AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: New York State Thruway  (Read 243932 times)

cl94

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5523
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Troy, New York
  • Last Login: March 17, 2019, 10:44:47 PM
    • The Albany Hiker
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1500 on: January 06, 2019, 04:30:03 PM »

It is my understanding that all newly-constructed bridges now have to have provisions for all non-motorized transportation modes (i.e. pedestrians & bicycles) built in.

Correct, all major crossings need to have a bike/ped path, no matter how remote or useless it may look. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't add THAT much to the cost. In the case of Tappan Zee, the bike/ped path allowed them to run 8 lanes on the WB span until the EB span was completed.
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)

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2634
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:09:05 AM
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1501 on: January 06, 2019, 04:35:25 PM »

It's a path. It connects to both sides. You decide what you want it to be.
Well, not really. If it is recreational - there needs to be a reasonable parking lot, preferably one on each side, to access the path. And some reasonable cleaning service.
If it is mostly transportation, a reasonable connection to street sidewalks on both sides is a must. Not to mention some bicycle accommodations.
If it is a gimmick to crazy urbanists without envisioned use, then so be it.
There is parking and connectivity on both sides, once it's done.
It is my understanding that all newly-constructed bridges now have to have provisions for all non-motorized transportation modes (i.e. pedestrians & bicycles) built in.
Which is a great progressive idea, as it removes barriers between neighborhoods, fights racial inequality and improves public health - but I still keep wondering how many people would be using 4 mile path next to a high traffic interstate. It would take about more than an hour to walk one way, which makes pedestrian commute across the bridge pretty impractical; and high traffic reduces recreational value of the path. Bike commute... maybe.
But my personal impression is that a couple tens, maybe hundreds million dollars are just being wasted.
Logged

Alps

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

  • Posts: 12263
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 08:12:33 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1502 on: January 06, 2019, 05:09:15 PM »

It's a path. It connects to both sides. You decide what you want it to be.
Well, not really. If it is recreational - there needs to be a reasonable parking lot, preferably one on each side, to access the path. And some reasonable cleaning service.
If it is mostly transportation, a reasonable connection to street sidewalks on both sides is a must. Not to mention some bicycle accommodations.
If it is a gimmick to crazy urbanists without envisioned use, then so be it.
There is parking and connectivity on both sides, once it's done.
It is my understanding that all newly-constructed bridges now have to have provisions for all non-motorized transportation modes (i.e. pedestrians & bicycles) built in.
Which is a great progressive idea, as it removes barriers between neighborhoods, fights racial inequality and improves public health - but I still keep wondering how many people would be using 4 mile path next to a high traffic interstate. It would take about more than an hour to walk one way, which makes pedestrian commute across the bridge pretty impractical; and high traffic reduces recreational value of the path. Bike commute... maybe.
But my personal impression is that a couple tens, maybe hundreds million dollars are just being wasted.
Not at all true. The extra bridge being used for the walkway was totally needed to be able to stage construction of the new EB span. By getting both directions onto the new WB span, they could then deal with the approaches, leaving only the truss that's now a problem. Even if you didn't have pedestrian accommodations, the new bridge would have been at least 86' wide to provide 7 lanes similar to the old configuration. Now it's 96'. The extra 10' isn't a whole lot in the end.

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4078
  • Last Login: March 16, 2019, 11:29:51 PM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1503 on: January 06, 2019, 06:05:38 PM »

It is my understanding that the name Tappan Zee existed decades before the original bridge was built and refers to the general region at the Hudson.

Correct. Tappan Zee has been the name of the area for 200-400 years. Tappan is a corruption of the Lenape name for the local tribe and the region, Zee is Dutch for "sea".

