New York

[roadman65]

Is it common in Westchester County to refer to the Bronx River Parkway as the Bronx Parkway and the Sprain Brook Parkway as the Sprain Parkway?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/6iK6iH5eKczCnnnQ9?g_st=ac

The guide on the EB Cross County refers to both roads without the waterways in their names.

[SignBridge]

DOT's too cheap to pay for the larger signs that would be needed to include the words River and Brook ?

Next year's budget maybe they'll just eliminate the signs altogether to save money.......

[cockroachking]

It is an old practice that has persisted for 2 main reasons AIUI:
1. An unwillingness to have inconsistent messaging for the same parkway (since it would be impossible/costly to replace every guide sign mentioning a parkway all at once)
2. A belief that the existing "Hudson Valley" parkway shields (green escutcheon) are illegible on guide signs.

Reason 1 boils down to not wanting some shields mixed with some text, or text with <River, etc.> mixed with text without <River, etc.>. That being said, I'm sure that avoiding excess panel area is the reason why omitting <River, etc.> remains common practice. Reason 2 could probably be fixed with a shield redesign, similar to the LI parkways, which are guide-signed exclusively with shields. Of course, that doesn't stop Westchester County from using the green escutcheon anyway, though their version is more square and seems to emphasize the abbreviation more than the rectangular NYSDOT design.

[dgolub]

Is it common in Westchester County to refer to the Bronx River Parkway as the Bronx Parkway and the Sprain Brook Parkway as the Sprain Parkway?

People will talk about "the Hutch," "the Sprain," and "the Saw Mill."  So, yes, with regard to those three.  I've never heard anyone say "Bronx Parkway" out loud, though.

[crispy93]

It is an old practice that has persisted for 2 main reasons AIUI:
1. An unwillingness to have inconsistent messaging for the same parkway (since it would be impossible/costly to replace every guide sign mentioning a parkway all at once)
2. A belief that the existing "Hudson Valley" parkway shields (green escutcheon) are illegible on guide signs.

Reason 1 boils down to not wanting some shields mixed with some text, or text with <River, etc.> mixed with text without <River, etc.>. That being said, I'm sure that avoiding excess panel area is the reason why omitting <River, etc.> remains common practice. Reason 2 could probably be fixed with a shield redesign, similar to the LI parkways, which are guide-signed exclusively with shields. Of course, that doesn't stop Westchester County from using the green escutcheon anyway, though their version is more square and seems to emphasize the abbreviation more than the rectangular NYSDOT design.

I share the belief that you mentioned in Point 2; I find them very hard to read on guide signs, particularly the Sprain/BRP ramp split you linked (looks like the eastbound exit from the CCP). For freestanding shields, you'll find the occasional Saw Mill shield with the "River" in it:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/Eo5Rtp7dh9ytFWry8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hQsS35H7NqT3yALY9

The only guide sign that has Saw Mill RIVER Pkwy is at the 87/287 split, but it look like a R8 sign rather than NYSTA: https://maps.app.goo.gl/WQmfwi637Vh3eS2w9

I think the only guide sign that spells out "Sprain BROOK Pkwy" is on the Taconic in Hawthorne: https://maps.app.goo.gl/DEF9n4GpbR9bJTug6

The STATE in Taconic State Pkwy only seems to show up on the northbound Saw Mill at the same interchange in Hawthorne, and formerly on I-84 (before the exit number conversion). 

[machias]

I was looking at the presentation on the proposed improvements to I-90/Thruway Exit 31 in Utica. The presentation is here: https://www.nysmpos.org/_files/ugd/3ff9d0_983bb43f9f2e4262a8f7309cf748a0b5.pdf

It's interesting to me that NYSDOT seems to want to put the eastbound ramps after the I-790/NY 5/8/12/49 interchange. I don't know what their thought process is behind this. Does that mean trucks headed to the Marcy-SUNY tech area or NY 8/12 arterial will need to get off at N Genesee Street or Leland Ave and do a u-turn back to I-790 West/South to get that interchange? It seems like it would be a much better idea to put the EB exit/WB entrance from the Thruway to somewhere between where NY 49 EB crosses the Thruway in the Town of Marcy (about 1 mile west of NY 49's interchange with CR 34)

[vdeane]

