NY 17 / I-86 Conversion Resurrected?

[Rothman]

UPDATE:

So far, the only significant project that's being discussed for addition to the program is Exit 131 (Woodbury Commons).  Hale Eddy to Hancock is not in NYSDOT's five-year program.

(personal opinion expressed)

Makes sense.  That project makes sense regardless of whether the road will ever be I-86 or not and the locals have been clamoring for it for years.

I just had an idea: what if the Hall Eddy/Hancock and other Region 9 projects were resurrected to extend I-86 to I-84 and the rest of NY 17 to I-87 swap numbers with NY 86 (the rest of NY 17 down to Sloatsburg could be NY 32)?  Since the majority of the remaining cost is in Region 8, this would substantially reduce the price of getting I-86 to a meaningful state of relative completion.

I think the tipping point is that interchange. It might be the single most expensive project left in the conversion.

It is, but the remaining overall costs in Region 8 dwarf it.

[cl94]

UPDATE:

So far, the only significant project that's being discussed for addition to the program is Exit 131 (Woodbury Commons).  Hale Eddy to Hancock is not in NYSDOT's five-year program.

(personal opinion expressed)

Makes sense.  That project makes sense regardless of whether the road will ever be I-86 or not and the locals have been clamoring for it for years.

I just had an idea: what if the Hall Eddy/Hancock and other Region 9 projects were resurrected to extend I-86 to I-84 and the rest of NY 17 to I-87 swap numbers with NY 86 (the rest of NY 17 down to Sloatsburg could be NY 32)?  Since the majority of the remaining cost is in Region 8, this would substantially reduce the price of getting I-86 to a meaningful state of relative completion.

I think the tipping point is that interchange. It might be the single most expensive project left in the conversion.

It is, but the remaining overall costs in Region 8 dwarf it.

Are there a bunch of bridge replacements in there? That's the only thing I could think of that would drive up the cost.

[Rothman]

UPDATE:

So far, the only significant project that's being discussed for addition to the program is Exit 131 (Woodbury Commons).  Hale Eddy to Hancock is not in NYSDOT's five-year program.

(personal opinion expressed)

Makes sense.  That project makes sense regardless of whether the road will ever be I-86 or not and the locals have been clamoring for it for years.

I just had an idea: what if the Hall Eddy/Hancock and other Region 9 projects were resurrected to extend I-86 to I-84 and the rest of NY 17 to I-87 swap numbers with NY 86 (the rest of NY 17 down to Sloatsburg could be NY 32)?  Since the majority of the remaining cost is in Region 8, this would substantially reduce the price of getting I-86 to a meaningful state of relative completion.

I think the tipping point is that interchange. It might be the single most expensive project left in the conversion.

It is, but the remaining overall costs in Region 8 dwarf it.

Are there a bunch of bridge replacements in there? That's the only thing I could think of that would drive up the cost.

The list of projects hasn't changed since I posted this:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16863.msg2107556#msg2107556

That said, I'm not sure what exactly the interchange upgrades entail in Region 8, but there they are.

[AMLNet49]

I should also correct part of what I said earlier about I-86 shields needing to be posted on I-84 and I-87. There already are I-86 shields posted on I-84 approaching the interchange, I drove through there today.

[cl94]

I should also correct part of what I said earlier about I-86 shields needing to be posted on I-84 and I-87. There already are I-86 shields posted on I-84 approaching the interchange, I drove through there today.

At one point, the plan was to sign it between the Orange/Sullivan line and I-84. I don't know if that will happen.

[AMLNet49]

I should also correct part of what I said earlier about I-86 shields needing to be posted on I-84 and I-87. There already are I-86 shields posted on I-84 approaching the interchange, I drove through there today.

At one point, the plan was to sign it between the Orange/Sullivan line and I-84. I don't know if that will happen.

Well the shields are up so it looks like it is. I didn't drive on the road itself so I don't know if it is posted in a reassurance context but on the guide signs from I-84 it is posted.

[vdeane]

UPDATE:

So far, the only significant project that's being discussed for addition to the program is Exit 131 (Woodbury Commons).  Hale Eddy to Hancock is not in NYSDOT's five-year program.

(personal opinion expressed)

Makes sense.  That project makes sense regardless of whether the road will ever be I-86 or not and the locals have been clamoring for it for years.

I just had an idea: what if the Hall Eddy/Hancock and other Region 9 projects were resurrected to extend I-86 to I-84 and the rest of NY 17 to I-87 swap numbers with NY 86 (the rest of NY 17 down to Sloatsburg could be NY 32)?  Since the majority of the remaining cost is in Region 8, this would substantially reduce the price of getting I-86 to a meaningful state of relative completion.

