What do you feel about NY 17 being redesignated I-86? While i do understand the financial reasons and the fact that it would be an Interstate, but i think many proud New Yorkers like me will be deeply saddened the day that NY 17, one of our best routes, is no longer. What do you think?
I still miss NY 6 (NYC to Rouses Point).
I feel that NY 17 should be to I-86 as NY 7 is to I-88 or US 11 is to I-81. It should be retained as the local parallel route.
I think designating NY 17 to I-86 was a great idea, however I feel the NY 17 designation should be saved or even designated as an "historic" corridor to signify its importance as principal route through the Southern Tier as it passes through Binghamton, Elmira, Corning, Olean and Jamestown.
I would also support returning 17 to its former routing across the state. Take it up 17M, put it on 434, 417, anywhere at all that there's a former routing still under state maintenance, and then route it on I-86 otherwise. I think you get enough mileage off the Interstate to make that viable, and I'm all for consolidating designations.
Eh. I say kill the NY 17 designation entirely and make the remaining surface bit an extension of NY 32 (also include the piece of NY 59 west of US 202 in this). Better than having the designation randomly change at I-86, and ever since I-287 was finished it became kinda disconnected from NJ 17, so that continuity is no longer a concern.
The road around Hillburn between exit 15A and the one-way access to 287 can then become an unsigned reference route.
Quote from: Steve on October 28, 2011, 07:12:44 PM
I would also support returning 17 to its former routing across the state. Take it up 17M, put it on 434, 417, anywhere at all that there's a former routing still under state maintenance, and then route it on I-86 otherwise. I think you get enough mileage off the Interstate to make that viable, and I'm all for consolidating designations.
Don't need to limit it to state maintenance. NYSDOT routinely signs touring routes over county highways and municipal streets (rarely, even on town highways). That would cover the Delaware and Sullivan County portions as well.
A more viable option than reverting NY 17 as a state route would be for some independent organization to organize it as a historic route, just like US 66. I had the idea once to submit a proposal for inclusion in the NYS Scenic Byways program, but realized pretty quickly that I didn't have the wherewithal to accomplish that. :-)
There's a state bike route 17 marked along old alignments. So even if NY 17 disappears, that will still be followable.
NY 17 in Parksville: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhdBl29WO_E
I'd imagine New Yorkers feel about NY-17 what Californians felt about US-99. It will be a shame to see it go, given it was one of New York's most important highways for much of the 20th century.
I don't think all interstate-standard freeway necessarily has to be signed with the Interstate shield. Given how long NY-17 has been around, I would have just kept it signed as that.
Quote from: Quillz on November 02, 2011, 04:19:12 PM
I'd imagine New Yorkers feel about NY-17 what Californians felt about US-99. It will be a shame to see it go, given it was one of New York's most important highways for much of the 20th century.
I don't think all interstate-standard freeway necessarily has to be signed with the Interstate shield. Given how long NY-17 has been around, I would have just kept it signed as that.
Likewise for US-66 in Illinois, but I-55 took its place as the corridor was upgraded to freeway.
would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
Quote from: Roadman66 on November 04, 2011, 10:08:00 PM
would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
The Interstate shield is far more recognizable than any state route shield. Not to mention I-86 is wholly engulfing NY-17, which means the latter would only exist through concurrency, making it redundant and pointless.
Quote from: Roadman66 on November 04, 2011, 10:08:00 PM
would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
Yes.
Quote from: Roadman66 on November 04, 2011, 10:08:00 PM
would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
In some places they already have. Many newer guide signs in region 6 only show I-86. In parts of Sullivan County, covered I-86 shields outnumber NY 17 reassurance shields.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-_Ggt8Qqh4Ao/TRKYD3QTiZI/AAAAAAAAJTk/y_H7dzJOcrg/s640/100_4004.JPG)
Quote from: Quillz on November 05, 2011, 04:34:55 AM
Quote from: Roadman66 on November 04, 2011, 10:08:00 PM
would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
The Interstate shield is far more recognizable than any state route shield. Not to mention I-86 is wholly engulfing NY-17, which means the latter would only exist through concurrency, making it redundant and pointless.
Not quite, but the remaining portion would just be a southern extension of NY 32.
Quote from: deanej on November 05, 2011, 11:25:02 AM
Quote from: Roadman66 on November 04, 2011, 10:08:00 PM
would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
In some places they already have. Many newer guide signs in region 6 only show I-86. In parts of Sullivan County, covered I-86 shields outnumber NY 17 reassurance shields.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-_Ggt8Qqh4Ao/TRKYD3QTiZI/AAAAAAAAJTk/y_H7dzJOcrg/s640/100_4004.JPG)
Quote from: Quillz on November 05, 2011, 04:34:55 AM
Quote from: Roadman66 on November 04, 2011, 10:08:00 PM
would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
The Interstate shield is far more recognizable than any state route shield. Not to mention I-86 is wholly engulfing NY-17, which means the latter would only exist through concurrency, making it redundant and pointless.
Not quite, but the remaining portion would just be a southern extension of NY 32.
What about the old route 17, where the Red Apple Rest was?
Quote from: deanej on November 05, 2011, 11:25:02 AM
Quote from: Roadman66 on November 04, 2011, 10:08:00 PM
would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
In some places they already have. Many newer guide signs in region 6 only show I-86. In parts of Sullivan County, covered I-86 shields outnumber NY 17 reassurance shields.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-_Ggt8Qqh4Ao/TRKYD3QTiZI/AAAAAAAAJTk/y_H7dzJOcrg/s640/100_4004.JPG)
I believe you can thank our own Chris Jordan for that.
You can see a bunch of photos from this area, and how NY 17 is handled, at http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2010_NY_Day_2/Pages/19.html.
This photo:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2010_NY_Day_2%2FImages%2F19.jpg&hash=ac653e1fb75d0c7839bf0f420001c0067c89dfb0)
indicates that NY 17 is an afterthought that can be easily removed.
Coincidentally, I thought NY 15 was also supposed to be removed from the route and truncated.
It has been, but signs still remain. I think they're just removing them as stuff gets replaced; the new I-390 shields south of Cohocton don't mention NY 15.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 06, 2011, 09:21:53 AM
Coincidentally, I thought NY 15 was also supposed to be removed from the route and truncated.
NY 15 has been truncated at Wayland for many years now. It's just that until recently they decided to sign it over the freeways until they rejoin US 15 at Painted Post. To me, it still makes sense for the route between Rochester and Pennsylvania/points south to have a single route number. US 15 was originally that number.
Quote from: deanej on November 06, 2011, 11:33:00 AM
It has been, but signs still remain. I think they're just removing them as stuff gets replaced; the new I-390 shields south of Cohocton don't mention NY 15.
Quote from: empirestate on November 06, 2011, 11:53:59 AM
NY 15 has been truncated at Wayland for many years now. It's just that until recently they decided to sign it over the freeways until they rejoin US 15 at Painted Post. To me, it still makes sense for the route between Rochester and Pennsylvania/points south to have a single route number. US 15 was originally that number.
I offer as rebuttal the following photo, shot just past the 390/86 split. (Bonus points for it being a bubble shield!)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2010_NY_Day_2%2FImages%2F42.jpg&hash=b4cc9a84239dd410d51a1d12e2496c163abb0191)
Re: NY 15 truncation. It's clear in the NYSDOT documents [e.g., 2009 Traffic Data Report for New York State] that the route is officially truncated to its junction with I-390 near Wayland. But as we've seen in posts here, some signage is still up... So really, it's whether you believe signs or DOT docs.
Most signage is still up, actually. The only area I know if where they've been removed is a five mile portion of I-390 south of Cohocton that was reconstructed just last year, so the decision to take NY 15 off signs is very recent.
NY routinely signs routes where they don't go, actually. There are many places where a route goes one way and the signs go another (such as NY 12E near Watertown and NY 324 near I-190).
Quote from: hbelkins on November 06, 2011, 04:38:14 PM
Quote from: empirestate on November 06, 2011, 11:53:59 AM
NY 15 has been truncated at Wayland for many years now. It's just that until recently they decided to sign it over the freeways until they rejoin US 15 at Painted Post. To me, it still makes sense for the route between Rochester and Pennsylvania/points south to have a single route number. US 15 was originally that number.
I offer as rebuttal the following photo, shot just past the 390/86 split. (Bonus points for it being a bubble shield!)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2010_NY_Day_2%2FImages%2F42.jpg&hash=b4cc9a84239dd410d51a1d12e2496c163abb0191)
Well, as I say they have been signing NY 15 despite its truncation for years now. It should be no surprise that they're now signing it in spite of their decision not to sign it. :-D
Quote from: empirestate on November 07, 2011, 11:53:15 AM
Well, as I say they have been signing NY 15 despite its truncation for years now. It should be no surprise that they're now signing it in spite of their decision not to sign it. :-D
Don't expect to ever see a new one, though. Pretty firm policy in place to delete 15 references as signs get replaced.
Quote from: deanej on November 05, 2011, 11:25:02 AM
In some places they already have. Many newer guide signs in region 6 only show I-86. In parts of Sullivan County, covered I-86 shields outnumber NY 17 reassurance shields.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-_Ggt8Qqh4Ao/TRKYD3QTiZI/AAAAAAAAJTk/y_H7dzJOcrg/s640/100_4004.JPG)
That is bizarre to me see to see the south end of Interstate 390 devoid of any NY-17 shields. :crazy: Not only are the references to NY-15 and NY-17 removed, but Elmira is also gone as well (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_york390/i-390_sb_exit_000_05.jpg). How much of I-390 was resigned anyway?
All of the exit signage in Steuben County is new though reassurance shields and shield assemblies at the exits have yet to be replaced for the most part.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fc4lEp.jpg&hash=e29c3d12c0b627ca0e971a6bea983871e9e872a1)
This is how it looked along I-84 near Middletown, NY this past July (I was heading towards Moosic, PA from Connecticut).
Looked the same way last month, and also in the other direction on I-84.
Quote from: deanej on November 06, 2011, 11:33:00 AM
It has been, but signs still remain. I think they're just removing them as stuff gets replaced; the new I-390 shields south of Cohocton don't mention NY 15.
That's what I've heard, signs will be replaced as situations warrant. I don't think NYSDOT will be doing many standalone sign removal projects, just replacing signs as the projects and contracts allow.
They're in the process of a major sign rehab in region 4 right now (it sure makes every time I go back home interesting; always at least one new sign). I'm not quite sure why.
Quote from: deanej on December 08, 2011, 06:15:47 AM
All of the exit signage in Steuben County is new though reassurance shields and shield assemblies at the exits have yet to be replaced for the most part.
There are now also overpass AND underpass names marked as well (except a couple of missing ones near Exit 3). That brings it in line with northern Livingston and southern Monroe counties.
(This is I-390 we're talking about now...)
I can remember when I-86 in PA was named PA 17, which switched over to I-86 in Erie County, PA. But if you want Federal Dollars, you need the Interstate or US Shield on the highway.
Quote from: surferdude on December 30, 2011, 11:17:56 AM
I can remember when I-86 in PA was named PA 17, which switched over to I-86 in Erie County, PA.
So can I, and it wasn't the only one. The other ("real"?) PA 17 is down in the central part of the state. I believe there are still signs on US 11/15 advising you to skip the PA 17 turnoff if you're actually aiming for NY 17.
Quote from: surferdude on December 30, 2011, 11:17:56 AM
But if you want Federal Dollars, you need the Interstate or US Shield on the highway.
Not so; many roads are in the Federal Highway Aid Program that are neither Interstates nor US routes. And the US shield doesn't equate to federal dollars either.
Quote from: empirestate on December 30, 2011, 02:38:44 PM
So can I, and it wasn't the only one. The other ("real"?) PA 17 is down in the central part of the state. I believe there are still signs on US 11/15 advising you to skip the PA 17 turnoff if you're actually aiming for NY 17.
I drove US 15 from Harrisburg to Williamsport just last month, and did not see any such signage.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 31, 2011, 11:30:43 AM
Quote from: empirestate on December 30, 2011, 02:38:44 PM
So can I, and it wasn't the only one. The other ("real"?) PA 17 is down in the central part of the state. I believe there are still signs on US 11/15 advising you to skip the PA 17 turnoff if you're actually aiming for NY 17.
I drove US 15 from Harrisburg to Williamsport just last month, and did not see any such signage.
It's possibly been removed, perhaps since the highway in question is now also I-86 (though if so, it took many years to make the decision to remove it). I recently did the drive SB and at night, so I haven't passed the spot for some time.
As recent as 6 mths ago, on NB 11/15 at PA 17, there was a sign that read "NEW YORK STATE ROUTE 17" with a straight arrow. It was a white-on-green one-line directional sign. It's kinda small and easy to miss. I usually drive SB on 11/15 once a mth but I don't drive NB as often. Maybe it was finally removed.
In all honesty, it was getting dark when I drove it, so I may have missed the sign. Anxiously awaiting someone to call it up on StreetView... :bigass:
Who needs streetview? http://www.state-ends.com/paends/state/17.html
When construction was done on 11/15, they put up a new assembly, but they didn't put up a sign stating Penna. The green sign is what I was referring to, but the pic has a little NY shield on it. The sign installed after construction was the same minus the little shield.
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2011, 08:03:49 PM
Who needs streetview? http://www.state-ends.com/paends/state/17.html
Good thing, too, since the sign is blurred out in StreetView (but present, at least). It's even smaller than I remember it; I expect it's probably still there and easy to miss.
This is the photo I got back in November:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm7.staticflickr.com%2F6106%2F6358110051_9014b096b2.jpg&hash=f9f64d8aa4a2da69fd3617139753b5dd07c352d6)
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 08, 2011, 11:44:18 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fc4lEp.jpg&hash=e29c3d12c0b627ca0e971a6bea983871e9e872a1)
This is how it looked along I-84 near Middletown, NY this past July (I was heading towards Moosic, PA from Connecticut).
That sign on the right sickens me. We all know what is hiding under that "whiteout", but why, if NY 17 signage is going to be removed, did they even bother with two route shields and two WESTs? Wouldn't it have made more sense to just replace the sign that existed there with a carbon copy of the former sign, with a single shield to be replaced with an I-86 shield once the interstate designation makes it down that far?
Or am I missing something?
While the eventual plan is to remove NY 17, when NY 17 gets removed varies by region. Region 6 is already removing NY 17 as signs are replaced. Region 9 looks like it might do something similar once I-86 is more established in its region. Region 8, on the other hand, looks like it wants to hold onto NY 17 as long as it can (it mounted the I-86 and NY 17 signs together rather than separately as other regions have done). Can't speak for region 5 as I haven't been on its portion of I-86 in years.
The NY 17/Interstate 86 West sign was possibly installed after the NY 17 East sign. The West sign may have been damaged and mounted ever so slightly lower than the East sign.
In the distance, the NY 17 (only) East--New York sign looks like the originally erected sign.
The old signs that used to exist at that Interstate 84 interchange had centered-mounted exit tabs and "New York City" was just "New York." I also noted the much more substantial sign gantry in a rectangle box shape. New York used to install triangular gantries.
The sign on the left looks like it was manufactured to NYSDOT specs while the sign on the right looks like the Thruway sign shop made it, though it's hard to tell without seeing the sign in real life. I'll have to check it out the next time I'm in that area.
Thruway signs use a different version of Series D than NYSDOT. It looks like it's a bolded version of the Series D that we all know and love. When I exchanged email with the Thruway Authority about it, they told me that it was no different than any other version of Series D, but you can't help but notice that it does indeed look different.
Quote from: Brandon on November 02, 2011, 11:02:29 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 02, 2011, 04:19:12 PM
I'd imagine New Yorkers feel about NY-17 what Californians felt about US-99. It will be a shame to see it go, given it was one of New York's most important highways for much of the 20th century.
I don't think all interstate-standard freeway necessarily has to be signed with the Interstate shield. Given how long NY-17 has been around, I would have just kept it signed as that.
Likewise for US-66 in Illinois, but I-55 took its place as the corridor was upgraded to freeway.
Likewise for literally DOZENS of US highways and state highways.
Quote from: vdeane on January 03, 2012, 10:53:54 AM
While the eventual plan is to remove NY 17, when NY 17 gets removed varies by region. Region 6 is already removing NY 17 as signs are replaced. Region 9 looks like it might do something similar once I-86 is more established in its region. Region 8, on the other hand, looks like it wants to hold onto NY 17 as long as it can (it mounted the I-86 and NY 17 signs together rather than separately as other regions have done). Can't speak for region 5 as I haven't been on its portion of I-86 in years.
Just drove through there, is that's why between Elmira and Binghamton its still hyw17? Its pretty much interstate quality to I-87. Has the government given the ok to make it an interstate to I-87?
Elmira to Binghamton needs the Prospect Mountain project with the I-81 interchange completed first before the rest of it can be signed. There's also some non-standard stuff in western Broome County, but I suspect upgrading that was rolled into other projects; there was also some nonstandard stuff upgraded in Tioga County a few years ago. Elmira-Chemung is already signed.
East of Windsor, there are a ton of little issues that need addressing, mainly things like exit ramp curvature and the like. Most of these project, including removing the Hale Eddy at-grade intersections, have no funding. Exit 131, however, is currently being done, and exit 125 may get done as part of the Legoland development.
I listed the remaining projects individually somewhere in the deep reaches of the forum. Might have been in the New York thread.
I don't remember where you put them, but I do remember taking them and making them a page on my site, which is probably easier to find.
http://nysroads.com/i86-ny17.php
Quote from: vdeane on July 05, 2017, 04:24:23 PM
Elmira to Binghamton needs the Prospect Mountain project with the I-81 interchange completed first before the rest of it can be signed. There's also some non-standard stuff in western Broome County, but I suspect upgrading that was rolled into other projects; there was also some nonstandard stuff upgraded in Tioga County a few years ago. Elmira-Chemung is already signed.
East of Windsor, there are a ton of little issues that need addressing, mainly things like exit ramp curvature and the like. Most of these project, including removing the Hale Eddy at-grade intersections, have no funding. Exit 131, however, is currently being done, and exit 125 may get done as part of the Legoland development.
Is there a timeframe for the completion of Prospect Mountain? That project seems to have stretched on for an inordinate amount of time. Also -- according to the map on the NYState website linked in a subsequent post, there's a significant portion west of Binghamton that's unfunded -- or is this the portion referred to as "bundled" with other related I-86 projects?
Currently 2020. Yeah, that's the part I suspect got bundled with Prospect Mountain Phase II.
The map explains why NY 17 drops to an awful 55 MPH for long stretches - even though it can and should be posted for 65 MPH with the exception of the at-grade intersections.
There are a lot of interchanges that could be combined and side ramps that could be eliminated. Do we really need Exit 93 when Exit 92 exists just west, with both carrying very little traffic?
--
The NY 17 ramp to old NY 17 at Exit 89 is probably one of the worst ramps I've encountered. I travel into the Catskills frequently and had to exit at the interchange a few weeks ago. It's a very short and steep ramp with no indication that there is a stop sign only a few hundred feet from the interstate mainline. I had to pretty much slam on my brakes to come to a rolling stop. The ramp angles you into the westbound lanes of old NY 17, which makes sense considering that it functioned as a two-lane connector from NY 17 onto the then-new NY 17 freeway.
Edit: This explains why Exit 89 is a hot mess (https://historicaerials.com/location/41.97506155014454/-75.17751216888428/1963/15). The NY 17 freeway was used as a temporary roadway while it was being built circa 1963.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4382/37261159462_5bb254f048_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YLDbxQ)
Still covered up in Walkill, NY. I couldn't find the I-86 link on the NYDOT webpage anymore.
It's been like that a long time now. Hopefully that 86 shield never shows.
Never? I can't wait. It'll be nice to have a 65 MPH freeway through the mountains instead of having the police rape motorists for their money where it's unjustified to have a 55 MPH limit.
Pretty sure that a completed I-86 would still have the 55 mph limit where it exists now (with the exception of Hale Eddy).
I'm thinking through Hale Eddy where it will be rebuilt to much higher standards. I'm not sure why it's 55 MPH in Liberty / Monticello regions. Those acceleration/deceleration lanes are already lengthy. And down steep grades? Tell that to West Virginia, Maryland and other states with 65 MPH/70 MPH limits!
Is the segment through Hale Eddy ever going to be converted? I thought the traffic counts were too low to warrant conversion, and vdeane mentioned in July there is no funding for such a conversion.
Quote from: seicer on September 27, 2017, 01:57:28 PM
I'm thinking through Hale Eddy where it will be rebuilt to much higher standards. I'm not sure why it's 55 MPH in Liberty / Monticello regions. Those acceleration/deceleration lanes are already lengthy. And down steep grades? Tell that to West Virginia, Maryland and other states with 65 MPH/70 MPH limits!
The 55 zone is much longer than that. It starts just west of Hale Eddy but doesn't end until east of Roscoe. Removing that at-grades in Hale Eddy will not affect anything between Hancock and Roscoe.
I'm not making a change to a section of highways whose numbers have been dropping for the sake of a pointless designation change. Let Hale Eddy keep it's at-grade intersection
(Eye roll.)
As for the Hale Eddy segment, it calls for construction in 2018. I'm not sure if this is still accurate.
What other deficient segments are there further east that need upgrading? I can't find anything on the NYSDOT site about it.
As I've traveled this quite a lot recently, I noticed the I-86 designation will end at I-84 - as evidenced by the signs along I-84, some of which now reveal I-86 shields. Is there a reason it won't go further east to the NY Thruway?
Basically little things. Hale Eddy and exit 131 are the only two remaining flashy projects. The rest is a lot of little, unsexy things.
http://nysroads.com/i86-ny17.php
I-86 was planned to go to I-87. I'm not sure exactly what is going on in Region 8, but I suspect that it was intended to be signed as a standalone segment similar to the piece east of Binghamton (the signs went up as part of an upgrade project), and then left covered when it became clear that the rest of the Quickway wouldn't be upgraded anytime in the foreseeable future.
Keeping the I-86 signs covered up doesn't make any sense at all. The very least that could've been done is put up Future versions of those signs as a sign that they intend to complete it all the way to I-87 one day.
Is the NY 17 designation going away? Some of those I-86 signs are literally in front of the NY 17 signs.
Is not NY 17 built to interstate standards from I-84 to I-87? Being it connects to two interstates it could still be signed then. If or if not NYSDOT decides to upgrade from I-84 to Windsor, it would not be the first time an interstate is discontinuous, hence I-95 and of course I-74 between the NC-VA border and Cincinnati.
No. No no no.
My bet is Hale Eddy will be pushed off again.
There is no current push to complete the conversion. The last plan was to just take care of the major issues and leave the rest alone due to fiscal constraints.
To spend money on the luxury of the total conversion when NYSDOT has many other more routine and quasi-emergency priorities that it is struggling to meet would be foolish from an engineering standpoint and possibly political suicide.
The design work is essentially complete for the Hale Eddy segment, it's just funding the construction. I think that's one of the few remaining major issues left, other than eliminating some of those wonky right-in, right-out interchanges. It wouldn't surprise me if the shoulders needed widening or some bridge heights raised.
Quote from: seicer on September 29, 2017, 10:42:02 AM
The design work is essentially complete for the Hale Eddy segment, it's just funding the construction. I think that's one of the few remaining major issues left, other than eliminating some of those wonky right-in, right-out interchanges. It wouldn't surprise me if the shoulders needed widening or some bridge heights raised.
Would be interesting to take a peek at those plans. When I looked at HE map, my first thought was that there is plainly not enough room without literally moving the mountain...
There was an image on the project website; not sure if can still be dug up or not.
Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2017, 12:59:21 PM
There was an image on the project website; not sure if can still be dug up or not.
I had a hard time finding anything. Good luck
Why can't NYDOT pull a Breezewood and designate I-86 fully now. It's only a few random intersections in the middle of nowhere.
Quote from: seicer on September 29, 2017, 10:42:02 AM
The design work is essentially complete for the Hale Eddy segment, it's just funding the construction. I think that's one of the few remaining major issues left, other than eliminating some of those wonky right-in, right-out interchanges. It wouldn't surprise me if the shoulders needed widening or some bridge heights raised.
Didn't realize it had got even that far. What's the selected alternative?
iPhone
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 29, 2017, 02:52:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2017, 12:59:21 PM
There was an image on the project website; not sure if can still be dug up or not.
I had a hard time finding anything. Good luck
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock/visualizations
Quote from: JJBers on September 29, 2017, 04:40:58 PM
Why can't NYDOT pull a Breezewood and designate I-86 fully now. It's only a few random intersections in the middle of nowhere.
There are a LOT of not immediately obvious substandard features along that route, not just the at-grades in Hale Eddy. Interstate standards go well above being an access controlled freeway with at least two lanes per carriageway. There's shoulder/lane width, median width, running grade, cross slope, acceleration/deceleration lane length, ramp/roadway curvature, curve banking, sight distance (this factor, for example, is what caused the full depth reconstruction from NY 17K to I-84 that sparked this conversation), etc.
Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2017, 07:23:49 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 29, 2017, 02:52:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2017, 12:59:21 PM
There was an image on the project website; not sure if can still be dug up or not.
I had a hard time finding anything. Good luck
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock/visualizations
Was that alternative eventually selected? Did they complete the EIS? That page dates from 2010, and my recollection is that things pretty much stalled out at that stage.
Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2017, 07:23:49 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 29, 2017, 02:52:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2017, 12:59:21 PM
There was an image on the project website; not sure if can still be dug up or not.
I had a hard time finding anything. Good luck
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock/visualizations
Thank you!
But this is exactly what looks impossible at a first glance - running a local road on the north side of a highway. My impression is that it has to involve a lot of rock blasting - aka moving the mountain...
Quote from: kalvado on September 30, 2017, 09:07:49 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2017, 07:23:49 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 29, 2017, 02:52:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 29, 2017, 12:59:21 PM
There was an image on the project website; not sure if can still be dug up or not.
I had a hard time finding anything. Good luck
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock/visualizations
Thank you!
But this is exactly what looks impossible at a first glance - running a local road on the north side of a highway. My impression is that it has to involve a lot of rock blasting - aka moving the mountain...
It's not really that steep or crowded through there; there's already plenty of private property with improvements on the north side of the highway.
The question is the purpose. The section has had dwindling traffic numbers (9000s in 2009, 7000s in 2014). Is it worth bulldozing property and spending money on something where an accident isn't likely?
Quote from: JJBers on September 29, 2017, 04:40:58 PM
Why can't NYDOT pull a Breezewood and designate I-86 fully now. It's only a few random intersections in the middle of nowhere.
Because FHWA NY's Division would not allow it.
I posted a list of the remaining projects to be done and a personal estimate of how much they cost some time ago and the list has not changed since I posted it.
...
Had to laugh at seicer's post that since design is done, "all" that is needed is the funding for construction. Oh, is that all? Construction is just 70%+ of the total cost of projects.
That is my continuing point: With nine digits of cost left to do the full conversions, the cost is just not justified. Heck, one NYSDOT Commissioner drove down NY 17 and thought the conversion should be taken off the table forever, not just delayed.
Keep waiting all you want, but it is going to be over a decade to see the entire conversion through, if not years more.
Quote from: Rothman on September 30, 2017, 08:13:00 PM
Keep waiting all you want, but it is going to be over a decade to see the entire conversion through, if not years more.
Well, I guess it took 40-60 years to fully complete I-90...so I guess we can wait.
Quote from: JJBers on September 30, 2017, 11:59:41 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 30, 2017, 08:13:00 PM
Keep waiting all you want, but it is going to be over a decade to see the entire conversion through, if not years more.
Well, I guess it took 40-60 years to fully complete I-90...so I guess we can wait.
I-95 is still not completed as well. That is one of the originals as well.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 01, 2017, 04:17:35 AM
Quote from: JJBers on September 30, 2017, 11:59:41 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 30, 2017, 08:13:00 PM
Keep waiting all you want, but it is going to be over a decade to see the entire conversion through, if not years more.
Well, I guess it took 40-60 years to fully complete I-90...so I guess we can wait.
I-95 is still not completed as well. That is one of the originals as well.
And who knows when I-69 will ever be completed.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 01, 2017, 10:45:25 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 01, 2017, 04:17:35 AM
Quote from: JJBers on September 30, 2017, 11:59:41 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 30, 2017, 08:13:00 PM
Keep waiting all you want, but it is going to be over a decade to see the entire conversion through, if not years more.
Well, I guess it took 40-60 years to fully complete I-90...so I guess we can wait.
I-95 is still not completed as well. That is one of the originals as well.
And who knows when I-69 will ever be completed.
But it has to be! It was legislated! </I-73 and I-74>
Quote from: Alps on October 01, 2017, 12:21:43 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 01, 2017, 10:45:25 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 01, 2017, 04:17:35 AM
Quote from: JJBers on September 30, 2017, 11:59:41 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 30, 2017, 08:13:00 PM
Keep waiting all you want, but it is going to be over a decade to see the entire conversion through, if not years more.
Well, I guess it took 40-60 years to fully complete I-90...so I guess we can wait.
I-95 is still not completed as well. That is one of the originals as well.
And who knows when I-69 will ever be completed.
But it has to be! It was legislated! </I-73 and I-74>
Two words:
Unfunded Mandates!!!
The Quickway has several substandard ramps and RIROs, including "Exit 111" in eastern Sullivan County. Those will cost more to upgrade simply because of the amount of development, especially in Orange County. 2030 is an optimistic estimate.
Quote from: cl94 on October 03, 2017, 09:38:17 PM
The Quickway has several substandard ramps and RIROs, including "Exit 111" in eastern Sullivan County. Those will cost more to upgrade simply because of the amount of development, especially in Orange County. 2030 is an optimistic estimate.
Seems like they could just close that exit because there's a road running alongside NY 17 that connects it with exit 110.
There are several exits that could and should be closed for that reason.
Quote from: compdude787 on October 04, 2017, 02:03:30 AM
Quote from: cl94 on October 03, 2017, 09:38:17 PM
The Quickway has several substandard ramps and RIROs, including "Exit 111" in eastern Sullivan County. Those will cost more to upgrade simply because of the amount of development, especially in Orange County. 2030 is an optimistic estimate.
Seems like they could just close that exit because there's a road running alongside NY 17 that connects it with exit 110.
They've been trying for 10 years. The gas station at the RIRO has been fighting it and the residents around 110 don't want the increased traffic.
Quote from: seicer on October 04, 2017, 08:54:24 AM
There are several exits that could and should be closed for that reason.
Not as many as one would think, but yes, there are a few. 127-129 stick out there- you could probably close the three of them. Not like any have access to/from the west (except 129, which is on top of 130 with an access road connecting them). Likewise, 125 is on top of the more-useful 124.
Are they planning on signing I-86 from its temporary ending to I-81 anytime soon?
Quote from: Strider on October 04, 2017, 11:59:04 AM
Are they planning on signing I-86 from its temporary ending to I-81 anytime soon?
Yes, when they're done with the work in Binghamton. That's the holdup at this point.
I think there's possibility of moving exit 125 if the Legoland thing goes through.
Quote from: vdeane on October 04, 2017, 01:57:52 PM
I think there's possibility of moving exit 125 if the Legoland thing goes through.
Legoland Goshen is almost a done deal at this point. They have most of the necessary approvals. Just need to build the thing.
Quote from: cl94 on October 04, 2017, 04:18:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 04, 2017, 01:57:52 PM
I think there's possibility of moving exit 125 if the Legoland thing goes through.
Legoland Goshen is almost a done deal at this point. They have most of the necessary approvals. Just need to build the thing.
Well, that makes a Legoland 150 miles away instead of 1350 miles away.
Quote from: cl94 on October 04, 2017, 12:02:43 PM
Quote from: Strider on October 04, 2017, 11:59:04 AM
Are they planning on signing I-86 from its temporary ending to I-81 anytime soon?
Yes, when they're done with the work in Binghamton. That's the holdup at this point.
So, if Google maps is correct, when the I-81/I-86 construction is done, I-86 will be continuous from I-90 to Windsor, NY at the NY-79 interchange?
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on October 27, 2017, 02:54:39 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 04, 2017, 12:02:43 PM
Quote from: Strider on October 04, 2017, 11:59:04 AM
Are they planning on signing I-86 from its temporary ending to I-81 anytime soon?
Yes, when they're done with the work in Binghamton. That's the holdup at this point.
So, if Google maps is correct, when the I-81/I-86 construction is done, I-86 will be continuous from I-90 to Windsor, NY at the NY-79 interchange?
I don't believe so. Still conversion work to be done east of Elmira.
Quote from: Rothman on October 29, 2017, 05:32:16 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on October 27, 2017, 02:54:39 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 04, 2017, 12:02:43 PM
Quote from: Strider on October 04, 2017, 11:59:04 AM
Are they planning on signing I-86 from its temporary ending to I-81 anytime soon?
Yes, when they're done with the work in Binghamton. That's the holdup at this point.
So, if Google maps is correct, when the I-81/I-86 construction is done, I-86 will be continuous from I-90 to Windsor, NY at the NY-79 interchange?
I don't believe so. Still conversion work to be done east of Elmira.
How far east of Elmira? It's apparently OK and signed east to Waverly/US 220, so any substandard sections would have to be east of there in the segment through Owego and Vestal. Any word on current or pending projects along that stretch?
There might be one more upgrade project on NY 17, actually, between the Tioga County line and Prospect Mountain/Kamikaze Curve. Not sure if that's all been incorporated into the Prospect Mountain project.
I think I remember hearing that I-86 would be signed on the conclusion of the project, so maybe it got rolled in.
The reference markers on the Allegany Reservation have been switched back to " 17 " , because the Senecas refuse to recognize I-86.
http://www.oleantimesherald.com/news/state-dot-crews-replace-mile-markers-with-signs/article_70ea19b0-bb86-11e7-a8c9-b7c2c4cf4d20.html (http://www.oleantimesherald.com/news/state-dot-crews-replace-mile-markers-with-signs/article_70ea19b0-bb86-11e7-a8c9-b7c2c4cf4d20.html)
Maybe NY-based posters (including the DOT folks) might know otherwise, but it seems that if NYDOT wanted to eliminate the duplicate signage of I-86 and NY 17, they would have put 17 back over 417 by now; the fact that they haven't done so speaks for itself. I'm guessing that the co-signage will last for quite some time to come. Multiple multiplexes, such as along I-86 west of Corning (86/NY17/NY15) usually are topographically-influenced; a facility down a valley or through a pass tends to collect a lot of intersecting routes for a short period of time. The presence of a freeway along that route simply exacerbates that situation, since DOT's, in the event that multiplexes are necessary, prefer to utilize a facility with greater capacity and safety features. So the inevitable "sign salad" is more a sign that a DOT is actually doing its job!
And if you think one Interstate plus two state shields is annoying, you should have been in Southern California circa 1959 or so, when one stretch of then-new I-15 also featured US 66, US 91, US 395, and, for a short time, CA 18. That was a sign salad that needed an extra helping of Roquefort!
It does not appear that it will be co signed on segments further east. The new I-86 shields practically stand in front of some of the existing NY 17 shields.
I would be shocked if NY 417 ever becomes NY 17. NY has enough trouble keeping routes straight as is, let alone changing an entire route over.
As far as I know, the ultimate plan for if I-86 is completed is to truncate NY 17. Similar has already happened with NY 15 (it now ends in Wayland rather than overlapping to US 15), though there isn't an active effort to remove the signs beyond simply not replacing them.
Quote from: GenExpwy on October 31, 2017, 12:23:08 AM
The reference markers on the Allegany Reservation have been switched back to " 17 " , because the Senecas refuse to recognize I-86.
http://www.oleantimesherald.com/news/state-dot-crews-replace-mile-markers-with-signs/article_70ea19b0-bb86-11e7-a8c9-b7c2c4cf4d20.html (http://www.oleantimesherald.com/news/state-dot-crews-replace-mile-markers-with-signs/article_70ea19b0-bb86-11e7-a8c9-b7c2c4cf4d20.html)
They should have always said 17 since reference markers are static. Did Region 5 not follow procedure, or is the author of the article just confused about something?
I-86 is one of the few routes in R5 that didn't get new reference markers when the number/alignment changed. I can tell you that NY 263 was redone a few years ago to include the 1970s UB realignment in the mileage sequence and NY 425 doesn't have markers for the reference route it replaced. The state-maintained portion of former NY 358 (NY 954G) got new reference markers at some point to reflect current mileage.
The section of NY 417 in the Seneca Nation had "219" markers prior to the freeway completion. Were those ever changed? Do US highways have precedence over NY ones in the markers? EDIT: Street View still shows 219 as of Aug 2016.
I think the article author was just confused. I just saw an article from WGRZ noting that the full-size milemarkers were removed and that the reference markers remain.
http://www.wgrz.com/news/changes-to-i-86-signage/487365702
Honestly, I don't see why they care what the road is numbered.
Quote from: vdeane on October 31, 2017, 03:21:56 PM
I think the article author was just confused. I just saw an article from WGRZ noting that the full-size milemarkers were removed and that the reference markers remain.
http://www.wgrz.com/news/changes-to-i-86-signage/487365702
Honestly, I don't see why they care what the road is numbered.
This is a hangover from the 1998 Congressional act that designated HPC 36 (aka NY 17)as a future Interstate, followed 2 years later by an amendment specifying the number "86". As a unilateral amendment to Title 23/139 code, there was technically no need to involve or notify agencies at the state level of this action except to request that they post signage on qualifying segments of the corridor. NYDOT acceded to this request, and I-86 was signed from the PA/NY 17 state line crossing to Corning by the end of 2000. Unfortunately, the Seneca Nation wasn't given prior knowledge of the action, and took umbrage at their lack of inclusion (electing to not recognize the code amendments as legitimate because they weren't informed of the change prior to its posting in the field). On top of that, the Nation was still in a huff about the Thruway extending through an outlying portion of their reserved lands back in the '50's, so they weren't of a mind to cut anyone -- NYDOT or the Feds -- much in the way of slack. Unfortunately for all involved, this is an ongoing argument that'll likely outlive any of the original participants!
State announces new design for Route 17′s Exit 131 (http://www.recordonline.com/news/20171129/state-announces-new-design-for-route-17s-exit-131)
They're doing a DDI at this exit to accommodate all the traffic.
Quote from: vdeane on October 31, 2017, 03:21:56 PM
I think the article author was just confused. I just saw an article from WGRZ noting that the full-size milemarkers were removed and that the reference markers remain.
http://www.wgrz.com/news/changes-to-i-86-signage/487365702
Honestly, I don't see why they care what the road is numbered.
The Seneca Nation president sounds as Native American as my state's senior senator...
Quote from: SectorZ on November 29, 2017, 10:28:16 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 31, 2017, 03:21:56 PM
I think the article author was just confused. I just saw an article from WGRZ noting that the full-size milemarkers were removed and that the reference markers remain.
http://www.wgrz.com/news/changes-to-i-86-signage/487365702
Honestly, I don't see why they care what the road is numbered.
