Routes 120 and 133 intersection: Better?
DOT found that the “detection loop” sending info to the computer was faulty.
July 22, 2011
by Christine Yeres
Melissa Slater, assistant to Regional Director Bill Gorton of the New York State Department of Transportation in Poughkeepsie, confirmed yesterday that the DOT had received many letters from New Castle residents describing difficulties at the newly completed intersection of routes 120 and 133.
As a result, she explained, the DOT “asked its traffic division go out to the intersection and evaluate it. It’s good that you brought it to our attention,” she said of the residents who wrote. “We found several problems with the computer that controls the traffic signal.”
The DOT team found that there were vehicle delays on the approaches to the intersections. “They knew by looking at the traffic flow,” explained Slater, “that there was a difference between what the traffic signal timer was set to do and what it was actually doing.”
DOT came, adjusted and will continue to monitor
There are computer sensors in each of the three roadbeds that converge at the intersection, Slater explained. Inspectors found fault with the detection loop, the data the road sensors send to the computer that controls the traffic signal. The box is mounted at chest-height on a pole at the side of the road. Crews made several adjustments to the computer and will continue to monitor the intersection.
“If additional adjustments are necessary,” promised Slater, “they will make them. They want to follow up to make sure that the changes they made will resolve all the issues.”
Slater said that the DOT had recently prepared a letter to send out to residents who wrote, both by email and by letter, to report the problem. She said she was unable to say how many emails and letters the DOT had received.
Editor’s note: NCNOW.org received 36 comments following Barbara LeSauvage’s letter to the editor published July 11, 2011. See “State DOT has created a bottleneck at the 133-120 intersection where there was none before.” If you’ve noticed a difference in incidence of traffic tie-ups at the intersection of Routes 120 and 133, let us know in our comment section or by email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). We are interested in monitoring the situation as well.
This is an intersection that I use several times a day. I felt that the three way stop sign which preceded it was a good solution The light is not necessary; it holds up rather than expedites the traffic flow.
Editor’s Note: But do you notice a difference now that DOT says they’ve altered the timing of the light?
You really need a left turn arrow on 133 going toward Millwood turning onto 120. During high traffic hours you sometimes have to wait three to four lights to get pass turning vehicles.
Two quick comments:
The present prohibition of a right turn on red at the 120 /133 traffic light inconveniences hundreds of drivers everyday. Surely a better method could be devised to protect the owner of the corner house who might exit his/her house 2 or 3 times a day…perhaps giving him/her a contoller of some sort(or burying a sensor in the driveway) to initiate a red arrow light signifying NO RIGHT TURN for a period of 2 or 3 minutes. Is it wise to inconvenience hundreds of people 24/7 for the convenience of one household who at best might be inconvenienced for a few minutes per day. (said household might be provided with metallic mirrors at the end of the driveway, as other houses nearby the intersection have)
Second comment: At some time (after, say 9 or 10 PM) the light should change to a flashing red/yellow mode rather than the constant red/green mode. One feels rather stupid sitting at a red light at midnight, the only car in sight waiting for the light to change ...and even more so when one is prohibited from making a right turn on red.
FEEL FREE TO FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO DOT.
@PEZ
as someone who lives on 133, i can tell you that no one “lives” in the corner house you mentioned. yes, someone is always outside taking care of the yard but that house has been unfinished/uninhabited for at least ten years! it doesn’t even have electricity.
also, you don’t want to get stuck behind someone trying to make a left turn onto route 120. the shoulder is not very wide and many times you have to wait for them to make that turn. i have seen a long line of cars unable to move, when they have a green light, waiting for someone to make that turn.
omt,
landscaping is all well and good but a better solution would have been to widen the pavement so drivers could safely make a right turn onto rte 133 and create additional space to make a left turn onto rte 120 and not hold up traffic going east on 133. the plantings were just overkill and a waste of taxpayers money.
Simple answer here is that YES the time now works faster thanks!
Let’s move on to fix the bridge!!!
Works much faster now. Just like the light on Seven Bridges & Rt. 133
Thanks
The 3-Way Stop sign was a disaster. Can’t tell you how many times I was almost hit trying to make the left to 133. So many people assume that if you are going straight, you always have the right of way. However, this light is no better than the fork in the road and too much time (and gas and emissions) are wasted.
We all have our drivers license, and supposedly, we all paid attention while learning the rules of the road. How about allowing the Red Lights to Blink either when turning RIGHT to go towards Chappaqua, or when heading from Mt. Kisco towards Gedney Park, or just allowing both RED LIGHTS to Blink, except for the Red Light that you see when leaving Chappaqua to turn either Left towards Millwood, or Right towards Mt. Kisco.
If you do not know what a RED BLINKING LIGHT is, and you don’t know how to react to it, then go back to driving school or get off the road before someone has to dial 911.
The No Right On Red prohibition when you’re turning right from 133 onto 120 is ridiculous. Traffic wise, it doesn’t make any sense at all since it’s only a 3-way and not a 4-way intersection. If, as was suggested by an earlier comment, it was for the sake of the house on the corner of 120&133;, that seems foolish.
