New York State Route 17

[Quillz]

NY 17 is eventually going to be Interstate 86. I have no idea how the NYDoT operates, so my question is simple: Will NY 17 be canceled entirely, or run concurrent with I-86? It's an old route dating back to the 1920s and thus I imagine it has both history and numeric recognition to it. From what I've read, a short portion in the southeast corner of the state will remain as a non-concurrency, hence why I'm curious if the route will be drastically reduced in length or just maintained via a hidden concurrency or something similar.

[hbelkins]

I was told by a NYSDOT employee recently that 17 is going to be removed from the STE and I-86. Likewise, the designation of NY 15 is going to be removed from I-86 and I-390 and will be truncated as well. In the western part of the state, NY 17 is signed somewhat as an afterthought and the NY 17 signs won't be replaced and will eventually be removed.

[Roadgeek Adam]

No one's quite sure what's going to happen. It seems like a full belief, NY 17 will be truncated 380 miles back to Woodbury Commons Junction, where it meets 87, 86, Orange CR 64 and NY 32. The short 17 mile stint to the state line will be NY 17.

What's also totally in the air is what will happen to NY 17B, 17C and 17K, since they won't junction with 17 anymore.

[vdeane]

Will NY 17 even remain at all?  That last segment could easily become an extension of NY 32.

[froggie]

Probably would remain, to retain consistency with NJ 17.

[papaT10932]

I would assume that I-86 will end at the Thruway interchange in Harriman and that NY-17 will continue from there. As it is right now, that location is where NY-17 changes from running east/west to north/south. The current north/south segment will become 17 in it's entirety once I-86 is finished.
I had never given any thought to 17's suffixed routes. I wonder what will happen to them.  If my version of the future, truncated 17 holds true, 17A will be the only suffixed route to intersect with 17. (and only at the Tuxedo end)

[Quillz]

On an unrelated note, odd-numbered routes run east-west and even-numbered routes run north-south, right?

[Roadgeek Adam]

I would assume that I-86 will end at the Thruway interchange in Harriman and that NY-17 will continue from there. As it is right now, that location is where NY-17 changes from running east/west to north/south. The current north/south segment will become 17 in it's entirety once I-86 is finished.
I had never given any thought to 17's suffixed routes. I wonder what will happen to them.  If my version of the future, truncated 17 holds true, 17A will be the only suffixed route to intersect with 17. (and only at the Tuxedo end)

17A and 17M both intersect. 17A in Tuxedo (just south of Southfields) and 17M in Harriman, just north of the Metro-North (former Erie Railroad) station.

[cu2010]

On an unrelated note, odd-numbered routes run east-west and even-numbered routes run north-south, right?

As far as I know, NY's state routes follow no numbering pattern and run whichever direction they do regardless of number (though a good deal of the "major" routes do follow that pattern, but it is by no means a rule).

[Alps]

Suffixed routes will probably get converted to 3-digits eventually, though I don't know what numbering scheme would be used for that.  Probably some 4xx numbers.

[Dougtone]

While I think there will be no renumbering of the suffixed routes (NY 17A, NY 17B, NY 17C and NY 17M), probably because it would be easier for everyone who would be affected by the change, I would like to see at least NY 17B and NY 17C be renumbered after the NY 17 designation is removed from present and future I-86.  I've thought that NY 47 and NY 57 could make good, available numbers where NYSDOT could reuse for NY 17B and NY 17C.

In Orange County, even NY 17 can be extended along what is now NY 17M.  NY 32 can be extended south to where NY 17 and NY 17M meet now.  NY 17A can be truncated or even renumbered, and NY 207 can easily be extended south along current NY 17A south to NY 94 in Florida.  NY 210 could even be re-extended along part of NY 17A.

[Quillz]

Does New York have any plans to erect something along the lines of "Historic NY-17" signs or something, similar to how some states sign historic US routes? I'm only asking because NY-17 is seemingly a very old route that I imagine most state denizens are very familiar with, and to see it suddenly gone might cause confusion.

[vdeane]

I doubt it.  But avoiding confusion is the only reason it's signed concurrent with I-86 to begin with; it officially ends where I-86 begins, and the signs are just to avoid confusion.  Newer sign installs don't mention NY 17 at all (such as at the southern end of I-390; it's I-86 only).