The Seneca Nation president sounds as Native American as my state's senior senator...
1/32? Different nations have different criteria as to who they'll allow with membership. Personally? White people took over this land, shot most of the Injuns, and barricaded the rest into reservations. Anything they want to do to preserve their identity, I'm all for it.=
Quote from: Alps on November 29, 2017, 11:35:15 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on November 29, 2017, 10:28:16 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 31, 2017, 03:21:56 PM
I think the article author was just confused. I just saw an article from WGRZ noting that the full-size milemarkers were removed and that the reference markers remain.
http://www.wgrz.com/news/changes-to-i-86-signage/487365702
Honestly, I don't see why they care what the road is numbered.
The Seneca Nation president sounds as Native American as my state's senior senator...
1/32? Different nations have different criteria as to who they'll allow with membership. Personally? White people took over this land, shot most of the Injuns, and barricaded the rest into reservations. Anything they want to do to preserve their identity, I'm all for it.=
Hey, the road's still got the 86 number and the Seneca Nation isn't doing anything to disrupt traffic. Therefore, all's right with the wonderful world of Southern Tier travel. I think doing without big old milemarkers for a few miles isn't going to make much difference in the larger picture; this is, at least functionally, a non-issue!
Regarding the reconstruction of Exit 131, I don't understand why the direct connexion between the Thruway and Woodbury Common is being eliminated. With the new design, traffic heading to Woodbury Common will have to get onto Route 32 and then enter it.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 30, 2017, 05:19:31 PM
Regarding the reconstruction of Exit 131, I don't understand why the direct connexion between the Thruway and Woodbury Common is being eliminated. With the new design, traffic heading to Woodbury Common will have to get onto Route 32 and then enter it.
Interstate requirements. Can't have a ramp directly from an Interstate onto a private development. Future definition of I-86 will have it ending at I-87, so that ramp needs to go.
Quote from: cl94 on November 30, 2017, 05:36:10 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 30, 2017, 05:19:31 PM
Regarding the reconstruction of Exit 131, I don't understand why the direct connexion between the Thruway and Woodbury Common is being eliminated. With the new design, traffic heading to Woodbury Common will have to get onto Route 32 and then enter it.
Interstate requirements. Can't have a ramp directly from an Interstate onto a private development. Future definition of I-86 will have it ending at I-87, so that ramp needs to go.
How does the ramp from Northway to Crossgates work then? Is it because that end stretch is actually not I-87 any more?
Quote from: kalvado on November 30, 2017, 05:44:34 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 30, 2017, 05:36:10 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 30, 2017, 05:19:31 PM
Regarding the reconstruction of Exit 131, I don't understand why the direct connexion between the Thruway and Woodbury Common is being eliminated. With the new design, traffic heading to Woodbury Common will have to get onto Route 32 and then enter it.
Interstate requirements. Can't have a ramp directly from an Interstate onto a private development. Future definition of I-86 will have it ending at I-87, so that ramp needs to go.
How does the ramp from Northway to Crossgates work then? Is it because that end stretch is actually not I-87 any more?
That hasn't been I-87 in at least 40 years.
What about that Stew Leonard Drive exit on the Thruway down in Westchester County?
That exit (at least the south half) was initially built for the former county hospital that now contains the shopping plaza. First thing built after the north half opened was the recycling facility. So initially, no, it did not serve a private retail development.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 30, 2017, 07:41:31 PM
What about that Stew Leonard Drive exit on the Thruway down in Westchester County?
Probably a city street. It does also connect to Ridge Hill, another private retail development (which I call "the Donald Trump of shopping centers" :-D).
The southbound Thruway ramps in Nyack lead directly to and from Palisades Center Dr, which is a mall ring road.
And while not an interstate, there's pretty much a direct connection from the GSP to Garden State Plaza. They get away with it because it uses the NJ 4 c/d road.
State announces new design for Route 17′s Exit 131 (http://www.recordonline.com/news/20171129/state-announces-new-design-for-route-17s-exit-131)
Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that the state has awarded a $150 million contract to reconfigure Route 17′s Exit 131 at a campaign-style rally Wednesday that attracted more than 200 supporters.
"It's a common-sense project, a long overdue project," said Cuomo, speculating that the traffic "lunacy" that has prevailed around the exit in recent years has cost untold opportunities for economic development in the region.
[...]
He added that the Thruway Authority will be converting the Harriman toll plaza, where Route 17 meets the Thruway, to all-electronic tolling over the coming year to further improve the flow of traffic. Bids were opened last week, and work will start as soon as they have been vetted and a contract awarded.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 30, 2017, 09:27:37 PM
The southbound Thruway ramps in Nyack lead directly to and from Palisades Center Dr, which is a mall ring road.
They got away with it because the mall access roads were built on top of the old interchange and the north side is a public road. Since the SB entrance ramp is direct from NY 303, you could argue that only one of the four ramps ties into the mall. Was a folded diamond before the mall opened.
Quote from: cl94 on November 30, 2017, 11:14:14 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 30, 2017, 09:27:37 PM
The southbound Thruway ramps in Nyack lead directly to and from Palisades Center Dr, which is a mall ring road.
They got away with it because the mall access roads were built on top of the old interchange and the north side is a public road. Since the SB entrance ramp is direct from NY 303, you could argue that only one of the four ramps ties into the mall. Was a folded diamond before the mall opened.
Then could Crossgates also say that their circle is owned by the town ? Or that alone would not be enough for the ramp?
The portion of the Northway that the Crossgates ramp splits off from does not carry an interstate designation. While it could be argued that yes, at one time it was supposed to carry one, the ramp and the mall it leads to was not even thought of at that time the piece of road was built.
Crossgates Mall also paid for the ramps (at least the bridges) to and from the Northway.
My understanding was that the ramp from the Northway is owned by Pyramid Corporation (the owners of the mall), while the ramp to the Northway is owned by the Town of Guilderland.
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2017, 07:37:38 PM
My understanding was that the ramp from the Northway is owned by Pyramid Corporation (the owners of the mall), while the ramp to the Northway is owned by the Town of Guilderland.
That sounds correct, even though bridge records say NYSDOT owns both. Exit to the mall opened with the mall in 1984. Entrance ramp opened in 1993-4 around the time of the expansion. Guilderland probably ponied up the money to build it so the mall would stop dumping traffic onto US 20.
Quote from: cl94 on December 03, 2017, 09:24:17 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2017, 07:37:38 PM
My understanding was that the ramp from the Northway is owned by Pyramid Corporation (the owners of the mall), while the ramp to the Northway is owned by the Town of Guilderland.
That sounds correct, even though bridge records say NYSDOT owns both. Exit to the mall opened with the mall in 1984. Entrance ramp opened in 1993-4 around the time of the expansion. Guilderland probably ponied up the money to build it so the mall would stop dumping traffic onto US 20.
A question: Is there any reason why NY 17 between Waverly and Binghamton isn't already designed I-86? The road seems to be interstate standards unless I am missing something?
Quote from: Strider on February 01, 2018, 10:34:29 AM
Quote from: cl94 on December 03, 2017, 09:24:17 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2017, 07:37:38 PM
My understanding was that the ramp from the Northway is owned by Pyramid Corporation (the owners of the mall), while the ramp to the Northway is owned by the Town of Guilderland.
That sounds correct, even though bridge records say NYSDOT owns both. Exit to the mall opened with the mall in 1984. Entrance ramp opened in 1993-4 around the time of the expansion. Guilderland probably ponied up the money to build it so the mall would stop dumping traffic onto US 20.
A question: Is there any reason why NY 17 between Waverly and Binghamton isn't already designed I-86? The road seems to be interstate standards unless I am missing something?
Probably some obscure requirement about median width or something.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 01, 2018, 11:12:10 AM
Quote from: Strider on February 01, 2018, 10:34:29 AM
Quote from: cl94 on December 03, 2017, 09:24:17 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2017, 07:37:38 PM
My understanding was that the ramp from the Northway is owned by Pyramid Corporation (the owners of the mall), while the ramp to the Northway is owned by the Town of Guilderland.
That sounds correct, even though bridge records say NYSDOT owns both. Exit to the mall opened with the mall in 1984. Entrance ramp opened in 1993-4 around the time of the expansion. Guilderland probably ponied up the money to build it so the mall would stop dumping traffic onto US 20.
A question: Is there any reason why NY 17 between Waverly and Binghamton isn't already designed I-86? The road seems to be interstate standards unless I am missing something?
Probably some obscure requirement about median width or something.
At this point, I
think all of the upgrades on that section have been completed. It was mostly (if not entirely) minor stuff, like minor adjustments to ramp geometry and new guiderails. They're waiting to designate until the Prospect Mountain project is substantially complete. I will note that there is a decent amount of I-86 signage along that segment that they've stopped trying to hide.
There was a project for Tioga County a few years ago; I think there's some additional stuff in western Broome County, but whether it was rolled into the Prospect Mountain project or done already, I don't know. It's interesting that the stuff on the guide signs is just plain I-86, and yet the TO banners on the reassurance shields don't look very temporary.
They have pretty much stopped recovering I-86 signs further east by I-84 long ago. Speaking of - will the NY 17 designation even exist? Some of the I-86 signs are pretty much in front of NY 17 signs, so it doesn't appear that it will be dual signed. Additionally, many mile markers now sport I-86 shields - something I hadn't noticed before.
Now if they can raise the absurdly low speed limits around Liberty and through the Catskills where the "sharp" curves provide infinite speed traps for the local police. (Meanwhile, other states like West Virginia do just fine with 70 MPH.)
Quote from: cl94 on February 01, 2018, 12:39:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 01, 2018, 11:12:10 AM
Quote from: Strider on February 01, 2018, 10:34:29 AM
Quote from: cl94 on December 03, 2017, 09:24:17 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 03, 2017, 07:37:38 PM
My understanding was that the ramp from the Northway is owned by Pyramid Corporation (the owners of the mall), while the ramp to the Northway is owned by the Town of Guilderland.
That sounds correct, even though bridge records say NYSDOT owns both. Exit to the mall opened with the mall in 1984. Entrance ramp opened in 1993-4 around the time of the expansion. Guilderland probably ponied up the money to build it so the mall would stop dumping traffic onto US 20.
A question: Is there any reason why NY 17 between Waverly and Binghamton isn't already designed I-86? The road seems to be interstate standards unless I am missing something?
Probably some obscure requirement about median width or something.
At this point, I think all of the upgrades on that section have been completed. It was mostly (if not entirely) minor stuff, like minor adjustments to ramp geometry and new guiderails. They're waiting to designate until the Prospect Mountain project is substantially complete. I will note that there is a decent amount of I-86 signage along that segment that they've stopped trying to hide.
What is left to be done on the Prospect Mountain Project? I went to the NYS DOT site and it helpfully told me what was planned for
2016. I'm hoping they have made progress since then.
That would have been the end of phase 1. We're now in phase 2, eliminating the weave between NY 17 and NY 7.
Since they have kind of gone rogue and signed 86 at certain points anyway, especially from I-84, with no recourse, what’s to say they couldn’t sign it from 87 and “complete” the road by having it unofficially signed on all intersecting interstates?
Better yet why couldn’t they post I-shields with “NY” in the crown, maybe white text on all black, along the entire non-interstate route and call that part NY 86? Rhode Island used to have a pretend interstate like this, RI-195 which used black text on white shields. Ironically this road is today US 6 and not the current I-195.
Or even if you can’t do that just call it NY 86, put regular NY shield on there, and be done, after exchasting all other options. At least give us the appearance of a continuous completed road.
But I definitely think the only way I-86 will ever be “completed” from Lake Erie to the Catskills is by fudging with the designations and route numbers, which is absolutely worth doing to be able to say they “finished” the project instead of just quitting in the middle with the designation half-applied. It’s confusing and sloppy
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 02, 2018, 09:29:59 AM
Since they have kind of gone rogue and signed 86 at certain points anyway, especially from I-84, with no recourse, what's to say they couldn't sign it from 87 and "complete" the road by having it unofficially signed on all intersecting interstates?
Better yet why couldn't they post I-shields with "NY" in the crown, maybe white text on all black, along the entire non-interstate route and call that part NY 86? Rhode Island used to have a pretend interstate like this, RI-195 which used black text on white shields. Ironically this road is today US 6 and not the current I-195.
Or even if you can't do that just call it NY 86, put regular NY shield on there, and be done, after exchasting all other options. At least give us the appearance of a continuous completed road.
But I definitely think the only way I-86 will ever be "completed" from Lake Erie to the Catskills is by fudging with the designations and route numbers, which is absolutely worth doing to be able to say they "finished" the project instead of just quitting in the middle with the designation half-applied. It's confusing and sloppy
NY 86 already exists in the Adirondacks. That being said, it'll be upgraded at some point because NY 17 will need major reconstruction. The Quickway is almost 70 years old and they are doing upgrades as bridges are replaced and the like. I expect much of the portion east of I-84 to get upgraded in the relatively near future with Legoland. That basically leaves the area around the Exit 111 RIRO and Hale Eddy.
The only thing I'm aware of tied to Legoland is redoing exit 125, which oddly enough wasn't on Rothman's list. And Legoland itself isn't a done deal, either; the NIMBYs are trying to get the project stopped.
What effect will the opening of the casino have?
So, after the Prospect Mountain interchange upgrade is completed, I can assume I-86 will be signed from Waverly all the way to Binghamton, therefore completing I-86 from I-90 to I-81 for time being?
Quote from: Strider on February 02, 2018, 01:20:13 PM
So, after the Prospect Mountain interchange upgrade is completed, I can assume I-86 will be signed from Waverly all the way to Binghamton, therefore completing I-86 from I-90 to I-81 for time being?
Yes. It will be signed from I-90 to NY 79.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 02, 2018, 01:08:24 PM
What effect will the opening of the casino have?
Unknown. Most of the Monticello - I-84 segment is Interstate grade (or close to it) minus Rock Hill, which has a ton of local opposition.
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2018, 01:00:03 PM
The only thing I'm aware of tied to Legoland is redoing exit 125, which oddly enough wasn't on Rothman's list. And Legoland itself isn't a done deal, either; the NIMBYs are trying to get the project stopped.
Who knows what's going to happen there? Of course, that area has a ton of NIMBYs who don't seem to realize that Harriman/Sterling Forest State Parks are no longer the northern boundary of the New York metro on the west side of the Hudson.
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2018, 01:00:03 PM
The only thing I'm aware of tied to Legoland is redoing exit 125, which oddly enough wasn't on Rothman's list. And Legoland itself isn't a done deal, either; the NIMBYs are trying to get the project stopped.
NIMBYs have failed in this regard. Legoland-related improvements are not connected to the conversion, insomuch as I am aware.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 02, 2018, 09:29:59 AM
Since they have kind of gone rogue and signed 86 at certain points anyway, especially from I-84, with no recourse, what's to say they couldn't sign it from 87 and "complete" the road by having it unofficially signed on all intersecting interstates?
Better yet why couldn't they post I-shields with "NY" in the crown, maybe white text on all black, along the entire non-interstate route and call that part NY 86? Rhode Island used to have a pretend interstate like this, RI-195 which used black text on white shields. Ironically this road is today US 6 and not the current I-195.
(that's not ironic, but) Do you happen to have a photo of those 195 shields?
Quote from: Alps on February 02, 2018, 06:30:55 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 02, 2018, 09:29:59 AM
Since they have kind of gone rogue and signed 86 at certain points anyway, especially from I-84, with no recourse, what's to say they couldn't sign it from 87 and "complete" the road by having it unofficially signed on all intersecting interstates?
Better yet why couldn't they post I-shields with "NY" in the crown, maybe white text on all black, along the entire non-interstate route and call that part NY 86? Rhode Island used to have a pretend interstate like this, RI-195 which used black text on white shields. Ironically this road is today US 6 and not the current I-195.
(that's not ironic, but) Do you happen to have a photo of those 195 shields?
Nope I've just heard about it. And imo it is ironic, because they went in so hard on making that road fake I-195 only to have the real 195 be somewhere else
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 03, 2018, 03:25:18 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 02, 2018, 06:30:55 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 02, 2018, 09:29:59 AM
Since they have kind of gone rogue and signed 86 at certain points anyway, especially from I-84, with no recourse, what's to say they couldn't sign it from 87 and "complete" the road by having it unofficially signed on all intersecting interstates?
Better yet why couldn't they post I-shields with "NY" in the crown, maybe white text on all black, along the entire non-interstate route and call that part NY 86? Rhode Island used to have a pretend interstate like this, RI-195 which used black text on white shields. Ironically this road is today US 6 and not the current I-195.
(that's not ironic, but) Do you happen to have a photo of those 195 shields?
Nope I've just heard about it. And imo it is ironic, because they went in so hard on making that road fake I-195 only to have the real 195 be somewhere else
No actual photo but here's what RI-195 shield basically looked like.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/RI_195_special.svg/200px-RI_195_special.svg.png)
IIRC, the actual shields featured the above-I-shape was on a white rectangular shield. I remember seeing these shields,
in the flesh so to speak, during the mid-1980s.
So basically your typical RIDOT shield. Got it.
Quote from: cl94 on February 05, 2018, 11:46:45 AM
So basically your typical RIDOT shield. Got it.
Not quite. Here's an example of a standard RI route shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fri%2Fri_114%2Fn103.jpg&hash=76bdd432a71362cf47e2fd9d25280067ebf0c62c)
Photo from Alpsroads.net (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ri/ri_114/)
The rectangular signs with the Interstate-looking RI 195 shields did not feature a black rectangular border.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2018, 02:05:42 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 05, 2018, 11:46:45 AM
So basically your typical RIDOT shield. Got it.
Not quite. Here's an example of a standard RI route shield:
[image snipped]
The rectangular signs with the Interstate-looking RI 195 shields did not feature a black rectangular border.
That's not what I meant (courtesy Alps's site)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fri%2Fri_2%2Fs95j.jpg&hash=526f42ccf9100441b7d2222c4506f6c0378c9764)
Were the white square backgrounds used even on the overhead signs like a white version of what New Jersey does?
I think the bottom line is that it's possible to fudge things this way, because it'll just never happen otherwise, maybe once the entire road is reconstructed over a period of decades. And you're left with a confusing-looking map. Maybe you could even sign NY 17 from the Thruway as "NY 17 to I-86", if they didnt want to go the "faux"-interstate route.
Why fudge it? The entire project was a waste of time.
Leave 86 the mess that is and never add anymore upgrades.
Quote from: cl94 on February 05, 2018, 02:08:49 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2018, 02:05:42 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 05, 2018, 11:46:45 AM
So basically your typical RIDOT shield. Got it.
Not quite. Here's an example of a standard RI route shield:
[image snipped]
The rectangular signs with the Interstate-looking RI 195 shields did not feature a black rectangular border.
That's not what I meant (courtesy Alps's site)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fri%2Fri_2%2Fs95j.jpg&hash=526f42ccf9100441b7d2222c4506f6c0378c9764)
Yes on
that border/background. Your
typical RIDOT shield wording initially threw me off & lead me to assume that you meant RI's state highway shields.
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 05, 2018, 04:27:33 PM
Were the white square backgrounds used even on the overhead signs like a white version of what New Jersey does?
I don't believe so.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 06, 2018, 11:39:11 AM
Quote from: cl94 on February 05, 2018, 02:08:49 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2018, 02:05:42 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 05, 2018, 11:46:45 AM
So basically your typical RIDOT shield. Got it.
Not quite. Here's an example of a standard RI route shield:
[image snipped]
The rectangular signs with the Interstate-looking RI 195 shields did not feature a black rectangular border.
That's not what I meant (courtesy Alps's site)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fri%2Fri_2%2Fs95j.jpg&hash=526f42ccf9100441b7d2222c4506f6c0378c9764)
Yes on that border/background. Your typical RIDOT shield wording initially threw me off & lead me to assume that you meant RI's state highway shields.
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 05, 2018, 04:27:33 PM
Were the white square backgrounds used even on the overhead signs like a white version of what New Jersey does?
I don't believe so.
Yea he really meant some typical RIDOT non-cutout bullshit
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 05, 2018, 05:42:01 PM
Why fudge it? The entire project was a waste of time.
Leave 86 the mess that is and never add anymore upgrades.
Best solution: Get rid of the number altogether, extend I-88 West to Erie via a 2 mile duplex with I-81. Return the portion east of I-81 to NY 17.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 09, 2018, 01:40:27 AM
Best solution: Get rid of the number altogether, extend I-88 West to Erie via a 2 mile duplex with I-81. Return the portion east of I-81 to NY 17.
Though, at this point, if one were to do something like that, it might be more efficient to extend I-86 eastward to replace I-88 instead.
And we couldn't just take down the I-86 shields instead? It's not like all of the 17 shields have vanished.
I may be confused here - but is there any relation between interstate designation and federal funding? I had an impression interstates funding is separate from state roads.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 09, 2018, 04:26:00 PM
And we couldn't just take down the I-86 shields instead? It's not like all of the 17 shields have vanished.
Eh, Region 5 isn't putting them up and hasn't for ages. Region 6 is because of who's in charge of signs.
Quote from: kalvado on February 09, 2018, 04:56:32 PM
I may be confused here - but is there any relation between interstate designation and federal funding? I had an impression interstates funding is separate from state roads.
Yes and no. Most of the separate Interstate funding is for construction. Otherwise, the federal funding is typically tied to National Highway System status. Being as NY 17 is already NHS for its entire length (except maybe the surface portion south of Exit 131), the only real benefits to Interstate designation are recognition and partial funding for upgrades to meet Interstate standards. That is why NYSDOT hasn't gone crazy trying to upgrade the thing except where there are real operational issues.
This weekend was my first time driving on the "Quickway". It certainly isn't Interstate-grade yet, but there is work being done on several bridges. There were a few times I had to slow down to 45 MPH because I was entering a work zone.
Maintenance. Some of those bridges are receiving structural improvements while others are getting a rubberized asphalt chip seal to waterproof the deck and increase friction.
It's worth noting that much of the Quickway in Delaware and Sullivan Counties, minus Hale Eddy, is exempt from major upgrades due to the mountainous terrain. They do need to realign a handful of ramps and lengthen acceleration/deceleration lanes, but that is relatively cheap. The "Exit 111" RIRO can just be closed off (and the only reason it hasn't is that local residents have been fighting it). Most of the major work that isn't Hale Eddy at this point is east of I-84, where there is a metric crapton of substandard ramps. Heck, signs are already up between Hancock and I-84.
Drove through the NY 17/I 81 intersection over the last couple of weeks. Progress being made but looks like it should be done in spring/early summer?? BGS off to the side showing I-86 signage. Going west on 17, I-86 reassurance signs are up. Had to get off on Airport Rd, so not sure how far it is signed going toward Corning.
Quote from: coolkevs on October 30, 2018, 10:43:28 AM
Drove through the NY 17/I 81 intersection over the last couple of weeks. Progress being made but looks like it should be done in spring/early summer?? BGS off to the side showing I-86 signage. Going west on 17, I-86 reassurance signs are up. Had to get off on Airport Rd, so not sure how far it is signed going toward Corning.
Per Google Maps as of July 2018, NY 17 was also marked "To I-86" above the NY 17 Marker:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1195996,-75.9542596,3a,75y,272.77h,87.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s44Ryjw6BRt84qnvQ_Z_AVw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Last I checked NYSDOT's site, Prospect Mountain is scheduled to be complete by fall of 2019, i.e. one year from now. I passed through this summer and it was definitely getting there. The mainline of future I-86 eastbound was the only bridge left to be built, and piers were going up for it. After decades of construction, I am very much looking forward to completion!
I was on NY 17 from Binghamton to Goshen on the first weekend of this month. From what I saw, it looks like the NY 17 eastbound bridge in Binghamton has all the piers built, and just needs the spans.
The bridge work mentioned a few posts up looked to me like deck repair and/or replacement. I would have expected widening since the shoulders on most of the bridges are pretty narrow.
I would say that the biggest barriers to conversion other than the intersections are curve radii and shoulder width. From around Liberty to Middletown, there are various I-86 shields, some uncovered, and some covered.
I've seen quite a few uncovered, and none in the past year or so have been covered back up. I don't think it's much of a secret anymore. And with the Prospect Mountain project - I've noticed permanent I-86 shields in place, uncovered, that the state just isn't covering up. I suspect that it's moot at this point since I-86 exists west and east of the project and there is no real harm in leaving it uncovered.
How much of NY 17 from I-84 to Windsor meets or is being upgraded to Interstate standards? A lot of it is freeway, but when looking at the freeway portions on Google maps, a lot of the interchange ramps appear to be substandard (short ramps, not enough space to merge).
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on November 02, 2018, 11:39:19 AM
How much of NY 17 from I-84 to Windsor meets or is being upgraded to Interstate standards? A lot of it is freeway, but when looking at the freeway portions on Google maps, a lot of the interchange ramps appear to be substandard (short ramps, not enough space to merge).
Here's the major work remaining:
- Hale Eddy bypass between Deposit and Hancock. These are the only at-grades left on the Quickway. Not a high priority right now due to low volumes.
- Rock Hill RIRO (Exit 111). NYSDOT and the feds want to close it off to fix it because another exit is a mile away, locals are fighting.
- Acceleration/deceleration lanes in a few places (generally an easy fix)
- Exit 90 WB entrance ramp
- Exits 92/93 ramps
The last two MAY qualify for an exemption due to the mountainous terrain. I know that there are no planned major upgrades remaining west of I-84 other than Hale Eddy.
Quote from: cl94 on November 02, 2018, 12:32:14 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on November 02, 2018, 11:39:19 AM
How much of NY 17 from I-84 to Windsor meets or is being upgraded to Interstate standards? A lot of it is freeway, but when looking at the freeway portions on Google maps, a lot of the interchange ramps appear to be substandard (short ramps, not enough space to merge).
Here's the major work remaining:
- Hale Eddy bypass between Deposit and Hancock. These are the only at-grades left on the Quickway. Not a high priority right now due to low volumes.
- Rock Hill RIRO (Exit 111). NYSDOT and the feds want to close it off to fix it because another exit is a mile away, locals are fighting.
- Acceleration/deceleration lanes in a few places (generally an easy fix)
- Exit 90 WB entrance ramp
- Exits 92/93 ramps
The last two MAY qualify for an exemption due to the mountainous terrain. I know that there are no planned major upgrades remaining west of I-84 other than Hale Eddy.
That’s just the major work left to do that is actually scheduled right? From 84 to 87 needs currently unfunded upgrades right? Not that I take issue *at all* with them signing 86 from 84 and all these other spots where it isn’t official yet, hell I wish they’d sign 86 from 87 too, I’m just clarifying that there’s more work beyond just that list isn’t there?
I don't think any of those are presently scheduled (nor any of the more minor projects west of I-84). East of I-84 needs major work; the only one of those projects presently being done is exit 131, and that's to deal with traffic in the area, not as part of a push to get I-86 finished.
As I have stated on here multiple times before, the push for I-86 is just not as strong as it was 10 years ago due to other priorities NYSDOT had (e.g., keeping bridges from falling down). Until there is another Moynihan, it will not happen in the near future.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: AMLNet49 on November 03, 2018, 07:47:22 PM
That's just the major work left to do that is actually scheduled right? From 84 to 87 needs currently unfunded upgrades right? Not that I take issue *at all* with them signing 86 from 84 and all these other spots where it isn't official yet, hell I wish they'd sign 86 from 87 too, I'm just clarifying that there's more work beyond just that list isn't there?
No, that's the major work (not scheduled) required west of 84, as that is what was asked. There is FAR more remaining.
Quote from: Rothman on November 05, 2018, 01:03:50 PM
As I have stated on here multiple times before, the push for I-86 is just not as strong as it was 10 years ago due to other priorities NYSDOT had (e.g., keeping bridges from falling down). Until there is another Moynihan, it will not happen in the near future.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Which I've been trying to hint at. Nor do I think it is necessary. There are far more important things than spending a hundred million or more bypassing Hale Eddy. The Quickway works as-is. Does it need a widening east of 84? Certainly. But a full Interstate upgrade west of there just isn't justified with how little traffic the corridor gets. It's not like the Quickway through the Catskills is a particularly unsafe road.
Quote from: Rothman on November 05, 2018, 01:03:50 PM
As I have stated on here multiple times before, the push for I-86 is just not as strong as it was 10 years ago due to other priorities NYSDOT had (e.g., keeping bridges from falling down). Until there is another Moynihan, it will not happen in the near future.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Without regularly programmed federal funding input (as with previous chargeable and Howard-Kramer $$) states are placed in the unenviable position of not being able to follow through on longstanding plans such as I-86. It's a shame that we have legislators (at all levels and in both parties) who tremble at the presence of vocal blocs who view any public revenues as virtual theft -- resentful that their tax dollars can be used to enhance activities that either don't meet with their specific approval or will benefit those who, in their minds, don't deserve it! The notion of a "common good" has been, over the last few decades, sadly lacking -- or appropriated by some with a narrow or even speculative agenda.
Maybe I-86 will be done one little sliver at a time, maybe not -- but its situation is certainly indicative of the current state of general public-sector dysfunction!
My comment, and position, on this is pretty much the same as it is for any other full freeways that don't meet some arbitrary standard to get that red, white & blue shield-shaped highway marker. Can the average motorist tell a difference between, say, the sections of NY 17 between Binghamton and Corning that haven't been upgraded to currently have the I-86 signage, and those that have? I say not. Until I-65 got widened south of Elizabethtown, I used to say that a passenger could fall asleep at Munfordville or Glendale, and then wake up at Bardstown on the Bluegrass Parkway, and not know that he or she wasn't on an interstate anymore.
Hale Eddy is the obvious fly in the ointment here, but my point still stands. I think it's goofy that Kentucky has had to spend so much to convert the Purchase, WK and Pennyrile Parkways to I-69 when really the only thing that needed to be done was eliminate the tollbooth cloverleafs.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 05, 2018, 02:15:39 PM
My comment, and position, on this is pretty much the same as it is for any other full freeways that don't meet some arbitrary standard to get that red, white & blue shield-shaped highway marker. Can the average motorist tell a difference between, say, the sections of NY 17 between Binghamton and Corning that haven't been upgraded to currently have the I-86 signage, and those that have? I say not.
Of course not. NY 17 is built to the same standard as many sections of Interstate in the Northeast outside of Hale Eddy and BETTER than many urban segments. It just can't get the shield because AASHTO stopped grandfathering segments into the system. Even with Hale Eddy, NY 17 is better than most of I-78 PA and I-80 in Stroudsburg.
A coalition, 17-Forward-86, was in the state capital yesterday calling for the widening of Route 17 for 22 miles west of the Thruway. They want it to be three lanes in each direction.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 07, 2019, 10:14:31 AM
A coalition, 17-Forward-86, was in the state capital yesterday calling for the widening of Route 17 for 22 miles west of the Thruway. They want it to be three lanes in each direction.
NYSDOT hears ya; NYSDOT got no money for that.
The map I saw posted to their Twitter from their website had over 50 miles, not 22. Did they downsize their proposal?
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2019, 10:49:55 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 07, 2019, 10:14:31 AM
A coalition, 17-Forward-86, was in the state capital yesterday calling for the widening of Route 17 for 22 miles west of the Thruway. They want it to be three lanes in each direction.
NYSDOT hears ya; NYSDOT got no money for that.
Unless, of course, a certain politician wants to make it a pet project... (personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: cl94 on March 07, 2019, 12:03:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2019, 10:49:55 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 07, 2019, 10:14:31 AM
A coalition, 17-Forward-86, was in the state capital yesterday calling for the widening of Route 17 for 22 miles west of the Thruway. They want it to be three lanes in each direction.
NYSDOT hears ya; NYSDOT got no money for that.
Unless, of course, a certain politician wants to make it a pet project... (personal opinion emphasized)
That certain politician hasn't shown much enthusiasm for I-86 thus far. Some lipservice and supported Exit 131, but nothing beyond that, I don't believe.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: vdeane on March 07, 2019, 12:00:46 PM
The map I saw posted to their Twitter from their website had over 50 miles, not 22. Did they downsize their proposal?
The original study involved 47 miles. They are only proposing 22 miles.
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2019, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: cl94 on March 07, 2019, 12:03:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2019, 10:49:55 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 07, 2019, 10:14:31 AM
A coalition, 17-Forward-86, was in the state capital yesterday calling for the widening of Route 17 for 22 miles west of the Thruway. They want it to be three lanes in each direction.
NYSDOT hears ya; NYSDOT got no money for that.
Unless, of course, a certain politician wants to make it a pet project... (personal opinion emphasized)
That certain politician hasn't shown much enthusiasm for I-86 thus far. Some lipservice and supported Exit 131, but nothing beyond that, I don't believe.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Exit 131 is visible from the Thruway. Outsiders don't see the rest of 17.
Quote from: Alps on March 07, 2019, 08:49:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2019, 12:05:16 PM
Quote from: cl94 on March 07, 2019, 12:03:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2019, 10:49:55 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 07, 2019, 10:14:31 AM
A coalition, 17-Forward-86, was in the state capital yesterday calling for the widening of Route 17 for 22 miles west of the Thruway. They want it to be three lanes in each direction.
NYSDOT hears ya; NYSDOT got no money for that.
Unless, of course, a certain politician wants to make it a pet project... (personal opinion emphasized)
That certain politician hasn't shown much enthusiasm for I-86 thus far. Some lipservice and supported Exit 131, but nothing beyond that, I don't believe.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Exit 131 is visible from the Thruway. Outsiders don't see the rest of 17.
Exactly. If you are Cuomo, and you upgrade exit 131, meaning the half-mile at the east end of NY 17 changes from a "faux" part of I-86 to a "real" part of I-86, what do you get?
You get to sign I-86 from the Thruway and basically pretend that it is complete. This alone is incentive to reconstruct Exit 131.
Quote from: cl94 on March 07, 2019, 12:03:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 07, 2019, 10:49:55 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 07, 2019, 10:14:31 AM
A coalition, 17-Forward-86, was in the state capital yesterday calling for the widening of Route 17 for 22 miles west of the Thruway. They want it to be three lanes in each direction.
NYSDOT hears ya; NYSDOT got no money for that.
Unless, of course, a certain politician wants to make it a pet project... (personal opinion emphasized)
LOL!!! That certain politician caring for anything outside the city, would cause massive heart attacks across the state. Hate to say it but, 86 has as much chance of getting completed as the Tappen Zee being listed by it's original name and not the tribute to that certain politician's father.
In early October of last year, I was on NY 17 eastbound from Binghamton until Exit 124 in Goshen on the way to a friend's wedding. I was surprised at how suddenly the amount of traffic increased heading down the hill before Exit 120 in Middletown. Traffic was a bit heavy at times, but kept moving. We went between Exit 120 and Exit 122 a few times because the hotel we spent the night at was one of the ones at Exit 122. The RIRO ramps at Exit 122 for NY 17 westbound were super tight, and I was surprised that they weren't changed from their original design since the interchange was redesigned in 2015 according to Historic Aerials.
The three lane section begins just west of Exit 122A, and that seemed to work fine, but I could understand wanting to extend it to either Exit 121 or Exit 120. Exit 120 is 18.7 miles west of the Thruway.
The most substandard thing I noticed about NY 17 (other than the at-grade intersections) was the curves near Hale Eddy. The worst one to me was this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9574876,-75.2405956,1396m/data=!3m1!1e3).
As an aside, I was surprised at how well the existing road was tied into the Parksville bypass. I knew we were near the new alignment, but I didn't realize we were actually on it until seeing the 1 mile sign for Exit 98. I was also surprised to see that past Liberty, several bridges still had this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7664169,-74.735726,3a,20.9y,3.16h,101.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVbWNMP4SnWMHfw5Wes1yaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) type of railing.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 07, 2019, 10:14:31 AM
A coalition, 17-Forward-86, was in the state capital yesterday calling for the widening of Route 17 for 22 miles west of the Thruway. They want it to be three lanes in each direction.
Interesting. I always wondered why the one segment through Goshen got six lanes and not the rest of it down to I-87. It would be nice, but its not that bad; much of the Thruway ought to be a higher priority.
I'd rather funds go towards conpleting and designating I-86 than a big widening project.
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2019, 10:16:55 PM
Interesting. I always wondered why the one segment through Goshen got six lanes and not the rest of it down to I-87. It would be nice, but its not that bad; much of the Thruway ought to be a higher priority.
I'd rather funds go towards conpleting and designating I-86 than a big widening project.
Curiously, why so? (Since as I recall, you tend to favor widening in other places of apparent need, such as the Thruway?)
NY-17 has needed a 3rd lane in Orange County for at least 20 years now. I was quite surprised when they didn't put one in (or at least prep for it with wider over/underpasses) when they did all that reconstruction for the I-86 designation.
About that 3rd lane in Goshen.
One night when I was coming back from Ellenville, I was stuck in some pretty heavy, but generally moving, traffic going eastbound. When the 3rd lane opened up, I recall jumping on it and punching the car to some ridiculous speed. Nobody cut me off by some small miracle and by the time the lane ended I passed the 2 idiots that were clogging up the highway. Smooth sailing and no traffic all the way to the Thurway..... which still needs a 4th lane between Exit 15 and 16.
Quote from: empirestate on March 09, 2019, 12:49:22 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 08, 2019, 10:16:55 PM
Interesting. I always wondered why the one segment through Goshen got six lanes and not the rest of it down to I-87. It would be nice, but its not that bad; much of the Thruway ought to be a higher priority.
I'd rather funds go towards conpleting and designating I-86 than a big widening project.
Curiously, why so? (Since as I recall, you tend to favor widening in other places of apparent need, such as the Thruway?)
Well, really for two reasons. One is that that section of I-86 has a relatively little long distance and truck traffic, especially compared to the Thruway and I-81. The second reason I alluded to above, and that is that I am frustrated with I-86 being incomplete, so I would prioritize that over a widening.
However, I am not at all opposed to widening. Undeniably 6 lanes through Orange County would be very nice to have.
The last example of widening I can think of in NY (Thruway exits 23-24) involved a full-depth reconstruction, so if NY 17 was done similarly I would think the resulting freeway would be ready for I-86.
I think I would rather see a full interstate upgrade before a widening, because then it'll be eligible for federal funds, right?
Quote from: Buffaboy on March 09, 2019, 11:38:22 PM
I think I would rather see a full interstate upgrade before a widening, because then it'll be eligible for federal funds, right?
It's been eligible for federal funds for quite some time as High Priority Corridor #36. There's currently no additional funding for designated Interstate corridors such as this one; they're eligible for the maximum 80%, but like every other corridor, it needs to wait for (a) a Congressional outlay and (b) state/local matching funds being identified and allotted. In other words, just because it's future I-86 doesn't mean its funding will be prioritized; everything's on a year-to-year basis.
