NY 17/"I-86"

[Alps]

The underestimating of how much conversion work is needed continues...

They should pay for this with HOT lanes.

[Rothman]

The underestimating of how much conversion work is needed continues...

They should pay for this with HOT lanes.

Nice poke.

[Beltway]

The underestimating of how much conversion work is needed continues...

They should pay for this with HOT lanes.

Nice poke.

Is this a Vanity Interstate Highway?

[Rothman]

The underestimating of how much conversion work is needed continues...

They should pay for this with HOT lanes.

Nice poke.

Is this a Vanity Interstate Highway?

To a certain extent.  Patrick Moynihan was the main force behind it and after he retired, the political will behind it dissipated.  Prospect Mountain, Parksville and Exit 131 were the last vestiges of the effort, with Exit 131 being pushed mainly due to other development in the area.

Currently, NYSDOT leadership scoffs outright at Hale Eddy to Hancock, so who knows if that will ever be done.

[storm2k]

The underestimating of how much conversion work is needed continues...

They should pay for this with HOT lanes.

Nice poke.

Is this a Vanity Interstate Highway?

To a certain extent.  Patrick Moynihan was the main force behind it and after he retired, the political will behind it dissipated.  Prospect Mountain, Parksville and Exit 131 were the last vestiges of the effort, with Exit 131 being pushed mainly due to other development in the area.

Currently, NYSDOT leadership scoffs outright at Hale Eddy to Hancock, so who knows if that will ever be done.

And until someone puts in Andrew Cuomo's ear that this is another "signature achievement" for the state if he pushes on it, it will probably stay that way.

[Beltway]

Is this a Vanity Interstate Highway?

To a certain extent.  Patrick Moynihan was the main force behind it and after he retired, the political will behind it dissipated.  Prospect Mountain, Parksville and Exit 131 were the last vestiges of the effort, with Exit 131 being pushed mainly due to other development in the area.
Currently, NYSDOT leadership scoffs outright at Hale Eddy to Hancock, so who knows if that will ever be done.

And until someone puts in Andrew Cuomo's ear that this is another "signature achievement" for the state if he pushes on it, it will probably stay that way.

What about the section between I-99 and I-81?

Bring the remaining non-Interstate segments up to standard.  How expensive would that be?

[vdeane]

The underestimating of how much conversion work is needed continues...

They should pay for this with HOT lanes.

Nice poke.

Is this a Vanity Interstate Highway?

To a certain extent.  Patrick Moynihan was the main force behind it and after he retired, the political will behind it dissipated.  Prospect Mountain, Parksville and Exit 131 were the last vestiges of the effort, with Exit 131 being pushed mainly due to other development in the area.

Currently, NYSDOT leadership scoffs outright at Hale Eddy to Hancock, so who knows if that will ever be done.

And until someone puts in Andrew Cuomo's ear that this is another "signature achievement" for the state if he pushes on it, it will probably stay that way.

There's a lot more work to be done than just Hale Eddy.  Think interchange reconfigurations, acceleration/deceleration lanes, shoulder/bridge widths, sight distance (lots of bunny hops in Region 8), etc.  Maybe someday it will be "do the Hale Eddy project and you'll have a signature accomplishment to take credit for", but not today.

[cl94]

At this point, Hale Eddy isn't even the biggest remaining thing. Sure, it's the most visible piece, but it's only 3 miles with little traffic. The section east of Middletown basically needs to be blown up while maintaining 4+ lanes of traffic in order to become compliant. And there are quite a few other acceleration lanes that need to be done in Delaware and Sullivan Counties, as well as the RIRO.

[sparker]

At this point, Hale Eddy isn't even the biggest remaining thing. Sure, it's the most visible piece, but it's only 3 miles with little traffic. The section east of Middletown basically needs to be blown up while maintaining 4+ lanes of traffic in order to become compliant. And there are quite a few other acceleration lanes that need to be done in Delaware and Sullivan Counties, as well as the RIRO.

