New York

[webny99]

I-86 is currently closed in both directions between Campbell and Coopers Plains due to a major crash. NY 415 is huge mess since it's the only real alternate in the area; there are ways around it, but they're not intuitive, nor suitable for trucks. Consequently, the intersections of NY 415 and CR 26/CR 333 (the exit/return points from I-86) are extremely congested, and NY 14, which is usually about 10-15 minutes longer between Rochester and Elmira, is now the fastest route.

Update: EB appears to have reopened, WB is still closed.

[D-Dey65]

I suppose I could send Region 8 an e-mail someday. In the meantime, I started looking for all kinds of info on US 6 before the Long Mountain Parkway was built. I found out an even bigger VMS exists in the opposite direction at the ROW for the former US 6. That's Estrada Road in Central Valley, New York now.

[Rothman]

Little birdie told me today that discussions are just starting for an I-90/I-790 direct connection (i.e., feasibility/NYSDOT and NYSTA positions on the matter)...

(personal statement emphasized)

[baugh17]

Little birdie told me today that discussions are just starting for an I-90/I-790 direct connection (i.e., feasibility/NYSDOT and NYSTA positions on the matter)...

Anything coinciding with the current construction on N. Genesee St.?  Seems like slip ramps or a complete overhaul of the Thruway exit would be in order.

[Rothman]

Little birdie told me today that discussions are just starting for an I-90/I-790 direct connection (i.e., feasibility/NYSDOT and NYSTA positions on the matter)...

Anything coinciding with the current construction on N. Genesee St.?  Seems like slip ramps or a complete overhaul of the Thruway exit would be in order.

Didn't head anything that specific.

[vdeane]

Little birdie told me today that discussions are just starting for an I-90/I-790 direct connection (i.e., feasibility/NYSDOT and NYSTA positions on the matter)...

Anything coinciding with the current construction on N. Genesee St.?  Seems like slip ramps or a complete overhaul of the Thruway exit would be in order.

I don't believe so.  From the news article that made the clippings, this would be way too early in the process for that project to be part of it.  I believe it's a PEL study that's early enough along that there isn't yet anything public.

[froggie]

Is NYSDOT spearheading this study or the Thruway?

[vdeane]

Is NYSDOT spearheading this study or the Thruway?

It's actually the local MPO (the Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Council) in partnership with NYSDOT Region 2.  Looking at the website, they appear to have fallen behind schedule.

https://exit31pelstudy.org

[machias]

So they're looking to undo what they undid in 1989 when they rebuilt everything back then. Granted, I-790 was a two lane road from NY 5/8/12 to the Thruway from 1965 to 1989, but at least it had a direct connection to the Thruway in both directions.

While it could significantly impact access from the Thruway to North Genesee Street (SR 921C), the Thruway access should be incorporated into the ramps at either the NY 5/8/12/I-790/NY 49 interchange or at the CR 34 interchange on NY 49.

[webny99]

Exciting news!

Is NYSDOT spearheading this study or the Thruway?

It's actually the local MPO (the Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Council) in partnership with NYSDOT Region 2.  Looking at the website, they appear to have fallen behind schedule.

https://exit31pelstudy.org

I think this study area is much too small. As I've mentioned before, now that the Thruway has made the switch to AET I think two pairs of slip ramps would be a near-perfect configuration for Exit 31.

The first pair (EB off/WB on) could be located near where NY 49 first joins up the Thruway, and the second pair (WB off/EB on) could be located just beyond Leland Ave. This simplistic layout would be easy to navigate, solve almost all of the connectivity issues, and eliminate the backtracking required to get to/from 5/8/12 and points west, while allowing much of the current Exit 31 maze to be removed.

[vdeane]

Exciting news!

Is NYSDOT spearheading this study or the Thruway?

It's actually the local MPO (the Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Council) in partnership with NYSDOT Region 2.  Looking at the website, they appear to have fallen behind schedule.

https://exit31pelstudy.org

I think this study area is much too small. As I've mentioned before, now that the Thruway has made the switch to AET I think two pairs of slip ramps would be a near-perfect configuration for Exit 31.

The first pair (EB off/WB on) could be located near where NY 49 first joins up the Thruway, and the second pair (WB off/EB on) could be located just beyond Leland Ave. This simplistic layout would be easy to navigate, solve almost all of the connectivity issues, and eliminate the backtracking required to get to/from 5/8/12 and points west, while allowing much of the current Exit 31 maze to be removed.

Your idea would sacrifice access for Genesee Street, however.  Also would make it even more work to get to the Thruway from the Cavanaugh Road area.