Quote from: Buffaboy on March 09, 2019, 11:38:22 PM
I think I would rather see a full interstate upgrade before a widening, because then it'll be eligible for federal funds, right?
NY 17 is federal-aid eligible regardless due to being on the Federal-Aid System and probably the NHS.
There is no need for a special congressional "outlay" or earmark to federally fund any project on NY 17. In fact, all that is needed is for NYSDOT to consider the work as a priority and devote NHP funds towards it.
And, if there's an assumption that simply because it was included in the list of "high priority corridors" a few federal bills ago that Congress is under an obligation to fund such...don't hold your breath. Every time a federal bill comes out, the core funding is the only thing that is a surety; the add-ons from previous bills are essentially ignored (i.e., earmarks actually funded have their funds linger, but if no funds were actually ever tied to designations, the new bill rules the day).
And then I-86 isn't a priority because NYSDOT is struggling to keep conditions from declining while simultaneously needing funding for the gargantuan Van Wyck and Hunts Point access projects. It is actually getting more frequent that any additional funding NYSDOT receives is earmarked for needed megaprojects (i.e., from the State), but the rest of the system is still declining, state-wise.
I suppose the recent large amounts of "August Redistribution" in federal obligation limitation are something of an exception, but those amounts are incorporated in NYSDOT's regional allocations anyway and there's still not enough to turn around the condition slide -- just slows it.
Some interesting stuff from an article I saw in the clippings today. Don't know if it's a function of today's date or not, but we might see more I-86 soon:
Quote
The coveted signs now run from Chautauqua County and I-90 at the Pennsylvania line for 206 miles through five of Route 17′s 10 counties. The Federal Highway Administration is expected to approve the designation of another 32 miles in Tioga County and nine miles in Orange County in this anniversary year.
And in two years, when the state's $310 million project to link Route 17 with I-81 and I-88 in Binghamton is complete, the state will be only five miles shy of bringing I-86 almost to the Delaware County line – and to the final sprint, across Delaware, Sullivan and Orange counties to I-87, the New York State Thruway.
Oddly though, these sections have met interstate standards for years (the stretch in Orange County mentioned has had covered up signs for a long time now), so why now? Also, the current end of I-86 east of I-81 is 15 miles from Delaware County, not 5, so does that mean it will get extended to NY 41?
https://www.recordonline.com/news/20190330/i-86-conversion-slow-go-to-thruway
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2019, 07:29:20 PM
Some interesting stuff from an article I saw in the clippings today. Don't know if it's a function of today's date or not, but we might see more I-86 soon:
Quote
The coveted signs now run from Chautauqua County and I-90 at the Pennsylvania line for 206 miles through five of Route 17′s 10 counties. The Federal Highway Administration is expected to approve the designation of another 32 miles in Tioga County and nine miles in Orange County in this anniversary year.
And in two years, when the state's $310 million project to link Route 17 with I-81 and I-88 in Binghamton is complete, the state will be only five miles shy of bringing I-86 almost to the Delaware County line – and to the final sprint, across Delaware, Sullivan and Orange counties to I-87, the New York State Thruway.
Oddly though, these sections have met interstate standards for years (the stretch in Orange County mentioned has had covered up signs for a long time now), so why now? Also, the current end of I-86 east of I-81 is 15 miles from Delaware County, not 5, so does that mean it will get extended to NY 41?
https://www.recordonline.com/news/20190330/i-86-conversion-slow-go-to-thruway
Interestingly enough, the signs on NY 17K at the Interchange with NY 17/Future I-86 are uncovered...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5528809,-74.427568,3a,60y,134.56h,81.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdrLj8NsgXWyExB5QUHh7IQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
There are many instances of shields being uncovered (wind blowing off covers, etc.) and never being recovered.
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on April 17, 2019, 07:39:02 AM
Interestingly enough, the signs on NY 17K at the Interchange with NY 17/Future I-86 are uncovered...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5528809,-74.427568,3a,60y,134.56h,81.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdrLj8NsgXWyExB5QUHh7IQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Just a reminder to please use shortened GSV links, or add a blank line underneath (as a scroll bar workaround). :thumbsup:
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on April 17, 2019, 07:39:02 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2019, 07:29:20 PM
Some interesting stuff from an article I saw in the clippings today. Don't know if it's a function of today's date or not, but we might see more I-86 soon:
Quote
The coveted signs now run from Chautauqua County and I-90 at the Pennsylvania line for 206 miles through five of Route 17′s 10 counties. The Federal Highway Administration is expected to approve the designation of another 32 miles in Tioga County and nine miles in Orange County in this anniversary year.
And in two years, when the state's $310 million project to link Route 17 with I-81 and I-88 in Binghamton is complete, the state will be only five miles shy of bringing I-86 almost to the Delaware County line – and to the final sprint, across Delaware, Sullivan and Orange counties to I-87, the New York State Thruway.
Oddly though, these sections have met interstate standards for years (the stretch in Orange County mentioned has had covered up signs for a long time now), so why now? Also, the current end of I-86 east of I-81 is 15 miles from Delaware County, not 5, so does that mean it will get extended to NY 41?
https://www.recordonline.com/news/20190330/i-86-conversion-slow-go-to-thruway
Interestingly enough, the signs on NY 17K at the Interchange with NY 17/Future I-86 are uncovered...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5528809,-74.427568,3a,60y,134.56h,81.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdrLj8NsgXWyExB5QUHh7IQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Those signs have been uncovered for years, as have a few further west in Sullivan County. I wouldn't read anything into them.
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on April 17, 2019, 07:39:02 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2019, 07:29:20 PM
Some interesting stuff from an article I saw in the clippings today. Don't know if it's a function of today's date or not, but we might see more I-86 soon:
Quote
The coveted signs now run from Chautauqua County and I-90 at the Pennsylvania line for 206 miles through five of Route 17′s 10 counties. The Federal Highway Administration is expected to approve the designation of another 32 miles in Tioga County and nine miles in Orange County in this anniversary year.
And in two years, when the state's $310 million project to link Route 17 with I-81 and I-88 in Binghamton is complete, the state will be only five miles shy of bringing I-86 almost to the Delaware County line – and to the final sprint, across Delaware, Sullivan and Orange counties to I-87, the New York State Thruway.
Oddly though, these sections have met interstate standards for years (the stretch in Orange County mentioned has had covered up signs for a long time now), so why now? Also, the current end of I-86 east of I-81 is 15 miles from Delaware County, not 5, so does that mean it will get extended to NY 41?
https://www.recordonline.com/news/20190330/i-86-conversion-slow-go-to-thruway
Interestingly enough, the signs on NY 17K at the Interchange with NY 17/Future I-86 are uncovered...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5528809,-74.427568,3a,60y,134.56h,81.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdrLj8NsgXWyExB5QUHh7IQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Okay and 86 is also uncovered on 84 itself, despite not officially reaching down to 84. Its very inconsistent, and in a lot of places unintentional
Any updates on I-86?
Quote from: TheDon102 on September 14, 2019, 12:09:50 AM
Any updates on I-86?
It's a short freeway connecting I-84 to I-15.
It reverted to I-84 about 35 years ago.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 14, 2019, 10:37:29 AM
It reverted to I-84 about 35 years ago.
Which one lol? This one has had three different routes unlike I-84 that has only had two.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 14, 2019, 11:55:48 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 14, 2019, 10:37:29 AM
It reverted to I-84 about 35 years ago.
Which one lol? This one has had three different routes unlike I-84 that has only had two.
I think he's referring to the old (and original) I-86 in CT and MA that reverted back to its original number of I-84 in 1984 after the Hartford-Providence freeway that was to become the rerouted I-84 was cancelled. In other words, that I-86 got 86'ed! :)
I think we're getting off topic.
^^^^^^^^^^^
The fact is that development of the east end of I-86 has been in a weird state of "limbo" for years; parts near the I-84 junction have been signed but the shields covered, and the easternmost section near I-87 seems to have a few local controversies that have delayed any activity there. Combine that with the Hale Eddy situation, which seems, in both political and logistical terms, to defy any plans to solve it. So it seems that unless someone from NYDOT pulls the proverbial rabbit out of a hat ("but that trick never works!")*, further development of I-86 is at an impasse. So, basically, no new news to report (NY posters with info to the contrary are more than welcome to chime in here).
*Thanks and apologies to the late Jay Ward and Bill Scott. :clap:
It's mostly dormant besides the Kamikaze Curve project, but projects that have significant reason to be done independent of I-86 do more forward. Exit 131 is currently being rebuilt, and the reconstruction of exit 105 was recently announced.
Quote from: sparker on September 14, 2019, 03:11:46 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 14, 2019, 11:55:48 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 14, 2019, 10:37:29 AM
It reverted to I-84 about 35 years ago.
Which one lol? This one has had three different routes unlike I-84 that has only had two.
I think he's referring to the old (and original) I-86 in CT and MA that reverted back to its original number of I-84 in 1984 after the Hartford-Providence freeway that was to become the rerouted I-84 was cancelled. In other words, that I-86 got 86'ed! :)
I know I was just joking but referring to the fact he brought up an interesting point many have forgotten. That this current NY I-86 is a revision of the number on top of the one in Idaho, making I-86 more of just a typical two segment two digit interstate.
I-76, I-84, and I-88 were all first in their segments where I-86 was three actual alignments.
Quote from: vdeane on September 15, 2019, 08:26:03 PM
the reconstruction of exit 105 was recently announced.
What's wrong with Exit 105?
If they're looking for outdated cloverleaves to reconstruct, there are several in Buffalo..
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2019, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 15, 2019, 08:26:03 PM
the reconstruction of exit 105 was recently announced.
What's wrong with Exit 105?
If they're looking for outdated cloverleaves to reconstruct, there are several in Buffalo..
It was announced along with a bunch of other freight improvement projects (https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/ny-announces-206m-in-new-freight-related-projects/45896) (first entry for the Mid-Hudson Region). Rothman's list of outstanding I-86 projects included one labeled "Upgrade of deficient features on NY 42 from Monticello through the interchange with NY 17", which would be that location.
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2019, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 15, 2019, 08:26:03 PM
the reconstruction of exit 105 was recently announced.
What's wrong with Exit 105?
If they're looking for outdated cloverleaves to reconstruct, there are several in Buffalo..
It's located along a rather long curve with limited sight distances. There also is just not enough traffic either to justify a full cloverleaf interchange.
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2019, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 15, 2019, 08:26:03 PM
the reconstruction of exit 105 was recently announced.
What's wrong with Exit 105?
At one time, R9 had one direction signed as "exit 105b" . (Yes, all lowercase letters). I called it Exit 105 B-flat.
Back on topic...
I drove through the Exit 131 construction today and it is operating as a DDI. This is likely new within the last couple of weeks and none of the online map platforms show it. It's a 2-lane exit from I-87 with an option lane. Detour ramp to 6/17 WB remains in place, don't think the new WB entrance ramp is open yet.
According to the NYSDOT Prospect Mountain webpage, the project should be completed by 1 MAR 2020. Anyone local know if this indeed is the case? Will I-86 then be signed from South Waverly to Binghamton?
https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/prospect-mountain-route-17
(You have to scroll down a bit to see it.)
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on February 06, 2020, 07:06:44 AM
According to the NYSDOT Prospect Mountain webpage, the project should be completed by 1 MAR 2020. Anyone local know if this indeed is the case? Will I-86 then be signed from South Waverly to Binghamton?
https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/prospect-mountain-route-17
(You have to scroll down a bit to see it.)
I think there is still a holdup in Tioga County. It has been signed through Broome County for a while.
Most signs in Broome County have TO banners on them, though, unless that's changed recently. As far as I know, the issues in Tioga County were addressed years ago, but it was never extended to NY 26 for some reason. There's some issue between there and Prospect Mountain.
TO banners were generally nonexistent in November as far as I remember. I can check when down there next weekend.
Quote from: cl94 on February 06, 2020, 01:31:31 PM
TO banners were generally nonexistent in November as far as I remember. I can check when down there next weekend.
To clarify: I was referring to these things (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1196052,-75.9541535,3a,24.9y,295.75h,87.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6oW9uGxGPgbqksCodkhjJw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), not the I-81 signs.
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on February 06, 2020, 07:06:44 AM
According to the NYSDOT Prospect Mountain webpage, the project should be completed by 1 MAR 2020. Anyone local know if this indeed is the case? Will I-86 then be signed from South Waverly to Binghamton?
https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/prospect-mountain-route-17
(You have to scroll down a bit to see it.)
Dunno about the designation part, but having traveled through very recently, the work at Binghamton does indeed seem to be at or near completion.
I'm sure Interstate 86 will be signposted from Exit 60 to Interstate 81. I doubt Interstate 86 will be signposted east of Exit 79 until they upgrade the whole roadway to Interstate Standards, and eliminate the at-grade intersections in Hale Eddy.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 07, 2020, 04:55:06 PM
I'm sure Interstate 86 will be signposted from Exit 60 to Interstate 81. I doubt Interstate 86 will be signposted east of Exit 79 until they upgrade the whole roadway to Interstate Standards, and eliminate the at-grade intersections in Hale Eddy.
There's still some kind of issue west of Binghamton, unless Region 9 snuck in some upgrades in the Vestal/Johnson City area. I'm not aware of any upgrades on that stretch of NY 17, however.
http://nysroads.com/images/i86-remaining.jpg
Quote from: vdeane on February 07, 2020, 08:57:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 07, 2020, 04:55:06 PM
I'm sure Interstate 86 will be signposted from Exit 60 to Interstate 81. I doubt Interstate 86 will be signposted east of Exit 79 until they upgrade the whole roadway to Interstate Standards, and eliminate the at-grade intersections in Hale Eddy.
There's still some kind of issue west of Binghamton, unless Region 9 snuck in some upgrades in the Vestal/Johnson City area. I'm not aware of any upgrades on that stretch of NY 17, however.
http://nysroads.com/images/i86-remaining.jpg
Some of that was incorporated as part of the Prospect Mountain project. 72 was blown up and rebuilt, while 71's bad decel lane was lengthened. My GUESS is that it's the deceleration lanes at Exits 68 and 69 that are the problem.
Quote from: cl94 on February 07, 2020, 09:10:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 07, 2020, 08:57:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 07, 2020, 04:55:06 PM
I'm sure Interstate 86 will be signposted from Exit 60 to Interstate 81. I doubt Interstate 86 will be signposted east of Exit 79 until they upgrade the whole roadway to Interstate Standards, and eliminate the at-grade intersections in Hale Eddy.
There's still some kind of issue west of Binghamton, unless Region 9 snuck in some upgrades in the Vestal/Johnson City area. I'm not aware of any upgrades on that stretch of NY 17, however.
http://nysroads.com/images/i86-remaining.jpg
Some of that was incorporated as part of the Prospect Mountain project. 72 was blown up and rebuilt, while 71's bad decel lane was lengthened. My GUESS is that it's the deceleration lanes at Exits 68 and 69 that are the problem.
My understanding is that Exit 68 has been the real problem. I remember reading years ago that the exit wasn't going to be grandfathered in for completion, and it has a few problems: partial exit, very short decel lane, and an accel lane that quickly turns into an exit lane for Exit 67N. There had been some rumblings in the town about replacing the exit with a new interchange along with a bridge between Vestal and Endwell (connecting Sycamore Rd. and Hooper Rd. in one configuration), but those plans have been sidelined for at least a decade now.
Will we see the full conversion to I-86 in our lifetimes? :D
Quote from: TheDon102 on February 10, 2020, 07:02:18 PM
Will we see the full conversion to I-86 in our lifetimes? :D
No.
I'd rather just take the I-86 shields down.
https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn83031330/1956-12-06/ed-1/seq-1/
The grand opening of the 11 mile Wurtsboro bypass in December 1956.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 12, 2020, 08:32:04 PM
I'd rather just take the I-86 shields down.
The Alleganys would fully endorse this.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 13, 2020, 11:23:46 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 12, 2020, 08:32:04 PM
I'd rather just take the I-86 shields down.
The Alleganys would fully endorse this.
I thought the I-86 markers were fine as long as they weren't on the mile markers or reference markers (which honestly, didn't make a lot of sense to me).
My understanding is that the complaint boils down to the fact that the agreement to build NY 17 though Seneca lands specifically says "NY 17" and not "I-86", and therefore they're claiming the I-86 signs are illegal. Apparently they only noticed the mile markers for some reason? Personally, I don't get the point of the complaint, but it was apparently enough to get Region 5 to take the mile markers down.
Quote from: seicer on February 13, 2020, 07:46:02 AM
https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn83031330/1956-12-06/ed-1/seq-1/
The grand opening of the 11 mile Wurtsboro bypass in December 1956.
"hundreds of cards poised to speed..."?
^ The Seneca Nation has been fighting the NY 17/I-86 freeway since its inception--but maybe not hard enough so as to build a casino next to it in Salamanca.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 12, 2020, 08:32:04 PM
I'd rather just take the I-86 shields down.
I can see having I-86 shields from I-90 near Erie to I-81 in Binghamton. The section from Binghamton to Harriman is a completely different animal, being that much of this section was built in the 1950's and early 1960's. Yes, there are some sections (east of Binghamton, Parksville, near I-84, and maybe Liberty) that have been upgraded to Interstate standards, however, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to get this section signed as I-86--something many of us may not see in our lifetime.
Quote from: amroad17 on February 15, 2020, 08:01:57 AM
I can see having I-86 shields from I-90 near Erie to I-81 in Binghamton.
In that case, I would just extend I-88 west via a 2-mile concurrency with I-81 and be done with 86.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 15, 2020, 10:01:12 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on February 15, 2020, 08:01:57 AM
I can see having I-86 shields from I-90 near Erie to I-81 in Binghamton.
In that case, I would just extend I-88 west via a 2-mile concurrency with I-81 and be done with 86.
You would... 86 it. :)
I would do the opposite - call everything 86 and get rid of the western 86. Now you've sunk two duplicate numbering battleships. But there are already I-86 shields up in Orange County and I do believe we will see I-86 done in my lifetime.
Quote from: Alps on February 15, 2020, 10:50:58 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 15, 2020, 10:01:12 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on February 15, 2020, 08:01:57 AM
I can see having I-86 shields from I-90 near Erie to I-81 in Binghamton.
In that case, I would just extend I-88 west via a 2-mile concurrency with I-81 and be done with 86.
You would... 86 it. :)
I would do the opposite - call everything 86 and get rid of the western 86. Now you've sunk two duplicate numbering battleships. But there are already I-86 shields up in Orange County and I do believe we will see I-86 done in my lifetime.
And what do you base your optimism on?
The last seriously programmed conversion projects are done and there is no impetus or motivation to program the rest at this point.
NYSDOT federal funding has remained essentially flat with state bonding supporting current megaprojects. Conditions across the state are still declining. Conversion for I-86 has been viewed as a luxury.
NYSDOT commissioners since Parksvile have not seen the point of the conversion, insofar as I am aware.
I don't see I-86 conversion happening over at least the next 10 years. It will only happen after that with a strong politician pushing for it, so it goes from a hard no over the next decade to simply "unlikely" after that.
(personal opinion empashized)
Well, 10 years is less than the time most of us will live for, so there's that. As for projects, the 17 forward 86 coalition keeps pushing hard for a widening from Monticello east, and if that actually happened, most/all of the work needed east of Parksville. Much of the rest looks like the type of safety improvement project that I could see trickling through the pipeline over time as Main Office issues its periodic calls for beyond preservation projects to fund. And the, eventually, that would leave just Hale Eddy... and then whatever governor is in power then will be able to claim that they finished I-86 if the push the project through. Remember the fanfare over Cuomo building exit 3? A whole new interstate east of Binghamton would be even bigger than that.
(personal opinion)
Quote from: vdeane on February 16, 2020, 07:37:12 PM
Well, 10 years is less than the time most of us will live for, so there's that. As for projects, the 17 forward 86 coalition keeps pushing hard for a widening from Monticello east, and if that actually happened, most/all of the work needed east of Parksville. Much of the rest looks like the type of safety improvement project that I could see trickling through the pipeline over time as Main Office issues its periodic calls for beyond preservation projects to fund. And the, eventually, that would leave just Hale Eddy... and then whatever governor is in power then will be able to claim that they finished I-86 if the push the project through. Remember the fanfare over Cuomo building exit 3? A whole new interstate east of Binghamton would be even bigger than that.
(personal opinion)
Maybe for now, we should just switch the freeway section of NY 17 to NY 86 (or just cosign them), then extend 32 along the surface portions.
The problem is NY 17 doesn't need to be a full fledged interstate. It never has had to be. There isn't the traffic numbers to justify more than basic work. It may be convenient, which is fine, but we didn't need to drop all this money into it.
We live in an era where people are more reliant on GPS technology rather than the road signs. At the same time, the concept of the route designation is almost meaningless because of it. I don't think a general driver cares that it's NY 17 versus Interstate 86. The marketing strength of the 380 mile road is not big enough to say that the value of an interstate designation is enough to change things.
When this project was started (1999), no one really could see this kind of thing coming. Now it's 2020. The parts that needed to be worked on (Prospect Mtn, Parksville, east of 84) are being worked on. It has served fine as NY 17 and should remain NY 17.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on February 16, 2020, 08:06:28 PM
Maybe for now, we should just switch the freeway section of NY 17 to NY 86 (or just cosign them), then extend 32 along the surface portions.
NY 86 already exists in the Adirondacks.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 16, 2020, 08:30:16 PM
The problem is NY 17 doesn't need to be a full fledged interstate. It never has had to be. There isn't the traffic numbers to justify more than basic work. It may be convenient, which is fine, but we didn't need to drop all this money into it.
[...]
When this project was started (1999), no one really could see this kind of thing coming. Now it's 2020. The parts that needed to be worked on (Prospect Mtn, Parksville, east of 84) are being worked on. It has served fine as NY 17 and should remain NY 17.
And I don't know that Parksville belongs in the "needed" category. That was some intensive roadworks that got done there, and all it did was bypass a single traffic signal that served as a convenient waypoint. Stopping at Parksville for ice cream was always assumed to be a part of any trip I took through the area.
Quote from: empirestate on February 21, 2020, 05:14:19 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 16, 2020, 08:30:16 PM
The problem is NY 17 doesn't need to be a full fledged interstate. It never has had to be. There isn't the traffic numbers to justify more than basic work. It may be convenient, which is fine, but we didn't need to drop all this money into it.
[...]
When this project was started (1999), no one really could see this kind of thing coming. Now it's 2020. The parts that needed to be worked on (Prospect Mtn, Parksville, east of 84) are being worked on. It has served fine as NY 17 and should remain NY 17.
And I don't know that Parksville belongs in the "needed" category. That was some intensive roadworks that got done there, and all it did was bypass a single traffic signal that served as a convenient waypoint. Stopping at Parksville for ice cream was always assumed to be a part of any trip I took through the area.
Nothing prevents you from stopping for ice cream now.
Quote from: Rothman on February 21, 2020, 11:23:12 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 21, 2020, 05:14:19 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 16, 2020, 08:30:16 PM
The problem is NY 17 doesn't need to be a full fledged interstate. It never has had to be. There isn't the traffic numbers to justify more than basic work. It may be convenient, which is fine, but we didn't need to drop all this money into it.
[...]
When this project was started (1999), no one really could see this kind of thing coming. Now it's 2020. The parts that needed to be worked on (Prospect Mtn, Parksville, east of 84) are being worked on. It has served fine as NY 17 and should remain NY 17.
And I don't know that Parksville belongs in the "needed" category. That was some intensive roadworks that got done there, and all it did was bypass a single traffic signal that served as a convenient waypoint. Stopping at Parksville for ice cream was always assumed to be a part of any trip I took through the area.
Nothing prevents you from stopping for ice cream now.
There's no longer an ice cream shop.
Quote from: empirestate on February 21, 2020, 11:33:02 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 21, 2020, 11:23:12 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 21, 2020, 05:14:19 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 16, 2020, 08:30:16 PM
The problem is NY 17 doesn't need to be a full fledged interstate. It never has had to be. There isn't the traffic numbers to justify more than basic work. It may be convenient, which is fine, but we didn't need to drop all this money into it.
[...]
When this project was started (1999), no one really could see this kind of thing coming. Now it's 2020. The parts that needed to be worked on (Prospect Mtn, Parksville, east of 84) are being worked on. It has served fine as NY 17 and should remain NY 17.
And I don't know that Parksville belongs in the "needed" category. That was some intensive roadworks that got done there, and all it did was bypass a single traffic signal that served as a convenient waypoint. Stopping at Parksville for ice cream was always assumed to be a part of any trip I took through the area.
Nothing prevents you from stopping for ice cream now.
There's no longer an ice cream shop.
All i can think of now
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 16, 2020, 08:30:16 PM
We live in an era where people are more reliant on GPS technology rather than the road signs. At the same time, the concept of the route designation is almost meaningless because of it. I don't think a general driver cares that it's NY 17 versus Interstate 86. The marketing strength of the 380 mile road is not big enough to say that the value of an interstate designation is enough to change things.
When this project was started (1999), no one really could see this kind of thing coming. Now it's 2020. The parts that needed to be worked on (Prospect Mtn, Parksville, east of 84) are being worked on. It has served fine as NY 17 and should remain NY 17.
This isn't really true. This
may be true of some things like signage (which I'd argue is still important to confirm your gps — see how people freak out when signage changes)
But people generally know there are a few types of roads with the highest class being "interstate" . The brand absolutely has a lot of prestige. The Branding potential of I-86 happens to be less than average, but don't generalize the system based on one road. The I-69 megaproject shows you the value of the interstate brand even today.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 22, 2020, 03:52:14 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 16, 2020, 08:30:16 PM
We live in an era where people are more reliant on GPS technology rather than the road signs. At the same time, the concept of the route designation is almost meaningless because of it. I don't think a general driver cares that it's NY 17 versus Interstate 86. The marketing strength of the 380 mile road is not big enough to say that the value of an interstate designation is enough to change things.
When this project was started (1999), no one really could see this kind of thing coming. Now it's 2020. The parts that needed to be worked on (Prospect Mtn, Parksville, east of 84) are being worked on. It has served fine as NY 17 and should remain NY 17.
This isn't really true. This may be true of some things like signage (which I'd argue is still important to confirm your gps — see how people freak out when signage changes)
But people generally know there are a few types of roads with the highest class being "interstate" . The brand absolutely has a lot of prestige. The Branding potential of I-86 happens to be less than average, but don't generalize the system based on one road. The I-69 megaproject shows you the value of the interstate brand even today.
"Branding"-wise, this particular corridor has a long storied history as "Highway 17" -- a long leg of the main route from metro NYC up to the Catskill resort area. It's likely I-86 won't enhance that recognition (here, retention of the original shields would likely be wise if not absolutely necessary!). The whole I-86 concept dating from 1999 was to give upstate NY the opportunity to at some level compete with I-80 across PA as a more direct route west from NYC metro as well as lower New England. Much of that will be accomplished when the portion west of I-81 is fully completed (via either I-88 or a detour via Scranton).
A side story -- my first venture on NY 17 came about on a return trip from NYC to CA; that year's ('89) McNally atlas had a series of suggested regional adventures; NY 17 in its whole was touted as "America's Autobahn" because of its scenic aspects (the section west from I-390 was relatively new then). I for one found it a very enjoyable drive. At that time the freeway ended at Corning (the bypass was U.C. in 1989); my now ex-wife insisted on perusing the Corning Glass museum and shop (IIRC, she spent about $250 on crystal vases -- her favorite decoration). The bottom line is that the McNally write-up convinced me to try the route -- a decade before I-designation was contemplated.
NY 17 is and always has been a pleasant enough highway; if the prospective I-86 designation is what it takes to address the various safety-related issues on the eastern portion (yeah, some of the ramps require judicious use of brakes!), then more power to that concept reaching fruition. But an Interstate designation won't do much to "sell" the road -- it's essentially pre-sold!
Low traffic is actually a big part of what "makes" I-86/NY 17, along with the scenery. I'd love to see blue and red shields along the entire route, but as time passes I feel less strongly about the impact one way or another.
Now that it's complete between PA and Binghamton, we have an alternate Erie-Albany (and, by extension, Cleveland-Boston) corridor. That's all that really matters: the Binghamton-NYC segment, even as a complete I-86, will never be able to supplant I-81 - I-380 - I-80 anyways. It's just too winding and too much work would have to be done to make it 65 mph throughout.
Luckily, the only at-grade portion between 81 and 87 is in Hale Eddy. If we can get that fixed, then we may as well make it Interstate-grade throughout.
Hell, maybe we should just extend 32 southward already!
The underestimating of how much conversion work is needed continues...
Quote from: Rothman on February 22, 2020, 11:32:31 PM
The underestimating of how much conversion work is needed continues...
They should pay for this with HOT lanes.
Quote from: Alps on February 23, 2020, 02:07:56 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 22, 2020, 11:32:31 PM
The underestimating of how much conversion work is needed continues...
They should pay for this with HOT lanes.
Nice poke. :D
Quote from: Rothman on February 23, 2020, 07:48:17 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 23, 2020, 02:07:56 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 22, 2020, 11:32:31 PM
The underestimating of how much conversion work is needed continues...
They should pay for this with HOT lanes.
Nice poke. :D
Is this a Vanity Interstate Highway?
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2020, 08:14:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 23, 2020, 07:48:17 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 23, 2020, 02:07:56 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 22, 2020, 11:32:31 PM
The underestimating of how much conversion work is needed continues...
They should pay for this with HOT lanes.
Nice poke. :D
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.
Quote from: Rothman on February 23, 2020, 08:47:26 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2020, 08:14:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 23, 2020, 07:48:17 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 23, 2020, 02:07:56 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 22, 2020, 11:32:31 PM
The underestimating of how much conversion work is needed continues...
They should pay for this with HOT lanes.
Nice poke. :D
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.
Quote from: storm2k on February 23, 2020, 07:02:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 23, 2020, 08:47:26 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2020, 08:14:22 AM
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?
Quote from: storm2k on February 23, 2020, 07:02:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 23, 2020, 08:47:26 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2020, 08:14:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 23, 2020, 07:48:17 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 23, 2020, 02:07:56 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 22, 2020, 11:32:31 PM
The underestimating of how much conversion work is needed continues...
They should pay for this with HOT lanes.
Nice poke. :D
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.
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.
Quote from: cl94 on February 23, 2020, 08:59:18 PM
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.
It's not even on the capital program to be back-burnered.
It could become another Rooftop in this regard.
Quote from: sparker on February 23, 2020, 09:35:34 PM
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!
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.
Quote from: sparker on February 23, 2020, 09:35:34 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 23, 2020, 08:59:18 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2020, 09:52:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 23, 2020, 09:35:34 PM
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.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 27, 2020, 05:35:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2020, 09:52:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 23, 2020, 09:35:34 PM
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!
Quote from: sparker on February 27, 2020, 06:18:46 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 27, 2020, 05:35:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2020, 09:52:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 23, 2020, 09:35:34 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 27, 2020, 07:58:43 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 27, 2020, 06:18:46 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 27, 2020, 05:35:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2020, 09:52:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 23, 2020, 09:35:34 PM
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".
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.
Quote from: vdeane on February 28, 2020, 01:02:08 PM
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.
Quote from: seicer on February 28, 2020, 02:37:01 PM
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.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 28, 2020, 02:21:55 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 28, 2020, 01:02:08 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 05:13:31 PM
Quote from: seicer on February 28, 2020, 02:37:01 PM
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. :poke:
"Temporary Interstate" designations have been out of use for at least 30 years.
Quote from: seicer on February 28, 2020, 02:37:01 PM
Somehow we survived "TO I-64/77" shields on the West Virginia Turnpike and Temporary/Future banners all across the US with no problem.
Back when Temporary banners were in use, interstate construction was still focusing on Eisenhower's original system and the 1969 additions (in other words, the core network) and in reasonable timeframes. These days, the system is essentially completed (minus Breezewood, arguably) and new corridors are in addition to the core system and get developed at glacial speeds or abandoned entirely (for example, the gap in I-74 will
never be closed unless Ohio changes their opinion on it and the West Virginia section gets rerouted onto a long overlap with I-64 and I-77; I also wouldn't be surprised if I-49 and I-69 were still under construction when I retire).
Even still, there is previous and current precedence towards signing I-86 along the completed and/or sufficient portions of NY 17 in the Catskills, akin to I-69W/I-69C/I-69E in Texas, I-69 in Kentucky, I-165 in Kentucky, and such.
Some of those I-86 shields on the easternmost sections, and west of Binghamton, have been signed uncovered for so long with no issue. Might as well take the covers off because NYSDOT (and the public, surprisingly) isn't too concerned about the public being confused about the co-shields. And where it still needs to be upgraded, FUTURE I-86 signs would be sufficient.
I'd love to see FUTURE SPEED LIMIT 65 shields go up through the Catskills ;)
North Carolina's workaround to the "Future I-26" signage between Asheville and Mars Hill is to post an Interstate route marker with no word "Interstate" in the red portion of the sign. Maybe New York should employ a similar tactic by putting up "86" signs along the part of the freeway that does not meet the arbitrary federal Interstate criteria. Wonder how many non-roadgeeks would notice the lack of the word "Interstate" on the sign?
I never knew that and looking at the Streetview imagery, it's brilliant.
Here's the way it was as of July 17, 2018, my last ride up that way.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20180717%2Ffuturewesti26us19us23us25us70.jpg&hash=6d55fef7dab4c21f54e248cbae64edb12a3dfd85)
Quote from: hbelkins on February 29, 2020, 05:05:34 PM
North Carolina's workaround to the "Future I-26" signage between Asheville and Mars Hill is to post an Interstate route marker with no word "Interstate" in the red portion of the sign. Maybe New York should employ a similar tactic by putting up "86" signs along the part of the freeway that does not meet the arbitrary federal Interstate criteria. Wonder how many non-roadgeeks would notice the lack of the word "Interstate" on the sign?
That is cheating and being deceptive by the agency, IMHO.
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 08:05:06 PM
That is cheating and being deceptive by the agency, IMHO.
Not really, and provides better continuity for motorists.
Who is it deceiving? It clearly reads "Future".
NCDOT has only posted that type of signage along pre-existing freeway segments, not arterial roadways. That section of Future I-26 is full freeway, but does not meet interstate standards. To the average motorist, they could care or less. It's no different than your claim regarding "Temporary" interstates along pre-existing freeways.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 09:33:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 08:05:06 PM
That is cheating and being deceptive by the agency, IMHO.
Not really, and provides better continuity for motorists.
Who is it deceiving? It clearly reads "Future".
NCDOT has only posted that type of signage along pre-existing freeway segments, not arterial roadways. That section of Future I-26 is full freeway, but does not meet interstate standards. To the average motorist, they could care or less. It's no different than your claim regarding "Temporary" interstates along pre-existing freeways.
He's saying that just removing the word "Interstate" from the shield is cheating.
Like this, even though this really is I-93:
(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nh/nh_28/s38j.jpg) (alpsroads)
Quote from: seicer on February 29, 2020, 01:01:58 AM
Even still, there is previous and current precedence towards signing I-86 along the completed and/or sufficient portions of NY 17 in the Catskills, akin to I-69W/I-69C/I-69E in Texas, I-69 in Kentucky, I-165 in Kentucky, and such.
Some of those I-86 shields on the easternmost sections, and west of Binghamton, have been signed uncovered for so long with no issue. Might as well take the covers off because NYSDOT (and the public, surprisingly) isn't too concerned about the public being confused about the co-shields. And where it still needs to be upgraded, FUTURE I-86 signs would be sufficient.
I'd love to see FUTURE SPEED LIMIT 65 shields go up through the Catskills ;)
I'm not really a fan of the short sections signed. My understanding is that the one east of I-81 near Binghamton is because they thought it would extend that far in the not too distant future (something that hasn't happened), but the shield covers kept falling off, so they decided to solve that issue by designating a second section. I don't know the story with the Region 8 section, but I'm guessing that they thought they could designate a third before the I-86 conversion being shelved halted everything.
Honestly, If NY did the same thing for I-86 thant NC did for I-26, the project would be even more dead than it already is because that would give NY the appearance of "mission accomplished". It probably did for NC too - it's otherwise quite surprising that it's sat so long without being upgraded to meet standards, and it probably would have been if they hadn't been allowed to do that!
I suppose that's why I don't like stuff like this. I don't like seeing projects like this languish and get left unfinished (as happens all too often). I like to keep the system neat and tidy, not messy and disordered. Signing things willy-nilly worked 50 years ago because you could rest assured that everything would be completed and connected within a decade (for the most part; I'm aware that there were exceptions). These days, that doesn't happen anywhere - interstate projects take longer just to complete one corridor than it took to build the entire original system. We're no longer talking "this interstate will be completed soon and I'll get to drive on it", we're talking "my grandkids whose parents aren't even born yet
might get to drive on the completed interstate after they retire".
They were "allowed" to sign I-26 without an "Interstate" banner because it isn't an interstate. It's a backdoor to get around the lunacy of not being able to reliably post FUTURE or TEMPORARY banners - as prevalent as those once were.
And here is where I just don't see the point in the FHWA being such as hard-ass, as the hold up for I-86's signage west of Binghamton is a short deceleration lane for Exit 68 - which isn't all that more abrupt than ramps on other interstate highways that were built when the standards were different. To the every day driver, it's fine. Slap up I-86's shields with provisions that the ramp be eventually corrected, or do with NCDOT did: back-door it.
Quote from: seicer on February 29, 2020, 11:33:57 PM
To the every day driver, it's fine. Slap up I-86's shields with provisions that the ramp be eventually corrected, or do with NCDOT did: back-door it.
Along with the Future I-26 situation, there has been other instances where the FHWA has permitted NCDOT to post interstate signage on freeways with certain remaining substandard features with the provision it would eventually be fixed. This is seen along I-73 in some areas.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 11:43:41 PM
Quote from: seicer on February 29, 2020, 11:33:57 PM
To the every day driver, it's fine. Slap up I-86's shields with provisions that the ramp be eventually corrected, or do with NCDOT did: back-door it.
Along with the Future I-26 situation, there has been other instances where the FHWA has permitted NCDOT to post interstate signage on freeways with certain remaining substandard features with the provision it would eventually be fixed. This is seen along I-73 in some areas.
And Kentucky. They allowed the
Green River William Natcher Parkway to be signed I-165 despite having three of the old toll booth cloverleafs still in use. However, the portion of the Pennyrile between I-24 and the WK/I-69 is still signed as "Future I-169 Corridor" instead of the actual interstate.
^ Consistency, thy name is FHWA (or AASHTO).
I do not see anything wrong with posting a FUTURE Interstate in the way NC does it. It is similar to posting a TEMP banner, except that posting the corridor or specific highway with a FUTURE banner is more accurate than how TEMP banners were posted (see TEMP I-85 between the Yadkin River and Greensboro, TEMP I-77 around Columbia, SC, and TEMP I-75 in Michigan). The TEMP banners were posted on highways that did not become the final alignment. The FUTURE banners are, for the most part, posted on highways that will become the final alignment (I-26 north of Asheville, I-73 along US 220 in NC, I-74 along US 52 between the Winston-Salem Beltway and Mt. Airy, NC, and I-99 along US 15 north of Williamsport, PA).
