselaer, redo the overpowered circle interchange, and have 87 connect with 787 and 90 directly.  also add more exits downtown on 787.  A signalized boulevard is the best idea these new urbanists can come up with these days.

I-87 does have a direct connection to both. I-90 is a concurrency with all movements. Another bridge will have to be either high-level or movable, as there is marine traffic. The current bridge can handle the traffic. If anything, the Mohawk River needs the bridges.

Exit spacing is tight as it is. Spacing is closer than is recommended, with SB having 4 exits in less than 2 miles (not counting the split on the ramp at the circle interchange). More exits is NOT the way to go here. Volumes are also quite high. Downtown Albany has the terrain of San Francisco and streets are narrow and clogged already, with a lot of the network dating back over 300 years, some streets going back to 1614.

[Rothman]

They should add another bridge to connect Albany and rennselaer,

Why?

[silverback1065]

Just an idea, after reading that article talking about the access issues for bus routes crossing the Hudson. I don't know the area at all, but it sounds like a Blvd is a bad idea.

Nexus 6P

[cl94]

Just an idea, after reading that article talking about the access issues for bus routes crossing the Hudson. I don't know the area at all, but it sounds like a Blvd is a bad idea.

Nexus 6P

The access issue has a lot to do with the lack of connecting routes on the east side. It's a PITA to go up that side of the river. There's not much on that side other than Troy, which is well-served. I live in Troy and bus service from here to ESP is every 5-10 minutes.