I think the tipping point is that interchange. It might be the single most expensive project left in the conversion.

It is, but the remaining overall costs in Region 8 dwarf it.

Are there a bunch of bridge replacements in there? That's the only thing I could think of that would drive up the cost.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of those are full depth reconstructions (or at least major rehabilitations) given Rothman's cost figures.

[yakra]

I should also correct part of what I said earlier about I-86 shields needing to be posted on I-84 and I-87. There already are I-86 shields posted on I-84 approaching the interchange, I drove through there today.

Future I-86, or I-86 proper?

[froggie]

Well the shields are up so it looks like it is. I didn't drive on the road itself so I don't know if it is posted in a reassurance context but on the guide signs from I-84 it is posted.

There are a few reassurance signs posted, at least around Middletown/Scotchtown, as well as trailblazers at the NY 302 interchange.  They weren't consistent, though.  And to answer yakra's question, the signs I saw were I-86 proper.

[Henry]

I guess an update on the I-86 page is in order? I'd hold off, though, until the substandard remainder of NY 17 is upgraded, and I wouldn't hold my breath on that either.

[cl94]

I guess an update on the I-86 page is in order? I'd hold off, though, until the substandard remainder of NY 17 is upgraded, and I wouldn't hold my breath on that either.

An update isn't in order until the designation is approved.

[AMLNet49]

I should also correct part of what I said earlier about I-86 shields needing to be posted on I-84 and I-87. There already are I-86 shields posted on I-84 approaching the interchange, I drove through there today.

Future I-86, or I-86 proper?

And to answer yakra's question, the signs I saw were I-86 proper.

Yes the ones on I-84 are for I-86 proper. Wish they put them on I-87 too, but that won't happen for a while.

[The Ghostbuster]

Will there be an upgrade between exit 84 and exit 87 any time soon? Or will we have to wait a few decades for NYSDOT to get its act together and finish the NY 17 to Interstate 86 conversion?

[Roadgeek Adam]

Will there be an upgrade between exit 84 and exit 87 any time soon? Or will we have to wait a few decades for NYSDOT to get its act together and finish the NY 17 to Interstate 86 conversion?

Does it really need it? It's the second-least traveled section of 17 east of Elmira and I would argue money would be better spent elsewhere instead of bulldozing Hale Eddy for a couple extra lanes and an interchange.

[machias]

Will there be an upgrade between exit 84 and exit 87 any time soon? Or will we have to wait a few decades for NYSDOT to get its act together and finish the NY 17 to Interstate 86 conversion?

Does it really need it? It's the second-least traveled section of 17 east of Elmira and I would argue money would be better spent elsewhere instead of bulldozing Hale Eddy for a couple extra lanes and an interchange.

I agree that this section isn't bad the way it currently is, though recently I noticed signs indicating school buses stopping along that stretch, which must be a little odd for motorists not familiar with the area.

I really think it would be perfectly acceptable to leave Exits 84-87 as is until funding improves but still signing everything else as Interstate 86, with "To 86" banners along the Hale Eddy section.

[vdeane]

Well the shields are up so it looks like it is. I didn't drive on the road itself so I don't know if it is posted in a reassurance context but on the guide signs from I-84 it is posted.

There are a few reassurance signs posted, at least around Middletown/Scotchtown, as well as trailblazers at the NY 302 interchange.  They weren't consistent, though.  And to answer yakra's question, the signs I saw were I-86 proper.

They looked pervasive (albeit covered up) the last time I was there, and also at the ramps on street view.  I'm surprised there's been no application to have it designated.

[Duke87]

Officially, nothing in Orange or Sullivan counties has been approved by AASHTO or FHWA, so none of it is part of I-86.

In terms of signage in the field, there are lots of I-86 shields posted (particularly between I-84 and the Sullivan/Orange county line) which are all supposed to be covered up until the designation is approved, but NYSDOT has employed zero vigilance in keeping them covered. There are even a bunch of mile markers with I-86 shields in them that never were covered.

It's almost a fun philosophical experiment in "at what point is a route considered signed?"

[Roadgeek Adam]

Will there be an upgrade between exit 84 and exit 87 any time soon? Or will we have to wait a few decades for NYSDOT to get its act together and finish the NY 17 to Interstate 86 conversion?

Does it really need it? It's the second-least traveled section of 17 east of Elmira and I would argue money would be better spent elsewhere instead of bulldozing Hale Eddy for a couple extra lanes and an interchange.

I agree that this section isn't bad the way it currently is, though recently I noticed signs indicating school buses stopping along that stretch, which must be a little odd for motorists not familiar with the area.