BTW, I-86 should be posted in its entirety west of I-81--even with that "questionable" Exit 68. I've seen worse on- and off-ramps (I-83 in Harrisburg, the RIRO on I-78 in Grimes, PA, the "old-style" ramps NC and SC have along I-40 and I-85 involving side roads, and some of the exits off I-81 in Syracuse).
Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:36:18 AM
TEMP banners were posted (see TEMP I-85 between the Yadkin River and Greensboro, TEMP I-77 around Columbia, SC, and TEMP I-75 in Michigan).
TEMP I-77 around Columbia, SC followed actual Interstate highways, segments of I-20 and I-26.
So there wasn't any consistency at all in how FUTURE and TEMPORARY banners were used back then? The West Virginia Turnpike would have been a candidate if that was the case. Until the upgrades began in the 1970s, the Turnpike was signed as TO I-64 and TO I-77. I've seen photos of it fully signed as I-64/77 during the upgrading process, which was finished in 1988.
In the 1960's through 1995, TEMP or TO were used. For example, the incomplete sections of I-95 in NC, SC, and GA had TO I-95 signs along highways to bring a motorist back to the next completed section. The same for I-64 from the Camp Peary interchange to the Toano interchange--TO I-64 was signed along VA 168 and now VA 30. SC decided to use a TEMP banner for I-77 until the section east of Columbia was completed. The first time I noticed FUTURE was in the late 1990's on US 220 (FUTURE I-73/74) in NC and US 15 (FUTURE I-99 CORRIDOR) in PA.
Yes, TEMP I-77 did follow Interstate highways around Columbia, but not the one it was finally routed on--just like TEMP I-75 in Michigan followed US 10 west out of Bay City then followed US 27 (now US 127) north to Grayling. I was making an observation about how FUTURE banners are technically more accurate than TEMP banners.
Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 10:26:25 AM
TEMP I-77 did follow Interstate highways around Columbia, but not the one it was finally routed on--just like TEMP I-75 in Michigan followed US 10 west out of Bay City then followed US 27 (now US 127) north to Grayling.
Then-modern rural freeways that were and remain non-Interstate freeways.
Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 10:26:25 AM
I was making an observation about how FUTURE banners are technically more accurate than TEMP banners.
Likely so, other than a TEMP route that follows actual Interstate highways.
Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:36:18 AM
^ Consistency, thy name is FHWA (or AASHTO).
I do not see anything wrong with posting a FUTURE Interstate in the way NC does it. It is similar to posting a TEMP banner, except that posting the corridor or specific highway with a FUTURE banner is more accurate than how TEMP banners were posted (see TEMP I-85 between the Yadkin River and Greensboro, TEMP I-77 around Columbia, SC, and TEMP I-75 in Michigan). The TEMP banners were posted on highways that did not become the final alignment. The FUTURE banners are, for the most part, posted on highways that will become the final alignment (I-26 north of Asheville, I-73 along US 220 in NC, I-74 along US 52 between the Winston-Salem Beltway and Mt. Airy, NC, and I-99 along US 15 north of Williamsport, PA).
BTW, I-86 should be posted in its entirety west of I-81--even with that "questionable" Exit 68. I've seen worse on- and off-ramps (I-83 in Harrisburg, the RIRO on I-78 in Grimes, PA, the "old-style" ramps NC and SC have along I-40 and I-85 involving side roads, and some of the exits off I-81 in Syracuse).
I still don't understand the point of the Grimes exit (15) given that Midway (Exit 16) is right there and connects to the same roads. Coming from the west, one could also take Bethel (Exit 13).
I understand there is a small grass landing strip airport at Grimes but it seems like an unnecessary exit.
Does seem like overkill to hold 86 back just because of Exit 68.
Quote from: sbeaver44 on March 03, 2020, 10:53:32 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:36:18 AM
^ Consistency, thy name is FHWA (or AASHTO).
I do not see anything wrong with posting a FUTURE Interstate in the way NC does it. It is similar to posting a TEMP banner, except that posting the corridor or specific highway with a FUTURE banner is more accurate than how TEMP banners were posted (see TEMP I-85 between the Yadkin River and Greensboro, TEMP I-77 around Columbia, SC, and TEMP I-75 in Michigan). The TEMP banners were posted on highways that did not become the final alignment. The FUTURE banners are, for the most part, posted on highways that will become the final alignment (I-26 north of Asheville, I-73 along US 220 in NC, I-74 along US 52 between the Winston-Salem Beltway and Mt. Airy, NC, and I-99 along US 15 north of Williamsport, PA).
BTW, I-86 should be posted in its entirety west of I-81--even with that "questionable" Exit 68. I've seen worse on- and off-ramps (I-83 in Harrisburg, the RIRO on I-78 in Grimes, PA, the "old-style" ramps NC and SC have along I-40 and I-85 involving side roads, and some of the exits off I-81 in Syracuse).
I still don't understand the point of the Grimes exit (15) given that Midway (Exit 16) is right there and connects to the same roads. Coming from the west, one could also take Bethel (Exit 13).
I understand there is a small grass landing strip airport at Grimes but it seems like an unnecessary exit.
Does seem like overkill to hold 86 back just because of Exit 68.
A PennDOT coworker told me that I-78 Exit 15 exists because of a politician. I actually told her that I did not think the exit was necessary either.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 03, 2020, 04:12:21 PM
Quote from: sbeaver44 on March 03, 2020, 10:53:32 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:36:18 AM
^ Consistency, thy name is FHWA (or AASHTO).
I do not see anything wrong with posting a FUTURE Interstate in the way NC does it. It is similar to posting a TEMP banner, except that posting the corridor or specific highway with a FUTURE banner is more accurate than how TEMP banners were posted (see TEMP I-85 between the Yadkin River and Greensboro, TEMP I-77 around Columbia, SC, and TEMP I-75 in Michigan). The TEMP banners were posted on highways that did not become the final alignment. The FUTURE banners are, for the most part, posted on highways that will become the final alignment (I-26 north of Asheville, I-73 along US 220 in NC, I-74 along US 52 between the Winston-Salem Beltway and Mt. Airy, NC, and I-99 along US 15 north of Williamsport, PA).
BTW, I-86 should be posted in its entirety west of I-81--even with that "questionable" Exit 68. I've seen worse on- and off-ramps (I-83 in Harrisburg, the RIRO on I-78 in Grimes, PA, the "old-style" ramps NC and SC have along I-40 and I-85 involving side roads, and some of the exits off I-81 in Syracuse).
I still don't understand the point of the Grimes exit (15) given that Midway (Exit 16) is right there and connects to the same roads. Coming from the west, one could also take Bethel (Exit 13).
I understand there is a small grass landing strip airport at Grimes but it seems like an unnecessary exit.
Does seem like overkill to hold 86 back just because of Exit 68.
A PennDOT coworker told me that I-78 Exit 15 exists because of a politician. I actually told her that I did not think the exit was necessary either.
I've heard that the Mossy exit on the WV Turnpike (which was an interchange even before the road was widened and more exits were added) exists because a politician lived off that exit, and needed easy access to Charleston.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 03, 2020, 04:12:21 PM
Quote from: sbeaver44 on March 03, 2020, 10:53:32 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:36:18 AM
^ Consistency, thy name is FHWA (or AASHTO).
I do not see anything wrong with posting a FUTURE Interstate in the way NC does it. It is similar to posting a TEMP banner, except that posting the corridor or specific highway with a FUTURE banner is more accurate than how TEMP banners were posted (see TEMP I-85 between the Yadkin River and Greensboro, TEMP I-77 around Columbia, SC, and TEMP I-75 in Michigan). The TEMP banners were posted on highways that did not become the final alignment. The FUTURE banners are, for the most part, posted on highways that will become the final alignment (I-26 north of Asheville, I-73 along US 220 in NC, I-74 along US 52 between the Winston-Salem Beltway and Mt. Airy, NC, and I-99 along US 15 north of Williamsport, PA).
BTW, I-86 should be posted in its entirety west of I-81--even with that "questionable" Exit 68. I've seen worse on- and off-ramps (I-83 in Harrisburg, the RIRO on I-78 in Grimes, PA, the "old-style" ramps NC and SC have along I-40 and I-85 involving side roads, and some of the exits off I-81 in Syracuse).
I still don't understand the point of the Grimes exit (15) given that Midway (Exit 16) is right there and connects to the same roads. Coming from the west, one could also take Bethel (Exit 13).
I understand there is a small grass landing strip airport at Grimes but it seems like an unnecessary exit.
Does seem like overkill to hold 86 back just because of Exit 68.
A PennDOT coworker told me that I-78 Exit 15 exists because of a politician. I actually told her that I did not think the exit was necessary either.
I-99 exists because of a politician, but I digress...
This thread has digressed.
What Happened to the "I-86" in the Middletown region? it was completed in 2013 and still hasn't been signed?
Has anyone been through the Binghamton/Prospect Mountain project area recently, and if so, is all the construction work finally complete!?
It's complete and I-86 shields are used throughout. I've noticed that within the last year, many of the NY 17 shields are either being removed, not replaced during sign replacement projects or are regulated to secondary status.
Quote from: seicer on July 02, 2020, 09:23:24 AM
It's complete and I-86 shields are used throughout. I've noticed that within the last year, many of the NY 17 shields are either being removed, not replaced during sign replacement projects or are regulated to secondary status.
Question: are I-86 shields posted on all portions of NY 17 west of I-81/Binghamton, or are there still some substandard sections remaining (near Vestal or Owego?) that are preventing that from happening?
The substandard sections in Vestal remain unchanged. The last time I was through the area (January 2020), the Broome County stretch between Prospect Mountain and NY 26 (Exit 67) had TO I-86 markers on signposts, with the TO banner looking very permanent (on the same metal posts as the rest of the sign). Here's an example on GSV. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1195756,-75.9541308,3a,75y,297.9h,86.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suiZXdSmSrl37PP6gPFmmkA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) West of NY 26, the signs simply say I-86/NY 17 (no TO banner).
At that same time, in Tioga County, some, but not all, I-86 shields were still covered. Not sure if this is still the case.
While none of it seems to have been submitted for approval, it seems that NYSDOT will pursue the I-86 designation through Exit 67 and then leave a gap. The section from Prospect Mountain east can be signed as I-86, since it will be co-signed with I-81 up to the junction with the Windsor segment of I-86 that's been designated since the early 2000s.
Future I-86 shields were posted on NY-17 in Orange County way back in 2001. Don't know if they survived after all the construction over the years.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 09, 2020, 01:37:56 PM
Future I-86 shields were posted on NY-17 in Orange County way back in 2001. Don't know if they survived after all the construction over the years.
There's at least one right at the beginning.
(https://www.eastcoastroads.com/states/ny/nystate/ny17/fullsize/17w130_10.jpg)
I'm not sure how many others there are at this point. They're certainly not pervasive.
There are a handful left between Waverly and Harriman. Not a ton, but they can be found.
Quote from: cl94 on July 11, 2020, 01:16:19 PM
There are a handful left between Waverly and Harriman. Not a ton, but they can be found.
There's one just west of the onramp from I-84 West next to Crystal Run Galleria in Middletown (https://goo.gl/maps/3NqRzGD8U6BjJPQs5)
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 12, 2020, 01:34:53 AM
Quote from: cl94 on July 11, 2020, 01:16:19 PM
There are a handful left between Waverly and Harriman. Not a ton, but they can be found.
There's one just west of the onramp from I-84 West next to Crystal Run Galleria in Middletown (https://goo.gl/maps/3NqRzGD8U6BjJPQs5)
Wow! An unmitigated I-86 shield in Middletown -- considering the status of anything east of Hale Eddy, that's certainly an oddity. But I'd expect NYDOT to initially concentrate, now that the Binghamton revamp project is done, on getting the full length west of I-81 up to snuff before even considering "piecemealing" the territory east of there. Courtesy of traffic feeding from both I-81 from the south and I-88 from the northeast, that's the most commercially viable portion of the whole I-86 statewide corridor. While it would be nice to get the entire corridor completed, the eastern "half" through the Catskills doesn't have the atmosphere of urgency endemic to the western section, as one can easily get from NYC metro to Binghamton via Delaware Water Gap and Scranton. But I-81 to I-87
will eventually be built out and completed -- just at a decidedly leisurely pace. The sporadic I-86 shields seen on that segment will remain so for the time being.
Quote from: sparker on July 12, 2020, 03:30:59 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 12, 2020, 01:34:53 AM
Quote from: cl94 on July 11, 2020, 01:16:19 PM
There are a handful left between Waverly and Harriman. Not a ton, but they can be found.
There's one just west of the onramp from I-84 West next to Crystal Run Galleria in Middletown (https://goo.gl/maps/3NqRzGD8U6BjJPQs5)
Wow! An unmitigated I-86 shield in Middletown ...
Could be wrong but I thought
cl94 was referring to the "Future I-86" signs...
Quote from: sparker on July 12, 2020, 03:30:59 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 12, 2020, 01:34:53 AM
Quote from: cl94 on July 11, 2020, 01:16:19 PM
There are a handful left between Waverly and Harriman. Not a ton, but they can be found.
There's one just west of the onramp from I-84 West next to Crystal Run Galleria in Middletown (https://goo.gl/maps/3NqRzGD8U6BjJPQs5)
Wow! An unmitigated I-86 shield in Middletown -- considering the status of anything east of Hale Eddy, that's certainly an oddity. But I'd expect NYDOT to initially concentrate, now that the Binghamton revamp project is done, on getting the full length west of I-81 up to snuff before even considering "piecemealing" the territory east of there. Courtesy of traffic feeding from both I-81 from the south and I-88 from the northeast, that's the most commercially viable portion of the whole I-86 statewide corridor. While it would be nice to get the entire corridor completed, the eastern "half" through the Catskills doesn't have the atmosphere of urgency endemic to the western section, as one can easily get from NYC metro to Binghamton via Delaware Water Gap and Scranton. But I-81 to I-87 will eventually be built out and completed -- just at a decidedly leisurely pace. The sporadic I-86 shields seen on that segment will remain so for the time being.
There are actually a lot of I-86 signs in the area. They're supposed to be covered, but a lot of the covers have fallen off (or, in the case of I-84 guide signs, were never put on). Given this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.557413,-74.4249991,3a,75y,15.94h,84.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk1E9Kia3egKHRvLF7sz5bQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), it looks like it was intended to become another short disconnected segment, but for some reason it never got pushed through the bureaucracy to happen.
Right now as far as I'm aware, there is no push in NYSDOT to further I-86, so I don't see any effort to do that in the foreseeable future, unless it gets slipped in to some stimulus bill or something. I guess we'll also see if the 17 forward 86 coalition gets any traction; they're more focused on widening the eastern section, but I could see some projects getting dovetailed with such efforts, if they ever move past the study phase.
(personal opinion)
Quote from: vdeane on July 12, 2020, 08:40:47 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 12, 2020, 03:30:59 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 12, 2020, 01:34:53 AM
Quote from: cl94 on July 11, 2020, 01:16:19 PM
There are a handful left between Waverly and Harriman. Not a ton, but they can be found.
There's one just west of the onramp from I-84 West next to Crystal Run Galleria in Middletown (https://goo.gl/maps/3NqRzGD8U6BjJPQs5)
Wow! An unmitigated I-86 shield in Middletown -- considering the status of anything east of Hale Eddy, that's certainly an oddity. But I'd expect NYDOT to initially concentrate, now that the Binghamton revamp project is done, on getting the full length west of I-81 up to snuff before even considering "piecemealing" the territory east of there. Courtesy of traffic feeding from both I-81 from the south and I-88 from the northeast, that's the most commercially viable portion of the whole I-86 statewide corridor. While it would be nice to get the entire corridor completed, the eastern "half" through the Catskills doesn't have the atmosphere of urgency endemic to the western section, as one can easily get from NYC metro to Binghamton via Delaware Water Gap and Scranton. But I-81 to I-87 will eventually be built out and completed -- just at a decidedly leisurely pace. The sporadic I-86 shields seen on that segment will remain so for the time being.
There are actually a lot of I-86 signs in the area. They're supposed to be covered, but a lot of the covers have fallen off (or, in the case of I-84 guide signs, were never put on). Given this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.557413,-74.4249991,3a,75y,15.94h,84.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk1E9Kia3egKHRvLF7sz5bQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), it looks like it was intended to become another short disconnected segment, but for some reason it never got pushed through the bureaucracy to happen.
Right now as far as I'm aware, there is no push in NYSDOT to further I-86, so I don't see any effort to do that in the foreseeable future, unless it gets slipped in to some stimulus bill or something. I guess we'll also see if the 17 forward 86 coalition gets any traction; they're more focused on widening the eastern section, but I could see some projects getting dovetailed with such efforts, if they ever move past the study phase.
(personal opinion)
Taking a look at the history of the NY-17/I-86 conversion will shed some light on why it just stalled out midstream. The concept of converting NY-17 to I-86 began during the administration of George Pataki, who was the last governor that wasn't from New York City, and as such embarked on state investments for the remainder of New York outside of New York City, including the I-86 project. Following Pataki, you had Elliott Spitzer, David Patterson, and now Andrew Cuomo, who are all from New York City. All three of these governors have redirected the state government's priorities to New York City and its immediate surroundings at the expense of the remainder of the state. Unfortunately, I-86 got caught up in this, and it'll take a new governor that's not from New York City or Long Island to get the I-86 conversion across the finish line. And then there's the NYS Thruway Authority, which has been fighting NYSDOT on converting NY-17 to I-86 as it would provide a toll-free alternative to the Thruway.
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 23, 2020, 09:24:54 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 12, 2020, 08:40:47 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 12, 2020, 03:30:59 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 12, 2020, 01:34:53 AM
Quote from: cl94 on July 11, 2020, 01:16:19 PM
There are a handful left between Waverly and Harriman. Not a ton, but they can be found.
There's one just west of the onramp from I-84 West next to Crystal Run Galleria in Middletown (https://goo.gl/maps/3NqRzGD8U6BjJPQs5)
Wow! An unmitigated I-86 shield in Middletown -- considering the status of anything east of Hale Eddy, that's certainly an oddity. But I'd expect NYDOT to initially concentrate, now that the Binghamton revamp project is done, on getting the full length west of I-81 up to snuff before even considering "piecemealing" the territory east of there. Courtesy of traffic feeding from both I-81 from the south and I-88 from the northeast, that's the most commercially viable portion of the whole I-86 statewide corridor. While it would be nice to get the entire corridor completed, the eastern "half" through the Catskills doesn't have the atmosphere of urgency endemic to the western section, as one can easily get from NYC metro to Binghamton via Delaware Water Gap and Scranton. But I-81 to I-87 will eventually be built out and completed -- just at a decidedly leisurely pace. The sporadic I-86 shields seen on that segment will remain so for the time being.
There are actually a lot of I-86 signs in the area. They're supposed to be covered, but a lot of the covers have fallen off (or, in the case of I-84 guide signs, were never put on). Given this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.557413,-74.4249991,3a,75y,15.94h,84.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk1E9Kia3egKHRvLF7sz5bQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), it looks like it was intended to become another short disconnected segment, but for some reason it never got pushed through the bureaucracy to happen.
Right now as far as I'm aware, there is no push in NYSDOT to further I-86, so I don't see any effort to do that in the foreseeable future, unless it gets slipped in to some stimulus bill or something. I guess we'll also see if the 17 forward 86 coalition gets any traction; they're more focused on widening the eastern section, but I could see some projects getting dovetailed with such efforts, if they ever move past the study phase.
(personal opinion)
Taking a look at the history of the NY-17/I-86 conversion will shed some light on why it just stalled out midstream. The concept of converting NY-17 to I-86 began during the administration of George Pataki, who was the last governor that wasn't from New York City, and as such embarked on state investments for the remainder of New York outside of New York City, including the I-86 project. Following Pataki, you had Elliott Spitzer, David Patterson, and now Andrew Cuomo, who are all from New York City. All three of these governors have redirected the state government's priorities to New York City and its immediate surroundings at the expense of the remainder of the state. Unfortunately, I-86 got caught up in this, and it'll take a new governor that's not from New York City or Long Island to get the I-86 conversion across the finish line. And then there's the NYS Thruway Authority, which has been fighting NYSDOT on converting NY-17 to I-86 as it would provide a toll-free alternative to the Thruway.
Or it could be that they've realized that there isn't enough benefit gained from the millions of dollars in projects that would be required to convert the remaining non-compliant sections to interstate standards just so they can hang that red, white, and blue shield, and that the existing roadway handles the traffic requirements without too much issue and without a ton of safety concerns. Combine that with scarcity of funds and a long backlog of projects that need to be attended to all over the state, and we can easily see why they've made this choice without turning it into a false NYC vs the rest of the state argument that doesn't hold a ton of water.
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 23, 2020, 09:24:54 AM
And then there's the NYS Thruway Authority, which has been fighting NYSDOT on converting NY-17 to I-86 as it would provide a toll-free alternative to the Thruway.
Considering NY-17 is already a full freeway, with a 3 mile gap of arterial in the middle, seems like a moot point. Upgrading it would only modernize the facility and bring it up to full interstate standards, but nothing performance wise would change. The speed limit would still be 65 mph, it would still be the same distance, etc. The blue-and-red shield may attract some motorists, but the vast majority would already know it's a freeway and a shorter, faster alternative to the Thruway.
Besides, parts of I-80, I-380, I-81, I-390, and existing parts of I-86 already provide interstate highway toll free alternatives that are also shorter and faster than Thruway. A GPS or Google Maps won't even recommend I-87 to I-90 as an option, but rather parts of the aforementioned routes.
The bottom line is, the Thruway is not the best route for traveling between end points. It's practically used as two independent highways, and the interstate designations given reflect this. The I-87 portion is for north-south traffic between New York City, Albany, then onto Canada and Montreal, and the I-90 portion is for east-west traffic between Ohio & points west, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, then onto Massachusetts and Boston. The Thruway isn't going to lose large numbers with the completion of I-86, and if anything, diverted traffic would mean a less congested facility, though of course financially would mean slightly less revenue.
A comparable situation exists with NY's neighbors to the south. When I-80 was completed across PA, motorists could use this as a toll-free alternative to the Turnpike. And while it went nowhere near the three largest cities (Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philadelphia) like the Turnpike did, it was shorter and faster than its counterpart to the south, especially for OH-NJ/NY traffic. And I seriously doubt that the PTC was complaining about the lost revenue that came with taking the straight shot alternative back then.
Quote from: Henry on July 23, 2020, 10:51:01 AM
A comparable situation exists with NY's neighbors to the south. When I-80 was completed across PA, motorists could use this as a toll-free alternative to the Turnpike. And while it went nowhere near the three largest cities (Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philadelphia) like the Turnpike did, it was shorter and faster than its counterpart to the south, especially for OH-NJ/NY traffic. And I seriously doubt that the PTC was complaining about the lost revenue that came with taking the straight shot alternative back then.
Then I-68 got built across the Maryland panhandle.
Quote from: Henry on July 23, 2020, 10:51:01 AM
A comparable situation exists with NY's neighbors to the south. When I-80 was completed across PA, motorists could use this as a toll-free alternative to the Turnpike. And while it went nowhere near the three largest cities (Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philadelphia) like the Turnpike did, it was shorter and faster than its counterpart to the south, especially for OH-NJ/NY traffic. And I seriously doubt that the PTC was complaining about the lost revenue that came with taking the straight shot alternative back then.
If I'm right about the history, the PTC was up in arms opposing the Keystone Shortway's construction.
The lack of finishing I-86 is definitely not partisan. Despite Moynihan and others subsequently pushing it, the collapse of funding about 15 years ago and lack of benefit (NYSDOT Commissioners became more and more skeptical of the effort, from my personal perspective), there is simply little significant political will to finish the job given the high cost of the remaining work (which I posted in here at one time -- one or two projects have been done, but there are still quite a few left -- more than you'd think due to FHWA's ever-stricter adherence to their policies and specs).
Quote from: Rothman on July 23, 2020, 01:22:57 PM
The lack of finishing I-86 is definitely not partisan. Despite Moynihan and others subsequently pushing it, the collapse of funding about 15 years ago and lack of benefit (NYSDOT Commissioners became more and more skeptical of the effort, from my personal perspective), there is simply little significant political will to finish the job given the high cost of the remaining work (which I posted in here at one time -- one or two projects have been done, but there are still quite a few left -- more than you'd think due to FHWA's ever-stricter adherence to their policies and specs).
Yeah, I've always figured that if NYSDOT could get some of the sections that don't strictly meet standards but are "close enough" grandfathered in, then they'd figure out how to do the Hale Eddy section and hang that 86 shield everywhere. But it really does seem like the money they'd need for the upgrades is better spent elsewhere in the state.
Turn maintenance of the Hale Eddy section over to NYSDOT region 2. They'll slap some "TO (86)" shields up on it, take down any exit numbers, and call it a day. Done.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 23, 2020, 10:18:36 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 23, 2020, 09:24:54 AM
And then there's the NYS Thruway Authority, which has been fighting NYSDOT on converting NY-17 to I-86 as it would provide a toll-free alternative to the Thruway.
Considering NY-17 is already a full freeway, with a 3 mile gap of arterial in the middle, seems like a moot point. Upgrading it would only modernize the facility and bring it up to full interstate standards, but nothing performance wise would change. The speed limit would still be 65 mph, it would still be the same distance, etc. The blue-and-red shield may attract some motorists, but the vast majority would already know it's a freeway and a shorter, faster alternative to the Thruway.
This. The "we can't have a free alternative" ship sailed decades ago. Even before the I-86 designation, the NY-17 freeway/expressway was mostly around for decades.
Even in the 1990s, with the Parksville, Corning, and Horseheads improvements still yet to be made, and the 20+ mile Super 2 in the west... NY/PA-17 was already the "shunpike" preferred route across the state.
It's at the point where I'm already calling the entire thing "I-86", because why resist fate?
Quote from: DJ Particle on July 24, 2020, 01:07:02 AM
It's at the point where I'm already calling the entire thing "I-86", because why resist fate?
Might as well be... Many segments could be reasonable posted as I-86 if they meet basic interstate standards (10 foot paved right shoulder, 4 foot paved left shoulder, 12 foot lanes, 65 mph, etc.).
Talk to FHWA in Albany. They're the ones that require the segments to connect to another Interstate.
If I'm right about the history, the PTC was up in arms opposing the Keystone Shortway's construction.
[/quote]
I'm sure the PTC didn't like PADOT's snarky name, the Keystone Shortway! I'm sure the PTC was thinking, "OK, we know it's shorter but do you have to tell everybody that?" :awesomeface:
Quote from: DJ Particle on July 24, 2020, 01:07:02 AM
This. The "we can't have a free alternative" ship sailed decades ago. Even before the I-86 designation, the NY-17 freeway/expressway was mostly around for decades.
Even in the 1990s, with the Parksville, Corning, and Horseheads improvements still yet to be made, and the 20+ mile Super 2 in the west... NY/PA-17 was already the "shunpike" preferred route across the state.
It's at the point where I'm already calling the entire thing "I-86", because why resist fate?
Indeed; the competition between the routes followed by the Thruway and by NY 17 made sense in the railroad days, but don't really apply with modern motor travel and highway engineering. The challenges posed by the geography of the southern tier route have been met by technological advancement.
That being said, the Thruway isn't always as much worse a route as it seems; between the Hudson Valley and Syracuse it only costs you 2-3 minutes over the NY 17/I-81 route, according to the machine in my pocket.
Quote from: Rothman on July 24, 2020, 08:14:04 AM
Talk to FHWA in Albany. They're the ones that require the segments to connect to another Interstate.
I'm referring to segments that do connect to other interstates.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 24, 2020, 12:07:16 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 24, 2020, 08:14:04 AM
Talk to FHWA in Albany. They're the ones that require the segments to connect to another Interstate.
I'm referring to segments that do connect to other interstates.
At this point, doing the spot fixes west of Binghamton to get that section fully up to spec would reasonably be the first priority; the remainder, except for Hale Eddy -- which may take some time and likely a handful of waiver requests -- can be done as funding allows. And since everything "out west" does connect quite readily to other Interstates (81, 90, 390) that particular issue is moot.
The Hale Eddy bypass will never be built and, frankly, it's unnecessary given the minimal benefit. AADT in Delaware County is consistently below 10K. Traffic jumps significantly at Windsor and Roscoe/Livingston Manor. This isn't like the Elmira section which A) required far less earthmoving and B) serves over 20K vehicles/day. The last plans I saw for Hale Eddy included a bypass due to how narrow the current ROW is, so yeah.
Since the Southern Tier Expressway is very close to "Interstate standard", maybe I-86 should be signed from I-90 to I-81 only. Leave the Quickway as NY 17, as it would take a large monetary effort to bring many sections up to "Interstate standard". If the funding is available for upgrades, then after the work is complete, the Quickway could be signed as I-86. However, for the time being, I-86 should exist west of I-81 and NY 17 should exist east of I-81, without any mention of I-86 anywhere.
The Quickway has worked well for traffic since it was completed. It has a mixture of freeway and expressway segments, although not all "Interstate standard". Two routes that I feel are similar to NY 17, as far as the mixture , are US 30 and US 35 in Ohio. Both have freeway and expressway sections with little traffic issues. Also, they do not have an Interstate shield signed on them either. This does not stop motorists from using these highways. As this has been said before in this forum, "Not every freeway needs to have an Interstate shield signed on it".
Couldn't you just call it all 88 of 86 and run it up to Albany and declare victory?
Quote from: amroad17 on July 27, 2020, 02:23:58 AM
Since the Southern Tier Expressway is very close to "Interstate standard", maybe I-86 should be signed from I-90 to I-81 only. Leave the Quickway as NY 17, as it would take a large monetary effort to bring many sections up to "Interstate standard". If the funding is available for upgrades, then after the work is complete, the Quickway could be signed as I-86. However, for the time being, I-86 should exist west of I-81 and NY 17 should exist east of I-81, without any mention of I-86 anywhere.
The Quickway has worked well for traffic since it was completed. It has a mixture of freeway and expressway segments, although not all "Interstate standard". Two routes that I feel are similar to NY 17, as far as the mixture , are US 30 and US 35 in Ohio. Both have freeway and expressway sections with little traffic issues. Also, they do not have an Interstate shield signed on them either. This does not stop motorists from using these highways. As this has been said before in this forum, "Not every freeway needs to have an Interstate shield signed on it".
Quote from: 3467 on July 27, 2020, 11:13:59 AM
Couldn't you just call it all 88 of 86 and run it up to Albany and declare victory?
Technically, no on both counts. The whole of NY/former PA 17 from I-87 west to I-90 is a federal high-priority corridor (#36, courtesy of former senator Moynihan). The I-86 designation was legislatively appended to that corridor's description a couple of years after the basic corridor concept was established. And, to date, once that's done it has yet to be undone for any corridors so described. But the actual signage -- at least until the corridor is fully Interstate standard --
is up to the local jurisdiction -- but like with all HPC's, particularly those projected as freeways, there's no "no build" provision available; it's always on the books but either unfunded or simply unaddressed. And obviously,
someone in NYDOT -- at least at one point -- wanted the whole shooting match to be signed (hence the sporadic shield deployment east of Deposit). How it'll all shake out in the long run is anyone's guess -- but while completion certainly isn't being prioritized, neither is overall project abandonment. I suppose the I-86 situation east of I-81 could best be described as either limbo or purgatory -- likely depending upon whether one has to deal with it on a regular basis. But until such time as the legislative description of the corridor is changed, it'll always be hanging over any activity regarding disposition of the route.
I realize that the I-86 corridor is "legislatively defined" much like I-73/I-74 and I-99. Just another form of government intrusion from the House and Senate--although if New York put in an application to have NY 17 become an Interstate highway, "86" probably would have been the chosen number. Yes, the number does fit in the "grid" and I have no quarrels about that. The hypothetical question would be where would New York (and Pennsylvania) request for I-86. All of NY 17 or the section from I-90 to I-81?
I do not believe that NY 17 east of I-81 will be totally upgraded within 25 years for it to receive the I-86 signs. Yes, there are plenty of sections that are "Interstate standard" (I-81 to Windsor, Parksville bypass, Liberty area, around I-84), however, the biggest obstacles seem to be Hale Eddy as well as available funding. If these obstacles could be overcome, then great! Break out the I-86 signs!
I thought NY 15 signs were supposed to be taken down along I-86 and I-390. I still see some posted when looking at GSV (August 2019).
Also, if Corning is now the chosen control point going west from Binghamton, maybe some of the mileage signs could be updated to include Corning instead of carbon copying various mileage signs that either do not have Corning listed or has Jamestown listed on them.
Quote from: amroad17 on July 28, 2020, 02:46:57 AM
I realize that the I-86 corridor is "legislatively defined" much like I-73/I-74 and I-99. Just another form of government intrusion from the House and Senate--although if New York put in an application to have NY 17 become an Interstate highway, "86" probably would have been the chosen number. Yes, the number does fit in the "grid" and I have no quarrels about that. The hypothetical question would be where would New York (and Pennsylvania) request for I-86. All of NY 17 or the section from I-90 to I-81?
I do not believe that NY 17 east of I-81 will be totally upgraded within 25 years for it to receive the I-86 signs. Yes, there are plenty of sections that are "Interstate standard" (I-81 to Windsor, Parksville bypass, Liberty area, around I-84), however, the biggest obstacles seem to be Hale Eddy as well as available funding. If these obstacles could be overcome, then great! Break out the I-86 signs!
I thought NY 15 signs were supposed to be taken down along I-86 and I-390. I still see some posted when looking at GSV (August 2019).
Also, if Corning is now the chosen control point going west from Binghamton, maybe some of the mileage signs could be updated to include Corning instead of carbon copying various mileage signs that either do not have Corning listed or has Jamestown listed on them.
For the past 30 years I've felt NYSDOT needs to address their post interchange distance signing practices. You're right, they shouldn't be replacing in kind. They need to use three destinations like other states do:
(next destination/exit) X
(next control point) X
(last control point in state or first control point in next state) X
Apalachin 9
Corning 68
Jamestown 213
Quote from: amroad17 on July 28, 2020, 02:46:57 AM
I realize that the I-86 corridor is "legislatively defined" much like I-73/I-74 and I-99. Just another form of government intrusion from the House and Senate--although if New York put in an application to have NY 17 become an Interstate highway, "86" probably would have been the chosen number. Yes, the number does fit in the "grid" and I have no quarrels about that. The hypothetical question would be where would New York (and Pennsylvania) request for I-86. All of NY 17 or the section from I-90 to I-81?
I do not believe that NY 17 east of I-81 will be totally upgraded within 25 years for it to receive the I-86 signs. Yes, there are plenty of sections that are "Interstate standard" (I-81 to Windsor, Parksville bypass, Liberty area, around I-84), however, the biggest obstacles seem to be Hale Eddy as well as available funding. If these obstacles could be overcome, then great! Break out the I-86 signs!
I thought NY 15 signs were supposed to be taken down along I-86 and I-390. I still see some posted when looking at GSV (August 2019).
Also, if Corning is now the chosen control point going west from Binghamton, maybe some of the mileage signs could be updated to include Corning instead of carbon copying various mileage signs that either do not have Corning listed or has Jamestown listed on them.
From what I understand, the HPC #36 corridor definition was applied to NY 17 to expedite the availability of federal funds for "fixes" on the existing road. The Interstate 86 "appendage" was, curiously, instigated as part of a masters' thesis project by an intern in Sen. Moynihan's office who was attending Binghamton University (formerly SUNY Binghamton) and who was a "local", residing in Vestal. She commissioned a survey of cities and individuals arrayed along the Southern Tier asking for input as to whether an Interstate along 17 would be beneficial to the area; the responses were positive, and Moynihan himself became interested in actually manifesting the project's concepts. The simplest way to legislatively accomplish that was to append an Interstate designation to the existing Corridor 36 definition, which covered the entirety of NY 17 (and the PA equivalent for that matter) all the way east to I-87. The appendage got through the process and at the end of 1999 there was a newly-minted I-86 authorized for as much of NY 17 as met system criteria. Of course, that meant the western end east to as far as Corning could be immediately signed, which it was by 2001. Since progress since then is part & parcel of this thread, I won't cover already trod ground there -- but the simple fact is that west of I-87 all of NY 17 is by federal definition the I-86 corridor. IMO, a "working" division, with Binghamton as the dividing point, is appropriate; as a commercial corridor, the western portion is more vital than the eastern, so "tidying up" the few remaining substandard features west of I-81 should be prioritized; the rest can be addressed as funds allow.
Quote from: amroad17 on July 28, 2020, 02:46:57 AM
I do not believe that NY 17 east of I-81 will be totally upgraded within 25 years for it to receive the I-86 signs. Yes, there are plenty of sections that are "Interstate standard" (I-81 to Windsor, Parksville bypass, Liberty area, around I-84), however, the biggest obstacles seem to be Hale Eddy as well as available funding. If these obstacles could be overcome, then great! Break out the I-86 signs!
I thought NY 15 signs were supposed to be taken down along I-86 and I-390. I still see some posted when looking at GSV (August 2019).
While Hale Eddy is certainly the most visible deficiency, judging by Rothman's posts, I'm pretty sure it's not the most expensive.
There isn't actually an effort to actively remove the NY 15 signage; instead, it's slowly going away as shield assemblies are replaced. Last I saw, it was pretty much gone from I-390 by now, but still all over the place on I-86.
Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2020, 01:27:56 PM
While Hale Eddy is certainly the most visible deficiency, judging by Rothman's posts, I'm pretty sure it's not the most expensive.
AFAIK, that is correct. Almost every exit east of Wurtsboro needs to be upgraded to meet standards (aside from the handful that have already been done), in addition to the bunny hops that need to be removed. Delaware County mostly meets waiver standards aside from Hale Eddy and Sullivan has been slowly upgraded as bridge replacements are due, with the Rock Hill RIRO being the biggest item there.
I noticed the I-86 shields end at the Bloomingburg interchange. The westbound NY 17 exit is especially odd - just a slip ramp down the side of the hill. Both ramps are easily reachable just a half mile down.
Quote from: cl94 on July 28, 2020, 01:46:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 28, 2020, 01:27:56 PM
While Hale Eddy is certainly the most visible deficiency, judging by Rothman's posts, I'm pretty sure it's not the most expensive.
AFAIK, that is correct. Almost every exit east of Wurtsboro needs to be upgraded to meet standards (aside from the handful that have already been done), in addition to the bunny hops that need to be removed. Delaware County mostly meets waiver standards aside from Hale Eddy and Sullivan has been slowly upgraded as bridge replacements are due, with the Rock Hill RIRO being the biggest item there.