In any case, I've found with PEL studies that it's best to take the study limits with a grain of salt.  While that's the focus area, it doesn't mean that recommendations will be confined to that area.

(personal opinion)

[froggie]

Exciting news!

Is NYSDOT spearheading this study or the Thruway?

It's actually the local MPO (the Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Council) in partnership with NYSDOT Region 2.  Looking at the website, they appear to have fallen behind schedule.

https://exit31pelstudy.org

I think this study area is much too small. As I've mentioned before, now that the Thruway has made the switch to AET I think two pairs of slip ramps would be a near-perfect configuration for Exit 31.

The first pair (EB off/WB on) could be located near where NY 49 first joins up the Thruway, and the second pair (WB off/EB on) could be located just beyond Leland Ave. This simplistic layout would be easy to navigate, solve almost all of the connectivity issues, and eliminate the backtracking required to get to/from 5/8/12 and points west, while allowing much of the current Exit 31 maze to be removed.

Your idea would sacrifice access for Genesee Street, however.

Not if it's done right.  Webny's idea (which I've had much the same idea for 20 years now) would greatly simplify the ramp structure and would effectively make NY 49 and the part of 790 that parallels the Thruway a C/D road for the Thruway...call it a C/D freeway if you will.  Gennesee St traffic going to/from the Thruway West would still have an all-freeway route via that C/D connection.

Also would make it even more work to get to the Thruway from the Cavanaugh Road area.

I would disagree with this.  Traffic from Cavanaugh going to/from the Thruway East would simply follow the above-mentioned "C/D freeway".  Traffic to/from the west is ALREADY complicated.  This really wouldn't make it any worse.  Unless they're taking local roads to Exit 32, they're going ~4 miles out of their way to get to the Exit 31 vicinity today...so that's 8 extra miles.

Perhaps someone could find a way to put a WB NY 49 on-ramp in the vicinity of Marcy-SUNY Pkwy to cut the distance in half.  Though the rail line adds a level of difficulty to building such a ramp.

[webny99]

Not if it's done right.  Webny's idea (which I've had much the same idea for 20 years now) would greatly simplify the ramp structure and would effectively make NY 49 and the part of 790 that parallels the Thruway a C/D road for the Thruway...call it a C/D freeway if you will.  Gennesee St traffic going to/from the Thruway West would still have an all-freeway route via that C/D connection.

It's Genesee St to/from the Thruway east that's the bigger issue, since those movements use the current ramp conglomeration south of the Thruway that would be removed. There might be room to add ramps to/from the east, but it's complicated by proximity to Leland Ave.

Also would make it even more work to get to the Thruway from the Cavanaugh Road area.

I would disagree with this.  Traffic from Cavanaugh going to/from the Thruway East would simply follow the above-mentioned "C/D freeway".  Traffic to/from the west is ALREADY complicated.  This really wouldn't make it any worse.  Unless they're taking local roads to Exit 32, they're going ~4 miles out of their way to get to the Exit 31 vicinity today...so that's 8 extra miles.

Perhaps someone could find a way to put a WB NY 49 on-ramp in the vicinity of Marcy-SUNY Pkwy to cut the distance in half.  Though the rail line adds a level of difficulty to building such a ramp.

Yep, my response was going to be much along these lines -- it's the lack of a WB on-ramp at the River Rd/Marcy-SUNY Parkway interchange that's the biggest issue. Getting from the Thruway EB to Cavanaugh Rd would actually become much easier with a slip ramp because the existing loop to Marcy-SUNY Pkwy could be used.

And it is a pretty confined area we're talking about since most traffic heading west from that area is already using either local roads to Exit 32 or NY 49/NY 365 to Exit 33. Google typically doesn't recommend Exit 31 at all unless you're east of Cavanaugh Rd.

A full directional-T at the Thruway and NY 49 would be ideal, but I suspect that's never happening for obvious reasons.

[mgk920]

Chiming in as a non-local, my best 'solution' for the Utica, NY area is also for the thruway and I-790 (et al) to be redone in a 'local/express' setup, with the existing Thruway mainline being the 'through/express' lanes and I-790, NY 49, etal, to be the 'local' lanes, with the needed crossovers being at either end of town, also with a direct 'free flow' connection between the thruway to the west and NY 49 to the northwest.  All plate photo/E-ZPass toll collections will make everything easy.  In that, too, the 'local' lanes could easily be extended further eastward as needed at any time in the future. Remember, 'K.I.S.S.'.

