Car and big rig crash at Oak and Main in the city
A car versus tractor-trailer accident is reported at Oak Street and Richmond Avenue in the city. Unknown injuries. City fire and Mercy medics are responding.
UPDATE (by Howard): The driver of the SUV was checked out by Mercy medics, but reported no injuries.
It seems to me there are way way too many tractor-trailers coming off the expressway using Oak (a two lane residential road) as a shortcut through the town. I've almost been crunched twice at this same intersection (Oak & Main), as I've turned left on a green-arrow from Main to proceed north on Oak -- while some truckers seem to feel they're entitled to ignore my right of way, and proceed with their right-hand turn on red, onto north-bound Oak in front of me. Both Oak and Main and Oak and Richmond seem to have a lot of wrecks. It's not all the tractor-trailers, but they don't help. Also, I feel bad for the homeowners along Oak, a two lane road, who have an endless parade of semi-tractor trailers shaking their foundations, hour after hour, day after day.
End of rant, and thank you for attending.
Scott, if you recall, when NYS decided to reconstruct Oak street several years ago, the home owners turned out in mass the protest the State's plans. They wanted the right hand lane for parking in front of their homes. The State complied with their requests and modified the plans to include parking in the right hand lane. I ask you how often do you see parked vehicles in the right hand, curb, lane??
Tom, I'm aware that Oak St was widened awhile ago (before my time as a Batavian) but I'm unclear about your mention of an NYS decision to reconstruct Oak St. I'm curious why this widening was a state, as opposed to local matter. I'm also unclear about your assertion about resident protests -- how did an Oak St. parking lane factor in the state plan? Or was the widening of Oak, and/or an Oak St. parking lane, at the insistence of residents?
Scott, Oak Street is a state road, not a city one.
Oak St. from Main St. to the Thruway interchange was widened specifically to accommodate four driving lanes. I want to say this occurred in the late 1990s. The additional two lanes required banning on-street parking. Following a significant negative reaction (primarily from home-based businesses with no off-street parking) Oak Street right-hand driving lanes were marked with signs denoting parking was permissible at specific times of day. I vaguely recall driving in the right-hand lane, being forced to merge left because a vehicle was parked in the driving lane. Like it or not, the Oak St. corridor is THE primary artery into a city plotted at the intersection of four state highways teeming with commercial traffic. Short of constructing a beltway, sparing residential areas from heavy traffic (it was discussed during urban renewal era), Oak, Main, Pearl, Walnut and Clinton St. Rd. will serve volumes of heavy traffic. Any bottleneck on Oak will result in accidents. A car parked in a driving lane is a bottleneck.
Scott, what is your solution? How should goods be transported to areas not near the 90? I suspect that the big rig drivers would prefer not going through the city as well.
Bea, you miss the issue. It is not "How should goods be transported to areas not near the 90.". It is that trucks use Oak St to Rte 63 as the a shortcut to 390 to the NYC or NJ shipping docks. It is time for the city to set a weight limit on Oak St.
Its time for I-90 to be free. That would fix the issue.
My guess is the city has no power to set a weight limit on Oak. It's a state road.
Peter has the solution. Twice
It would fix the issue of some traffic but the tax payers wwill scream when taxes are raised to cover the cost of maintaining the highwaty. Unless, of course, NYS raises the road usage fees for big rigs, make it manditory that fuel be purchased before lreaving the state (some states do that), erect functional weigh stations, fine truckers for unwashed trucks (neighborhood states and Ontario will love the truck washing business), and look for other means to collect revenue. Then readers will complain that this is a police state.
Taxes wouldn't need to be raised, all the other fines and such wouldn't have to be implemented. The efficiency created from just removing the redundancy of the thruway authority and absorbing it into the state dot will cover it. Not to mention the easing of the extra maintenance and problems on side routes, like 63 and 98. The additional manpower and equipment transferred to the dot will be actually minimal. The thruway was supposed to be toll-free by 1978. 35 years later and they want to raise tolls Again!
The problem would be what to do with the erie canal. Also, being that is NYS, efficiencies rarely work out as they should if common sense was used.
1) The tolls were not supposed to be gone in 1978, that is a common misconception, they were supposed to be re-assessed which they in fact were.
2) The tolls are a means of collecting road use funds from the many out of state travelers including trucks to maintain the highway without tax dollars. The Fact is that the Thruway does not use tax dollars at all, the work on maintenance and improvement is either bonded or paid for entirely with tolls, The canal is actually a drain on the system yes. Even the Troopers assigned to T Troop which patrols the Thruway are paid by tolls not tax dollars
3. Having a brother that has worked for both the DOT and the Thruway Authority, there is no doubt to him, that the thruway authority is three times as efficient as the DOT
4. The Authority is a step away from privatization, and works with real dollars generated from real usage, unlike the politically driven DOT. My desire would be to see the next step, moving from a State run authority to a private management firm that was successfully and clearly well done in states like Indiana. Moving the thruway to the DOT would do nothing but feed the spending monster.
I realize that you have an aversion to all state authorities but they are not all leopards of the same spot
I disagree about making the thruway free..I like the idea that those who use the road pay for the road.I don't use it that much ,but dont mind paying to drive on it..I think more roads should be set up that way..Let the ones who use it pay for it.....
I found it quite interesting, and somewhat disturbing, that some states make it manditory that big rigs are required to buy their fuel before leaving that state. That smacks of coercion, in my way of thinking. Any idea which states require such a thing?
Thanks, everyone. I've learned a lot on this thread.