News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

NY 17/"I-86"

Started by newyorker478, October 27, 2011, 07:54:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Roadgeek Adam

Leave 114 as it exists, or build a full diamond at CR 171 to the east at the overpass. Definitely not supporting an option that could kill half of Wurtsboro's business.

As for Hale Eddy, leave it alone too. There's no need for any upgrades at all for a pointless shield.
Adam Seth Moss / Amanda Sadie Moss
Author, Inkstains and Cracked Bats
M.A. History, Western Illinois University 2015-17
B.A. History, Montclair State University 2013-15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex (County) College 2009-13


sprjus4

Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 07, 2025, 03:46:17 PMLeave 114 as it exists, or build a full diamond at CR 171 to the east at the overpass. Definitely not supporting an option that could kill half of Wurtsboro's business.

As for Hale Eddy, leave it alone too. There's no need for any upgrades at all for a pointless shield.
Who cares about the shield? It's a gap in what's otherwise a fully limited access for hundreds of miles. It should be closed regardless for consistency. A driver is not expecting cross traffic on a freeway.

webny99

Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 07, 2025, 03:46:17 PMLeave 114 as it exists, or build a full diamond at CR 171 to the east at the overpass. Definitely not supporting an option that could kill half of Wurtsboro's business.

Why would removing a single ramp harm Wurtsboro businesses? Any traffic using that ramp now would use 209 instead, so they'd still end up passing right through Wurtsboro.

vdeane

Quote from: webny99 on February 07, 2025, 05:56:52 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 07, 2025, 03:46:17 PMLeave 114 as it exists, or build a full diamond at CR 171 to the east at the overpass. Definitely not supporting an option that could kill half of Wurtsboro's business.

Why would removing a single ramp harm Wurtsboro businesses? Any traffic using that ramp now would use 209 instead, so they'd still end up passing right through Wurtsboro.
Their main drag is actually Sullivan Street and not US 209, so they're convinced that exit 114 drives traffic past all their businesses.  Never mind that, to anyone who doesn't know that Wurtsboro is a decent-sized town, exit 114 looks like a random exit to nowhere, especially since said businesses aren't advertising on the logo signs.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Roadgeek Adam

Wurtsboro is also growing because of the heavily Jewish community (especially between 112 and 113). I would expect more growth in the next 10 years. Maybe not Kiryas Joel levels of growth, but there will be growth. (To the point they released a copy of the 114 open house announcement in Yiddish, even though they half-assed it.)

The solution that isn't closing that ramp is to build the full diamond to the east. Would keep Wurtsboro residents happy and still provide access.

As for Hale Eddy, screw consistency. I don't want my taxpayer money being spent on something that is effectively a nothingburger. There will never be enough traffic in that stretch to justify any upgrades, and again, this is only a discussion because of the 86 designation. It's a perfectly good freeway as 17 and it can have a few intersections.
Adam Seth Moss / Amanda Sadie Moss
Author, Inkstains and Cracked Bats
M.A. History, Western Illinois University 2015-17
B.A. History, Montclair State University 2013-15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex (County) College 2009-13

Anthony_JK

If it has at-grade intersections, it's not a freeway. It's an expressway. Why should traffic rolling along at freeway speeds be forced to suddenly endure a stoplight?? It's not a "nothingburger" if someone is killed at that surface intersection because a driver at freeway speeds crashes into someone crossing. It's not that expensive to upgrade Hale Eddy. Just finish it.

The Ghostbuster

There aren't any traffic signals between Exit 84 and Exit 87. There are flashing yellow lights at Silver Lake Rd: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0028228,-75.3587886,3a,75y,331.34h,100.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spgbZXmXFI9qDLJy4j1_JpQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-10.009740711354311%26panoid%3DpgbZXmXFI9qDLJy4j1_JpQ%26yaw%3D331.3409987757825!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwNS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D. And I think Hale Eddy should receive an upgrade (or a short bypass), even if it is done last. For those who say "leave Hale Eddy alone", I think it would be awkward for Interstate 86 to end at Exit 84, only to restart at Exit 87. Once 86 is completed, NY 17 should be decommissioned west of Exit 131.

Bobby5280

#807
50 years ago people were used to the Interstate highway system being a work in progress. They were accustomed to seeing mixed bag routes with disconnected segments of pure freeway joined in between by regular 2-lane and 4-lane roads.