Always thought Hale Eddy could be handled in a similar fashion to I-69E through the King Ranch in S. Texas -- occasional "turnoffs" parallel to the main carriageways coupled to a terrain waiver for inside shoulders.  But the above statement is basically valid -- there's other, more heavily traveled areas that need modification prior to Interstate acceptance.  Unless the entire corridor is prioritized by NYDOT -- and local posters have indicated that may not occur in the near term -- prospects don't look good for I-86 designation/actual signage east of where it is now.  But unless the corridor east of I-81 is formally deleted from the Interstate system, it'll be the project that won't go away, but keeps getting "back-burnered" or shelved on a recurring basis. 

[Rothman]

It's not even on the capital program to be back-burnered.

It could become another Rooftop in this regard.

[Beltway]

But unless the corridor east of I-81 is formally deleted from the Interstate system, it'll be the project that won't go away, but keeps getting "back-burnered" or shelved on a recurring basis. 

It will be on the 2050 Plan or on the 2070 Plan!

[hbelkins]

I'll say the same thing about this route (and having driven it only once, about 12 years ago) that I do about the Kentucky parkways -- the average driver can't tell the difference between a modern Interstate-compatible freeway and a freeway with technical deficiencies. NY 17 is as good as an Interstate to motorists who use it. I don't see what the harm is in putting up the I-86 signs once the entire route becomes a freeway from Middletown to Binghamton. There are portions of existing Interstates that are already signed that are even farther behind 2020 standards than this route.

[Roadgeek Adam]

At this point, Hale Eddy isn't even the biggest remaining thing. Sure, it's the most visible piece, but it's only 3 miles with little traffic. The section east of Middletown basically needs to be blown up while maintaining 4+ lanes of traffic in order to become compliant. And there are quite a few other acceleration lanes that need to be done in Delaware and Sullivan Counties, as well as the RIRO.

Always thought Hale Eddy could be handled in a similar fashion to I-69E through the King Ranch in S. Texas -- occasional "turnoffs" parallel to the main carriageways coupled to a terrain waiver for inside shoulders.  But the above statement is basically valid -- there's other, more heavily traveled areas that need modification prior to Interstate acceptance.  Unless the entire corridor is prioritized by NYDOT -- and local posters have indicated that may not occur in the near term -- prospects don't look good for I-86 designation/actual signage east of where it is now.  But unless the corridor east of I-81 is formally deleted from the Interstate system, it'll be the project that won't go away, but keeps getting "back-burnered" or shelved on a recurring basis. 

The solution to Hale Eddy is to do absolutely nothing.

[seicer]

It's been designed and is awaiting funding. It's a backburner project but certainly not going anywhere after years of planning and outreach efforts.

But I would agree with H.B. Outside of Hale Eddy, most of future I-86 is passable with some of its issues - short ramps/merges, more easily resolvable. If Kentucky can gather political support to force interstate shields on parkways -before- they are upgraded, New York can do the same.

[Rothman]

Given the 10 year PE rule, the previous design work is moot.  It's not on the capital program.  Not now, not twenty years in the future, not anywhere.

I'm sure that some skeleton will exist as a "candidate" somewhere in the system, but calling that group "backburnered" is a stretch.  Some, like this one, could remain in that void for decades.

[AMLNet49]

But unless the corridor east of I-81 is formally deleted from the Interstate system, it'll be the project that won't go away, but keeps getting "back-burnered" or shelved on a recurring basis. 

It will be on the 2050 Plan or on the 2070 Plan!