Aside from remaining at-grade sections that would obviously have to be upgraded, why wouldn't NYSDOT apply for a waiver for the remaining substandard freeway sections to get the remainder of NY-17 signed as I-86? There's plenty of historical precedence where the FHWA approved "design exceptions" to add routes to the interstate system. For example, routes like I-278 and I-678 in NYC, or even the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95/395) that are nowhere near interstate standard yet they're signed as interstates.
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 29, 2020, 02:26:53 PM
Aside from remaining at-grade sections that would obviously have to be upgraded, why wouldn't NYSDOT apply for a waiver for the remaining substandard freeway sections to get the remainder of NY-17 signed as I-86? There's plenty of historical precedence where the FHWA approved "design exceptions" to add routes to the interstate system. For example, routes like I-278 and I-678 in NYC, or even the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95/395) that are nowhere near interstate standard yet they're signed as interstates.
FHWA has tightened the waiver rules in the past couple decades to eliminate grandfather clauses. The only waivers they are still willing to issue are for mountainous areas, which are not subject to the same design standards as long as access control is maintained. Hancock-Liberty generally qualifies for a lower design speed, but sightline and ramp issues need to be corrected.
Yep. FHWA and NYSDOT worked closely together on the projects that would need to be done to earn the Interstate shield.
I also wonder if the Albany Division is more stringent than others.
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 29, 2020, 02:26:53 PM
Aside from remaining at-grade sections that would obviously have to be upgraded, why wouldn't NYSDOT apply for a waiver for the remaining substandard freeway sections to get the remainder of NY-17 signed as I-86? There's plenty of historical precedence where the FHWA approved "design exceptions" to add routes to the interstate system.
I guess the other question is, what's the point of putting up more I-86 shields if there's still going to be a gap at Hale Eddy?
It doesn't seem worthwhile to keep taking more half measures - either leave it be, or finish it properly to where the whole thing can be signed.
The section east of Wurtsboro has had quite a bit of "upgrade" work done to it over the years funded by the enabling legislation. I-86 should be signed between I-84 and the Thruway at this point!
Quote from: cl94 on July 29, 2020, 03:25:42 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 29, 2020, 02:26:53 PM
Aside from remaining at-grade sections that would obviously have to be upgraded, why wouldn't NYSDOT apply for a waiver for the remaining substandard freeway sections to get the remainder of NY-17 signed as I-86? There's plenty of historical precedence where the FHWA approved "design exceptions" to add routes to the interstate system. For example, routes like I-278 and I-678 in NYC, or even the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95/395) that are nowhere near interstate standard yet they're signed as interstates.
FHWA has tightened the waiver rules in the past couple decades to eliminate grandfather clauses. The only waivers they are still willing to issue are for mountainous areas, which are not subject to the same design standards as long as access control is maintained. Hancock-Liberty generally qualifies for a lower design speed, but sightline and ramp issues need to be corrected.
That's some rugged terrain through which that section of 17 goes through. I think that could qualify as a mountainous area and make it easier for NYSDOT to get a waiver from the FHWA.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 29, 2020, 07:19:43 PM
The section east of Wurtsboro has had quite a bit of "upgrade" work done to it over the years funded by the enabling legislation. I-86 should be signed between I-84 and the Thruway at this point!
What is the point?
For someone in upstate, like me, interstate designation is a sign of certain road standard. Over here, US or state road can easily be an undivided 2-lane going through all the lights in town center. So I-86 through Catskill would be a big deal sending a strong message
In NYC area, though, road network is more built up; distances are shorter; and interstate designation doesn't relay that big of a message since many lower tier roads are of comparable quality.
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 30, 2020, 08:49:02 AM
Quote from: cl94 on July 29, 2020, 03:25:42 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 29, 2020, 02:26:53 PM
Aside from remaining at-grade sections that would obviously have to be upgraded, why wouldn't NYSDOT apply for a waiver for the remaining substandard freeway sections to get the remainder of NY-17 signed as I-86? There's plenty of historical precedence where the FHWA approved "design exceptions" to add routes to the interstate system. For example, routes like I-278 and I-678 in NYC, or even the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95/395) that are nowhere near interstate standard yet they're signed as interstates.
FHWA has tightened the waiver rules in the past couple decades to eliminate grandfather clauses. The only waivers they are still willing to issue are for mountainous areas, which are not subject to the same design standards as long as access control is maintained. Hancock-Liberty generally qualifies for a lower design speed, but sightline and ramp issues need to be corrected.
That's some rugged terrain through which that section of 17 goes through. I think that could qualify as a mountainous area and make it easier for NYSDOT to get a waiver from the FHWA.
You don't think these conversations have already been had? Like I said, NYSDOT and FHWA worked together on the plan for the NY 17/I-86 conversion. It is what it is now. There is very little room for applying for waivers and right now -- no will to do so, anyway. I-86 conversion is no longer a priority for NYSDOT and hasn't been for quite a few years now.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I doubt it is still there, but I remember the NYSDOT website having a list of the remaining I-86 projects 10 or so years ago. All of the flashy ones aside from Hale Eddy have been completed at this point, but there are a LOT of small projects, particularly in Sullivan and Orange Counties. Acceleration/deceleration lanes, bunny hops and other sight line issues, bridges, etc. Much of this is being done as part of nearby projects or when bridges are due for replacement. Aren't some of the issues near Goshen being remedied with the Legoland projects?
Quote from: cl94 on July 31, 2020, 11:57:23 AM
I doubt it is still there, but I remember the NYSDOT website having a list of the remaining I-86 projects 10 or so years ago. All of the flashy ones aside from Hale Eddy have been completed at this point, but there are a LOT of small projects, particularly in Sullivan and Orange Counties. Acceleration/deceleration lanes, bunny hops and other sight line issues, bridges, etc. Much of this is being done as part of nearby projects or when bridges are due for replacement. Aren't some of the issues near Goshen being remedied with the Legoland projects?
vdeane has been keeping track of this: http://nysroads.com/i86-ny17.php (http://nysroads.com/i86-ny17.php)
I saw that some improvements were being made as part of the Legoland project, but it looks like much of the issue is that the Quickway is just so old, and was designed when standards were not nearly as high (and even then, was designed only to NYSDOT standards, since much of it predates the Interstate system). From what I'm reading, the Legoland-related work is just for Exit 125, but in February of this year, NYSDOT had plans to start a study on the updates required for conversion (https://www.recordonline.com/story/news/2020/02/26/officials-want-to-ease-pain-on-rte-17/111803044/). No idea where this stands now, in light of COVID.
This article has more detail on the study and project (https://www.recordonline.com/story/special/2020/02/14/local-leaders-lobby-for-rte-17-upgrades/111804772/): $5 million allocated for a 12-to-18-month study, for a 20-plus year project expected to run $500 million (which is expected to include a third lane from Monticello all the way to the Thruway). Apparently there are 96 miles of the Quickway in Delaware, Sullivan, and Orange Counties that need to be upgraded to meet Interstate standards.
Quote from: SGwithADD on August 01, 2020, 06:17:40 AM
Quote from: cl94 on July 31, 2020, 11:57:23 AM
I doubt it is still there, but I remember the NYSDOT website having a list of the remaining I-86 projects 10 or so years ago. All of the flashy ones aside from Hale Eddy have been completed at this point, but there are a LOT of small projects, particularly in Sullivan and Orange Counties. Acceleration/deceleration lanes, bunny hops and other sight line issues, bridges, etc. Much of this is being done as part of nearby projects or when bridges are due for replacement. Aren't some of the issues near Goshen being remedied with the Legoland projects?
vdeane has been keeping track of this: http://nysroads.com/i86-ny17.php (http://nysroads.com/i86-ny17.php)
I saw that some improvements were being made as part of the Legoland project, but it looks like much of the issue is that the Quickway is just so old, and was designed when standards were not nearly as high (and even then, was designed only to NYSDOT standards, since much of it predates the Interstate system). From what I'm reading, the Legoland-related work is just for Exit 125, but in February of this year, NYSDOT had plans to start a study on the updates required for conversion (https://www.recordonline.com/story/news/2020/02/26/officials-want-to-ease-pain-on-rte-17/111803044/). No idea where this stands now, in light of COVID.
This article has more detail on the study and project (https://www.recordonline.com/story/special/2020/02/14/local-leaders-lobby-for-rte-17-upgrades/111804772/): $5 million allocated for a 12-to-18-month study, for a 20-plus year project expected to run $500 million (which is expected to include a third lane from Monticello all the way to the Thruway). Apparently there are 96 miles of the Quickway in Delaware, Sullivan, and Orange Counties that need to be upgraded to meet Interstate standards.
Which is going to take time -- and probably several STIP editions to spread out the cost -- to complete. As no one seems to be in any particular hurry to "git 'er done", my previous hint regarding prioritization of the "spot" fixes to achieve standards west of I-81 still stands and if anything is somewhat more validated. That segment can be readily reached from NYC and vicinity by a combination of I-80, I-380, and I-81 via Scranton, so through traffic to western upstate has a reasonably efficient path. By no means remove any trace of I-86 between I-81 and I-87; let it stand as a reminder that the corridor still exists and will have to be addressed at some time. But for the time being, concentrate any efforts on the section that is more vital to regional connectivity.
Another stupid study? The one from 15 years ago arguing billions in economic benefits for the Southern Tier was laughed out of the room.
But hey, it seems NYSDOT has to spend millions on studies that really go nowhere as it is Cuomo's method of appeasement (e.g., LI crossing, Rooftop...).
If NYSDOT doesn't want to work on the upgrade, why doesn't NYSTA turn I-86 from Binghamton to Woodbury into a toll road to fund construction?
I last drove on I-86 from I-87 to I-390 about 2 years ago, and there was considerable construction going on west of Liberty. I don't think it had anything to do with ramp work.
The topography is certainly challenging, it reminds me of I-70 near Vail, CO. Any kind of ramp work that would need to be done to bring it up to standards would probably involve moving mountains. The last time I saw anything like that was when I was driving on the Moreno Valley Freeway in Southern California last year. I can't imagine how much that project cost.
We
don't
need
a
toll
road.
Leave
17
alone.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 24, 2020, 12:19:01 PM
We don't need a toll road. Leave 17 alone.
Formatting aside, the issue here is that 86, end to end, isn't really better than 84 to 81. Both are free. If you toll one, the other will be the primary route and you'll lose most of the traffic you were trying to extort.
Quote from: Alps on September 24, 2020, 05:58:36 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 24, 2020, 12:19:01 PM
We don't need a toll road. Leave 17 alone.
Formatting aside, the issue here is that 86, end to end, isn't really better than 84 to 81. Both are free. If you toll one, the other will be the primary route and you'll lose most of the traffic you were trying to extort.
Absolutely correct. If one is going from anywhere in southern New England (e.g. Hartford on south) or the lower Hudson River Valley, and are going to where New Yorkers consider the wild, wild West -- e.g., anything west of Pittsburgh -- the more efficient route is 84 to 81 to 80 -- period. The idea behind I-86 was simply to (a) attempt to enhance the flagging commercial fortune of the Southern Tier and (b) divert as much through E-W traffic as possible out of PA and into upstate NY and rake off whatever revenue could be raised that way. Of course, as I've iterated previously, the "stem" of the whole I-86 concept was the segment west of I-81/Binghamton; the NY 17 Catskill section east of there was simply to provide a continuous Interstate path from both I-84 coming in from CT and the greater NYC region and feeding into Binghamton. New Englanders from MA and north of there could simply feed into the I-86 "stem" from I-88 via Albany -- and allowing a few miles of saving via 88/86 vs. I-90 as well as the lack of tolls. Since it's all but certain that the I-86 upgrades west of Binghamton will precede by a substantial period of time those
east of I-81, the alternative of using the western I-86 is validated from both greater NYC via I-80/380/81 and upper New England via I-88. The sole "missing link", as far as the composite Interstate network is concerned, is that portion of I-86/NY 17 from I-84 west to I-81; it's not likely that WB I-84 travelers will schlep all the way to Scranton only to shunt north along I-81 to Binghamton. But if NY 17 is usable for that purpose (and the driver isn't concerned about the designation status) then that would work as well. I remember well before the I-86 designation effort in 1998-99 there was a concerted effort to market NY 17 as "New York's own
Autobahn" -- a scenic alternative to both the Turnpike and I-80 across PA (hey, it got me to drive its length back in '89) -- in other words, a PR effort to do much what the later Interstate designation was supposed to do. But all along, the salient points of this corridor have been scenery/tourism and long-range shunpiking. Any attempt to sell the whole original NY 17 corridor as an efficient regional alternative to I-80 west of NYC and I-84 out of southern New England is just plain silly -- it's just NY trying to rake off some road-related business; no more, no less.
^
Doesn't help that a majority of I-80 is 70 mph across Pennsylvania, whereas I-86 is only 55 / 65 mph. Not to mention I-80 is more direct.
Widen and straighten I-86 to be an 80 mph interstate through Upstate NY and maybe we'll talk.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 24, 2020, 09:01:32 PM
^
Doesn't help that a majority of I-80 is 70 mph across Pennsylvania, whereas I-86 is only 55 / 65 mph. Not to mention I-80 is more direct.
Widen and straighten I-86 to be an 80 mph interstate through Upstate NY and maybe we'll talk.
Not that NYDOT has any intention to raise speed limits to Western levels, but most of I-86 between I-390 and Olean could readily be signed at 70-75mph and would be just about anywhere else. Still, if I didn't mind the boredom of I-80 across PA and needed to drive from, say, Hartford to Ohio as quickly as possible, it'd be a 84/81/80 trip all the way. Yeah, the terrain and towns along I-86 are, IMO, more varied and decidedly more interesting, but the drive is what I'd term moderately fast; no elapsed-time records are going to be set there. At least it's free!
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 23, 2020, 02:39:49 AM
If NYSDOT doesn't want to work on the upgrade, why doesn't NYSTA turn I-86 from Binghamton to Woodbury into a toll road to fund construction?
Simple answer: it's just not that important. NYSTA has no jurisdiction or mandate to do anything whatsoever with I-86, and some amount of lawmaking would be needed to change that. I don't imagine anyone in state government is even aware of a problem in need of such a solution, and they're probably not misinformed.
Interstate 86 (both present and future segments) probably doesn't need to be a tollway. I just hope someday the entire corridor between Interstates 90 and 87 are upgraded to full Interstate Standards. Of course, that could take decades or even centuries.
There are no justifications for tolling. Much of the I-86/NY 17 corridor have very low traffic counts until you get into the Binghamton metro or toward the eastern fringes - the latter mostly because of the Jewish camps and the Catskill Mountains. There are portions west of Binghamton and east of Binghamton that don't register 10,000 vehicles per day.
I'm still on board with designating I-86 along the corridor, but as a frequent traveler along the route, it really needs priority fixes closer to the eastern end: removing substandard ramps; adding full width shoulders; widening from I-84 to I-87. Hale Eddy can wait, but even still, there are some serious curvatures along that one particular stretch that deserve reconstruction.
I agree with sparker in 86/17 being way more interesting than 80 in PA, along with the towns along it. Coming from Harrisburg to Ohio I'll take US 322 to 80 to save $$$ vs the Turnpike, but the Turnpike is 10 times more interesting to me than 80.
Quote from: seicer on September 25, 2020, 05:54:19 PM
There are no justifications for tolling. Much of the I-86/NY 17 corridor have very low traffic counts until you get into the Binghamton metro or toward the eastern fringes - the latter mostly because of the Jewish camps and the Catskill Mountains. There are portions west of Binghamton and east of Binghamton that don't register 10,000 vehicles per day.
I-86/NY 17 has surprisingly little value as a through route between New York City and Binghamton as for any traffic doing that that can cross the Hudson at the GWB or farther south, I-80/I-380/I-81 is faster and shorter. Having gone to school at Cornell (Ithaca), that was one of the things I quickly learned (even long before the days of nav apps). To the extent that my fellow students or their parents used NY 17, it was mostly because they couldn't believe that the fastest route between two points in New York State was via NJ and PA.
One oddity back then was there was a good amount of Greyhound bus service from Rochester, through Ithaca and Binghamton and on to NYC. All trips went via Scranton (whether they stopped there or not) except for one a week that went via NY 17, the TZB, and eventually surface streets in Manhattan to get to the PABT (and reverse). This was because as this was an intra-state route, while Greyhound could use their inter-state rights to go via PA and NJ, they still had to make on intra-state trip per week to protect their rights in the market. This was also true for the charter bus I used to get home once as they had no rights to operate outside NYS. This routing oddity also applied to the NYC-Albany and beyond buses that went NJ 17 to the Thruway except again for one a week. But this was all 40+ years ago.
My family generally used 17 over 80-380-81 between Buffalo and NYC/Long Island. Combination of being able to avoid I-80 traffic, lower tolls at Bear Mountain/Tappan Zee, and preferring the scenery along 17. In my experience, it is a wash in terms of time and highly dependent on traffic conditions.
Quote from: lstone19 on October 02, 2020, 06:43:08 PM
I-86/NY 17 has surprisingly little value as a through route between New York City and Binghamton as for any traffic doing that that can cross the Hudson at the GWB or farther south, I-80/I-380/I-81 is faster and shorter.
Yeah, I-86/NY 17 makes the most sense for Westchester and Rockland counties as a connection to the rest of the state. The southern sections still manage to be pretty busy though, especially between I-87 and I-84, despite having not as much long-distance traffic to Binghamton and beyond as you might expect.
^^^^^^^^^
The times I've been on NY 17's eastern section I've found that there seems to be quite a bit of local traffic from the east end of the freeway at I-87 west to about US 209; the traffic levels drop significantly as one continues west from there all the way to the Hale Eddy section. It picks up again a bit west of Deposit; likely locals heading to and from the Binghamton area for employment or shopping. But the level of commercial truck/trailer traffic is quite low until west of I-81, where that picks up substantially. I'm surmising that more than a few NYC Metro-Rochester and/or Buffalo commercial movements utilize NY17/I-86 west of Binghamton, eventually segueing onto I-390, to avoid Thruway tolls as much as possible -- which bolsters my view that NYDOT should concentrate on fully upgrading NY 17 to I-86 west of Binghamton before expending any significant effort on the corridor east of there.
Quote from: sparker on October 02, 2020, 08:48:41 PM
I'm surmising that more than a few NYC Metro-Rochester and/or Buffalo commercial movements utilize NY17/I-86 west of Binghamton, eventually segueing onto I-390, to avoid Thruway tolls as much as possible -- which bolsters my view that NYDOT should concentrate on fully upgrading NY 17 to I-86 west of Binghamton before expending any significant effort on the corridor east of there.
Certainly, and actually much more so for Buffalo (and points west of I-390 in general) than Rochester. In fact, I-86>I-390>US 20A is the preferred car route from Binghamton to Buffalo, being 25 miles and usually at least a few minutes shorter than the I-81>Thruway route. For Rochester, on the other hand, it's actually 15 miles and at least as many minutes
longer to take I-86/I-390*, owing to the circuitous routing of I-390 and the fact that there's no direct freeway into downtown from the south.
It's actually surprising how much truck traffic drops off as you head north on I-390, owing to all the WNY and Ontario bound trucks taking Exits 6/7 to cut the corner. Indeed, an extended NY 400 freeway to Mount Morris has always been a pipe dream of mine for that very reason.
*Sidebar: this is why you'll hear people from Rochester (myself included) grumbling about the ongoing I-81 removal discussion: I-81 is
the route from Rochester to Binghamton and beyond. I-86/I-390 is sometimes brought up as an alternative, but because it's 15 minutes longer, that doesn't check out: no matter what, a viaduct teardown puts us Rochesterians in a particularly unfortunate spot. Buffalo doesn't have this problem - it's already quicker for them to use NY 400/US 20A, so whatever ends up happening in Syracuse will only reinforce that.
I was most annoyed by my IphoneX which insisted I take the Thruway exit to I-86 the other day, even though its not signed in any way, shape or form.
GUYS WHERE'S EXIT 22
Quote from: yakra on November 02, 2020, 01:28:52 AM
GUYS WHERE'S EXIT 22
Reserved for a possible US 219 interchange in Salamanca https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region5/projects/us-route-219/location
The proposed interchange (EXIT 22) should be here...
https://goo.gl/maps/PLhbSk2TxgvdZaRD8
The overpass mounds are still noticeable when driving through this section...
https://goo.gl/maps/M9nyadLR11tfSTWR6
Quote from: okc1 on November 02, 2020, 09:02:18 AM
Quote from: yakra on November 02, 2020, 01:28:52 AM
GUYS WHERE'S EXIT 22
Reserved for a possible US 219 interchange in Salamanca https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region5/projects/us-route-219/location
That is, if they're serious about that Somerset-Buffalo expressway proposal.
Quote from: Henry on November 04, 2020, 10:10:59 AM
Quote from: okc1 on November 02, 2020, 09:02:18 AM
Quote from: yakra on November 02, 2020, 01:28:52 AM
GUYS WHERE'S EXIT 22
Reserved for a possible US 219 interchange in Salamanca https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region5/projects/us-route-219/location
That is, if they're serious about that Somerset-Buffalo expressway proposal.
IIRC, that was indefinitely shelved back in the early 2000's after bypassing Springville; lack of both funding and official support cited as the reason.
From 17Forward86 last week
https://twitter.com/17Forward86/status/1321944577884987392
Maybe we'll get to see 86 in our lifetimes....This would make NY-17 interstate standard in Orange and most of Sullivan county.
That third lane on NY-17 has been LONG needed. It still baffles me why they rebuilt most of that section but left it 4 lanes with no provision for 6 lanes.
For this upcoming weekend's Webinar presentation, we'll be taking a look at the freeway system of New York's Southern Tier region in and around Binghamton, NY. Coverage will begin on Saturday (12/12) at 6 PM ET and will feature live contributions from members of this forum; we hope to see you there!
Will this Webinar have any updates on when NY 17 between Waverly and Binghamton will finally become part of Interstate 86?
Yes, the status of interstate improvements west of Binghamton will be among the topics discussed along the way.
That's dicey. I wouldn't take anyone's word for what's happening with I-86 unless they're on the top floor of NYSDOT's MO.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Our next installment in the "Virtual Tour" series is scheduled to take place on Saturday (12/19) at 6 PM ET. Come join me and members of the AARoads community as we profile NY Route 17/Interstate 86 across the Catskill region of New York State and discuss the history and features of this highway (also known as the "Quickway") all while enjoying a real-time video trip along the length of the highway between Harriman and Binghamton.
A link to the event location can be found below and we look forward to seeing you in attendance:
Quote from: roadwaywiz95 on December 17, 2020, 10:37:08 AM
Our next installment in the "Virtual Tour" series is scheduled to take place on Saturday (12/19) at 6 PM ET. Come join me and members of the AARoads community as we profile NY Route 17/Interstate 86 across the Catskill region of New York State and discuss the history and features of this highway (also known as the "Quickway") all while enjoying a real-time video trip along the length of the highway between Harriman and Binghamton.
A link to the event location can be found below and we look forward to seeing you in attendance:
boy I love the roadwaywiz family of products
Uh Wikipedia said that I-86 would be completed and signed west of Binghamton in December 2020 did that happen?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 15, 2021, 12:29:54 AM
Uh Wikipedia said that I-86 would be completed and signed west of Binghamton in December 2020 did that happen?
No.
Quote from: Rothman on May 15, 2021, 09:30:36 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 15, 2021, 12:29:54 AM
Uh Wikipedia said that I-86 would be completed and signed west of Binghamton in December 2020 did that happen?
No.
Lol any timeline? Google's giving me nothing. (also why not just sign it already it's good enough!)
There is still a substandard section west of Binghamton, somewhere in the area of exits 67-69. It's theorized that the missing project is the proposed new local bridge across the Susquehanna River, which would have a diamond interchange with NY 17 that would replace existing exit 68. And no timeline, all further I-86 conversion activity is on indefinite hold and there is only so much money and the state would rather use it to maintain the existing system.
I just drove through the Hale Eddy to Hancock section and, unless things have changed over the last couple of years, the estimates I last saw had to be ridiculously low, given all the work that would need to be done to bring that section up to Interstate standards.
Quote from: vdeane on May 15, 2021, 11:38:57 PM
There is still a substandard section west of Binghamton, somewhere in the area of exits 67-69. It's theorized that the missing project is the proposed new local bridge across the Susquehanna River, which would have a diamond interchange with NY 17 that would replace existing exit 68.
With NY 17, NY 26, and Vestal Ave all crossing the Susquehanna in that vicinity, it seems strange that another crossing would be needed. Do you have any idea what the start and endpoints would be? A crossing that connects Hooper Rd and African Rd is the only location that jumps out to me; that would certainly improve connectivity between Endwell and the shopping destinations along NY 434.
Also, what exactly is substandard about the 67-69 segment? I don't notice anything glaring, but must be missing something..
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2021, 11:16:38 AM
Quote from: vdeane on May 15, 2021, 11:38:57 PM
There is still a substandard section west of Binghamton, somewhere in the area of exits 67-69. It's theorized that the missing project is the proposed new local bridge across the Susquehanna River, which would have a diamond interchange with NY 17 that would replace existing exit 68.
With NY 17, NY 26, and Vestal Ave all crossing the Susquehanna in that vicinity, it seems strange that another crossing would be needed. Do you have any idea what the start and endpoints would be? A crossing that connects Hooper Rd and African Rd is the only location that jumps out to me; that would certainly improve connectivity between Endwell and the shopping destinations along NY 434.
Also, what exactly is substandard about the 67-69 segment? I don't notice anything glaring, but must be missing something..
The substandard shoulder widths on the bridges there immediately jumps out at me. You can clearly see where they have to narrow (https://goo.gl/maps/HLnLCDCZcn3afNpK7) to cross the bridges. It's several of them in that area.
Quote from: storm2k on May 16, 2021, 06:33:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2021, 11:16:38 AM
Quote from: vdeane on May 15, 2021, 11:38:57 PM
There is still a substandard section west of Binghamton, somewhere in the area of exits 67-69. It's theorized that the missing project is the proposed new local bridge across the Susquehanna River, which would have a diamond interchange with NY 17 that would replace existing exit 68.
With NY 17, NY 26, and Vestal Ave all crossing the Susquehanna in that vicinity, it seems strange that another crossing would be needed. Do you have any idea what the start and endpoints would be? A crossing that connects Hooper Rd and African Rd is the only location that jumps out to me; that would certainly improve connectivity between Endwell and the shopping destinations along NY 434.
Also, what exactly is substandard about the 67-69 segment? I don't notice anything glaring, but must be missing something..
The substandard shoulder widths on the bridges there immediately jumps out at me. You can clearly see where they have to narrow (https://goo.gl/maps/HLnLCDCZcn3afNpK7) to cross the bridges. It's several of them in that area.
There are bridges just as narrow just west of Coopers Plains (west of Corning) but that was allowed to become I-86.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 16, 2021, 06:42:46 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 16, 2021, 06:33:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2021, 11:16:38 AM
...
Also, what exactly is substandard about the 67-69 segment? I don't notice anything glaring, but must be missing something..
The substandard shoulder widths on the bridges there immediately jumps out at me. You can clearly see where they have to narrow (https://goo.gl/maps/HLnLCDCZcn3afNpK7) to cross the bridges. It's several of them in that area.
There are bridges just as narrow just west of Coopers Plains (west of Corning) but that was allowed to become I-86.
Heh, that's exactly what I was going to mention before I saw your post.
This (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1884587,-77.1576977,3a,75y,312.93h,74.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s65zfjZyff52B2VzmQTTE1w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D65zfjZyff52B2VzmQTTE1w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.664566%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) is probably the one you're referring to, and it's on a curve, no less. There's also
this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2227295,-77.1800456,3a,75y,328.41h,75.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLpQ7KkOHghvGH2uyRjqq5A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) and at least one or two others, as I recall.
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2021, 11:16:38 AM
Quote from: vdeane on May 15, 2021, 11:38:57 PM
There is still a substandard section west of Binghamton, somewhere in the area of exits 67-69. It's theorized that the missing project is the proposed new local bridge across the Susquehanna River, which would have a diamond interchange with NY 17 that would replace existing exit 68.
With NY 17, NY 26, and Vestal Ave all crossing the Susquehanna in that vicinity, it seems strange that another crossing would be needed. Do you have any idea what the start and endpoints would be? A crossing that connects Hooper Rd and African Rd is the only location that jumps out to me; that would certainly improve connectivity between Endwell and the shopping destinations along NY 434.
Also, what exactly is substandard about the 67-69 segment? I don't notice anything glaring, but must be missing something..
The bridge that has been talked about for years locally connects Hooper Rd. and Sycamore Rd. There was some talk at the state level about this around the turn of the millennium, and recently there was a grassroots campaign to revive it but nothing came of it.
Exit 68 is vestigial to when the NY-26 bridge opened ~7 years before Route 17 through the area. The WB-to-NB and SB-to-EB sections of the Exit 67 cloverleaf were opened at the same time as the bridge to allow traffic to access the new bridge from Old Vestal Rd. I don't mean to imply Exit 68 isn't used, but a large portion of that traffic is headed to or coming from the Sycamore Rd. area and would be better served by the relocated Exit 68.
Quote from: Bumppoman on May 17, 2021, 09:55:03 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2021, 11:16:38 AM
Quote from: vdeane on May 15, 2021, 11:38:57 PM
There is still a substandard section west of Binghamton, somewhere in the area of exits 67-69. It's theorized that the missing project is the proposed new local bridge across the Susquehanna River, which would have a diamond interchange with NY 17 that would replace existing exit 68.
With NY 17, NY 26, and Vestal Ave all crossing the Susquehanna in that vicinity, it seems strange that another crossing would be needed. Do you have any idea what the start and endpoints would be? A crossing that connects Hooper Rd and African Rd is the only location that jumps out to me; that would certainly improve connectivity between Endwell and the shopping destinations along NY 434.
Also, what exactly is substandard about the 67-69 segment? I don't notice anything glaring, but must be missing something..
The bridge that has been talked about for years locally connects Hooper Rd. and Sycamore Rd. There was some talk at the state level about this around the turn of the millennium, and recently there was a grassroots campaign to revive it but nothing came of it.
Exit 68 is vestigial to when the NY-26 bridge opened ~7 years before Route 17 through the area. The WB-to-NB and SB-to-EB sections of the Exit 67 cloverleaf were opened at the same time as the bridge to allow traffic to access the new bridge from Old Vestal Rd. I don't mean to imply Exit 68 isn't used, but a large portion of that traffic is headed to or coming from the Sycamore Rd. area and would be better served by the relocated Exit 68.
Interesting. Thanks for the reply. I figured the potential crossing must be in that area. It does make sense that Exit 68 would be a lot more heavily used if it were on the other side of the river in conjunction with a new crossing.
What makes the existing Exit 68 bad is that there is no traffic light at Old Vestal Rd., even though most traffic turns left. This can lead to some precarious near-accidents due to impatience at the intersection.
I remember attending a town board meeting in Vestal back in 2001 about the bridge, where the then-supervisor cautioned me about the 25-year wait for the Apalachin bridge downriver (Exit 66). Scoffed then, but we're almost at the 25-year mark now... The bridge would significantly alleviate traffic on the Vestal Parkway (NY 434), for which NYSDOT did a study back in ~2004 on how to address growing congestion and accident rates (with limited action beyond some sidewalks and better signal interconnections).
IIRC, the reason the bridge was bundled with the upgrades was because the Exit 68 offramp has a deficient radius, and is a partial interchange, so it was easier to just relocate and address the parkway congestion as well.
Quote from: vdeane on May 15, 2021, 11:38:57 PM
It's theorized that the missing project is the proposed new local bridge across the Susquehanna River, which would have a diamond interchange with NY 17 that would replace existing exit 68.
Come again? A local realtor floated this but it went nowhere.
I've been told there have indeed been studies on such a bridge and if you could point me to them I'd be grateful.
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2021, 11:16:38 AM
With NY 17, NY 26, and Vestal Ave all crossing the Susquehanna in that vicinity, it seems strange that another crossing would be needed. Do you have any idea what the start and endpoints would be? A crossing that connects Hooper Rd and African Rd is the only location that jumps out to me; that would certainly improve connectivity between Endwell and the shopping destinations along NY 434.
This would be a very useful bridge, given how much traffic on NY 201 and NY 26 is between those two points.
Quote from: Bumppoman on May 17, 2021, 09:55:03 PM
Exit 68 is vestigial to when the NY-26 bridge opened ~7 years before Route 17 through the area. The WB-to-NB and SB-to-EB sections of the Exit 67 cloverleaf were opened at the same time as the bridge to allow traffic to access the new bridge from Old Vestal Rd. I don't mean to imply Exit 68 isn't used, but a large portion of that traffic is headed to or coming from the Sycamore Rd. area and would be better served by the relocated Exit 68.
Given how much traffic uses the westbound Exit 68 onramp to go from Old Vestal Rd to the NY 26 bridge to Endicott, I can't imagine a workable solution to "upgrading" this actually-deficient weaving area would be to merely close the ramp.
The issues I see with such a project are that the tremendous de-diversion of traffic from 26 and 201 would necessitate heavy "improvements" to Hooper and Sycamore Rds, amongst others. Hooper Rd in particular probably could not handle any more traffic as it is, and improving it without tearing down everything on either side of it seems like a challenge.
Quote from: dlainhart on June 26, 2021, 07:06:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 15, 2021, 11:38:57 PM
It's theorized that the missing project is the proposed new local bridge across the Susquehanna River, which would have a diamond interchange with NY 17 that would replace existing exit 68.
Come again? A local realtor floated this but it went nowhere.
I've been told there have indeed been studies on such a bridge and if you could point me to them I'd be grateful.
Unfortunately, there's a reason I said "it's theorized". I'm just repeating something I heard or read from some other roadgeek at some point. It doesn't seem like anyone knows anything concrete, outside of perhaps BMTS and Region 9.
Surprised this hasn't been brought up but apparently NYSDOT is seriously studying the possibility of adding a third lane to NY-17 between I-87 to NY 211 (Middletown) or NY 17B (Monticello). End of Fall 2021 is when a report is due out.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/rt17pelstudy
(https://www.realestateindepth.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Route-17-project-costs-copy-e1622819503320.jpg)
Widening has been needed for many many years in Orange County. As I have said before, they should have done it when they were spending all that money reconstructing that section of roadway to interstate standards.
From https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/806509-Home/806509-Repository/Rt17PEL_NYSDOT%20Public%20Workshop%202_FINAL_0.pdf
"Don't name the highway for anyone's relative"
You mean, not the Andrew Cuomo Expressway? :D
--
I am glad to see that four of the interchanges are being studied for removal.
Quote from: seicer on July 12, 2021, 10:04:53 AM
From https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/806509-Home/806509-Repository/Rt17PEL_NYSDOT%20Public%20Workshop%202_FINAL_0.pdf
"Don't name the highway for anyone's relative"
You mean, not the Andrew Cuomo Expressway? :D
If that means we can get a 6 lane freeway to monticello, and NY 17 fully converted to interstate standards, I'll gladly be in favor of the renaming it all to the Andrew M. Cuomo Expressway :-D
Quote from: seicer on July 12, 2021, 10:04:53 AM
From https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/806509-Home/806509-Repository/Rt17PEL_NYSDOT%20Public%20Workshop%202_FINAL_0.pdf
"Don't name the highway for anyone's relative"
You mean, not the Andrew Cuomo Expressway? :D
--
I am glad to see that four of the interchanges are being studied for removal.
Interesting presentation. I wonder if this section of the road would be ready for I-86 if all this were done? Although it's not the exact same list of projects as was shared on the forum years ago, it feels fairly similar. Some of those interchanges (particularly exit 122) were JUST done, however. Makes me think that maybe "make it I-86 and then think about widening" might not have been the best plan.
(personal opinion)
Re: Exit 122. It states that " Stage 1 EB ramps completed previously" but I am not sure what that comprised of. The three exits in quick succession on NY 17 have long been an issue and this should at least remedy the issue for now.
Quote from: dlainhart on June 26, 2021, 07:06:57 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 15, 2021, 11:38:57 PM
It's theorized that the missing project is the proposed new local bridge across the Susquehanna River, which would have a diamond interchange with NY 17 that would replace existing exit 68.
Come again? A local realtor floated this but it went nowhere.
I've been told there have indeed been studies on such a bridge and if you could point me to them I'd be grateful.
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2021, 11:16:38 AM
With NY 17, NY 26, and Vestal Ave all crossing the Susquehanna in that vicinity, it seems strange that another crossing would be needed. Do you have any idea what the start and endpoints would be? A crossing that connects Hooper Rd and African Rd is the only location that jumps out to me; that would certainly improve connectivity between Endwell and the shopping destinations along NY 434.
This would be a very useful bridge, given how much traffic on NY 201 and NY 26 is between those two points.
Quote from: Bumppoman on May 17, 2021, 09:55:03 PM
Exit 68 is vestigial to when the NY-26 bridge opened ~7 years before Route 17 through the area. The WB-to-NB and SB-to-EB sections of the Exit 67 cloverleaf were opened at the same time as the bridge to allow traffic to access the new bridge from Old Vestal Rd. I don't mean to imply Exit 68 isn't used, but a large portion of that traffic is headed to or coming from the Sycamore Rd. area and would be better served by the relocated Exit 68.
Given how much traffic uses the westbound Exit 68 onramp to go from Old Vestal Rd to the NY 26 bridge to Endicott, I can't imagine a workable solution to "upgrading" this actually-deficient weaving area would be to merely close the ramp.
The issues I see with such a project are that the tremendous de-diversion of traffic from 26 and 201 would necessitate heavy "improvements" to Hooper and Sycamore Rds, amongst others. Hooper Rd in particular probably could not handle any more traffic as it is, and improving it without tearing down everything on either side of it seems like a challenge.
In my personal experience, nearly all of the traffic using that onramp is coming from the Town Square Mall area. I guess it would make sense for some traffic in the Union district of Endicott to go that way too but if it weren't there, they could just as easily take NY-17C to Campville.
Of note: NYS DOT Press Release on 9/24:
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO HOST ONLINE PUBLIC MEETING ON PLANS TO IMPROVE INTERCHANGE 105 ON STATE ROUTE 17 IN TOWN OF THOMPSON, SULLIVAN COUNTY
"The project is intended to enhance safety and prepare the interchange for the road's eventual conversion to Interstate 86."
https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2021/2021-09-241 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2021/2021-09-241)
Why didn't they have I-84 follow the NY 17 corridor and then cross over the Hudson through Peekskill on its way to Brewster? As it is, 84 is too far north to offer a true bypass for Westchester and Fairfield Counties.
Quote from: kernals12 on October 16, 2021, 09:10:14 AM
Why didn't they have I-84 follow the NY 17 corridor and then cross over the Hudson through Peekskill on its way to Brewster? As it is, 84 is too far north to offer a true bypass for Westchester and Fairfield Counties.