50 years ago we also didn't have mobile phones and an assortment of other toys to distract us from the task of driving a motorized vehicle.

Today way too many people drive with their heads partially (or all the way) up their asses. Having a 4-lane freeway signed as I-86 and then dumping it briefly down to a rural street, with traffic signals even, is just asking for some grisly accidents to happen.

By the way, a highway doesn't need high traffic counts for really horrible accidents to happen. Here in SW OK a couple days ago a 5-person fatal collision took place:
https://www.kswo.com/2025/02/07/multiple-fatality-collision-out-jackson-county/
This was just East of Duke, OK at the intersection of US-62 and CR-194.
An 8 year old boy was the only survivor; he's in critical condition.

It may be a while before investigators announce the cause of the crash (if that is ever made public). But chances are very strong one or both drivers were not paying attention. Obviously one motorist failed to yield the right of way. Boom. This horrible tragedy happened on a rural highway with pretty low traffic counts. But the shit still happened. It's likely the AADT numbers for NY-17 in that part of NY State are considerably higher than US-62 in SW OK.

Sight lines are not great at all along NY-17 in SE NY. That goes for the thru traffic on the main lanes and it's even worse for traffic turning onto the highway from these little side streets in the Hale Eddy area. The existing road is dangerous as it is by not having dedicated turn lanes, much less any acceleration/deceleration lanes. Those are common features on many 4-lane highways with at-grade intersections.

Somebody can be driving on what they think is an Interstate highway, come around some hillside bend and encounter another vehicle coming to near a complete stop to take a hard turn onto some poorly visible side street. It's not difficult for the near-stationary vehicle to get ass-ended or t-boned. Installing a traffic light isn't going to make much difference. If the motorist is farting around with his phone and only glancing at the road it's going to be easy for him not to see that signaled intersection until it's too late.

sprjus4

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 08, 2025, 03:08:38 PM50 years ago people were used to the Interstate highway system being a work in progress. They were accustomed to seeing mixed bag routes with disconnected segments of pure freeway joined in between by regular 2-lane and 4-lane roads.

50 years ago we also didn't have mobile phones and an assortment of other toys to distract us from the task of driving a motorized vehicle.

Today way too many people drive with their heads partially (or all the way) up their asses. Having a 4-lane freeway signed as I-86 and then dumping it briefly down to a rural street, with traffic signals even, is just asking for some grisly accidents to happen.

By the way, a highway doesn't need high traffic counts for really horrible accidents to happen. Here in SW OK a couple days ago a 5-person fatal collision took place:
https://www.kswo.com/2025/02/07/multiple-fatality-collision-out-jackson-county/
This was just East of Duke, OK at the intersection of US-62 and CR-194.
An 8 year old boy was the only survivor; he's in critical condition.

It may be a while before investigators announce the cause of the crash (if that is ever made public). But chances are very strong one or both drivers were not paying attention. Obviously one motorist failed to yield the right of way. Boom. This horrible tragedy happened on a rural highway with pretty low traffic counts. But the shit still happened. It's likely the AADT numbers for NY-17 in that part of NY State are considerably higher than US-62 in SW OK.

Sight lines are not great at all along NY-17 in SE NY. That goes for the thru traffic on the main lanes and it's even worse for traffic turning onto the highway from these little side streets in the Hale Eddy area. The existing road is dangerous as it is by not having dedicated turn lanes, much less any acceleration/deceleration lanes. Those are common features on many 4-lane highways with at-grade intersections.

Somebody can be driving on what they think is an Interstate highway, come around some hillside bend and encounter another vehicle coming to near a complete stop to take a hard turn onto some poorly visible side street. It's not difficult for the near-stationary vehicle to get ass-ended or t-boned. Installing a traffic light isn't going to make much difference. If the motorist is farting around with his phone and only glancing at the road it's going to be easy for him not to see that signaled intersection until it's too late.
Thank you... some people don't realize that safety concerns can prompt these projects to. Sight line issues, high speeds, etc. it's not all about "traffic volumes". Consistency is also important - a driver driving on a freeway for hundreds of miles isn't expecting random intersections, and is likely traveling at a high rate of speed.

NY-17 is a freeway everywhere else, close this gap. I don't care about blue shields.