Other than that, I haven’t had many problems with the new system.
I don’t get all the No turn on red complaining. I have to ask if the first car is not going right then you have to wait anyway correct….. so what’s the big deal.
Do we really want a 4 lane intersection in our little town?
Bad enough the bridge is a mess and the business in town are barley surviving.
The DOT’s position that no right-red going from 133 to 120 because of the resident’s driveway doesn’t make sense.
If the blindness of the driveway was in fact a real issue, then why did the DOT pay for an install small trees and bushes that effectively contribute to not seeing the driveway. Silly. As those bushes continue to grow, the driveway will be completely blind, as a result of the DOT’s action.
The bushes should be removed, and the right-on-red should be restored.
Just to clarify a comment made by someone else above—The no right turn from 133 onto 120 is for the house on the Millwood side of the intersection, which seems to have someone living there since I have seen trucks and cars going in and out from time to time (and changed hands at least once within the last 10 years), not the house on the Mt. Kisco side which has indeed been unoccupied for many years, far more than the 10 mentioned by the way. But it sure seems to me that there are ways to protect that homeowner without a constant prohibition on right turns. Maybe a sign saying no right turn when a car is in the driveway to the right would work. I think drivers could handle that as well as they handle any other sign and it will not hold up traffic all day long.
While I applaud the DOT’s interest in correcting the sensor/timing issue, I still believe that when buses and commuters are back in September, the westbound traffic on Route 133 will be a frustrating, lengthy backup without a green arrow to allow traffic to move efficiently through the intersection. The “No Right on Red” to allow access in/out of 2 infrequently used driveways seems extreme as well. A previous suggestion of “Yield to Cars in Driveway” seems most logical.
This right on red issue is really no different than the intersection by the A&P with the Mobil station driveway. Somehow (easily with caution) making a right on red there works pretty well.
It is interesting that the state does not test or come by and review this sort of installation a few weeks afterwards to see if it is working. It takes letters from residents to get it to review. Seems like a poor policy.
I would be very opposed to widening the 133 road to allow people around left hand turners. That would require taking land by eminent domain from the homeowners there and that would suck just so you can save a minute or two.
I agree with Barbara. Timing is a separate issue. There needs to be a left turn arrow for westbound traffic on 133 to alleviate the problem, especially when traffic is in full force in the fall. Really, despite the few cars that plowed through the stop sign, that was a much better situation than the light the way it is currently designed. Thank you Barbara for opening up this discussion and getting some results!!
I work in town and have to travel through that intersection many many times a day. Initially both the light’s timing was a mess. Since the change mentioned above it has been great. The lights now seem to move traffic rapidly at all hours of the day hours. So YES the correction worked and this is a MUCH safer solution then the wild west of the old “Y” intersection. Remember those close your eyes and hit the gas days…Thanks
Oh…As for the No Turn on Red I see why that would have to stay as the 3 driveways of the very occupied houses on the Millwood side (Not the vacant one on the Mt.Kisco side) would not be able to enter or leave without an inevitable accident… When it was the 3 way stop sign I almost hit them once not knowing they were going into the driveway…completely my bad so Sorry.
Now let’s Fix the bridge!!!
In England they have roundabouts for small intersections like this. A lot cheaper than all that lighting and wiring. Low maintenance cost too.
I applaud Rob Greenstein for encouraging residents to write a complaint to Bill Gorton, the acting regional director of the New York State Department of Transportation. This proves, once again, that public activism can make a difference.
Marc L
The intersection is at least safer now than before. DOT will work out the bugs that are inevitable with a new traffic signal and that will be that. It would be nice to not need a light, but our little town isn’t really so little anymore. And I agree with the other commenter about the bridge, let’s get that finished finally.
I agree with all of the comments above—the 3 way stop sign functioned better (although I was initially skeptical), landscaping is ridiculous and will soon be as overgrown as the rest of the Chappaqua roadsides, furthering more taxpayer money in unnecessary tree work, and the right on red prohibition makes no sense. Most importantly, the intersection is now not only more time consuming, but also more dangerous than before. When cars are waiting to make the left turn from 133 onto 120, approaching from Mount Kisco, the cars that want to go straight into Millwood illegally pass on the right on the shoulder to go straight. And cars from every direction SPEED when approaching the intersection to avoid the inconvenience of having to wait, often unnecessarily. Isn’t a stoplight supposed to slow down traffic? It’s not only an inconvenience, but also a safety issue on this side of town.
Common sense - allow traffic to turn right on red from 133 to 120. Instead of all the pretty shrubs they should have made a right turn lane. Who plans these things - someone who never uses this road?
It really does seem obvious that a right on red be allowed. At least a handful of times I’ve been the first (or only!) car at that intersection waiting needlessly to make a right. And there have been times that 3 or 4 cars are all sitting there with there blinkers on slowing traffic unnecessarily.
The only justification for NROR would be if there were a left turn signal for the oncoming cars…and there isn’t. The comment about this decision having something to do with the house on the corner simply makes no sense.
Having said that, in general, the light is an improvement, in my view.