I dont think 84 was ever intended as a "bypass". It's simply a freeway that links "Northern" New England to North East PA and points west. off topic though.
Quote from: kernals12 on October 16, 2021, 09:10:14 AM
Why didn't they have I-84 follow the NY 17 corridor and then cross over the Hudson through Peekskill on its way to Brewster? As it is, 84 is too far north to offer a true bypass for Westchester and Fairfield Counties.
As in, why doesn't it follow the US 6 corridor more closely? The biggest factor was probably the crossing point. Any farther south than Newburgh/Beacon, and the Hudson Highlands would greatly impede any new bridge of Interstate standard, to say nothing of the approaches.
Quote from: empirestate on October 16, 2021, 01:55:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 16, 2021, 09:10:14 AM
Why didn't they have I-84 follow the NY 17 corridor and then cross over the Hudson through Peekskill on its way to Brewster? As it is, 84 is too far north to offer a true bypass for Westchester and Fairfield Counties.
As in, why doesn't it follow the US 6 corridor more closely? The biggest factor was probably the crossing point. Any farther south than Newburgh/Beacon, and the Hudson Highlands would greatly impede any new bridge of Interstate standard, to say nothing of the approaches.
They already have a bridge though, the Peekskill Bridge.
Quote from: kernals12 on October 16, 2021, 04:18:33 PM
They already have a bridge though, the Peekskill Bridge.
There's no such bridge around here...the closest trans-Hudson bridge to Peekskill is the Bear Mountain Bridge. But we're talking Interstates here–the 1924 suspension bridge is fine for carrying a couple of US routes, but nowhere near what a freeway would need. And then where does the rest of the road go? The approach road currently used by US 6/202 is nicknamed the "Goat Trail"; a suitable Interstate bypass of this cliff-hugger would probably require a tunnel, and that would impact the New York military reservation at Camp Smith.
On the other side of the river, you've got a huge swath of state park land, immediately abutted by another, even more famous military reservation at West Point. As you can see, the reasons quickly pile up for why they would choose the much easier approach and crossing up at Newburgh. Even today, the Hudson Highlands pose both a topographic and administrative obstacle to extensive development of any kind, roads or otherwise. Suburbia basically stops at the foot of these hills, and picks up again just as abruptly on the other side.
Quote from: empirestate on October 16, 2021, 09:47:32 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 16, 2021, 04:18:33 PM
They already have a bridge though, the Peekskill Bridge.
There's no such bridge around here...the closest trans-Hudson bridge to Peekskill is the Bear Mountain Bridge. But we're talking Interstates here–the 1924 suspension bridge is fine for carrying a couple of US routes, but nowhere near what a freeway would need. And then where does the rest of the road go? The approach road currently used by US 6/202 is nicknamed the "Goat Trail"; a suitable Interstate bypass of this cliff-hugger would probably require a tunnel, and that would impact the New York military reservation at Camp Smith.
On the other side of the river, you've got a huge swath of state park land, immediately abutted by another, even more famous military reservation at West Point. As you can see, the reasons quickly pile up for why they would choose the much easier approach and crossing up at Newburgh. Even today, the Hudson Highlands pose both a topographic and administrative obstacle to extensive development of any kind, roads or otherwise. Suburbia basically stops at the foot of these hills, and picks up again just as abruptly on the other side.
Alright, thanks for the explanation.
Last few posts should be moved into a separate fictional thread.
Why fictional? We're talking about what was actually built, and why it was built that way.
Anyway, probably not worth moving posts around in this thread–I'd consider the question asked and answered at this point. We can expect the discussion to shift back to its previous, also off-topic state now. :-)
Quote from: Rothman on October 16, 2021, 11:57:08 PM
Last few posts should be moved into a separate fictional thread.
Please don't tell the mods how to mod. :|
Quote from: Alps on October 17, 2021, 02:49:17 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 16, 2021, 11:57:08 PM
Last few posts should be moved into a separate fictional thread.
Please don't tell the mods how to mod. :|
I don't see it as a problem. I've called for a thread split several times, as well as "remove posts but keep open" when things get out of hand but I really don't want it locked.
Quote from: 1 on October 17, 2021, 06:57:04 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 17, 2021, 02:49:17 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 16, 2021, 11:57:08 PM
Last few posts should be moved into a separate fictional thread.
Please don't tell the mods how to mod. :|
I don't see it as a problem. I've called for a thread split several times, as well as "remove posts but keep open" when things get out of hand but I really don't want it locked.
It's probably a combination of the way he phrased it and the fact that he's posting such in every single thread that has anything beyond strictly news updates of active projects (or at least it feels like it).
Quote from: vdeane on October 17, 2021, 09:57:29 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 17, 2021, 06:57:04 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 17, 2021, 02:49:17 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 16, 2021, 11:57:08 PM
Last few posts should be moved into a separate fictional thread.
Please don't tell the mods how to mod. :|
I don't see it as a problem. I've called for a thread split several times, as well as "remove posts but keep open" when things get out of hand but I really don't want it locked.
It's probably a combination of the way he phrased it and the fact that he's posting such in every single thread that has anything beyond strictly news updates of active projects (or at least it feels like it).
Yeah, splitting a thread is probably a lot more work - for a lot less gain - than something like a thread lock.
Back on topic somewhat... Any updates on Exit 131? Is the reconstruction complete?
Quote from: webny99 on October 17, 2021, 10:13:54 PM
Back on topic somewhat... Any updates on Exit 131? Is the reconstruction complete?
Lest we forget, the topic is actually (according to the OP) the Interstate designation itself, and whether it's a shame that it will totally supplant most of NY 17.
Of course, the topic long ago drifted onto that of the various conversion projects and their status, but for those who are keeping close track of whether the thread has stayed on topic, well... ;-)
Quote from: empirestate on October 18, 2021, 01:03:29 AM
Quote from: webny99 on October 17, 2021, 10:13:54 PM
Back on topic somewhat... Any updates on Exit 131? Is the reconstruction complete?
Lest we forget, the topic is actually (according to the OP) the Interstate designation itself, and whether it's a shame that it will totally supplant most of NY 17.
Of course, the topic long ago drifted onto that of the various conversion projects and their status, but for those who are keeping close track of whether the thread has stayed on topic, well... ;-)
Exit 131 reconstruction is probably part of what will make it Interstate compliant...
Quote from: Alps on October 18, 2021, 01:17:39 AM
Quote from: empirestate on October 18, 2021, 01:03:29 AM
Quote from: webny99 on October 17, 2021, 10:13:54 PM
Back on topic somewhat... Any updates on Exit 131? Is the reconstruction complete?
Lest we forget, the topic is actually (according to the OP) the Interstate designation itself, and whether it's a shame that it will totally supplant most of NY 17.
Of course, the topic long ago drifted onto that of the various conversion projects and their status, but for those who are keeping close track of whether the thread has stayed on topic, well... ;-)
Exit 131 reconstruction is probably part of what will make it Interstate compliant...
Exit 131 improvements were part of the list of prioritized conversion projects from now over 10 years ago.
I'm waiting for this sign and other signs to be uncovered...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51575609478_feee77e9d2_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51603722564_027b7075c2_c.jpg)
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 18, 2021, 12:58:47 PM
I'm waiting for this sign and other signs to be uncovered...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51575609478_feee77e9d2_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51603722564_027b7075c2_c.jpg)
Don't hold your breath.
I mean, a lot of the signs around there were uncovered because the covers blew off at some point or the other - and just never covered back up :)
Question. (It might be answered in this thread, but I didn't see it.). Is there a reason that the multiplexed segment with I-81 in Binghamton is signposted as I-86 but isn't officially designated as such?
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on October 18, 2021, 02:40:30 PM
Question. (It might be answered in this thread, but I didn't see it.). Is there a reason that the multiplexed segment with I-81 in Binghamton is signposted as I-86 but isn't officially designated as such?
Chris
From I-81 at Kamikaze Curve to Exit 79, I thought I-86 was designated.
Quote from: Rothman on October 18, 2021, 02:46:32 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on October 18, 2021, 02:40:30 PM
Question. (It might be answered in this thread, but I didn't see it.). Is there a reason that the multiplexed segment with I-81 in Binghamton is signposted as I-86 but isn't officially designated as such?
Chris
From I-81 at Kamikaze Curve to Exit 79, I thought I-86 was designated.
I don't know exactly what Kamikaze Curve is, but it
is designated from its eastern intersection with I-81 to exit 79. I'm talking about from exit 72A to exit 75. At least according to Wikipedia and Travel Mapping, that's only NY17 and not I-86 despite I-86 being on BGSs and (I believe) one reassurance marker.
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on October 18, 2021, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 18, 2021, 02:46:32 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on October 18, 2021, 02:40:30 PM
Question. (It might be answered in this thread, but I didn't see it.). Is there a reason that the multiplexed segment with I-81 in Binghamton is signposted as I-86 but isn't officially designated as such?
Chris
From I-81 at Kamikaze Curve to Exit 79, I thought I-86 was designated.
I don't know exactly what Kamikaze Curve is, but it is designated from its eastern intersection with I-81 to exit 79. I'm talking about from exit 72A to exit 75. At least according to Wikipedia and Travel Mapping, that's only NY17 and not I-86 despite I-86 being on BGSs and (I believe) one reassurance marker.
Chris
Heh. Interesting that Region 9 jumped the gun on that portion, then. I thought once the Prospect Mountain project was done that I-86 was good to go on that section. Probably is still awaiting another phase of the project.
I just hadn't logged any mileage on I-86 and then was in Binghamton and thought I'd at least check it off my "traveled" list. Had I not taken a slight detour to the east, I would have missed it officially despite it being signed.
Chris
Quote from: Rothman on October 18, 2021, 01:01:57 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 18, 2021, 12:58:47 PM
I'm waiting for this sign and other signs to be uncovered...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51575609478_feee77e9d2_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51603722564_027b7075c2_c.jpg)
Don't hold your breath.
It seems like they could have saved some space by eliminating one of the redundant cardinal directions
Even NYSDOT shows it as I-86 also.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5tQf3C99/Binghamton.png)
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on October 18, 2021, 03:19:58 PM
Even NYSDOT shows it as I-86 also.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5tQf3C99/Binghamton.png)
Chris
They use consultants for the data set...
Quote from: Rothman on October 18, 2021, 03:33:31 PM
They use consultants for the data set...
Walks like a duck... talks like a duck...
Chris
Quote from: Rothman on October 18, 2021, 07:03:45 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 18, 2021, 01:17:39 AM
Exit 131 reconstruction is probably part of what will make it Interstate compliant...
Exit 131 improvements were part of the list of prioritized conversion projects from now over 10 years ago.
And of course, NY 17 will still exist at Exit 131, which would supposedly become its terminus.
There are tons of I-86 markers along intersecting routes north of Middletown. What looks to be a backwards interstate sign is mounted over them. I've often wondered if those are true blanks, or if there's a number on the other side -- and if so, what that number is.
It seems to me that it would take just as much effort to go and remove the bolted-on covers as it would to install new I-86 signage, and the existing signage may have deteriorated or become damaged during the time it was covered. So I wonder why they just didn't leave a blank space on the posts and install the I-86 signage later.
When the new section of US 219 opened north of Elkins, blank posts were placed in spots for the US 48 signage that was installed years later. But they did not leave space on the overheads where 219 departs the Corridor H expressway, so they had to move the existing route markers (thank goodness for demountable copy) to make room for US 48 -- or in some cases, just mount the US 48 signage independently on the gantry supports.
Quote from: Rothman on October 18, 2021, 03:33:31 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on October 18, 2021, 03:19:58 PM
Even NYSDOT shows it as I-86 also.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5tQf3C99/Binghamton.png)
Chris
They use consultants for the data set...
That looks like a Google map.
I still don't understand why they just don't mark the portions built to interstate standards as I-86, and the parts that are not up to interstate standards "To I-86". I doubt drivers are going to be confused.
One of the Interstate standards is that the road continues as standard quality all the way to a logical point such as an urban area or Interstate junction. It would not be compliant to post the road as Interstate for short segments and non-interstate for other segments.
Quote from: jayhawkco on October 18, 2021, 03:19:58 PM
Even NYSDOT shows it as I-86 also.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5tQf3C99/Binghamton.png)
Chris
Only the 511 data is from NYS. The basemap is just Google Maps.
Quote from: machias on October 18, 2021, 08:29:21 PM
I still don't understand why they just don't mark the portions built to interstate standards as I-86, and the parts that are not up to interstate standards "To I-86". I doubt drivers are going to be confused.
I suspect that was indeed the plan for Middletown, given that it's complete with end signs. I'm not sure why designation was never pursued, but the fact that NY shifted to preservation-first and Cuomo wasn't on board with the project probably played a part. I'm not sure what the deal with US 220-NY 26 is, but it might be similar reasons combined with not wanting a 10 mile gap. The other section that's interstate standards is Roscoe-Liberty, but it's disconnected from the rest of the interstate system.
I don't recall if this was posted before, but the PEL study for the widening has some interesting interchange concepts for Rapp Road east: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/806509-Home/806509-Repository/8065.09_PEL%20Report%20Draft_Attachment%203_Appendix%20A_Sept2021.pdf
Additionally, exit 105 is being replaced with a diamond: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region9/projects/901339-Home/901339-Repository/901339_ProjectPresentation_10072021.pdf
Quote from: ran4sh on October 18, 2021, 08:52:35 PM
One of the Interstate standards is that the road continues as standard quality all the way to a logical point such as an urban area or Interstate junction. It would not be compliant to post the road as Interstate for short segments and non-interstate for other segments.
It would be fine to use "TO" shields.
IINM, the main issue between Roscoe and 84 at this point is Rock Hill. And indeed, there have been plans to rebuild that area...which were killed in the past by NIMBYs and business interests. West of Roscoe to Hancock is mostly nonexistent accel/decel lanes.
It should be mentioned that there is a decent likelihood that 17 will be reconstructed and possibly widened east of Middletown and possibly as far west as Monticello within the coming years. This project is a priority for the Senate delegation and Orange County, particularly with Legoland opening. That would knock out the remaining problem spots east of Middletown and possibly most of the remaining spots into Sullivan County.
Yeah, Legoland has caused some weird things to happen.
Genuinely asking but is legoland that big of a deal? I mean its not disneyworld right? I'm surprised that we might actually get a widening because of that development
Would be a lot less confusing if the designation didn't disappear between the Waverly dip and I-81. At least you'd have an uninterrupted route west of Exit 79.
Quote from: TheDon102 on October 19, 2021, 07:44:57 AM
Genuinely asking but is legoland that big of a deal? I mean its not disneyworld right? I'm surprised that we might actually get a widening because of that development
A widening was warranted before Legoland. It's the busiest 4-lane freeway in the state north of the Cross Westchester and busier than any 4-lane segment of the Thruway.
Quote from: cl94 on October 19, 2021, 11:01:06 AM
Quote from: TheDon102 on October 19, 2021, 07:44:57 AM
Genuinely asking but is legoland that big of a deal? I mean its not disneyworld right? I'm surprised that we might actually get a widening because of that development
A widening was warranted before Legoland. It's the busiest 4-lane freeway in the state north of the Cross Westchester and busier than any 4-lane segment of the Thruway.
It certainly needs widening at least to Middletown, if not Bloomingburg. Volumes are above 60K on much of that stretch.
But it's not quite the busiest in the state north of I-287.. a couple sections of I-190 (South Grand Island Bridges and south of Hertel Ave) and I-490 between Exits 25 and 26 have the edge there.
Quote from: Alps on October 18, 2021, 11:20:49 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on October 18, 2021, 08:52:35 PM
One of the Interstate standards is that the road continues as standard quality all the way to a logical point such as an urban area or Interstate junction. It would not be compliant to post the road as Interstate for short segments and non-interstate for other segments.
It would be fine to use "TO" shields.
Or "Future?"
North Carolina's Future I-26 signage used the traditional RWB shield-shaped marker, but without the word "Interstate" in the red portion.
Kentucky has used a full interstate marker in a green sign with "Future I-66 Corridor" or "Future I-69 Corridor" text.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 19, 2021, 11:57:00 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 18, 2021, 11:20:49 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on October 18, 2021, 08:52:35 PM
One of the Interstate standards is that the road continues as standard quality all the way to a logical point such as an urban area or Interstate junction. It would not be compliant to post the road as Interstate for short segments and non-interstate for other segments.
It would be fine to use "TO" shields.
Or "Future?"
North Carolina's Future I-26 signage used the traditional RWB shield-shaped marker, but without the word "Interstate" in the red portion.
Kentucky has used a full interstate marker in a green sign with "Future I-66 Corridor" or "Future I-69 Corridor" text.
There's probably a few ancient "Future Interstate 86" signs left along the corridor from 20 years ago, but they should just post Future 86 markers as you described. Or "To 86". If folks survived with gaps in the interstate system while it was being built in the 50s and 60s, I'm sure they can deal with a few gaps in one interstate in one state without driving off the road.
Quote from: cl94 on October 19, 2021, 11:01:06 AM
Quote from: TheDon102 on October 19, 2021, 07:44:57 AM
Genuinely asking but is legoland that big of a deal? I mean its not disneyworld right? I'm surprised that we might actually get a widening because of that development
A widening was warranted before Legoland. It's the busiest 4-lane freeway in the state north of the Cross Westchester and busier than any 4-lane segment of the Thruway.
Yes, and also yes. Legoland, relative to its location, is a comparatively big draw, at least for folks from elsewhere in the region. (Now, how does it stack up against other theme parks, purely as an attraction? We can get into that another time...)
And in addition, NY 17 was already underpowered and is best avoided at certain times of the day/week. Orange County, in general, suffers from a type of exurban congestion that's noticeably distinct (from, say, Dutchess County), but a little hard to describe.
Looks like this project has government support again. I found this in Hochul's policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) released with the state of the state:
Quote
Strategic investments in the Mid-Hudson Valley have resulted in the expansion of
Woodbury Common and the construction of Legoland and the Resorts World
Catskills Casino. Over the past several years, projects have been completed by
NYSDOT to upgrade sections of Route 17, including reconstruction of the
interchange at Exit 131, where Route 17 meets Interstate 87 and Route 32
(Woodbury Common), and reconstruction of Exits 122 and 125 (Legoland) to meet
interstate standards. To facilitate future economic competitiveness and alleviate
congestion within the region, the State will begin an environmental review to assess
the conversion of the full Route 17 corridor in Orange and Sullivan counties to
Interstate 86.
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2022, 08:48:58 PM
Looks like this project has government support again. I found this in Hochul's policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) released with the state of the state:
Quote
StrategicinvestmentsintheMid-HudsonValleyhaveresultedintheexpansionof
WoodburyCommonandtheconstructionofLegolandandtheResortsWorld
CatskillsCasino.Overthepastseveralyears,projectshavebeencompletedby
NYSDOT toupgradesectionsofRoute17,includingreconstructionofthe
interchangeatExit131,whereRoute17meetsInterstate87and Route32
(WoodburyCommon),andreconstructionofExits122and125(Legoland)tomeet
interstatestandards.Tofacilitatefutureeconomiccompetitivenessandalleviate
congestionwithintheregion,theStatewillbeginanenvironmentalreviewtoassess
theconversionofthefullRoute17corridorinOrangeandSullivancountiesto
Interstate86.
That's like saying Cuomo supported the Rooftop.
Well, from Roscoe east, then. I'd be fine if there were two disconnected I-86 segments with "TO" banners in between. Not that much different than when I was on the West Virginia Turnpike in the 1980s when it was signed with "TO" I-64/77.
Quote from: TheDon102 on July 12, 2021, 11:49:18 AM
Quote from: seicer on July 12, 2021, 10:04:53 AM
From https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/806509-Home/806509-Repository/Rt17PEL_NYSDOT%20Public%20Workshop%202_FINAL_0.pdf
"Don't name the highway for anyone's relative"
You mean, not the Andrew Cuomo Expressway? :D
If that means we can get a 6 lane freeway to monticello, and NY 17 fully converted to interstate standards, I'll gladly be in favor of the renaming it all to the Andrew M. Cuomo Expressway :-D
In IL, the equivalent would be the Rod Blagojevich Expressway/Freeway, though I will agree that what Cuomo did was far more despicable than anything Blago ever did (but he got sentenced, while Cuomo didn't, so what does that tell us?).
Back to the subject at hand: By the time I-86 is completed, the current 50-and-over crowd will be dead, and their kids/grandkids will probably not care about it then. Just my two cents...
Does New York have plans in the next few years to upgrade NY 17 between Deposit and Hancock?
Quote from: Rothman on January 10, 2022, 06:25:44 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 09, 2022, 08:48:58 PM
Looks like this project has government support again. I found this in Hochul's policy book (https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022StateoftheStateBook.pdf) released with the state of the state:
Quote
StrategicinvestmentsintheMid-HudsonValleyhaveresultedintheexpansionof
WoodburyCommonandtheconstructionofLegolandandtheResortsWorld
CatskillsCasino.Overthepastseveralyears,projectshavebeencompletedby
NYSDOT toupgradesectionsofRoute17,includingreconstructionofthe
interchangeatExit131,whereRoute17meetsInterstate87and Route32
(WoodburyCommon),andreconstructionofExits122and125(Legoland)tomeet
interstatestandards.Tofacilitatefutureeconomiccompetitivenessandalleviate
congestionwithintheregion,theStatewillbeginanenvironmentalreviewtoassess
theconversionofthefullRoute17corridorinOrangeandSullivancountiesto
Interstate86.
That's like saying Cuomo supported the Rooftop.
The widening project could potentially take care of a lot of it. There's only a few interchanges in Liberty between the portion that already meets interstate standards and the limits of the widening PEL study. The widening effort also has significant support, including Senator Chuck Schumer and the 17 Forward 86 Coalition. I could see it going either way.
Quote from: seicer on January 10, 2022, 09:04:41 AM
Well, from Roscoe east, then. I'd be fine if there were two disconnected I-86 segments with "TO" banners in between. Not that much different than when I was on the West Virginia Turnpike in the 1980s when it was signed with "TO" I-64/77.
It would actually make three, as US 220 to I-81 isn't actually I-86, and I-81 to NY 79 is.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 10, 2022, 11:21:07 AM
Does New York have plans in the next few years to upgrade NY 17 between Deposit and Hancock?
I'm not aware of Windsor to Roscoe being on any agenda at this time. It's not just the at-grades; the freeway sections on either side of Hale Eddy don't meet modern interstate standards.
The widening project (strongly supported by Schumer) would indeed cover most of the territory listed here. Most of the rest of the road outside of Hale Eddy meets standards. Note that modern Interstate standards still allow for lower design standards in mountainous regions, which Hancock-Roscoe is close to meeting. A few improvements are necessary, but these are pretty minor compared to everything else.
TBH, nothing between Windsor and Roscoe really needs an upgrade. It serves the traffic it gets just fine and there's a legitimate argument to be made that upgrading Hale Eddy might kill what remains of it. See how everything in Parksville closed after the bypass opened.
Quote from: machias on October 18, 2021, 08:29:21 PM
I still don't understand why they just don't mark the portions built to interstate standards as I-86, and the parts that are not up to interstate standards "To I-86". I doubt drivers are going to be confused.
I don't understand why they don't call the whole thing I-86, Erie to Harriman. If we're being honest, who gives a shit? Your average driver won't see a little at-grade in Hale Eddy and start cursing up a storm about Interstate Highway standards and how they've been ripped off.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on February 12, 2022, 04:11:15 AM
Quote from: machias on October 18, 2021, 08:29:21 PM
I still don't understand why they just don't mark the portions built to interstate standards as I-86, and the parts that are not up to interstate standards "To I-86". I doubt drivers are going to be confused.
I don't understand why they don't call the whole thing I-86, Erie to Harriman. If we're being honest, who gives a shit? Your average driver won't see a little at-grade in Hale Eddy and start cursing up a storm about Interstate Highway standards and how they've been ripped off.
There are plenty of examples out there, i.e Breezewood, I-180 Wyoming, I-676 New Jersey, but that was then and this is now. Breezewood was grandfathered in. I don't believe grandfathering is allowed anymore, so NYSDOT has to wait until Hale Eddy along with the rest of the corridor is up to full standards.
FHWA NY Division insists that NY 17 be brought up to Interstate standards consistently across its length before I-86 can be designated.
Hale Eddy to Hancock is required.
Because the original Interstate Highway System is considered built out, FHWA has turned much more to its oversight role. The good old days of Interstate shields being slapped on substandard segments are over.
Shoot, even Congress made portions of I-278 ineligible for Interstate Maintenance funding a long time ago due to using the system as defined by a particular date a long time ago. I believe those sections are still ineligible for 90/10 funding because of that (i.e., since IM was absorbed into NHPP in MAP-21).
Quote from: Ketchup99 on February 12, 2022, 04:11:15 AM
Quote from: machias on October 18, 2021, 08:29:21 PM
I still don't understand why they just don't mark the portions built to interstate standards as I-86, and the parts that are not up to interstate standards "To I-86". I doubt drivers are going to be confused.
I don't understand why they don't call the whole thing I-86, Erie to Harriman. If we're being honest, who gives a shit? Your average driver won't see a little at-grade in Hale Eddy and start cursing up a storm about Interstate Highway standards and how they've been ripped off.
And for the same reason, why mightn't they just keep calling it the way it's called now? Sure, it's not an Interstate all the way along, but as you well illustrate, are the stakes really that high?
Quote from: Ketchup99 on February 12, 2022, 04:11:15 AM
Quote from: machias on October 18, 2021, 08:29:21 PM
I still don't understand why they just don't mark the portions built to interstate standards as I-86, and the parts that are not up to interstate standards "To I-86". I doubt drivers are going to be confused.
I don't understand why they don't call the whole thing I-86, Erie to Harriman. If we're being honest, who gives a shit? Your average driver won't see a little at-grade in Hale Eddy and start cursing up a storm about Interstate Highway standards and how they've been ripped off.
I can support simply signing the entire route as I-86, although the route should not be continuous through the at-grade portion until it is upgraded to controlled access.
Quote from: Rothman on February 12, 2022, 08:58:01 AM
FHWA NY Division insists that NY 17 be brought up to Interstate standards consistently across its length before I-86 can be designated.
Which makes absolutely no sense since the FHWA allowed almost the entire western section from PA to Waverly to be signed as I-86, and a 10-mile stretch from I-81 to Exit 79. Another 9-mile stretch from I-84 to NY-17K was upgraded to interstate standards years ago and has I-86 signs, but those signs are covered until the FHWA authorizes NYSDOT to uncover them. From my perspective, the aforementioned stretch of NY-17 should be signed as I-86 now as it already meets interstate standards and it connects to another interstate (I-84), and therefore meets all the criteria for interstate designation.
At least sign the Waverly-Binghamton portion so we don't have that awful gap when it suddenly reappears east of I-81 (not that the new signage on I-81 has the I-86 shields exposed anyway).
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 12, 2022, 09:55:20 PM
At least sign the Waverly-Binghamton portion so we don't have that awful gap when it suddenly reappears east of I-81 (not that the new signage on I-81 has the I-86 shields exposed anyway).
Is Waverly to Binghamton up to Interstate standards yet? If so, what’s stopping them from officially designating it?
Put the text "I-86" in a NY touring route shield.
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 12, 2022, 09:52:19 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 12, 2022, 08:58:01 AM
FHWA NY Division insists that NY 17 be brought up to Interstate standards consistently across its length before I-86 can be designated.
Which makes absolutely no sense since the FHWA allowed almost the entire western section from PA to Waverly to be signed as I-86, and a 10-mile stretch from I-81 to Exit 79. Another 9-mile stretch from I-84 to NY-17K was upgraded to interstate standards years ago and has I-86 signs, but those signs are covered until the FHWA authorizes NYSDOT to uncover them. From my perspective, the aforementioned stretch of NY-17 should be signed as I-86 now as it already meets interstate standards and it connects to another interstate (I-84), and therefore meets all the criteria for interstate designation.
It does make sense as those are the shorter segments that are compliant that hook into the rest of the Interstate Highway System. At least in its NY Division, FHWA does not allow standalone segments that are not connected to other Interstates.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 12, 2022, 10:01:16 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 12, 2022, 09:55:20 PM
At least sign the Waverly-Binghamton portion so we don't have that awful gap when it suddenly reappears east of I-81 (not that the new signage on I-81 has the I-86 shields exposed anyway).
Is Waverly to Binghamton up to Interstate standards yet? If so, what's stopping them from officially designating it?
There was one project through there to bring it up to standards. I don't know if it's complete.
Quote from: Rothman on February 13, 2022, 12:06:14 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 12, 2022, 09:52:19 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 12, 2022, 08:58:01 AM
FHWA NY Division insists that NY 17 be brought up to Interstate standards consistently across its length before I-86 can be designated.
Which makes absolutely no sense since the FHWA allowed almost the entire western section from PA to Waverly to be signed as I-86, and a 10-mile stretch from I-81 to Exit 79. Another 9-mile stretch from I-84 to NY-17K was upgraded to interstate standards years ago and has I-86 signs, but those signs are covered until the FHWA authorizes NYSDOT to uncover them. From my perspective, the aforementioned stretch of NY-17 should be signed as I-86 now as it already meets interstate standards and it connects to another interstate (I-84), and therefore meets all the criteria for interstate designation.
It does make sense as those are the shorter segments that are compliant that hook into the rest of the Interstate Highway System. At least in its NY Division, FHWA does not allow standalone segments that are not connected to other Interstates.
So why is the segment connected to I-84 not signed? It meets interstate standards and connects to another interstate highway (I-84).
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2022, 01:57:46 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 13, 2022, 12:06:14 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 12, 2022, 09:52:19 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 12, 2022, 08:58:01 AM
FHWA NY Division insists that NY 17 be brought up to Interstate standards consistently across its length before I-86 can be designated.
Which makes absolutely no sense since the FHWA allowed almost the entire western section from PA to Waverly to be signed as I-86, and a 10-mile stretch from I-81 to Exit 79. Another 9-mile stretch from I-84 to NY-17K was upgraded to interstate standards years ago and has I-86 signs, but those signs are covered until the FHWA authorizes NYSDOT to uncover them. From my perspective, the aforementioned stretch of NY-17 should be signed as I-86 now as it already meets interstate standards and it connects to another interstate (I-84), and therefore meets all the criteria for interstate designation.
It does make sense as those are the shorter segments that are compliant that hook into the rest of the Interstate Highway System. At least in its NY Division, FHWA does not allow standalone segments that are not connected to other Interstates.
So why is the segment connected to I-84 not signed? It meets interstate standards and connects to another interstate highway (I-84).
You'd have to ask FHWA. :D
I don't know if NY even formally applied for the segment west of I-84. Regardless. I don't expect any changes on that front until the Orange County improvement/widening project is complete. Once that is, you'll have anywhere from 25 to ~70 miles of continuous Interstate-grade freeway depending on how far west they send that project (study area was well into Sullivan). Assuming it goes well into Sullivan, the main thing remaining would be Hale Eddy.
Quote from: yakra on February 12, 2022, 10:17:37 PMPut the text "I-86" in a NY touring route shield.
or this approach to interstate gaps that aren't to interstate standards (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.5910047,-82.5700978,3a,21.3y,62.82h,93.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP4G8XX27bhZMQgnmY0734A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)
Quote from: english si on February 13, 2022, 12:07:13 PM
Quote from: yakra on February 12, 2022, 10:17:37 PMPut the text "I-86" in a NY touring route shield.
or this approach to interstate gaps that aren't to interstate standards (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.5910047,-82.5700978,3a,21.3y,62.82h,93.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP4G8XX27bhZMQgnmY0734A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)
Yes, this. Isn't the point of the numbering to help drivers navigate more easily? How is it better in that respect to have the I-86 designation appear and disappear along the way when it's a perfectly functional, continuous highway. Sure, switch from I-86 to Future I-86 to "To I-86" as appropriate to satisfy the keepers of the standards, but a driver should be able to go end to end following signs that say some flavor of "I-86".
Quote from: Jim on February 13, 2022, 02:04:39 PM
Quote from: english si on February 13, 2022, 12:07:13 PM
Quote from: yakra on February 12, 2022, 10:17:37 PMPut the text "I-86" in a NY touring route shield.
or this approach to interstate gaps that aren't to interstate standards (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.5910047,-82.5700978,3a,21.3y,62.82h,93.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP4G8XX27bhZMQgnmY0734A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)
Yes, this. Isn't the point of the numbering to help drivers navigate more easily? How is it better in that respect to have the I-86 designation appear and disappear along the way when it's a perfectly functional, continuous highway. Sure, switch from I-86 to Future I-86 to "To I-86" as appropriate to satisfy the keepers of the standards, but a driver should be able to go end to end following signs that say some flavor of "I-86".
Or "NY 17", if we adopt the current thinking that the Interstate designation isn't as all-important as was once thought.
Quote from: empirestate on February 13, 2022, 02:31:04 PM
Quote from: Jim on February 13, 2022, 02:04:39 PM
Quote from: english si on February 13, 2022, 12:07:13 PM
Quote from: yakra on February 12, 2022, 10:17:37 PMPut the text "I-86" in a NY touring route shield.
or this approach to interstate gaps that aren't to interstate standards (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.5910047,-82.5700978,3a,21.3y,62.82h,93.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP4G8XX27bhZMQgnmY0734A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)
Yes, this. Isn't the point of the numbering to help drivers navigate more easily? How is it better in that respect to have the I-86 designation appear and disappear along the way when it's a perfectly functional, continuous highway. Sure, switch from I-86 to Future I-86 to "To I-86" as appropriate to satisfy the keepers of the standards, but a driver should be able to go end to end following signs that say some flavor of "I-86".
Or "NY 17", if we adopt the current thinking that the Interstate designation isn't as all-important as was once thought.
That would make no sense to demote a long distance interstate highway back to a state route.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2022, 02:32:30 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 13, 2022, 02:31:04 PM
Quote from: Jim on February 13, 2022, 02:04:39 PM
Quote from: english si on February 13, 2022, 12:07:13 PM
Quote from: yakra on February 12, 2022, 10:17:37 PMPut the text "I-86" in a NY touring route shield.
or this approach to interstate gaps that aren't to interstate standards (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.5910047,-82.5700978,3a,21.3y,62.82h,93.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP4G8XX27bhZMQgnmY0734A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)
Yes, this. Isn't the point of the numbering to help drivers navigate more easily? How is it better in that respect to have the I-86 designation appear and disappear along the way when it's a perfectly functional, continuous highway. Sure, switch from I-86 to Future I-86 to "To I-86" as appropriate to satisfy the keepers of the standards, but a driver should be able to go end to end following signs that say some flavor of "I-86".
Or "NY 17", if we adopt the current thinking that the Interstate designation isn't as all-important as was once thought.
That would make no sense to demote a long distance interstate highway back to a state route.
Right, nor would it make sense to promote only pieces of the state route to Interstate status. So if full promotion is off the table, then does the demotion better solves the stated problem: "Isn't the point of the numbering to help drivers navigate more easily?"
Quote from: empirestate on February 13, 2022, 03:02:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2022, 02:32:30 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 13, 2022, 02:31:04 PM
Quote from: Jim on February 13, 2022, 02:04:39 PM
Quote from: english si on February 13, 2022, 12:07:13 PM
Quote from: yakra on February 12, 2022, 10:17:37 PMPut the text "I-86" in a NY touring route shield.
or this approach to interstate gaps that aren't to interstate standards (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.5910047,-82.5700978,3a,21.3y,62.82h,93.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sP4G8XX27bhZMQgnmY0734A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)
Yes, this. Isn't the point of the numbering to help drivers navigate more easily? How is it better in that respect to have the I-86 designation appear and disappear along the way when it's a perfectly functional, continuous highway. Sure, switch from I-86 to Future I-86 to "To I-86" as appropriate to satisfy the keepers of the standards, but a driver should be able to go end to end following signs that say some flavor of "I-86".
Or "NY 17", if we adopt the current thinking that the Interstate designation isn't as all-important as was once thought.
That would make no sense to demote a long distance interstate highway back to a state route.
Right, nor would it make sense to promote only pieces of the state route to Interstate status. So if full promotion is off the table, then does the demotion better solves the stated problem: "Isn't the point of the numbering to help drivers navigate more easily?"
As it is, the local name for the entire road is "Route 17". Very few people actually refer to it as "I-86".
Honestly, if it were up to me, there wouldn't be short pieces designated outside of the main section from I-90 to US 220, but that ship has sailed. IIRC, the story that used to be passed around roadgeek circles is that the reason the part east of Binghamton got signed is because the sign covers on I-81's guide signs kept falling off. I'm not really a fan of how NC handles I-26 because it basically disincentivize actually upgrading the route to an interstate (as such signage makes the route virtually indistinguishable anyways). Just look at how long the I-26 status quo has lasted. It seems to be the corridor they are least interested in, despite it being one of the oldest excluding the ones in the original system. I do not believe that to be a coincidence, given that very few non-roadeeks would be able to tell where I-26 ends and "future 26" begins. Of course, I tend to be obsessed with the network of blue lines displayed on Travel Mapping, which I think is safe to say a concern exclusive to the hobby (and which doesn't seem to be shared even with most roadgeeks, if we're being honest).
Quote from: cl94 on February 13, 2022, 11:44:03 AM
I don't know if NY even formally applied for the segment west of I-84. Regardless. I don't expect any changes on that front until the Orange County improvement/widening project is complete. Once that is, you'll have anywhere from 25 to ~70 miles of continuous Interstate-grade freeway depending on how far west they send that project (study area was well into Sullivan). Assuming it goes well into Sullivan, the main thing remaining would be Hale Eddy.
Yes, this. While it's fairly safe to say given the signage that was installed that the intent was to sign a short piece as I-86 there, it's worth noting that the project there was completed around the same time Cuomo effectively cancelled the remainder of the I-86 upgrade. And now that Hochul's revived (part of) it, the big push is widening in Orange County and possibly Sullivan County as well, and it's been more than a decade with the shields covered, so there's no push to designate this short piece when there's a good chance that work will soon obsolete the signage anyways (note that the covered signs include end signs at both NY 17K and I-84).
Worth noting that "Future I-99" signs are in use on US 15 in northern PA, despite the fact that it could be decades before I-99 is officially connected and designated there.
I don't see why something similar couldn't be done for the Hale Eddy portion of I-86. Of course, the powers that be would probably have to have a plan to bring it to interstate standards before that could happen, so a "future" designation might not be viable until we get that.
TBH, if they're never going to do Hale Eddy (why bother?), just designate what gets upgraded on the east end as I-387 (987 if you want to minimize duplication) or I-584 if people insist on a signed I-designation and call it a day.