I was looking at the presentation on the proposed improvements to I-90/Thruway Exit 31 in Utica. The presentation is here: https://www.nysmpos.org/_files/ugd/3ff9d0_983bb43f9f2e4262a8f7309cf748a0b5.pdf

It's interesting to me that NYSDOT seems to want to put the eastbound ramps after the I-790/NY 5/8/12/49 interchange. I don't know what their thought process is behind this. Does that mean trucks headed to the Marcy-SUNY tech area or NY 8/12 arterial will need to get off at N Genesee Street or Leland Ave and do a u-turn back to I-790 West/South to get that interchange? It seems like it would be a much better idea to put the EB exit/WB entrance from the Thruway to somewhere between where NY 49 EB crosses the Thruway in the Town of Marcy (about 1 mile west of NY 49's interchange with CR 34)

Might be a good idea to send comments before they submit the final report.  That struck me as odd too.

(personal opinion)

[baugh17]

I was looking at the presentation on the proposed improvements to I-90/Thruway Exit 31 in Utica. The presentation is here: https://www.nysmpos.org/_files/ugd/3ff9d0_983bb43f9f2e4262a8f7309cf748a0b5.pdf

It's interesting to me that NYSDOT seems to want to put the eastbound ramps after the I-790/NY 5/8/12/49 interchange. I don't know what their thought process is behind this. Does that mean trucks headed to the Marcy-SUNY tech area or NY 8/12 arterial will need to get off at N Genesee Street or Leland Ave and do a u-turn back to I-790 West/South to get that interchange? It seems like it would be a much better idea to put the EB exit/WB entrance from the Thruway to somewhere between where NY 49 EB crosses the Thruway in the Town of Marcy (about 1 mile west of NY 49's interchange with CR 34)

Might be a good idea to send comments before they submit the final report.  That struck me as odd too.

(personal opinion)

I think this report is a couple of years old (correct me if I'm wrong).

While I think these are good ideas, given the recent (Reconstruction of the ramp from the Thruway/I-790 EB to N. Genesee St NB), current (Replacement of the bridge deck over N. Genesee St.), and future (Rebuilding the N. Genesee St. bridges over the Mohawk River and Erie Canal) projects, I suspect it's going to be a while before any of this becomes reality.

[vdeane]

I was looking at the presentation on the proposed improvements to I-90/Thruway Exit 31 in Utica. The presentation is here: https://www.nysmpos.org/_files/ugd/3ff9d0_983bb43f9f2e4262a8f7309cf748a0b5.pdf

It's interesting to me that NYSDOT seems to want to put the eastbound ramps after the I-790/NY 5/8/12/49 interchange. I don't know what their thought process is behind this. Does that mean trucks headed to the Marcy-SUNY tech area or NY 8/12 arterial will need to get off at N Genesee Street or Leland Ave and do a u-turn back to I-790 West/South to get that interchange? It seems like it would be a much better idea to put the EB exit/WB entrance from the Thruway to somewhere between where NY 49 EB crosses the Thruway in the Town of Marcy (about 1 mile west of NY 49's interchange with CR 34)

Might be a good idea to send comments before they submit the final report.  That struck me as odd too.

(personal opinion)

I think this report is a couple of years old (correct me if I'm wrong).

While I think these are good ideas, given the recent (Reconstruction of the ramp from the Thruway/I-790 EB to N. Genesee St NB), current (Replacement of the bridge deck over N. Genesee St.), and future (Rebuilding the N. Genesee St. bridges over the Mohawk River and Erie Canal) projects, I suspect it's going to be a while before any of this becomes reality.

They did start the study a couple years ago, although I don't believe a final report has been issued yet.  The presentation at the NYSAMPO Conference was in May, and at the time of the conference, none of the studies had issued a final report (I-787 has since issued its final report, and NY 378 and NY 425 are due to have their reports done by the end of the year).

[roadman65]

Does anyone here think Connecticut Developer Stephen Shapiro will be able to build the New Haven Sound crossing he envisioned that has been surfacing lately in the news as his plan to expand economic growth?

His plan calls for rapid transit and motor traffic to cross the Sound, and will connect at its New York side to the Sunken Meadow Parkway.

[Rothman]

Does anyone here think Connecticut Developer Stephen Shapiro will be able to build the New Haven Sound crossing he envisioned that has been surfacing lately in the news as his plan to expand economic growth?

No.