Specifically, "Tappan Zee" is the name of that wide part of the Hudson (as I'm pretty sure we've mentioned earlier in this thread, come to think of it).
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10291
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: March 17, 2019, 09:30:38 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1504 on: January 07, 2019, 09:59:18 AM »

Which is a great progressive idea, as it removes barriers between neighborhoods, fights racial inequality and improves public health - but I still keep wondering how many people would be using 4 mile path next to a high traffic interstate. It would take about more than an hour to walk one way, which makes pedestrian commute across the bridge pretty impractical; and high traffic reduces recreational value of the path. Bike commute... maybe.
But my personal impression is that a couple tens, maybe hundreds million dollars are just being wasted.

If experience in the Twin Cities with parallel bike/ped paths on major bridges is any indication (MnDOT's been adding them for over 30 years), they'll get used at least by bikes.  Granted, the bridges in Minnesota aren't nearly the length of the Tappan Zee, but I can easily see bikes and longer-distance runners using the new path on the Tappan Zee.

From what I recall of the bridge cost breakdown, the cost to add the bike/ped path was basically a rounding error when compared to the new Tappan Zee's total cost.  Nevermind that, as both cl94 and Alps mentioned, they needed the extra westbound bridge width for traffic staging to finish the eastbound span.
Logged

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2634
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:09:05 AM
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1505 on: January 07, 2019, 11:44:59 AM »


Not at all true. The extra bridge being used for the walkway was totally needed to be able to stage construction of the new EB span. By getting both directions onto the new WB span, they could then deal with the approaches, leaving only the truss that's now a problem. Even if you didn't have pedestrian accommodations, the new bridge would have been at least 86' wide to provide 7 lanes similar to the old configuration. Now it's 96'. The extra 10' isn't a whole lot in the end.
Spare room for construction is an interesting argument.. I still wonder if that was "because we have that room anyway", or other ideas were on the table?
Logged

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1259
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: March 17, 2019, 07:55:02 PM
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1506 on: January 07, 2019, 08:27:09 PM »

You mean something smart like maybe a two-track rail line over the bridge?
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10291
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: March 17, 2019, 09:30:38 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1507 on: January 07, 2019, 10:45:01 PM »

^ As I understand it, the rail line would have gone in the median.  Supposedly, the new bridges were designed and built to be "rail-ready", but I'm not completely convinced of that.
Logged

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2634
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:09:05 AM
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1508 on: January 08, 2019, 09:21:31 AM »

^ As I understand it, the rail line would have gone in the median.  Supposedly, the new bridges were designed and built to be "rail-ready", but I'm not completely convinced of that.
As far as I remember, option of rail line was eliminated at design stage as too expensive. Paying off the thing is difficult as it is.
And I doubt it would be on a median. There are two independent bridges, no median per se. Besides, rail has to connect to existing line, running along the shoreline of Hudson under the bridge, so disentangling rail from the center of the bridge would be interesting.
Logged

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6284
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:31:29 AM
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1509 on: January 10, 2019, 05:04:40 PM »

Cross-posted from the New York thread: Demolition of the (old) Tappan Zee Bridge postponed, no new date set as of yet.

Quote from: lohud.com Article
"The sustained winds caused delays to the preparatory work of the planned demolition operation," read a statement from Tappan Zee Constructors. "We appreciate the patience of the local community, and once we have rescheduled the operation we will provide an update."
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9811
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: March 17, 2019, 09:51:29 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1510 on: January 10, 2019, 08:11:12 PM »

Assuming the wind doesn't demolish the old bridge first.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6284
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:31:29 AM
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1511 on: January 11, 2019, 05:24:48 PM »

Tuesday Jan. 15 is now the rescheduled date; however, the time has not yet been determined.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Buffaboy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1079
  • Make I-90 thru Buffalo 8 lanes NOW!