I get the feeling Hale Eddy is a lot like things like the remainder of A-30 in Québec - likely to not happen any time soon if ever, but cold happen if it became a priority of a future government (I could honestly see a future governor wanting to be the one to say they built I-86 if that became the last project - similar to how Cuomo got with exit 3). At least if the full section Hochul is pushing gets done along with that last project west of I-81, we'd have two large I-86 sections and a small piece of lightly traveled NY 17 in between.
Quote from: webny99 on February 13, 2022, 06:05:17 PM
Worth noting that "Future I-99" signs are in use on US 15 in northern PA, despite the fact that it could be decades before I-99 is officially connected and designated there.
I don't see why something similar couldn't be done for the Hale Eddy portion of I-86. Of course, the powers that be would probably have to have a plan to bring it to interstate standards before that could happen, so a "future" designation might not be viable until we get that.
Last I checked, the I-99 signage is stuff like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.919417,-77.1194525,3a,28.6y,223.24h,89.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s550vRANeNPkyaP3trzAKOg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) periodically posted similar to memorial highway names and the like (incidentally, NY 17 at least used to have signage like that for future I-86). Not like NC, which signs it as prominently as a regular interstate designation, just with "future" in place of "interstate" or as a banner.
Quote from: cl94 on January 10, 2022, 02:26:03 PM
The widening project (strongly supported by Schumer) would indeed cover most of the territory listed here. Most of the rest of the road outside of Hale Eddy meets standards. Note that modern Interstate standards still allow for lower design standards in mountainous regions, which Hancock-Roscoe is close to meeting. A few improvements are necessary, but these are pretty minor compared to everything else.
TBH, nothing between Windsor and Roscoe really needs an upgrade. It serves the traffic it gets just fine and there's a legitimate argument to be made that upgrading Hale Eddy might kill what remains of it. See how everything in Parksville closed after the bypass opened.
It would. The Parksville bypass in retrospect was an incredible waste of money.
Quote from: cl94 on February 13, 2022, 06:55:12 PM
TBH, if they're never going to do Hale Eddy (why bother?), just designate what gets upgraded on the east end as I-387 (987 if you want to minimize duplication) or I-584 if people insist on a signed I-designation and call it a day.
I think I'd rather just leave the section west of Binghamton as NY 17 than add another 3di to the mix.
Quote from: cl94 on February 13, 2022, 06:55:12 PM
TBH, if they're never going to do Hale Eddy (why bother?), just designate what gets upgraded on the east end as I-387 (987 if you want to minimize duplication) or I-584 if people insist on a signed I-designation and call it a day.
hello ncdot
Quote from: Rothman on February 12, 2022, 08:58:01 AM
Shoot, even Congress made portions of I-278 ineligible for Interstate Maintenance funding a long time ago due to using the system as defined by a particular date a long time ago. I believe those sections are still ineligible for 90/10 funding because of that (i.e., since IM was absorbed into NHPP in MAP-21).
Congress should probably rethink cutting funding to the only Interstate truck corridor in Brooklyn. These people are delusional.
Hi. I'm new to the AARoads Forum because I've been curious about highways that I've known and the NY 17/I-86 corridor is one of them I've known for a few years. Anyways, to anyone who's been wondering why the I-86 signs in Orange County between I-84 and NY 17K never got uncovered for years, here's why.
The following was from an attached document in the Route 17 Widening PEL Study: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/806509-Home/806509-Repository/8065.09_PEL%20Report%20Final_Attachment%205_Public%20Involvement%20Documents.pdf (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/806509-Home/806509-Repository/8065.09_PEL%20Report%20Final_Attachment%205_Public%20Involvement%20Documents.pdf)
In Orange County the reconstruction project from I-84 to NY 17K was anticipated by NYSDOT to
meet all FHWA requirements for Interstate designation. In the ensuing years when this segment
had a draft Interstate designation request submitted to FHWA and FHWA performed field
inspections, there were a few outstanding issues identified. The outstanding needs that need to be
addresses are mainly related to right-of-way issues and access control at ramp terminals, the
remainder were minor routine maintenance needs. Routine maintenance is always ongoing and the
other issues are not critical to the day-to-day operation and safety of Route 17, so until a longer,
continuous segment is ready for designation, likely requiring the segment between I-84 and I-87,
FHWA requested that all I-86 signs be covered.
Just drove on 86/17 from Binghamton to Sayre and back. What a mess, especially the "Future 86" section. The pavement desperately needs rehabilitation.
Quote from: cl94 on February 13, 2022, 06:55:12 PM
TBH, if they're never going to do Hale Eddy (why bother?), just designate what gets upgraded on the east end as I-387 (987 if you want to minimize duplication) or I-584 if people insist on a signed I-designation and call it a day.
Actually, you might want to think twice about whether they will do Hale Eddy or not because I've been looking at region 9's monthly STIP Projects update on the DOT website since last July and they did talk about building a new diamond interchange there since then. It's not necessarily going to happen in the upcoming years but it is mentioned on the page.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/stip/files/R9.pdf (Page 12)
$50-85MM to overbuild a junction because of a silly interstate designation.....it's a waste of funds. As is, Route 17 being bypassed basically sank Parksville into nothing
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 17, 2022, 01:55:12 PM
$50-85MM to overbuild a junction because of a silly interstate designation.....it's a waste of funds. As if, Route 17 being bypass basically sank Parksville into nothing
I mean, what are the accident rates in those areas, it the accidents rates are unusual then doing something about it may still be worth it just as a safety issue. Also, are they ever going to get the remainder of the southern tier portion designated? I feel like they should at the very least get on their toes and get the southern tier expressway section done so you can have a nice interstate connecting to an interstate on both ends since the southern tier expressway is almost entirely up to standards.
The traffic rates don't justify the upgrades, let alone the accident rates. Route 17 at Hale Eddy is wide enough for visibility in all directions. The only time there would be concern is snow, and that would still be a problem with a new interchange.
Also, the interstate highway system designations are useless in modern America. We don't need to be adding on to a flawed system when people just blindly follow their GPSes anyway. Route 17 is perfectly fine.
There are flawed bridges that could use that money even more. Hell, there's a chance a part of 17 could cave in if the former New York, Ontario and Western Railroad tunnel gives way. That needs more money than Hale Eddy does.
At least Orange and part of Sullivan County may receive an I-86 designation sometimes soon.
But again, why does it matter? if it's Route 17 or Interstate Eleventy-Threeve, it's still going to be the same damn road no one cares about beyond traveling and following their GPS.
Here's the quote regarding a potential new interchange:
QuoteRT 17 WILL BE RE-ALIGNED TO THE
NORTH, AND A NEW DIAMOND INTERCHANGE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED
AT HALE EDDY. THIS INTERCHANGE WILL INCLUDE A NEW BRIDGE
OVER RT 17, CONNECTING HALE-EDDY ROAD — BROOME COUNTY LINE
ROAD, SOUTH OF RT 17 TO THE PROPOSED NORTH SERVICE ROAD, ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF RT 17. THE PROPOSED NORTH SERVICE ROAD WILL
CONNECT TO HUNGRY HOLLOW ROAD ON THE WEST END, AND TO
LOWER HALE-EDDY ROAD ON THE EAST END. TOWN OF DEPOSIT,
DELAWARE COUNTY.
So essentially, this project would address
this segment (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/42.0079571,-75.39169/42.0080146,-75.3705279/@42.0083175,-75.3883909,15.25z), which is by far the biggest remaining issue. That would leave just Bush Hill Road and a few driveways as the only things preventing it from being fully limited access.
It is not an issue though. It has never been an issue. The only reason it's an "issue" is because of a linear designation that means nothing anymore. There's no safety hazards.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 17, 2022, 02:44:53 PM
It is not an issue though. It has never been an issue. The only reason it's an "issue" is because of a linear designation that means nothing anymore. There's no safety hazards.
It's not a safety issue, but it's close enough to finished that it just doesn't make any sense to abandon it now. For starters you'd have to undesignate the signed section east of Binghamton, which would be a total waste. If 2/3 of the route wasn't already designated and signed and about 99% of it already to interstate standards, I might think differently about it.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 17, 2022, 02:08:49 PM
Also, the interstate highway system designations are useless in modern America. We don't need to be adding on to a flawed system when people just blindly follow their GPSes anyway. Route 17 is perfectly fine.
What's wrong with the interstate system (beyond the slow build and roundabout nature of newer proposals like I-14 and the Southway, since they're being done by local interests rather than federal planning)? The interstate system is what got me into roadgeeking in the first place. Even as I think things like I-14 are pork and hate the suffix nonsense that seems to be becoming more and more prolific in Texas (first I-35 and then I-69, now there's possibilities for I-14 and I-27 doing that too...), I do believe the gaps in the system should be filled in.
Quote from: webny99 on March 17, 2022, 03:06:02 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 17, 2022, 02:44:53 PM
It is not an issue though. It has never been an issue. The only reason it's an "issue" is because of a linear designation that means nothing anymore. There's no safety hazards.
It's not a safety issue, but it's close enough to finished that it just doesn't make any sense to abandon it now. For starters you'd have to undesignate the signed section east of Binghamton, which would be a total waste. If 2/3 of the route wasn't already designated and signed and about 99% of it already to interstate standards, I might think differently about it.
That takes literally a stroke of the pen. I'm good with taking down all 86 shields period from Erie County PA to Binghamton too.
These designations mean almost nothing anymore. If anything. NC has proven that. TX has proven that.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 17, 2022, 03:12:41 PM
That takes literally a stroke of the pen.
... yeah, the same plus one drop-in-the-bucket project could be said of just finishing I-86.
I'll remember that when a bridge needing repair crumbles and wasting our money on a pointless project that benefits no one and might ruin what little remains of Hale Eddy, New York.
Just build a tight urban diamond interchange, some frontage roads, and buy some property. Done deal.
Bridge repair and road maintenance is covered under separate funding sources.
A major highway which has been fully upgraded to Interstate standards elsewhere shouldn't be left uncompleted based on trivialities such as this that can easily be resolved. Plus, it's seriously dangerous for drivers expecting a freeway to run all of a sudden into someone's direct driveway connection. Whether it's NY 17, I-86, or whatever, if it's 98% a freeway, go ahead and complete the remaining 2%.
The Appalachian corridors do just fine with having freeway standard roads with turn offs and such. US 24 in Ohio does just fine west of Toledo.
The concept of straightening out the Hale Eddy mess involves cutting and bombing a significant portion of the hill and taking all properties north of the road.
Besides, ruining a perfectly good Hale Eddy isn't going to magically make it interstate highway quality. There are significantly more problematic issues on 17 east of there (exit 111 for example) that need to be taken care of that are more serious.
You can just make the 86 shields "vanish" through that stretch.
Makes me wonder if R9 put it in there as illustrative rather than an actual project.
Just wondering once they do the potential improvements in Sullivan and Orange County, from where to where would the I-86 designation be applied?
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 17, 2022, 09:50:02 PM
The Appalachian corridors do just fine with having freeway standard roads with turn offs and such. US 24 in Ohio does just fine west of Toledo.
The concept of straightening out the Hale Eddy mess involves cutting and bombing a significant portion of the hill and taking all properties north of the road.
Besides, ruining a perfectly good Hale Eddy isn't going to magically make it interstate highway quality. There are significantly more problematic issues on 17 east of there (exit 111 for example) that need to be taken care of that are more serious.
You can just make the 86 shields "vanish" through that stretch.
The Appalachian Corridors are not designated Interstate-grade freeways. I-86 is.
There aren't that many properties to be taken; less than usual.
You don't simply "hide" an Interstate shield in a non-interstate section. The expectation of an Interstate highway is FULL control of access with NO direct at-grade connections and NO driveway connections. Hale Eddy as it stands now violates this premise. Either fix that brief section to meet the same standards, or junk the I-86 designation everywhere else, for it's no longer an Interstate-grade freeway.
Quote from: dzheng35 on March 18, 2022, 09:22:42 PM
Just wondering once they do the potential improvements in Sullivan and Orange County, from where to where would the I-86 designation be applied?
Once improvements are complete, NY 17 will be up to Interstate standards from Exit 103 (old route 17) to the New York Thruway. At that point, the I-86 designation can be applied. Of course, NYSDOT will have to seek approval to sign it and uncover the shields at the I-84 interchange.
Then junk the I-86 designation east of Binghamton. There's no reason for it east of Binghamton anyway. It's a waste of money on a system that no longer serves any purpose.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 18, 2022, 09:47:39 PM
You don't simply "hide" an Interstate shield in a non-interstate section.
It's not hidden. That section simply is not part of I-86 because it hasn't been completed yet. This has been done many many times before, and not just recently - lots of such similar situations existed as the original interstate system was under construction.
And yes you can call Hale Eddy "not completed yet" and put it off indefinitely. It took over 60 years to finish I-95, so...
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 18, 2022, 09:51:00 PM
Quote from: dzheng35 on March 18, 2022, 09:22:42 PM
Just wondering once they do the potential improvements in Sullivan and Orange County, from where to where would the I-86 designation be applied?
Once improvements are complete, NY 17 will be up to Interstate standards from Exit 103 (old route 17) to the New York Thruway. At that point, the I-86 designation can be applied. Of course, NYSDOT will have to seek approval to sign it and uncover the shields at the I-84 interchange.
NY 17 already meets interstate standards between Roscoe and Liberty as far as I'm aware. Whether Hochul would be looking to also do whatever upgrades are necessary to bridge the gap between there and exit 103 with the widening I'm not sure, but I was leaning that way with how she said "complete I-86 in Orange and Sullivan Counties". If so, that would allow for designation between exit 94 and the Thruway.
https://nysroads.com/i86-ny17.php
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2022, 10:47:27 PM
Makes me wonder if R9 put it in there as illustrative rather than an actual project.
Given that there was no construction funding listed, I wonder if they're just keeping things like the environmental work up to date so they can go to construction if a miracle happens and it gets a chance for funding.
1. TBH, since exit 102 is close to exit 103, why couldn't they just include 102 for improvement as well?
2. Also, having those covered I-86 shields between NY 17K and I-84 was a waste of money since they'll probably be replaced after the widening and the fact that they never got uncovered because DOT failed to bring that section up to standards.
3. What are some of the deficiency issues between exits 79 and 84 other than the lack of accel lane on the eastbound on-ramp of exit 81.
4. Why does the speed limit have to be 55 throughout the entire stretch of Delaware county when it can really be signed higher? (Other than Hale Eddy). Same thing through Monticello. I mean, no one actually drives that slow right?
5. Finally, speaking of Monticello, RT 17 will be a disaster in Monticello this summer due to an interchange reconstruction which if you looked on DOT, you know which interchange I'm talking about. (Hint: It's the cloverleaf)
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 18, 2022, 09:47:39 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 17, 2022, 09:50:02 PM
The Appalachian corridors do just fine with having freeway standard roads with turn offs and such. US 24 in Ohio does just fine west of Toledo.
The concept of straightening out the Hale Eddy mess involves cutting and bombing a significant portion of the hill and taking all properties north of the road.
Besides, ruining a perfectly good Hale Eddy isn't going to magically make it interstate highway quality. There are significantly more problematic issues on 17 east of there (exit 111 for example) that need to be taken care of that are more serious.
You can just make the 86 shields "vanish" through that stretch.
The Appalachian Corridors are not designated Interstate-grade freeways. I-86 is.
There aren't that many properties to be taken; less than usual.
You don't simply "hide" an Interstate shield in a non-interstate section. The expectation of an Interstate highway is FULL control of access with NO direct at-grade connections and NO driveway connections. Hale Eddy as it stands now violates this premise. Either fix that brief section to meet the same standards, or junk the I-86 designation everywhere else, for it's no longer an Interstate-grade freeway.
The conversion was a designated ARC and did receive associated Appalachian funding for the work done on the western end
Quote from: vdeane on March 18, 2022, 10:38:49 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 18, 2022, 09:51:00 PM
Quote from: dzheng35 on March 18, 2022, 09:22:42 PM
Just wondering once they do the potential improvements in Sullivan and Orange County, from where to where would the I-86 designation be applied?
Once improvements are complete, NY 17 will be up to Interstate standards from Exit 103 (old route 17) to the New York Thruway. At that point, the I-86 designation can be applied. Of course, NYSDOT will have to seek approval to sign it and uncover the shields at the I-84 interchange.
NY 17 already meets interstate standards between Roscoe and Liberty as far as I'm aware. Whether Hochul would be looking to also do whatever upgrades are necessary to bridge the gap between there and exit 103 with the widening I'm not sure, but I was leaning that way with how she said "complete I-86 in Orange and Sullivan Counties". If so, that would allow for designation between exit 94 and the Thruway.
https://nysroads.com/i86-ny17.php
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2022, 10:47:27 PM
Makes me wonder if R9 put it in there as illustrative rather than an actual project.
Given that there was no construction funding listed, I wonder if they're just keeping things like the environmental work up to date so they can go to construction if a miracle happens and it gets a chance for funding.
On your website, you forgot to put stage 2 of exit 122 reconstruction under future projects.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on March 18, 2022, 09:47:39 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 17, 2022, 09:50:02 PM
The Appalachian corridors do just fine with having freeway standard roads with turn offs and such. US 24 in Ohio does just fine west of Toledo.
The concept of straightening out the Hale Eddy mess involves cutting and bombing a significant portion of the hill and taking all properties north of the road.
Besides, ruining a perfectly good Hale Eddy isn't going to magically make it interstate highway quality. There are significantly more problematic issues on 17 east of there (exit 111 for example) that need to be taken care of that are more serious.
You can just make the 86 shields "vanish" through that stretch.
The Appalachian Corridors are not designated Interstate-grade freeways. I-86 is.
They actually can be.
ADHS E is Interstate 68 and 70; ADHS X is Interstate 22. Others could be with minimal improvements, such as part of ADHS I and R which encompass the Mountain Parkway in Kentucky (which is being upgraded to interstate-grade standards for its entire length), and considering the state has been adamant about receiving interstate designations for other parkways, it's not far fetched to believe it will happen in the future.
Quote from: dzheng35 on March 19, 2022, 12:51:02 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 18, 2022, 10:38:49 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 18, 2022, 09:51:00 PM
Quote from: dzheng35 on March 18, 2022, 09:22:42 PM
Just wondering once they do the potential improvements in Sullivan and Orange County, from where to where would the I-86 designation be applied?
Once improvements are complete, NY 17 will be up to Interstate standards from Exit 103 (old route 17) to the New York Thruway. At that point, the I-86 designation can be applied. Of course, NYSDOT will have to seek approval to sign it and uncover the shields at the I-84 interchange.
NY 17 already meets interstate standards between Roscoe and Liberty as far as I'm aware. Whether Hochul would be looking to also do whatever upgrades are necessary to bridge the gap between there and exit 103 with the widening I'm not sure, but I was leaning that way with how she said "complete I-86 in Orange and Sullivan Counties". If so, that would allow for designation between exit 94 and the Thruway.
https://nysroads.com/i86-ny17.php
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2022, 10:47:27 PM
Makes me wonder if R9 put it in there as illustrative rather than an actual project.
Given that there was no construction funding listed, I wonder if they're just keeping things like the environmental work up to date so they can go to construction if a miracle happens and it gets a chance for funding.
On your website, you forgot to put stage 2 of exit 122 reconstruction under future projects.
When did stage 2 of that reconstruction become a thing? The list I have is based on something Rothman posted here years ago and I don't think it was on there. Further, when the other work at exit 122 was done, I don't remember anything about it being phase 1 or a 2 stage project; when I saw further changes at exit 122 in the PEL study, I was actually surprised because of that. The other items in the PEL study don't exactly match the descriptions Rothman posted either, so I suspect the list of further work to be done has changed over the years.
Quote from: vdeane on March 19, 2022, 05:17:28 PM
Quote from: dzheng35 on March 19, 2022, 12:51:02 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 18, 2022, 10:38:49 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 18, 2022, 09:51:00 PM
Quote from: dzheng35 on March 18, 2022, 09:22:42 PM
Just wondering once they do the potential improvements in Sullivan and Orange County, from where to where would the I-86 designation be applied?
Once improvements are complete, NY 17 will be up to Interstate standards from Exit 103 (old route 17) to the New York Thruway. At that point, the I-86 designation can be applied. Of course, NYSDOT will have to seek approval to sign it and uncover the shields at the I-84 interchange.
NY 17 already meets interstate standards between Roscoe and Liberty as far as I'm aware. Whether Hochul would be looking to also do whatever upgrades are necessary to bridge the gap between there and exit 103 with the widening I'm not sure, but I was leaning that way with how she said "complete I-86 in Orange and Sullivan Counties". If so, that would allow for designation between exit 94 and the Thruway.
https://nysroads.com/i86-ny17.php
Quote from: Rothman on March 17, 2022, 10:47:27 PM
Makes me wonder if R9 put it in there as illustrative rather than an actual project.
Given that there was no construction funding listed, I wonder if they're just keeping things like the environmental work up to date so they can go to construction if a miracle happens and it gets a chance for funding.
On your website, you forgot to put stage 2 of exit 122 reconstruction under future projects.
When did stage 2 of that reconstruction become a thing? The list I have is based on something Rothman posted here years ago and I don't think it was on there. Further, when the other work at exit 122 was done, I don't remember anything about it being phase 1 or a 2 stage project; when I saw further changes at exit 122 in the PEL study, I was actually surprised because of that. The other items in the PEL study don't exactly match the descriptions Rothman posted either, so I suspect the list of further work to be done has changed over the years.
It has been a LONG time since I posted that list. I am sure some of the projects have changed.
You know NYSDOT's projects get hacked up and repackaged all the time. :D
Is I-86 now signed completely between Binghamton and its western terminus entirely?
Quote from: roadman65 on March 22, 2022, 05:19:39 PM
Is I-86 now signed completely between Binghamton and its western terminus entirely?
No, there is a section west of Owego that is still signed as Future I-86
None of NY 17 between US 220 and I-81 is designated I-86, despite overhead signage to the contrary. Ground mounted signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1192398,-75.9458282,3a,75y,356.27h,84.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNcHQFJJ9P_UsnTZTHOLteg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) has rather permanent looking (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1196324,-75.9545135,3a,41.4y,44.08h,95.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DsJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D341.1531%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) TO banners.
Quote from: vdeane on March 22, 2022, 08:07:46 PM
None of NY 17 between US 220 and I-81 is designated I-86, despite overhead signage to the contrary. Ground mounted signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1192398,-75.9458282,3a,75y,356.27h,84.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNcHQFJJ9P_UsnTZTHOLteg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) has rather permanent looking (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1196324,-75.9545135,3a,41.4y,44.08h,95.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DsJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D341.1531%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) TO banners.
Anytime on fixing the last section west of I-81. It's so close to being done that I think DOT might as well should just finish that section already. I mean. It's just one section so just finish it already and never worry about it again. Then the gap can finally be closed.
Quote from: vdeane on March 22, 2022, 08:07:46 PM
None of NY 17 between US 220 and I-81 is designated I-86, despite overhead signage to the contrary. Ground mounted signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1192398,-75.9458282,3a,75y,356.27h,84.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNcHQFJJ9P_UsnTZTHOLteg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) has rather permanent looking (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1196324,-75.9545135,3a,41.4y,44.08h,95.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DsJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D341.1531%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) TO banners.
Do you know if they've at least 'officially' made the I-81/I-86 overlap official? Most of the signage there seems like it's good to go per StreetView. Only asking for TM reasons. lol.
https://goo.gl/maps/He3jfMne4LdxV8S8A
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 23, 2022, 02:15:46 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 22, 2022, 08:07:46 PM
None of NY 17 between US 220 and I-81 is designated I-86, despite overhead signage to the contrary. Ground mounted signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1192398,-75.9458282,3a,75y,356.27h,84.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNcHQFJJ9P_UsnTZTHOLteg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) has rather permanent looking (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1196324,-75.9545135,3a,41.4y,44.08h,95.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DsJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D341.1531%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) TO banners.
Do you know if they've at least 'officially' made the I-81/I-86 overlap official? Most of the signage there seems like it's good to go per StreetView. Only asking for TM reasons. lol.
https://goo.gl/maps/He3jfMne4LdxV8S8A
Yes.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 23, 2022, 02:15:46 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 22, 2022, 08:07:46 PM
None of NY 17 between US 220 and I-81 is designated I-86, despite overhead signage to the contrary. Ground mounted signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1192398,-75.9458282,3a,75y,356.27h,84.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNcHQFJJ9P_UsnTZTHOLteg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) has rather permanent looking (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1196324,-75.9545135,3a,41.4y,44.08h,95.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DsJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D341.1531%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) TO banners.
Do you know if they've at least 'officially' made the I-81/I-86 overlap official? Most of the signage there seems like it's good to go per StreetView. Only asking for TM reasons. lol.
https://goo.gl/maps/He3jfMne4LdxV8S8A
If you've been on the overlap, I think as long as you have I-81 logged TM should automatically give you credit for all concurrent routes.
Considering PA has I-70 and parts of I-78 not at complete standards and allowed to be signed as interstate, I don't see why NY can't have a full completed Interstate from the PA line to Windsor.
Heck NJ was allowed to sign I-295 between Exits 14 and Exit 21 when all the interchanges were substandard before 1988 as that was a preexisting expressway of US 130 before the interstates came along.
Then there is I-678 in Camden and I-68 in Cumberland that are not quite up to it either.
Quote from: webny99 on March 23, 2022, 09:34:36 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 23, 2022, 02:15:46 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 22, 2022, 08:07:46 PM
None of NY 17 between US 220 and I-81 is designated I-86, despite overhead signage to the contrary. Ground mounted signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1192398,-75.9458282,3a,75y,356.27h,84.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNcHQFJJ9P_UsnTZTHOLteg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) has rather permanent looking (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1196324,-75.9545135,3a,41.4y,44.08h,95.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DsJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D341.1531%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) TO banners.
Do you know if they've at least 'officially' made the I-81/I-86 overlap official? Most of the signage there seems like it's good to go per StreetView. Only asking for TM reasons. lol.
https://goo.gl/maps/He3jfMne4LdxV8S8A
If you've been on the overlap, I think as long as you have I-81 logged TM should automatically give you credit for all concurrent routes.
We still have the 'Future' I-86 along I-81 right now. That's why I asked if I-86 along it was official so we could extend 'I-86Bin' along I-81 instead.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 23, 2022, 09:12:37 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 23, 2022, 09:34:36 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 23, 2022, 02:15:46 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 22, 2022, 08:07:46 PM
None of NY 17 between US 220 and I-81 is designated I-86, despite overhead signage to the contrary. Ground mounted signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1192398,-75.9458282,3a,75y,356.27h,84.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNcHQFJJ9P_UsnTZTHOLteg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) has rather permanent looking (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1196324,-75.9545135,3a,41.4y,44.08h,95.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DsJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D341.1531%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) TO banners.
Do you know if they've at least 'officially' made the I-81/I-86 overlap official? Most of the signage there seems like it's good to go per StreetView. Only asking for TM reasons. lol.
https://goo.gl/maps/He3jfMne4LdxV8S8A
If you've been on the overlap, I think as long as you have I-81 logged TM should automatically give you credit for all concurrent routes.
We still have the 'Future' I-86 along I-81 right now. That's why I asked if I-86 along it was official so we could extend 'I-86Bin' along I-81 instead.
There's this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.108007,-75.846454,3a,31.7y,262.4h,91.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdeg-LB46CeZAufB_b4XFrw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), but it looks like everything else involving the I-81 overlap lacks to TO banner (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1139311,-75.8809674,3a,29.6y,140.35h,97.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-jn9QEkKGB1cT9FQZ6WY-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Maybe it's since been removed or was an oversight?
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 23, 2022, 09:12:37 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 23, 2022, 09:34:36 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 23, 2022, 02:15:46 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 22, 2022, 08:07:46 PM
None of NY 17 between US 220 and I-81 is designated I-86, despite overhead signage to the contrary. Ground mounted signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1192398,-75.9458282,3a,75y,356.27h,84.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNcHQFJJ9P_UsnTZTHOLteg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) has rather permanent looking (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1196324,-75.9545135,3a,41.4y,44.08h,95.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DsJEIvotYHp7tSpGGVy13-A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D341.1531%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) TO banners.
Do you know if they've at least 'officially' made the I-81/I-86 overlap official? Most of the signage there seems like it's good to go per StreetView. Only asking for TM reasons. lol.
https://goo.gl/maps/He3jfMne4LdxV8S8A
If you've been on the overlap, I think as long as you have I-81 logged TM should automatically give you credit for all concurrent routes.
We still have the 'Future' I-86 along I-81 right now. That's why I asked if I-86 along it was official so we could extend 'I-86Bin' along I-81 instead.
Oh, OK, got it - didn't realize you were referring to the site itself, not your own travels. :D
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2022, 08:28:22 PM
Then there is I-678 in Camden and I-68 in Cumberland that are not quite up to it either.
Must be a long tunnel under JFK and a long causeway across Raritan Bay that they built :bigass:
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 23, 2022, 09:35:01 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2022, 08:28:22 PM
Then there is I-678 in Camden and I-68 in Cumberland that are not quite up to it either.
Must be a long tunnel under JFK and a long causeway across Raritan Bay that they built :bigass:
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 23, 2022, 09:35:01 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2022, 08:28:22 PM
Then there is I-678 in Camden and I-68 in Cumberland that are not quite up to it either.
Must be a long tunnel under JFK and a long causeway across Raritan Bay that they built :bigass:
Typo. I-676 I mean. :bigass:
Quote from: Rothman on March 23, 2022, 06:42:48 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 23, 2022, 02:15:46 AM
Do you know if they've at least 'officially' made the I-81/I-86 overlap official? Most of the signage there seems like it's good to go per StreetView. Only asking for TM reasons. lol.
https://goo.gl/maps/He3jfMne4LdxV8S8A
Yes.
Right, so that's NYSDOT I presume.
Just for the sake of muddying the waters, what have FHWA & AASHTO had to say on the topic again?
Quote from: yakra on March 23, 2022, 09:44:40 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 23, 2022, 06:42:48 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 23, 2022, 02:15:46 AM
Do you know if they've at least 'officially' made the I-81/I-86 overlap official? Most of the signage there seems like it's good to go per StreetView. Only asking for TM reasons. lol.
https://goo.gl/maps/He3jfMne4LdxV8S8A
Yes.
Right, so that's NYSDOT I presume.
Just for the sake of muddying the waters, what have FHWA & AASHTO had to say on the topic again?
Huh? It's designated along that short portion. That's all there is to it.
Has anyone noticed that the NY-17 shields in Tioga County are actually covering up I-86 shields? If you look carefully at the back of the 17 shield on google street view, you can see the outline of the interstate shield.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0592813,-76.1378721,3a,15y,253.82h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCVBi5YxyOgfs2AWjTlQD1g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: dzheng35 on March 23, 2022, 11:33:59 PM
Has anyone noticed that the NY-17 shields in Tioga County are actually covering up I-86 shields? If you look carefully at the back of the 17 shield on google street view, you can see the outline of the interstate shield.
link (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0592813,-76.1378721,3a,15y,253.82h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCVBi5YxyOgfs2AWjTlQD1g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Wow, that's an old-looking shield. What font is that? I'm not sure I've seen it before.
The EAST banner appears to be covered up as well (or maybe just extremely faded).
Are there plans to de-commission NY 17? I noticed further west that NY 17 signage has been getting sparse and not being replaced - in lieu of just using I-86 shields.
It wouldn't surprise me. Once all of NY 17 becomes Interstate 86 (if it ever happens), NY 17 should probably be truncated to Exit 131, and only exist from Harriman southward.
Decommissioning routes on NY makes a lot of people groan, even when it is the obvious thing to do. I am not sure of the details of the total process, but it can take a very long time.
Well, I guess we'll need to keep NY 17 through the Allegany Reservation, too.
Quote from: seicer on March 24, 2022, 09:23:24 AM
Are there plans to de-commission NY 17? I noticed further west that NY 17 signage has been getting sparse and not being replaced - in lieu of just using I-86 shields.
See if a certain CJ weighs in on this...
CJ has stated on a few occasions that he is in the process of replacing NY 17 shields with none on signs.
Quote from: seicer on March 24, 2022, 09:23:24 AM
Are there plans to de-commission NY 17? I noticed further west that NY 17 signage has been getting sparse and not being replaced - in lieu of just using I-86 shields.
Not just "not being replaced" , but being actively removed. There was a publicly-bid project last year to remove the ground- mounted NY 17 signs along the expressway in Steuben County. The only NY 17 signs left in the county, I think, are on some BGS at the Hornell and Corning-area exits.
We'll always have the reference markers
Interesting - I wonder how the Allegany Reservation issue will be resolved. Could they just use "TO I-86" shields? It wouldn't be any different than what was done with the West Virginia Turnpike in the 1970s and 1980s, or with I-93 through the Notch.
Quote from: seicer on March 25, 2022, 04:15:48 PM
Interesting - I wonder how the Allegany Reservation issue will be resolved. Could they just use "TO I-86" shields? It wouldn't be any different than what was done with the West Virginia Turnpike in the 1970s and 1980s, or with I-93 through the Notch.
There is still this assembly within their Reservation (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1010133,-78.8392461,3a,15.4y,82.48h,88.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soOYtmAbNUys_Cdj2zmRjjQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) that features only an I-86 shield and a Southern Tier Expy shield, but with a NY-17 enhanced mile marker in the background.
There is also this I-86 enhanced mile marker (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1052967,-78.7900544,3a,34.3y,272.67h,85.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_MAzT4-pzUgcsIgBoS1ZLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) located about 1/10ths of a mile inside of the "Welcome to Allegany Reservation" sign.
Those look new. I moved out of New York state a while back and when I was last through there, there were just posts for shields and mileposts that had been removed.
I think the Southern Tier Expy signs are kind of cool. I hope they get put up on the whole route eventually.
That's only the name 1 for one segment. The rest is the Quickway, which is 100% unofficial.
I found a 1951 article explaining the reconstruction of NY 17 to provide a ultra-modern "Quickway." It seemed to have been an unofficial designation by proponents of the route, a take on the New York "Thruway."
Check out some early graphics of the "quickway" in Binghamton from 1957, where the "quickway" was described as an unofficial term:
(https://i.imgur.com/RB22dpJ.png)
Later articles describe it either as "quickway" or "Quickway," but never in any official capacity. It seemed to have been a marketing term and was an easy way to differentiate the old road from the new.
How fast do people really drive in the 55 MPH sections on the quickway section? Because no one drives that slow and based on my experience in 55 mph zones on other freeways, even 60-65 in a 55 can sometimes be a crawl and there's is a chance that I may end up driving on the quickway this summer? So to anyone who's driven on the quickway before, can anyone tell me how fast people really drive in low speed limit areas and how much tolerance do cops give before they mess with you to help me decide how fast I could really get away with. Thanks.
The 55 mph zone is quite long, much longer than the section with at-grades. Traffic might slow down a little through Hale Eddy, but not much. Like most 55 mph freeways in NY, you will get traffic going up to 75 or so. I would say anything under 70 mph should be fine for the most part, maybe under 65 if you want to play it extra safe.
The last time I was on that section it was crawling with cops, so that probably says something about how little people slow down there. And yes, going even 60 there feels really slow.
Quote from: vdeane on March 26, 2022, 06:04:58 PM
The last time I was on that section it was crawling with cops, so that probably says something about how little people slow down there. And yes, going even 60 there feels really slow.
Did the cops pull people over?
Quote from: dzheng35 on March 26, 2022, 06:06:04 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 26, 2022, 06:04:58 PM
The last time I was on that section it was crawling with cops, so that probably says something about how little people slow down there. And yes, going even 60 there feels really slow.
Did the cops pull people over?
I would presume so. They were in the median and other places laying in wait.
At one point, I posted information about the 85% percentile speeds for NY 17's 55 MPH sections and they were in the 70 MPH range.
Yes, speed enforcement is frequent and visible on the 55-mph sections, especially in the town of Hancock (which is very large). People do go normal freeway speeds, so probably close to 65, but of course they are constantly braking whenever a cop appears. (Then again, so do those who are going 55...)
Quote from: webny99 on March 24, 2022, 08:07:06 AM
Quote from: dzheng35 on March 23, 2022, 11:33:59 PM
Has anyone noticed that the NY-17 shields in Tioga County are actually covering up I-86 shields? If you look carefully at the back of the 17 shield on google street view, you can see the outline of the interstate shield.
link (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0592813,-76.1378721,3a,15y,253.82h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCVBi5YxyOgfs2AWjTlQD1g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Wow, that's an old-looking shield. What font is that? I'm not sure I've seen it before.
The EAST banner appears to be covered up as well (or maybe just extremely faded).
It looks like they've been recycling a bunch of old signs for the covers (R9 used to have a lot of the old-style NY 17 shields up through Delaware and Sullivan Counties, IIRC). I think I've posted this before, but the chopped-up STE shield to cover the direction banner always upsets me a little when I pass it: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0714712,-76.1510939,3a,75y,342.41h,88.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYiDj2GWjs4fNxNKyrv7fKQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: empirestate on March 26, 2022, 09:39:08 PM
Yes, speed enforcement is frequent and visible on the 55-mph sections, especially in the town of Hancock (which is very large). People do go normal freeway speeds, so probably close to 65, but of course they are constantly braking whenever a cop appears. (Then again, so do those who are going 55...)
Outside of hale eddy, are there plans to raise the speed limit in the 55 mph zone areas?
^ Given it's New York, and highways such as I-495 on Long Island are still subject to outdated 55 mph limits, I'm going to guess no.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2022, 02:26:29 AM
^ Given it's New York, and highways such as I-495 on Long Island are still subject to outdated 55 mph limits, I'm going to guess no.
I think if/when it's ever completed, and more importantly, signed as I-86, the limit will be raised to 65 mph along the whole route. For a would-be interstate route, it's too rural to leave at 55 mph, even relative to egregious 55 mph zones on Long Island, etc.
Probably not, this being New York and maximum speed limits are only at 65 MPH for the most empty of freeways. Even with a 85% percentile of around 70 MPH for much of the mountainous segments, 55 MPH is too low. The argument could be made that there are curves, but they are not -that- numerous to justify a 55 MPH speed limit for 44 miles. Advisory signs can work just as well.
See also: West Virginia Turnpike which has a 60 MPH limit and West Virginia's corridor routes which have many more curves, steep grades, and intersections and have a 65 MPH limit.
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2022, 08:35:04 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2022, 02:26:29 AM
^ Given it's New York, and highways such as I-495 on Long Island are still subject to outdated 55 mph limits, I'm going to guess no.
I think if/when it's ever completed, and more importantly, signed as I-86, the limit will be raised to 65 mph along the whole route. For a would-be interstate route, it's too rural to leave at 55 mph, even relative to egregious 55 mph zones on Long Island, etc.
Why wait? Just raise it now. No one drives 55.