It's not as simple as "east of 81 vs west of 81" , as there is a large section directly east of 81 that is already designated as 86, plus another section near 84 that isn't officially upgraded but has been signed as 86 from 84 for over a decade now.  East of 81 is currently like west of 81 used to be: the 86 designation seemingly flipping on and off randomly. Really all they need to do is put "to 86 west"  on the guide signs from 87. That would mean the "east of 81"  segment would be signed as 86 or "to 86"  from the interstate it meets at one end (81), the other end (87) and the middle (84).  I've suggested before signing the segments in between these interchanges as a faux interstate, NY 86 (road in the adirondacks can be changed) with White faux-interstate shields like RI used to use, with regular state route shields, or with "to I-86" , but most important is to get it signed as 86 or "to 86"  from the thruway for the reasons I stated earlier.

[sparker]

But unless the corridor east of I-81 is formally deleted from the Interstate system, it'll be the project that won't go away, but keeps getting "back-burnered" or shelved on a recurring basis. 

It will be on the 2050 Plan or on the 2070 Plan!

It's not as simple as "east of 81 vs west of 81" , as there is a large section directly east of 81 that is already designated as 86, plus another section near 84 that isn't officially upgraded but has been signed as 86 from 84 for over a decade now.  East of 81 is currently like west of 81 used to be: the 86 designation seemingly flipping on and off randomly. Really all they need to do is put "to 86 west"  on the guide signs from 87. That would mean the "east of 81"  segment would be signed as 86 or "to 86"  from the interstate it meets at one end (81), the other end (87) and the middle (84).  I've suggested before signing the segments in between these interchanges as a faux interstate, NY 86 (road in the adirondacks can be changed) with White faux-interstate shields like RI used to use, with regular state route shields, or with "to I-86" , but most important is to get it signed as 86 or "to 86"  from the thruway for the reasons I stated earlier.

Yeah -- it's too bad the practice of signing existing partially-compliant facilities with shields modified with "TEMPORARY" bannering above is no longer allowed; deploying that over segments not presently up to standards would go a long way to resolving the issue here -- if ever there was a "poster child" for restoration of this method, NY 17/I-86 is it! 

[sprjus4]

But unless the corridor east of I-81 is formally deleted from the Interstate system, it'll be the project that won't go away, but keeps getting "back-burnered" or shelved on a recurring basis. 

It will be on the 2050 Plan or on the 2070 Plan!

It's not as simple as "east of 81 vs west of 81" , as there is a large section directly east of 81 that is already designated as 86, plus another section near 84 that isn't officially upgraded but has been signed as 86 from 84 for over a decade now.  East of 81 is currently like west of 81 used to be: the 86 designation seemingly flipping on and off randomly. Really all they need to do is put "to 86 west"  on the guide signs from 87. That would mean the "east of 81"  segment would be signed as 86 or "to 86"  from the interstate it meets at one end (81), the other end (87) and the middle (84).  I've suggested before signing the segments in between these interchanges as a faux interstate, NY 86 (road in the adirondacks can be changed) with White faux-interstate shields like RI used to use, with regular state route shields, or with "to I-86" , but most important is to get it signed as 86 or "to 86"  from the thruway for the reasons I stated earlier.

Yeah -- it's too bad the practice of signing existing partially-compliant facilities with shields modified with "TEMPORARY" bannering above is no longer allowed; deploying that over segments not presently up to standards would go a long way to resolving the issue here -- if ever there was a "poster child" for restoration of this method, NY 17/I-86 is it!

See Future I-26 in Asheville.

[sparker]

But unless the corridor east of I-81 is formally deleted from the Interstate system, it'll be the project that won't go away, but keeps getting "back-burnered" or shelved on a recurring basis. 

It will be on the 2050 Plan or on the 2070 Plan!

It's not as simple as "east of 81 vs west of 81" , as there is a large section directly east of 81 that is already designated as 86, plus another section near 84 that isn't officially upgraded but has been signed as 86 from 84 for over a decade now.  East of 81 is currently like west of 81 used to be: the 86 designation seemingly flipping on and off randomly. Really all they need to do is put "to 86 west"  on the guide signs from 87. That would mean the "east of 81"  segment would be signed as 86 or "to 86"  from the interstate it meets at one end (81), the other end (87) and the middle (84).  I've suggested before signing the segments in between these interchanges as a faux interstate, NY 86 (road in the adirondacks can be changed) with White faux-interstate shields like RI used to use, with regular state route shields, or with "to I-86" , but most important is to get it signed as 86 or "to 86"  from the thruway for the reasons I stated earlier.