  • Age: 22
  • Location: Buffalo and Utica, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 09:19:25 AM
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1512 on: January 12, 2019, 03:05:14 AM »

Apparently speed limit changes during snow events will be enforced by VMSes now?
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

Ben114

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 176
  • yep that's me

  • Age: 15
  • Location: far far away
  • Last Login: March 17, 2019, 08:29:22 PM
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1513 on: January 12, 2019, 08:46:12 AM »

Tuesday Jan. 15 is now the rescheduled date; however, the time has not yet been determined.
It will be in the morning.
Logged

NoGoodNamesAvailable

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 183
  • Location: NY State
  • Last Login: March 17, 2019, 11:39:29 PM
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1514 on: January 12, 2019, 02:06:23 PM »

Apparently speed limit changes during snow events will be enforced by VMSes now?

I don't care to dig through the VTL or Thruway regulations right now, but that seems highly questionable from the legal side.
Logged

upstatenyroads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 658
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Chicago, IL
  • Last Login: March 17, 2019, 06:31:10 PM
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1515 on: January 12, 2019, 02:52:55 PM »

Apparently speed limit changes during snow events will be enforced by VMSes now?

I don't care to dig through the VTL or Thruway regulations right now, but that seems highly questionable from the legal side.

The VMSes are way too few and scattered for them to enforce a speed limit that way, unless they're sending out crews to put up a bunch of portable units in a snow storm. Too many ideas for highway modifications coming from downstate. Upstate (north and west of Albany) is a much different beast than downstate.
Logged

webny99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2279
  • Roadgeek Forever.

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Rochester, NY
  • Last Login: March 17, 2019, 07:20:31 PM
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1516 on: January 12, 2019, 03:21:47 PM »

Downstate (south and east of Albany) is a much different beast than upstate.

FTFY :-P
Logged
Left Lane is For Passing, Not Camping!
Threads Started
Counties Clinched

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 868
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:43:43 AM
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1517 on: January 12, 2019, 05:38:19 PM »

Apparently speed limit changes during snow events will be enforced by VMSes now?
I've always wondered. Does that need to be codified in the motor vehicle statutes to be enforced? Or does just stating the speed limit on even non-compliant signage count?
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10291
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: March 17, 2019, 09:30:38 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1518 on: January 12, 2019, 08:24:50 PM »

^ From the MUTCD:

Quote from: MUTCD
A changeable message sign that changes the speed limit for traffic and ambient conditions may be installed provided that the appropriate speed limit is displayed at the proper times.

It's an option in the MUTCD that changeable message signs can be used to show speed limits.  So unless there's a state law to the contrary, it counts.
Logged

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2634
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:09:05 AM
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1519 on: January 12, 2019, 09:00:18 PM »

I assume this is about big VMSes:

Thruway guidelines specifically mention "changeable message signs" along with stationary and portable VMSes.
Another interesting question is if the next regular speed limit sign overrides VMS message - which is the normal approach for speed limit signs.
Logged

thenetwork

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2313
  • Age: 2015
  • Location: Grand Junction, Colorado
  • Last Login: March 16, 2019, 09:43:44 AM
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1520 on: January 12, 2019, 11:13:43 PM »

I assume this is about big VMSes:

Thruway guidelines specifically mention "changeable message signs" along with stationary and portable VMSes.
Another interesting question is if the next regular speed limit sign overrides VMS message - which is the normal approach for speed limit signs.

That could be interesting in court if contested.  I would say that the speed limit posted on a VMS like the one above) could be taken as an advisory speed and as not an override to the actual posted speed limit (which would likely be the normal 24/7/365 signs). 

Now if the VMS speed limit matches temporary speed limit signs which replace/cover up permanent signs *or* match changeable/digital speed limit signs on the ground, then I can see that VMS as being enforceable.
Logged

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 868
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:43:43 AM
Re: New York State Thruway
« Reply #1521 on: January 13, 2019, 10:38:11 AM »

^ From the MUTCD:

Quote from: MUTCD
A changeable message sign that changes the speed limit for traffic and ambient conditions may be installed provided that the appropriate speed limit is displayed at the proper times.

It's an option in the MUTCD that changeable message signs can be used to show speed limits.  So unless there's a state law to the contrary, it counts.
There would have to be a state law establishing any compliant sign as having the force of law to begin with.
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.