Rothman

Pfft.  Hale Eddy to Hancock has been around a long time as a NY 17/I-86 conversion project concept.  NYSDOT back-burnered it until there was an influx of federal funding.  However, I know there are various megaprojects around NY that have had overages on them and those overages, mostly caused by the ridiculous inflation in the industry, have caused NYSDOT to tighten its belt again.

If there were are serious safety concern along that stretch of NY 17, it would have risen in priority above other projects (a certain big Hudson River bridge project in the Albany area comes to mind as something it would hopefully beat out in priority).  But no, it's considered a "progress it when funding is available" kind of project.  It isn't like a whole lot of HSIP funding has been dumped on the project, either, which would have been another indicator of a real safety concern.

Oklahoma examples are irrelevant.  You need the data from the stretch of NY 17 itself.

Anyway...

(personal opinion emphasized)
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Rothman

Drove the allegedly and newly designated section of I-86 today (Waverly to Vestal).  There is what seems to be a new pair of I-86 standalone assurance signs west of Owego along each carriageway.  Unfortunately, coming from US 220 north, no I-86 East shield for its ramp at that location.  Not really surprising, either.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

bmitchelf

Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 08, 2025, 02:14:09 PMIf it has at-grade intersections, it's not a freeway. It's an expressway. Why should traffic rolling along at freeway speeds be forced to suddenly endure a stoplight?? It's not a "nothingburger" if someone is killed at that surface intersection because a driver at freeway speeds crashes into someone crossing. It's not that expensive to upgrade Hale Eddy. Just finish it.

Would the easiest solution just be buying out the properties they can't reasonably provide access to (like the motel on the north side), or is that a non-starter? The only feasible solution seems to be raising the highway to allow for a bunch of roads passing underneath, and I'm not sure there's even enough room to finagle that, especially including an exit somewhere.

Rothman

Quote from: bmitchelf on February 10, 2025, 03:17:14 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 08, 2025, 02:14:09 PMIf it has at-grade intersections, it's not a freeway. It's an expressway. Why should traffic rolling along at freeway speeds be forced to suddenly endure a stoplight?? It's not a "nothingburger" if someone is killed at that surface intersection because a driver at freeway speeds crashes into someone crossing. It's not that expensive to upgrade Hale Eddy. Just finish it.

Would the easiest solution just be buying out the properties they can't reasonably provide access to (like the motel on the north side), or is that a non-starter? The only feasible solution seems to be raising the highway to allow for a bunch of roads passing underneath, and I'm not sure there's even enough room to finagle that, especially including an exit somewhere.

So...whose grandmother are you going to move out so people can save two minutes?  Or, which small businesses are you going to relocate?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

bmitchelf

Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2025, 03:24:38 PM
Quote from: bmitchelf on February 10, 2025, 03:17:14 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 08, 2025, 02:14:09 PMIf it has at-grade intersections, it's not a freeway. It's an expressway. Why should traffic rolling along at freeway speeds be forced to suddenly endure a stoplight?? It's not a "nothingburger" if someone is killed at that surface intersection because a driver at freeway speeds crashes into someone crossing. It's not that expensive to upgrade Hale Eddy. Just finish it.

Would the easiest solution just be buying out the properties they can't reasonably provide access to (like the motel on the north side), or is that a non-starter? The only feasible solution seems to be raising the highway to allow for a bunch of roads passing underneath, and I'm not sure there's even enough room to finagle that, especially including an exit somewhere.

So...whose grandmother are you going to move out so people can save two minutes?  Or, which small businesses are you going to relocate?



But seriously, I think it could be done with less than five properties being taken through eminent domain. It would just take a lot of bridges. They could probably get by with building one exit/entrance on each side if that's compliant for interstate standards.

Rothman

Quote from: bmitchelf on February 10, 2025, 03:34:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 10, 2025, 03:24:38 PM
Quote from: bmitchelf on February 10, 2025, 03:17:14 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 08, 2025, 02:14:09 PMIf it has at-grade intersections, it's not a freeway. It's an expressway. Why should traffic rolling along at freeway speeds be forced to suddenly endure a stoplight?? It's not a "nothingburger" if someone is killed at that surface intersection because a driver at freeway speeds crashes into someone crossing. It's not that expensive to upgrade Hale Eddy. Just finish it.