[Jim]

I doubt it.  But avoiding confusion is the only reason it's signed concurrent with I-86 to begin with; it officially ends where I-86 begins, and the signs are just to avoid confusion.  Newer sign installs don't mention NY 17 at all (such as at the southern end of I-390; it's I-86 only).

Is this correct (that it ends where I-86 begins)?  The latest NYSDOT document I can find (a 2009 Traffic Data report, https://www.nysdot.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/NYSDOT%20Traffic%20Data%20Report%202009.pdf) is still showing NY 17 running all the way to the PA line concurrent with I-86.

[Jim]

Does New York have any plans to erect something along the lines of "Historic NY-17" signs or something, similar to how some states sign historic US routes? I'm only asking because NY-17 is seemingly a very old route that I imagine most state denizens are very familiar with, and to see it suddenly gone might cause confusion.

Much of its older alignment in the western part of the state has been NY 417 for a long time now.  I suppose that could revert to NY 17, but that might be even more confusing than eliminating the NY 17 designation altogether west of I-87.

[Duke87]

Will NY 17 even remain at all?  That last segment could easily become an extension of NY 32.

Probably would remain, to retain consistency with NJ 17.

Eh, NY 17 has only sorta been a continuation of NJ 17 ever since 287 was finished through there. Not much to lose. Besides, having NY 17 spontaneously become NY 32 at I-86 would make even less sense. A "having it both ways" alternative would be to redesignate all of NY 32 as NY 17, but that would be needlessly expensive and confusion-inducing.

As for the suffixed 17s, the solution of least resistance would be to just leave them as orphans. Otherwise, find numbers for them, potentially as adopted children of other routes they intersect (17A could just be an extension of 207). And hey, we could always renumber them 86A/B/C/M/K.

[Dougtone]

Does New York have any plans to erect something along the lines of "Historic NY-17" signs or something, similar to how some states sign historic US routes? I'm only asking because NY-17 is seemingly a very old route that I imagine most state denizens are very familiar with, and to see it suddenly gone might cause confusion.

Not to my knowledge.  However, there is always the possibility of having a scenic byway designated along the historic sections of NY 17.  But even that can be a long and arduous process.

[Roadgeek Adam]

Will NY 17 even remain at all?  That last segment could easily become an extension of NY 32.

Probably would remain, to retain consistency with NJ 17.

Eh, NY 17 has only sorta been a continuation of NJ 17 ever since 287 was finished through there. Not much to lose. Besides, having NY 17 spontaneously become NY 32 at I-86 would make even less sense. A "having it both ways" alternative would be to redesignate all of NY 32 as NY 17, but that would be needlessly expensive and confusion-inducing.

As for the suffixed 17s, the solution of least resistance would be to just leave them as orphans. Otherwise, find numbers for them, potentially as adopted children of other routes they intersect (17A could just be an extension of 207). And hey, we could always renumber them 86A/B/C/M/K.

86A, 86B, 86C, 86M and 86K won't happen. NYSDOT does not want to use suffixes anymore. NJ 17 and NY 17 have connected pre-Interstate 287 for quite a long time, so that's not a reason.

[cu2010]

Not to mention there's already a NY86...miles and miles and miles away from I-86.

(though I doubt anyone would notice, really... )

[Dougtone]

Not to mention there's already a NY86...miles and miles and miles away from I-86.

(though I doubt anyone would notice, really... )

There's a section of NY 90 that crosses I-90 (and closely parallels the Thruway), but I doubt most people really notice.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

There's a New York City and a New York state. But I doubt most anyone notices. 

[Alps]

There's a New York City and a New York state. But I doubt most anyone notices. 

When you see I-90 go to New York and I-84 go to New York City, you notice.

[The Premier]

Will NY 17 even remain at all?  That last segment could easily become an extension of NY 32.

Probably would remain, to retain consistency with NJ 17.

Wasn't there a PA 17 before I-86 took over that route?

[mightyace]

Yes, it was PA 17.

It was actually a duplicate PA 17.

The "real" PA 17 runs from US 11-15 at Liverpool, PA to a junction with PA 274 in Blain, PA.