[roadman65]

Does anyone here think Connecticut Developer Stephen Shapiro will be able to build the New Haven Sound crossing he envisioned that has been surfacing lately in the news as his plan to expand economic growth?

No.

I've seen that building a bridge could upset the environment.  Plus I can't see Long Island giving in to a pavement connecting themselves to the mainland. Especially when new roads bring development and people on Eastern Long Island don't want their landscape changed as such a bridge would do that.

Better chance of getting that bridge at Rye built.  Although that has been proposed for decades with a door slam constantly of getting it into reality.

[The Ghostbuster]

There likely will never be a bridge or tunnel along the Long Island Sound, since every proposal has been shot down. Traffic going to and from Long Island will have to forever go through New York City for access.

[Roadgeek Adam]

There likely will never be a bridge or tunnel along the Long Island Sound, since every proposal has been shot down. Traffic going to and from Long Island will have to forever go through New York City for access.

Exactly. There's tons of bridges throughout the state that need help. Yes, I realize this is a private venture option, but it still requires public roads to be built and adjusted. I'd rather use the money to improve the existing bridges that need work. There's no reason to waste money fighting Long Islanders who don't want the lawn disturbed and will scream all the way to the top.

[SignBridge]

There likely will never be a bridge or tunnel along the Long Island Sound, since every proposal has been shot down. Traffic going to and from Long Island will have to forever go through New York City for access.

Exactly. There's tons of bridges throughout the state that need help. Yes, I realize this is a private venture option, but it still requires public roads to be built and adjusted. I'd rather use the money to improve the existing bridges that need work. There's no reason to waste money fighting Long Islanders who don't want the lawn disturbed and will scream all the way to the top.

Unfortunately you are probably right. However history is full of ironic twists and turns. If traffic ever gets bad enough it could cause a shift in public sentiment, enough to make the politicians act, despite the influence of Long Island's North Shore residents. Not likely but it is possible.

[kalvado]

There likely will never be a bridge or tunnel along the Long Island Sound, since every proposal has been shot down. Traffic going to and from Long Island will have to forever go through New York City for access.

Exactly. There's tons of bridges throughout the state that need help. Yes, I realize this is a private venture option, but it still requires public roads to be built and adjusted. I'd rather use the money to improve the existing bridges that need work. There's no reason to waste money fighting Long Islanders who don't want the lawn disturbed and will scream all the way to the top.

There is a strong anti-nimby agenda in state management. After messing up housing market in the wake of covid, there is a hope that more residential footage build would reduce prices. So a project which would open up more if LI to NYC commuters would get a lot of support.
Looks like those up there basically aim for a Robert Moses level of construction push, still in early stages - but it would grow if condition are right.

[Rothman]

There likely will never be a bridge or tunnel along the Long Island Sound, since every proposal has been shot down. Traffic going to and from Long Island will have to forever go through New York City for access.

Exactly. There's tons of bridges throughout the state that need help. Yes, I realize this is a private venture option, but it still requires public roads to be built and adjusted. I'd rather use the money to improve the existing bridges that need work. There's no reason to waste money fighting Long Islanders who don't want the lawn disturbed and will scream all the way to the top.

Unfortunately you are probably right. However history is full of ironic twists and turns. If traffic ever gets bad enough it could cause a shift in public sentiment, enough to make the politicians act, despite the influence of Long Island's North Shore residents. Not likely but it is possible.

O.o

You've seen traffic on Long Island currently, right?

LIE's already the most congested highway in the State...

[Roadgeek Adam]

Residents of Long Island would rather sit in traffic than have their lawn disturbed for a bridge. A lot of NIMBYism is "oh, it's fine if it doesn't affect me." The second it affects them, oops, angry noises. I'll say this time and again. The best time to have built this bridge was in the depression era. Long Island was far more rural than suburban and the headaches that exist now, 90 years later, were not present.

[Rothman]

Residents of Long Island would rather sit in traffic than have their lawn disturbed for a bridge. A lot of NIMBYism is "oh, it's fine if it doesn't affect me." The second it affects them, oops, angry noises. I'll say this time and again. The best time to have built this bridge was in the depression era. Long Island was far more rural than suburban and the headaches that exist now, 90 years later, were not present.

Problem was the huge growth on Long Island didn't happen until after WWII.  I don't think Rye-Oyster Bay was proposed until nearly 1960 itself...