Would the easiest solution just be buying out the properties they can't reasonably provide access to (like the motel on the north side), or is that a non-starter? The only feasible solution seems to be raising the highway to allow for a bunch of roads passing underneath, and I'm not sure there's even enough room to finagle that, especially including an exit somewhere.

So...whose grandmother are you going to move out so people can save two minutes?  Or, which small businesses are you going to relocate?



But seriously, I think it could be done with less than five properties being taken through eminent domain. It would just take a lot of bridges. They could probably get by with building one exit/entrance on each side if that's compliant for interstate standards.

We shall see if the consultant's licensed engineers agree with you.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

vdeane

I noticed a weird issue with the mile markers on I-86/NY 17.  The drop when crossing the Steuben/Chemung County line and jump back when crossing the Sullivan/Orange County line.  It's 1.75 miles between MP 176 and MP 177 while it's only 1.2 miles between MP 354 and MP 356.  Very odd.  It's as if the mile markers in Steuben and Orange Counties were adjusted for the Corning Bypass when it was built, but not on the rest of NY 17, but that doesn't appear to quite be it, as the Corning Bypass appears to have added 1.1 miles over the old route through Corning, not 0.7-0.8.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Roadgeek Adam

#816
This section of Route 17 opened in May 1964. There's not been a need for upgrades in 61 years because of any economic development or major accidents. Going through newspapers, the only record of a major accident in Hale Eddy wasn't by car, but it was almost 6 years ago on the former Erie Railroad Delaware Division alignment.

Frankly, the stretch of 17 was built to then-modern standards and the Borscht Belt era had already started being on the downturn. Any traffic upgrades that would lead to more accidents would have a longer history of accidents. The only one I could find that made newspapers was on 17 in 1962 before this stretch opened.  Making 86 vanish for 5 miles is a simpler solution to this, or you know, just reverting this all to 17 and forgetting about 86. 
Adam Seth Moss / Amanda Sadie Moss
Author, Inkstains and Cracked Bats
M.A. History, Western Illinois University 2015-17
B.A. History, Montclair State University 2013-15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex (County) College 2009-13

sprjus4

Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 10, 2025, 09:11:37 PMThis section of Route 17 opened in May 1964. There's not been a need for upgrades in 61 years because of any economic development or major accidents. Going through newspapers, the only record of a major accident in Hale Eddy wasn't by car, but it was almost 6 years ago on the former Erie Railroad Delaware Division alignment.

Frankly, the stretch of 17 was built to then-modern standards and the Borscht Belt era had already started being on the downturn. Any traffic upgrades that would lead to more accidents would have a longer history of accidents. The only one I could find that made newspapers was on 17 in 1962 before this stretch opened.  Making 86 vanish for 5 miles is a simpler solution to this, or you know, just reverting this all to 17 and forgetting about 86. 

Upgrading a 55 mph highway with intersections and driveways into a freeway with controlled access would... increase accidents? That's certainly an interesting prospective.

ElishaGOtis

Quote from: sprjus4 on Today at 01:38:43 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 10, 2025, 09:11:37 PMThis section of Route 17 opened in May 1964. There's not been a need for upgrades in 61 years because of any economic development or major accidents. Going through newspapers, the only record of a major accident in Hale Eddy wasn't by car, but it was almost 6 years ago on the former Erie Railroad Delaware Division alignment.

Frankly, the stretch of 17 was built to then-modern standards and the Borscht Belt era had already started being on the downturn. Any traffic upgrades that would lead to more accidents would have a longer history of accidents. The only one I could find that made newspapers was on 17 in 1962 before this stretch opened.  Making 86 vanish for 5 miles is a simpler solution to this, or you know, just reverting this all to 17 and forgetting about 86. 

Upgrading a 55 mph highway with intersections and driveways into a freeway with controlled access would... increase accidents? That's certainly an interesting prospective.

Given that said highway needs to be built first on the footprint of an existing highway, and given how I've seen some pretty gnarly screw-ups with MOT in the past, this could actually hold validity during the construction phase... :coffee:
I can drive 55 ONLY when it makes sense.

NOTE: Opinions expressed here on AARoads are solely my own and do not represent or reflect the statements, opinions, or decisions of any agency. Any official information I share will be quoted from another source.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.