Yeah -- it's too bad the practice of signing existing partially-compliant facilities with shields modified with "TEMPORARY" bannering above is no longer allowed; deploying that over segments not presently up to standards would go a long way to resolving the issue here -- if ever there was a "poster child" for restoration of this method, NY 17/I-86 is it!

See Future I-26 in Asheville.

Good for NCDOT -- ignoring arbitrary dicta from above when the situation calls for it!  That, too, could qualify as a smaller sibling to the I-86 conundrum -- both featuring substandard sections between qualifying freeway.  I suppose "Future" bannering is functionally equivalent to "Temporary". 

[vdeane]

NC-style "future" signage or "temporary" signage sounds like a way to end-around the need to actually upgrade the road to get branding benefits to me.  Might explain why it's taken NCDOT so long to finally move forward with finishing I-26 - in the eyes of the public, it's already done, so there's no push to finish.  This, of course, leaves the system in a more messed up state, and keeping a neat an orderly interstate highway system is something I'd prefer.

[sprjus4]

NC-style "future" signage or "temporary" signage sounds like a way to end-around the need to actually upgrade the road to get branding benefits to me.  Might explain why it's taken NCDOT so long to finally move forward with finishing I-26 - in the eyes of the public, it's already done, so there's no push to finish.  This, of course, leaves the system in a more messed up state, and keeping a neat an orderly interstate highway system is something I'd prefer.

Trust me, I-26 near Asheville is a mess. It needed an overhaul 20 years ago.

[seicer]

Somehow we survived "TO I-64/77" shields on the West Virginia Turnpike and Temporary/Future banners all across the US with no problem.

[Beltway]

Somehow we survived "TO I-64/77" shields on the West Virginia Turnpike and Temporary/Future banners all across the US with no problem.

None of them equate to an Interstate designation.

"Temporary" comes close.  "Future" and "TO" have been used even on nonlimited-access parallel highways, and neither is "temporary"; they indicate something that might exist in the future.

[sparker]

NC-style "future" signage or "temporary" signage sounds like a way to end-around the need to actually upgrade the road to get branding benefits to me.  Might explain why it's taken NCDOT so long to finally move forward with finishing I-26 - in the eyes of the public, it's already done, so there's no push to finish.  This, of course, leaves the system in a more messed up state, and keeping a neat an orderly interstate highway system is something I'd prefer.

Trust me, I-26 near Asheville is a mess. It needed an overhaul 20 years ago.

Somehow we survived "TO I-64/77" shields on the West Virginia Turnpike and Temporary/Future banners all across the US with no problem.

None of them equate to an Interstate designation.

"Temporary" comes close.  "Future" and "TO" have been used even on nonlimited-access parallel highways, and neither is "temporary"; they indicate something that might exist in the future.

IMO, an Interstate-standard facility interspersed with a few substandard segments marked as "temporary" is at least a way to introduce (or evolve) the corridor in question to being functionally navigable as a composite corridor.  While such a configuration may indeed, in a sense, let a state's DOT "off the hook" -- at least perceptively -- regarding a schedule for upgrading the substandard sections (or project a really leisurely pace at doing so), that isn't really relevant for the sake of navigation for "retail" customer purposes.   And in regard to dilution of the Interstate "brand" -- that's a ship that has sailed long ago in multiple jurisdictions (including in my home state of CA!).  The dictum that would be best followed in circumstances like this is:  don't let the perfect stand in the way of the practical/doable. 

[Beltway]

"Temporary Interstate" designations have been out of use for at least 30 years.