I really think it would be perfectly acceptable to leave Exits 84-87 as is until funding improves but still signing everything else as Interstate 86, with "To 86" banners along the Hale Eddy section.

But even then. Can't we just forget ever upgrading this section? I don't seriously think it will ever get the AADT to the project's value.

[noelbotevera]

Will there be an upgrade between exit 84 and exit 87 any time soon? Or will we have to wait a few decades for NYSDOT to get its act together and finish the NY 17 to Interstate 86 conversion?

Does it really need it? It's the second-least traveled section of 17 east of Elmira and I would argue money would be better spent elsewhere instead of bulldozing Hale Eddy for a couple extra lanes and an interchange.

I agree that this section isn't bad the way it currently is, though recently I noticed signs indicating school buses stopping along that stretch, which must be a little odd for motorists not familiar with the area.

I really think it would be perfectly acceptable to leave Exits 84-87 as is until funding improves but still signing everything else as Interstate 86, with "To 86" banners along the Hale Eddy section.

But even then. Can't we just forget ever upgrading this section? I don't seriously think it will ever get the AADT to the project's value.

Well, can't they grandfather I-86? Some parts of the freeway were already constructed by the 60's or so.

[Roadgeek Adam]

Will there be an upgrade between exit 84 and exit 87 any time soon? Or will we have to wait a few decades for NYSDOT to get its act together and finish the NY 17 to Interstate 86 conversion?

Does it really need it? It's the second-least traveled section of 17 east of Elmira and I would argue money would be better spent elsewhere instead of bulldozing Hale Eddy for a couple extra lanes and an interchange.

I agree that this section isn't bad the way it currently is, though recently I noticed signs indicating school buses stopping along that stretch, which must be a little odd for motorists not familiar with the area.

I really think it would be perfectly acceptable to leave Exits 84-87 as is until funding improves but still signing everything else as Interstate 86, with "To 86" banners along the Hale Eddy section.

But even then. Can't we just forget ever upgrading this section? I don't seriously think it will ever get the AADT to the project's value.

Well, can't they grandfather I-86? Some parts of the freeway were already constructed by the 60's or so.

Doesn't meet interstate standards. Hale Eddy has intersections and as noted, buses stop on the side of 17.

[noelbotevera]

Will there be an upgrade between exit 84 and exit 87 any time soon? Or will we have to wait a few decades for NYSDOT to get its act together and finish the NY 17 to Interstate 86 conversion?

Does it really need it? It's the second-least traveled section of 17 east of Elmira and I would argue money would be better spent elsewhere instead of bulldozing Hale Eddy for a couple extra lanes and an interchange.

I agree that this section isn't bad the way it currently is, though recently I noticed signs indicating school buses stopping along that stretch, which must be a little odd for motorists not familiar with the area.

I really think it would be perfectly acceptable to leave Exits 84-87 as is until funding improves but still signing everything else as Interstate 86, with "To 86" banners along the Hale Eddy section.

But even then. Can't we just forget ever upgrading this section? I don't seriously think it will ever get the AADT to the project's value.

Well, can't they grandfather I-86? Some parts of the freeway were already constructed by the 60's or so.

Doesn't meet interstate standards. Hale Eddy has intersections and as noted, buses stop on the side of 17.

Then how was I-278 an interstate in the first place? Trucks are prohibited on a small part of it, which is a no go, the design is well substandard, also a no go, and there's a drawbridge on it.

[froggie]

Because I-278 was an "original Interstate route", i.e. designated as part of the official system.  New routes added to the system since then have had to meet Interstate standards of the time before they get included.

[cl94]

Because I-278 was an "original Interstate route", i.e. designated as part of the official system.  New routes added to the system since then have had to meet Interstate standards of the time before they get included.

NY 17 also has a few true at-grade intersections with cross traffic. Won't find that on I-278 even with how substandard it is.

[Duke87]

Because I-278 was an "original Interstate route", i.e. designated as part of the official system.  New routes added to the system since then have had to meet Interstate standards of the time before they get included.

NY 17 also has a few true at-grade intersections with cross traffic. Won't find that on I-278 even with how substandard it is.

No, but you will find it on I-70, I-78, and I-180.

[jp the roadgeek]

Because I-278 was an "original Interstate route", i.e. designated as part of the official system.  New routes added to the system since then have had to meet Interstate standards of the time before they get included.

NY 17 also has a few true at-grade intersections with cross traffic. Won't find that on I-278 even with how substandard it is.

No, but you will find it on I-70, I-78, and I-180.

And I-278 (as well as I-695 in MD) has a drawbridge on it.