Mike

[vdeane]

Not if it's done right.  Webny's idea (which I've had much the same idea for 20 years now) would greatly simplify the ramp structure and would effectively make NY 49 and the part of 790 that parallels the Thruway a C/D road for the Thruway...call it a C/D freeway if you will.  Gennesee St traffic going to/from the Thruway West would still have an all-freeway route via that C/D connection.

It's Genesee St to/from the Thruway east that's the bigger issue, since those movements use the current ramp conglomeration south of the Thruway that would be removed. There might be room to add ramps to/from the east, but it's complicated by proximity to Leland Ave.

That's the part that gives me pause.  There might be a way to add an on ramp in that direction if local access at Leland is removed, but there's no ROW available to build an off ramp.

[webny99]

New thread for discussion of the Exit 31 redesign:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=35315.0

[froggie]

Not if it's done right.  Webny's idea (which I've had much the same idea for 20 years now) would greatly simplify the ramp structure and would effectively make NY 49 and the part of 790 that parallels the Thruway a C/D road for the Thruway...call it a C/D freeway if you will.  Gennesee St traffic going to/from the Thruway West would still have an all-freeway route via that C/D connection.

It's Genesee St to/from the Thruway east that's the bigger issue, since those movements use the current ramp conglomeration south of the Thruway that would be removed. There might be room to add ramps to/from the east, but it's complicated by proximity to Leland Ave.

That's the part that gives me pause.  There might be a way to add an on ramp in that direction if local access at Leland is removed, but there's no ROW available to build an off ramp.

I figured out a way (see the aforementioned fictional thread).

[The Ghostbuster]

This is outside the scope of this study, but is Utica ever going to convert the Oswego St. and Noyes St. intersections into grade-separations on NY 5/8/12?

[Rothman]

This is outside the scope of this study, but is Utica ever going to convert the Oswego St. and Noyes St. intersections into grade-separations on NY 5/8/12?

No.

[cl94]

This is outside the scope of this study, but is Utica ever going to convert the Oswego St. and Noyes St. intersections into grade-separations on NY 5/8/12?

No.

If they were going to, they would have done it with the (relatively) recent full reconstruction. There's no real need.

[vdeane]

Big news: the draft I-787 PEL study has been released, along with updated concepts.  I suspect people on this forum will be particularly interested in new concept I-3.

787.dot.ny.gov

https://webapps.dot.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/10/reimagine-i-787-concept-renderings.pdf

In other news, the agenda for the next Town of Colonie Planning Board meeting is out, and it looks like QuickCheck is expanding north (this is on Albany-Shaker Road at the exit 3 ramps).  Stewart's might get some competition!

[SGwithADD]

Big news: the draft I-787 PEL study has been released, along with updated concepts.  I suspect people on this forum will be particularly interested in new concept I-3.

787.dot.ny.gov

https://webapps.dot.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/10/reimagine-i-787-concept-renderings.pdf

Based on the cost estimates alone ($6 billion!), I can't imagine that NYSDOT will seriously pursue any of the interstate alternatives.

[vdeane]

Big news: the draft I-787 PEL study has been released, along with updated concepts.  I suspect people on this forum will be particularly interested in new concept I-3.

787.dot.ny.gov

https://webapps.dot.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/10/reimagine-i-787-concept-renderings.pdf

Based on the cost estimates alone ($6 billion!), I can't imagine that NYSDOT will seriously pursue any of the interstate alternatives.

Keep in mind that these are concepts, not alternatives.  Things could yet change more when/if this moves into preliminary design.

[The Ghostbuster]

If one of the Boulevard concepts is picked (which I hope isn't the case), I imagine the NY 787 designation will be extended south of NY 7.

[froggie]

(also posted, almost verbatim, on Facebook)

The occasions when I use I-787 (typically whenever I'm heading in that general direction, as crossing the Hudson is more consistent and predictable in the Capital Region than it is south of Bear Mountain), I'd be considered "through traffic".

I'm of a mixed opinion on freeway vs boulevard. While keeping controlled-access would be optimum, I understand the city's desire to reduce the footprint. I'd be more open to the boulevard concept if it A) had 3 lanes in each direction (the concept maps seem to show this), B ) a single continuous route (so forget Alternatives B-2 and B-4), and C) fewer signals with the signals synchronized to have a green wave at the speed limit. The boulevard concepts as shown have too many signals...upwards of 11. I'd like to see that number dropped to no more than 5.

I'm one of those referenced by Val in being intrigued by the concept of moving the Dunn Bridge a mile south for more direct port access. But I feel that even with a new bridge there, some sort of local/non-motorized crossing should remain at/near the existing Dunn Bridge.

Fully agree with the downsizing of the South Mall Expressway.