Quote from: dzheng35 on March 31, 2022, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2022, 08:35:04 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2022, 02:26:29 AM
^ Given it's New York, and highways such as I-495 on Long Island are still subject to outdated 55 mph limits, I'm going to guess no.
I think if/when it's ever completed, and more importantly, signed as I-86, the limit will be raised to 65 mph along the whole route. For a would-be interstate route, it's too rural to leave at 55 mph, even relative to egregious 55 mph zones on Long Island, etc.
Why wait? Just raise it now. No one drives 55.
And did you even think about
kids localities fiscally depending on fines?!
Quote from: dzheng35 on March 31, 2022, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2022, 08:35:04 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2022, 02:26:29 AM
^ Given it's New York, and highways such as I-495 on Long Island are still subject to outdated 55 mph limits, I'm going to guess no.
I think if/when it's ever completed, and more importantly, signed as I-86, the limit will be raised to 65 mph along the whole route. For a would-be interstate route, it's too rural to leave at 55 mph, even relative to egregious 55 mph zones on Long Island, etc.
Why wait? Just raise it now. No one drives 55.
Most of the 55 mph section could be raised now, but Hale Eddy would have to remain at 55 mph as NY currently does not post anything higher than 55 on non-freeways.
Quote from: kalvado on March 31, 2022, 10:41:06 AM
Quote from: dzheng35 on March 31, 2022, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2022, 08:35:04 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2022, 02:26:29 AM
^ Given it's New York, and highways such as I-495 on Long Island are still subject to outdated 55 mph limits, I'm going to guess no.
I think if/when it's ever completed, and more importantly, signed as I-86, the limit will be raised to 65 mph along the whole route. For a would-be interstate route, it's too rural to leave at 55 mph, even relative to egregious 55 mph zones on Long Island, etc.
Why wait? Just raise it now. No one drives 55.
And did you even think about kids localities fiscally depending on fines?!
Think of the children!
I've been off the forum for a while, so addressing a few things that popped up...
Re: the CJ mention, he has said that NY 17 is no longer on anything designated I-86, at least in Regions 5 and 6. I'd believe him on that. This is also why signs have been slowly disappearing west of Waverly- it's no longer 17 and NYSDOT is doing everything possible to make signs refer solely to I-86. From my own observations, there are very few 17 shields left in Regions 5 and 6. NY 15 was truncated as well and the signs along the former 86/390 overlaps are disappearing with sign replacements.
Re: the Delaware County 55 section, that is strictly enforced in my experience, to the point where I'm hesitant to go much above 60. Only good place in Delaware County to run speed traps on a remotely busy road, so...
Quote from: cl94 on March 31, 2022, 09:07:47 PM
I've been off the forum for a while, so addressing a few things that popped up...
Re: the CJ mention, he has said that NY 17 is no longer on anything designated I-86, at least in Regions 5 and 6. I'd believe him on that. This is also why signs have been slowly disappearing west of Waverly- it's no longer 17 and NYSDOT is doing everything possible to make signs refer solely to I-86. From my own observations, there are very few 17 shields left in Regions 5 and 6. NY 15 was truncated as well and the signs along the former 86/390 overlaps are disappearing with sign replacements.
Re: the Delaware County 55 section, that is strictly enforced in my experience, to the point where I'm hesitant to go much above 60. Only good place in Delaware County to run speed traps on a remotely busy road, so...
How much leeway do they give from your experience? If they're strict than I'd argue with them about it because there's no way it can't be signed higher besides hale eddy and I think DOT needs to do it now. Not after I-86. Like I said 55 is just way too low and who's going to drive 55 again like I said before.
Quote from: dzheng35 on April 01, 2022, 12:24:30 AM
How much leeway do they give from your experience? If they're strict than I'd argue with them about it because there's no way it can't be signed higher besides hale eddy and I think DOT needs to do it now. Not after I-86. Like I said 55 is just way too low and who's going to drive 55 again like I said before.
I actually do go right at the speed limit sometimes when I want to clear out the traffic behind me. But that's not likely to come up on this part of 17 (works better on, say, the Merritt Parkway). :D
I've been thinking, do the steep grades between exits 111 and 115 get an exemption due to it being so mountainous and that there would be too much property takings and other work to shallow out the grade.
Also, are the covered I-86 shields in Orange County still there today, or have they been taken down?
Quote from: dzheng35 on April 02, 2022, 01:19:36 PM
Also, are the covered I-86 shields in Orange County still there today, or have they been taken down?
Yes and no. I live in the area and since the reconstruction between 17K and I-84, there has always been a weird mix of covered and uncovered signs. Some signs that were originally covered have had their covers fall off, like this one on 17 WB just before Exit 120:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4536058,-74.3730032,3a,75y,335.09h,90.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skHS_DJ7WpIwymsgxJE9lug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4536058,-74.3730032,3a,75y,335.09h,90.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skHS_DJ7WpIwymsgxJE9lug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Some time around around 2015, new 2 mile, 1 mile, 1/2 mile Exit BGSs were put up on I-84 for former exit 4W, now 19B. All of them have always had uncovered I-86 shields, like this one on I-84 WB one mile from the exit:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4600187,-74.3487441,3a,75y,229.78h,98.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siQuvgOGUatslU6IVe-Drng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4600187,-74.3487441,3a,75y,229.78h,98.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siQuvgOGUatslU6IVe-Drng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Exits 116, 118, and 119 have had uncovered I-86 shields since the reconstruction:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.55225,-74.422911,3a,75y,293.27h,87.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBlICO0GAGcVh7Vpo42C5Gg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.55225,-74.422911,3a,75y,293.27h,87.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBlICO0GAGcVh7Vpo42C5Gg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5206221,-74.4137232,3a,75y,245.34h,87.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su9jPuR067wCn1lMbyZ24yw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5206221,-74.4137232,3a,75y,245.34h,87.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su9jPuR067wCn1lMbyZ24yw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4959894,-74.4003478,3a,75y,230.1h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv_gd3xuqYJ4OgZjONLiX9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4959894,-74.4003478,3a,75y,230.1h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv_gd3xuqYJ4OgZjONLiX9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
On Route 211, all of the I-86 shields are still covered, except the junction signs, which, unlike every other exit in the area, are side-by-side, seen here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4624415,-74.3749916,3a,75y,233.48h,80.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLxCcaAct7F_NSa6PUQ8z5w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4624415,-74.3749916,3a,75y,233.48h,80.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLxCcaAct7F_NSa6PUQ8z5w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
And finally, after phase 1 of the exit 122 reconstruction, I-86 shields were included in the new sign emplacements along East Main St / Crystal Run Road, like this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.445426,-74.3610063,3a,75y,347.61h,85.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6pxvbg6xNxQY3IeQ6FHSaw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.445426,-74.3610063,3a,75y,347.61h,85.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6pxvbg6xNxQY3IeQ6FHSaw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
As an aside, I'm not looking forward to the
construction of the proposed widening project. But, as someone who uses 17 through this area nearly every day, I can definitely tell you I'm looking forward to the finished product. Some days, around PM rush hour especially, there's so much traffic.
Quote from: deg2800 on June 01, 2022, 09:39:59 PM
Quote from: dzheng35 on April 02, 2022, 01:19:36 PM
Also, are the covered I-86 shields in Orange County still there today, or have they been taken down?
Yes and no. I live in the area and since the reconstruction between 17K and I-84, there has always been a weird mix of covered and uncovered signs. Some signs that were originally covered have had their covers fall off, like this one on 17 WB just before Exit 120:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4536058,-74.3730032,3a,75y,335.09h,90.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skHS_DJ7WpIwymsgxJE9lug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4536058,-74.3730032,3a,75y,335.09h,90.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skHS_DJ7WpIwymsgxJE9lug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Some time around around 2015, new 2 mile, 1 mile, 1/2 mile Exit BGSs were put up on I-84 for former exit 4W, now 19B. All of them have always had uncovered I-86 shields, like this one on I-84 WB one mile from the exit:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4600187,-74.3487441,3a,75y,229.78h,98.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siQuvgOGUatslU6IVe-Drng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4600187,-74.3487441,3a,75y,229.78h,98.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siQuvgOGUatslU6IVe-Drng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Exits 116, 118, and 119 have had uncovered I-86 shields since the reconstruction:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.55225,-74.422911,3a,75y,293.27h,87.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBlICO0GAGcVh7Vpo42C5Gg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.55225,-74.422911,3a,75y,293.27h,87.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBlICO0GAGcVh7Vpo42C5Gg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5206221,-74.4137232,3a,75y,245.34h,87.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su9jPuR067wCn1lMbyZ24yw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5206221,-74.4137232,3a,75y,245.34h,87.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su9jPuR067wCn1lMbyZ24yw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4959894,-74.4003478,3a,75y,230.1h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv_gd3xuqYJ4OgZjONLiX9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4959894,-74.4003478,3a,75y,230.1h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv_gd3xuqYJ4OgZjONLiX9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
On Route 211, all of the I-86 shields are still covered, except the junction signs, which, unlike every other exit in the area, are side-by-side, seen here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4624415,-74.3749916,3a,75y,233.48h,80.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLxCcaAct7F_NSa6PUQ8z5w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4624415,-74.3749916,3a,75y,233.48h,80.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLxCcaAct7F_NSa6PUQ8z5w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
And finally, after phase 1 of the exit 122 reconstruction, I-86 shields were included in the new sign emplacements along East Main St / Crystal Run Road, like this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.445426,-74.3610063,3a,75y,347.61h,85.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6pxvbg6xNxQY3IeQ6FHSaw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.445426,-74.3610063,3a,75y,347.61h,85.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6pxvbg6xNxQY3IeQ6FHSaw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
As an aside, I'm not looking forward to the construction of the proposed widening project. But, as someone who uses 17 through this area nearly every day, I can definitely tell you I'm looking forward to the finished product. Some days, around PM rush hour especially, there's so much traffic.
AFAIK, the FHWA has not yet given NYSDOT the green light to sign the Middletown section of Route 17 as I-86. Signs should be covered, but it looks like some of the covers have fallen off, or they forgot to cover them.
https://goo.gl/maps/LULDhsAfcWZWdCpTA
https://goo.gl/maps/uDMPA843PJYb2u3V7
Well Crystal Run is uncovered too. In two locations.
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 01, 2022, 10:39:21 PM
AFAIK, the FHWA has not yet given NYSDOT the green light to sign the Middletown section of Route 17 as I-86. Signs should be covered, but it looks like some of the covers have fallen off, or they forgot to cover them.
Nobody's given NYSDOT the green light to sign US 6 and US 202 as state routes, either, but yet here we are. :-P
Quote from: empirestate on June 02, 2022, 10:48:02 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 01, 2022, 10:39:21 PM
AFAIK, the FHWA has not yet given NYSDOT the green light to sign the Middletown section of Route 17 as I-86. Signs should be covered, but it looks like some of the covers have fallen off, or they forgot to cover them.
Nobody's given NYSDOT the green light to sign US 6 and US 202 as state routes, either, but yet here we are. :-P
NY-44 and NY-209 have something to say too :D
I drove on the Southern Tier Expressway today from exit 54 to 36 and back while google maps hasn't been updated yet, I noticed today that a lot if not all of the I-86/NY-17/NY-15 shields have been replaced with standalone I-86 shields with the southern tier expressway shield underneath the just simply marks the road as I-86 Southern Tier Expressway. I guess DOT finally took the guts to remove some of the NY-17 and NY-15 shields along that stretch.
Quote from: dzheng35 on June 04, 2022, 11:29:40 PM
I drove on the Southern Tier Expressway today from exit 54 to 36 and back while google maps hasn't been updated yet, I noticed today that a lot if not all of the I-86/NY-17/NY-15 shields have been replaced with standalone I-86 shields with the southern tier expressway shield underneath the just simply marks the road as I-86 Southern Tier Expressway. I guess DOT finally took the guts to remove some of the NY-17 and NY-15 shields along that stretch.
Yes, our roadgeek at Region 6 said NY 17 is being de-signed west of US 220. NY 15 was officially truncated to Wayland in the 70s and, as far as NYSDOT is concerned, NY 17 does not exist west of 220.
NYSDOT Region 5 stopped signing NY 17 a while back, so yeah.
I'll know NY 17 is officially gone when the atrocities at I-99 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1499592,-77.1035995,3a,75y,44.47h,87.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suNtDBjyAH7MYPtIyUdtBWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) are finally gone (they were still there as of mid-April). Those signs are honestly my least-favorite thing about I-99 and I can't wait until it's just I-86 posted there.
Makes sense. Why sign two routes when one is needed.
Should be interesting east of Harriman. I say that cause NY 32 could be extended to Suffern and let NJ 17 be just NJ 17 south of I-287.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 06, 2022, 12:23:12 AM
Should be interesting east of Harriman. I say that cause NY 32 could be extended to Suffern and let NJ 17 be just NJ 17 south of I-287.
If and when I-86 ever gets to Harriman, I'm not sure what they will do. Logically, NYSDOT should axe NY-17 altogether and extend NY-32, but at the same time, keeping NY-17 south of Harriman saves money and also allows them to keep NY-17A and NY-17M, since they would still connect to their parent once. Either way, I would imagine NY-17C and NY-17K get renumbered, else they would be orphaned or disconnected.
Quote from: cockroachking on June 06, 2022, 09:39:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 06, 2022, 12:23:12 AM
Should be interesting east of Harriman. I say that cause NY 32 could be extended to Suffern and let NJ 17 be just NJ 17 south of I-287.
If and when I-86 ever gets to Harriman, I'm not sure what they will do. Logically, NYSDOT should axe NY-17 altogether and extend NY-32, but at the same time, keeping NY-17 south of Harriman saves money and also allows them to keep NY-17A and NY-17M, since they would still connect to their parent once. Either way, I would imagine NY-17K gets renumbered, else it would be orphaned or disconnected.
I would personally like to see a Historic NY 17 given the importance of NY 17 to New York's Southern Tier. Perhaps it could be used on the lettered routes. Or just put NY 17 on the local route.
Quote from: cockroachking on June 06, 2022, 09:39:22 AM
If and when I-86 ever gets to Harriman, I'm not sure what they will do. Logically, NYSDOT should axe NY-17 altogether and extend NY-32, but at the same time, keeping NY-17 south of Harriman saves money and also allows them to keep NY-17A and NY-17M, since they would still connect to their parent once. Either way, I would imagine NY-17C and NY-17K get renumbered, else they would be orphaned or disconnected.
Doesn't stop NHDOT. (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=nh.nh101e) ;)
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 06, 2022, 09:52:15 AM
I would personally like to see a Historic NY 17 given the importance of NY 17 to New York's Southern Tier. Perhaps it could be used on the lettered routes. Or just put NY 17 on the local route.
Are there parts of old NY17 signed as CR17?
Quote from: cockroachking on June 06, 2022, 09:39:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 06, 2022, 12:23:12 AM
Should be interesting east of Harriman. I say that cause NY 32 could be extended to Suffern and let NJ 17 be just NJ 17 south of I-287.
If and when I-86 ever gets to Harriman, I'm not sure what they will do. Logically, NYSDOT should axe NY-17 altogether and extend NY-32, but at the same time, keeping NY-17 south of Harriman saves money and also allows them to keep NY-17A and NY-17M, since they would still connect to their parent once. Either way, I would imagine NY-17C and NY-17K get renumbered, else they would be orphaned or disconnected.
17B, 17C and 17K would be orphaned. Of course, 17K wasn't 17K originally either (was NY 215 originally).
That said, NYSDOT may choose to do nothing and leave the 3 routes orphaned and 17 magically becoming 32. I know I've suggested you could have 17 eat 17M. (My solution is to just burn I-86, especially east of 81.)
Quote from: yakra on June 06, 2022, 10:51:42 AM
Are there parts of old NY17 signed as CR17?
Delaware County is old 17 becoming CR 17. Sullivan is CR 171-179 in a bunch of differing sections.
Quote from: cl94 on June 05, 2022, 12:10:47 PM
Quote from: dzheng35 on June 04, 2022, 11:29:40 PM
I drove on the Southern Tier Expressway today from exit 54 to 36 and back while google maps hasn't been updated yet, I noticed today that a lot if not all of the I-86/NY-17/NY-15 shields have been replaced with standalone I-86 shields with the southern tier expressway shield underneath the just simply marks the road as I-86 Southern Tier Expressway. I guess DOT finally took the guts to remove some of the NY-17 and NY-15 shields along that stretch.
Yes, our roadgeek at Region 6 said NY 17 is being de-signed west of US 220. NY 15 was officially truncated to Wayland in the 70s and, as far as NYSDOT is concerned, NY 17 does not exist west of 220.
NYSDOT Region 5 stopped signing NY 17 a while back, so yeah.
Are they replacing the I-86 signs too or are they just simply going to remove the 17 signs? I suppose they could just remove the 17 signs and leave the existing 86 signs there as it would be a waste of money to replace them too when they don't really need to be replaced at all.
Erm...
This...may be happening after all...
(personal opinion emphasized)
Which part? The removal of NY 17 signs west of US 220?
Quote from: seicer on July 01, 2022, 09:24:03 AM
Which part? The removal of NY 17 signs west of US 220?
My understanding is that NYSDOT is going to apply for federal discretionary grants to get more conversion projects funded. So, if those grants come through, we may actually see more progress on converting NY 17 to I-86.
Of course, I-81 was shot down for an INFRA grant and I haven't heard of any other grants I-81 has been successful in obtaining, so who knows how the fickle FHWA decides who gets funding and who does not.
So, there's a slim chance there may be more movement in a few years.
Quote from: Rothman on July 01, 2022, 09:53:21 AM
Quote from: seicer on July 01, 2022, 09:24:03 AM
Which part? The removal of NY 17 signs west of US 220?
My understanding is that NYSDOT is going to apply for federal discretionary grants to get more conversion projects funded. So, if those grants come through, we may actually see more progress on converting NY 17 to I-86.
Of course, I-81 was shot down for an INFRA grant and I haven't heard of any other grants I-81 has been successful in obtaining, so who knows how the fickle FHWA decides who gets funding and who does not.
So, there's a slim chance there may be more movement in a few years.
Which part of I-81 was shot down? Syracuse thing or something else?
Quote from: kalvado on July 01, 2022, 09:55:56 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 01, 2022, 09:53:21 AM
Quote from: seicer on July 01, 2022, 09:24:03 AM
Which part? The removal of NY 17 signs west of US 220?
My understanding is that NYSDOT is going to apply for federal discretionary grants to get more conversion projects funded. So, if those grants come through, we may actually see more progress on converting NY 17 to I-86.
Of course, I-81 was shot down for an INFRA grant and I haven't heard of any other grants I-81 has been successful in obtaining, so who knows how the fickle FHWA decides who gets funding and who does not.
So, there's a slim chance there may be more movement in a few years.
Which part of I-81 was shot down? Syracuse thing or something else?
Pfft. There is no I-81 outside of Syracuse.
Quote from: Rothman on July 01, 2022, 11:00:54 AM
Quote from: kalvado on July 01, 2022, 09:55:56 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 01, 2022, 09:53:21 AM
Quote from: seicer on July 01, 2022, 09:24:03 AM
Which part? The removal of NY 17 signs west of US 220?
My understanding is that NYSDOT is going to apply for federal discretionary grants to get more conversion projects funded. So, if those grants come through, we may actually see more progress on converting NY 17 to I-86.
Of course, I-81 was shot down for an INFRA grant and I haven't heard of any other grants I-81 has been successful in obtaining, so who knows how the fickle FHWA decides who gets funding and who does not.
So, there's a slim chance there may be more movement in a few years.
Which part of I-81 was shot down? Syracuse thing or something else?
Pfft. There is no I-81 outside of Syracuse.
As I said, I fully expect viaduct to collapse before something happened.
On a separate note, someone in DC told me that there is no life outside of the beltway...
NY-17 EIS, Orange and Sullivan Counties (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=806512)
Exit 122 Phase 2 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=806510)
Fingers crossed.
Quote from: cockroachking on July 01, 2022, 11:21:49 AM
NY-17 EIS, Orange and Sullivan Counties (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=806512)
Exit 122 Phase 2 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=806510)
Fingers crossed.
Eesh. "Future Development" status. Must be obsolete information.
Gotcha - I wish there were project plans posted on NYSDOT's website. I would assume it would be projects that were more easily achievable - excluding the Hale Eddy segment.
The Exit 122 project is basically a mirror of what was done on the EB side. The stub for the future ramps is there.
Quote from: seicer on July 01, 2022, 05:20:01 PM
Gotcha - I wish there were project plans posted on NYSDOT's website. I would assume it would be projects that were more easily achievable - excluding the Hale Eddy segment.
There aren't going to be plans for projects marked for future development. By the way, that's a PR term and I am wondering what the real project status is. Either way, if still considered a program candidate or in development, no work on the project has been done at all (not even scoping or preliminary design).
That description for the exit 122 project is kinda hokey.
Quote
The work will include moving and replacing the Crystal Run Road over State Route 17 bridge to a location closer to the WallKill River.
They just did that for the first part of the project (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4409185,-74.3607655,3a,25.7y,331.68h,91.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEE2SwygoPOPbpf2kIlamNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) a decade ago.
For Hale Edd
Quote from: Rothman on July 01, 2022, 07:31:29 PM
Quote from: seicer on July 01, 2022, 05:20:01 PM
Gotcha - I wish there were project plans posted on NYSDOT's website. I would assume it would be projects that were more easily achievable - excluding the Hale Eddy segment.
There aren't going to be plans for projects marked for future development. By the way, that's a PR term and I am wondering what the real project status is. Either way, if still considered a program candidate or in development, no work on the project has been done at all (not even scoping or preliminary design).
For Hale Eddy? I saw what looked like preliminary plans that showed the preferred alignment generally on the north side of NY 17. I can't find those pages anymore.
Quote from: seicer on July 01, 2022, 08:24:23 PM
For Hale EddQuote from: Rothman on July 01, 2022, 07:31:29 PM
Quote from: seicer on July 01, 2022, 05:20:01 PM
Gotcha - I wish there were project plans posted on NYSDOT's website. I would assume it would be projects that were more easily achievable - excluding the Hale Eddy segment.
There aren't going to be plans for projects marked for future development. By the way, that's a PR term and I am wondering what the real project status is. Either way, if still considered a program candidate or in development, no work on the project has been done at all (not even scoping or preliminary design).
For Hale Eddy? I saw what looked like preliminary plans that showed the preferred alignment generally on the north side of NY 17. I can't find those pages anymore.
Not sure if Hale Eddy started before NYSDOT went to Preservation First. By now, I'd imagine they hit the old 10 year PE rule (which may have been recently repealed, thank goodness).
I'll be damned - it's still up but it's from 2009. What do you mean by the PE rule?
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock/project-documentation
Quote from: seicer on July 01, 2022, 10:05:10 PM
I'll be damned - it's still up but it's from 2009. What do you mean by the PE rule?
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock/project-documentation
My word, look at the dates on there. Lots of crap on the site, it seems.
FHWA had a rule that projects had to progress to ROW acquisition or construction within 10 years of engineering authorization or you had to pay the engineering back.
Quote from: Rothman on July 01, 2022, 11:00:54 AM
Quote from: kalvado on July 01, 2022, 09:55:56 AM
Which part of I-81 was shot down? Syracuse thing or something else?
Pfft. There is no I-81 outside of Syracuse.
To be fair... if the project progresses as planned, there will be no I-81
in Syracuse either.
Quote from: webny99 on July 02, 2022, 10:23:19 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 01, 2022, 11:00:54 AM
Quote from: kalvado on July 01, 2022, 09:55:56 AM
Which part of I-81 was shot down? Syracuse thing or something else?
Pfft. There is no I-81 outside of Syracuse.
To be fair... if the project progresses as planned, there will be no I-81 in Syracuse either.
Sure, there will. It'll still clip the southeast corner of Syracuse.
As of 2022, in Western NY, most of the overhead signs on NY-17 or I-86 just say I-86 now, and not NY-17. Personally, I have been traveling on NY-17 for a while now, and I would hate to see it get phased out. My grandpa said when he used to go from CT to western NY, he would travel on 17 (aka the Quickway) and every time he would travel it, there would be a new exit and it would be built further. I think that they should either still keep the 17 signs with the 86 signs, or do something like a historic route 17 because it is the longest state route in NY.
If you ever plan to motor west...
Will be riding on I-86 today going with my son’s Boy Scout troop to summer camp in the Catskills for this week. Looks like we will drive all of the officially signed portion of I-86.
Will see if I see anything noteworthy.
Will this sign be replaced before they are allowed to take off the I-86 overlay?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52125331026_67bf01dca8_k.jpg)
Quote from: TMETSJETSYT on July 08, 2022, 11:28:33 AM
I think that they should either still keep the 17 signs with the 86 signs, or do something like a historic route 17 because it is the longest state route in NY.
You're welcome to join my 20-year-old initiative to Preserve NY 17 (http://empirestateroads.com/travel/ny17/preserve.html). :D
NYSDOT is not a fan of the historic signs. As is the one on US 20 in Alden is an Alden installation.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 09, 2022, 09:25:12 PM
NYSDOT is not a fan of the historic signs. As is the one on US 20 in Alden is an Alden installation.
Yeah, the 20 ones elsewhere in the state have been taken down. I don't know why Region 5 is letting the Alden ones stick around.
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on July 09, 2022, 02:38:29 PM
Will be riding on I-86 today going with my son's Boy Scout troop to summer camp in the Catskills for this week. Looks like we will drive all of the officially signed portion of I-86.
I will be traveling 17-86 from junction with I-390 to Junction with I-84. Ill get pictures of new signage or anything new for I-86.
Quote from: cl94 on July 09, 2022, 10:39:22 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 09, 2022, 09:25:12 PM
NYSDOT is not a fan of the historic signs. As is the one on US 20 in Alden is an Alden installation.
Yeah, the 20 ones elsewhere in the state have been taken down. I don't know why Region 5 is letting the Alden ones stick around.
I personally find Historic 20 shields on 20 itself a bit stupid. Old alignment of 20? Fine. Current 20? Not so amazing.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 12, 2022, 10:47:28 AM
Quote from: cl94 on July 09, 2022, 10:39:22 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 09, 2022, 09:25:12 PM
NYSDOT is not a fan of the historic signs. As is the one on US 20 in Alden is an Alden installation.
Yeah, the 20 ones elsewhere in the state have been taken down. I don't know why Region 5 is letting the Alden ones stick around.
I personally find Historic 20 shields on 20 itself a bit stupid. Old alignment of 20? Fine. Current 20? Not so amazing.
ask the person who is responsible who is a forum member and will read this
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 12, 2022, 10:47:28 AM
I personally find Historic 20 shields on 20 itself a bit stupid. Old alignment of 20? Fine. Current 20? Not so amazing.
This used to be US20. It still is, but it used to be too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqHA5CIL0fg
Quote from: cockroachking on July 01, 2022, 11:21:49 AM
NY-17 EIS, Orange and Sullivan Counties (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=806512)
Exit 122 Phase 2 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=806510)
Fingers crossed.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/901339
Exit 105 too which construction btw has started.
I just noticed on the DOT website that it says that the exit 105 reconstruction project is already done. How is this possible for that project to be done so quickly if it has just started this year? Did they cancel it or what?
Quote from: dzheng35 on August 20, 2022, 03:47:34 AM
I just noticed on the DOT website that it says that the exit 105 reconstruction project is already done. How is this possible for that project to be done so quickly if it has just started this year? Did they cancel it or what?
Award of contract - 7/29/22
Original contract completion date - 12/31/24
Project completed - 8/5/22
My guess is either a site malfunction or something's up.
Quote from: vdeane on August 20, 2022, 10:08:05 AM
Quote from: dzheng35 on August 20, 2022, 03:47:34 AM
I just noticed on the DOT website that it says that the exit 105 reconstruction project is already done. How is this possible for that project to be done so quickly if it has just started this year? Did they cancel it or what?
Award of contract - 7/29/22
Original contract completion date - 12/31/24
Project completed - 8/5/22
My guess is either a site malfunction or something's up.
Nah, they must have had 10k people hired and on site to do it non-stop in a week. :sombrero:
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 20, 2022, 10:48:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 20, 2022, 10:08:05 AM
Quote from: dzheng35 on August 20, 2022, 03:47:34 AM
I just noticed on the DOT website that it says that the exit 105 reconstruction project is already done. How is this possible for that project to be done so quickly if it has just started this year? Did they cancel it or what?
Award of contract - 7/29/22
Original contract completion date - 12/31/24
Project completed - 8/5/22
My guess is either a site malfunction or something's up.
Nah, they must have had 10k people hired and on site to do it non-stop in a week. :sombrero:
Can concrete cure that fast, though?
Finished two years ahead of schedule too!
Quote from: seicer on August 23, 2022, 09:58:35 AM
Finished two years ahead of schedule too!
Project is successfully completed via cancellation of the project.
Quote from: dzheng35 on August 04, 2022, 03:52:24 PM
Quote from: cockroachking on July 01, 2022, 11:21:49 AM
NY-17 EIS, Orange and Sullivan Counties (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=806512)
Exit 122 Phase 2 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.DYN_PROJECT_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=p_pin&p_arg_values=806510)
Fingers crossed.
So is that now I-86?
https://www.dot.ny.gov/901339
Exit 105 too which construction btw has started.
Quote from: kalvado on August 23, 2022, 10:55:28 AM
Quote from: seicer on August 23, 2022, 09:58:35 AM
Finished two years ahead of schedule too!
Project is successfully completed via cancellation of the project.
And yet the Current Construction Contract Cost is still $30,868,999.
Quote from: GenExpwy on August 25, 2022, 07:45:32 AM
Quote from: kalvado on August 23, 2022, 10:55:28 AM
Quote from: seicer on August 23, 2022, 09:58:35 AM
Finished two years ahead of schedule too!
Project is successfully completed via cancellation of the project.
And yet the Current Construction Contract Cost is still $30,868,999.
Did they rounded cents off that number?
Quote from: dzheng35 on August 20, 2022, 03:47:34 AM
I just noticed on the DOT website that it says that the exit 105 reconstruction project is already done. How is this possible for that project to be done so quickly if it has just started this year? Did they cancel it or what?
I contacted Region 9 and received a response back earlier today - it's a site issue (which will be corrected), the project is still on track to being completed in fall 2024.
Project D264886 will replace the overhead signs at the I-86 — I-390 split. The westbound control city is changing from Jamestown to Erie.
Quote from: GenExpwy on September 16, 2022, 07:53:57 AM
Project D264886 will replace the overhead signs at the I-86 — I-390 split. The westbound control city is changing from Jamestown to Erie.
:clap: FINALLY! That has been a long time coming. Those signs are so old they still have
NY 15 signage (https://goo.gl/maps/UqNnCJ1nDfkJ3LU7A)!
And I'm on board with Erie being the control city. I didn't have as big of an issue with Jamestown as some, but Erie is my preference. Most of the entrances west of I-390 still use Jamestown, so it will probably be a while before Erie is fully implemented.
I have to wonder why Jamestown was ever used to being with as it's just not a major destination point for westbound traffic. They should've used Erie from the beginning.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on September 16, 2022, 08:58:36 AM
I have to wonder why Jamestown was ever used to being with as it's just not a major destination point for westbound traffic. They should've used Erie from the beginning.
I wonder how old those signs are? NY 17's freeway ended just west of Jamestown, tying in to NY 430. It wasn't until 1974 or thereabouts that the two-lane freeway opened west of Sherman, and 1982 between Sherman and (today's) NY 430, and it wasn't until 1988 that it opened to I-90 in Pennsylvania. Jamestown would have made sense then.
It looks like according to the sign plans that the entire structure is being replaced too: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=39446&p_is_digital=Y
No mention of revised interchange numbers (yet).
Quote from: seicer on September 16, 2022, 09:08:23 AM
It looks like according to the sign plans that the entire structure is being replaced too: https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=39446&p_is_digital=Y
Thanks for the link! I am glad to see that Buffalo will be removed from WB signage for I-390. It would make sense if there was better connectivity to Buffalo but until then, just Rochester is fine.
Quote from: GenExpwy on September 16, 2022, 07:53:57 AM
Project D264886 will replace the overhead signs at the I-86 — I-390 split. The westbound control city is changing from Jamestown to Erie.
And it looks like I-86 west to I-390 is finally being properly signed as Exit 36.
I look forward to the day it is numbered Exit 145.
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2022, 08:49:04 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on September 16, 2022, 07:53:57 AM
Project D264886 will replace the overhead signs at the I-86 — I-390 split. The westbound control city is changing from Jamestown to Erie.
And I'm on board with Erie being the control city. I didn't have as big of an issue with Jamestown as some, but Erie is my preference.
Meh, Cleveland would be an even better control city.
Also, if Jamestown will no longer be the WB control city, will it still be for EB? I feel like Corning is a little too small to sign from all the way in PA. Heck, I never even understood why Corning was signed on I-390 from all the way in Rochester.
Quote from: James on September 17, 2022, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2022, 08:49:04 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on September 16, 2022, 07:53:57 AM
Project D264886 will replace the overhead signs at the I-86 — I-390 split. The westbound control city is changing from Jamestown to Erie.
And I'm on board with Erie being the control city. I didn't have as big of an issue with Jamestown as some, but Erie is my preference.
Meh, Cleveland would be an even better control city.
Chicago!
Quote from: James on September 17, 2022, 04:35:55 PM
Also, if Jamestown will no longer be the WB control city, will it still be for EB? I feel like Corning is a little too small to sign from all the way in PA. Heck, I never even understood why Corning was signed on I-390 from all the way in Rochester.
Corning makes sense. It's an old (albeit smaller) industrial city at the intersection of two interstates, even if they weren't interstates in the original 1956 bill. I'd prefer Birmingham as an eastbound control city, but Corning is fine.
Quote from: Rothman on September 17, 2022, 05:14:01 PM
Quote from: James on September 17, 2022, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2022, 08:49:04 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on September 16, 2022, 07:53:57 AM
Project D264886 will replace the overhead signs at the I-86 — I-390 split. The westbound control city is changing from Jamestown to Erie.
And I'm on board with Erie being the control city. I didn't have as big of an issue with Jamestown as some, but Erie is my preference.
Meh, Cleveland would be an even better control city.
Chicago!
Seattle!
Although I would prefer Cleveland as well.
Quote from: kalvado on September 17, 2022, 06:50:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 17, 2022, 05:14:01 PM
Quote from: James on September 17, 2022, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2022, 08:49:04 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on September 16, 2022, 07:53:57 AM
Project D264886 will replace the overhead signs at the I-86 — I-390 split. The westbound control city is changing from Jamestown to Erie.
And I'm on board with Erie being the control city. I didn't have as big of an issue with Jamestown as some, but Erie is my preference.
Meh, Cleveland would be an even better control city.
Chicago!
Seattle!
Although I would prefer Cleveland as well.
At least I-86 ends near Erie. No reason to skip a city that's also used on I-90 in favor of one that's well beyond the end of I-86.
Quote from: skluth on September 17, 2022, 05:17:15 PM
Quote from: James on September 17, 2022, 04:35:55 PM
Also, if Jamestown will no longer be the WB control city, will it still be for EB? I feel like Corning is a little too small to sign from all the way in PA. Heck, I never even understood why Corning was signed on I-390 from all the way in Rochester.
Corning makes sense. It's an old (albeit smaller) industrial city at the intersection of two interstates, even if they weren't interstates in the original 1956 bill. I'd prefer Birmingham as an eastbound control city, but Corning is fine.
Corning's population is only about 10k. That is really small for a control city from that far away, even if it's near the interstate junction. I would actually prefer Binghamton too, but Corning is already used on I-390. Maybe co-sign Corning/Binghamton between I-390 and I-99?
I feel like Corning punches above its weight due to proximity to Elmira (which has a metro area large enough to have a MPO) and Horseheads. Honestly, I'm surprised it's that low! I tend to think of Corning as somewhere and Hornell a middle of nowhere podunk town, but they're only 2.5k apart.
Quote from: webny99 on September 17, 2022, 09:41:36 PM
Quote from: kalvado on September 17, 2022, 06:50:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 17, 2022, 05:14:01 PM
Quote from: James on September 17, 2022, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2022, 08:49:04 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on September 16, 2022, 07:53:57 AM
Project D264886 will replace the overhead signs at the I-86 — I-390 split. The westbound control city is changing from Jamestown to Erie.
And I'm on board with Erie being the control city. I didn't have as big of an issue with Jamestown as some, but Erie is my preference.
Meh, Cleveland would be an even better control city.
Chicago!
Seattle!
Although I would prefer Cleveland as well.
At least I-86 ends near Erie. No reason to skip a city that's also used on I-90 in favor of one that's well beyond the end of I-86.
...and that same city probably shouldn't be signed on I-90 as well :D.
Quote from: skluth on September 17, 2022, 05:17:15 PM
Quote from: James on September 17, 2022, 04:35:55 PM
Also, if Jamestown will no longer be the WB control city, will it still be for EB? I feel like Corning is a little too small to sign from all the way in PA. Heck, I never even understood why Corning was signed on I-390 from all the way in Rochester.
Corning makes sense. It's an old (albeit smaller) industrial city at the intersection of two interstates, even if they weren't interstates in the original 1956 bill. I'd prefer Birmingham as an eastbound control city, but Corning is fine.
Tbh, I'm pretty unsure about what the control city for I-86 EB should be. I feel like even Binghamton is a bit too small to sign from all the way in NW PA. Jamestown honestly still seems like the correct choice for EB.
So, what the control cities for I-86 should be (IMO):
EB: Jamestown, Corning, Binghamton, NYC
WB: Binghamton, Corning, Rochester/Cleveland, Cleveland
Quote from: James on September 17, 2022, 10:06:05 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 17, 2022, 09:41:36 PM
Quote from: kalvado on September 17, 2022, 06:50:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 17, 2022, 05:14:01 PM
Quote from: James on September 17, 2022, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2022, 08:49:04 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on September 16, 2022, 07:53:57 AM
Project D264886 will replace the overhead signs at the I-86 — I-390 split. The westbound control city is changing from Jamestown to Erie.
And I'm on board with Erie being the control city. I didn't have as big of an issue with Jamestown as some, but Erie is my preference.
Meh, Cleveland would be an even better control city.
Chicago!
Seattle!
Although I would prefer Cleveland as well.
At least I-86 ends near Erie. No reason to skip a city that's also used on I-90 in favor of one that's well beyond the end of I-86.
...and that same city probably shouldn't be signed on I-90 as well :D.
Why wouldn't it be used on I-90? It has the interstate junction with I-79, and I-86 practically ends there too.
Quote from: vdeane on September 17, 2022, 10:05:11 PM
I feel like Corning punches above its weight due to proximity to Elmira (which has a metro area large enough to have a MPO) and Horseheads. Honestly, I'm surprised it's that low! I tend to think of Corning as somewhere and Hornell a middle of nowhere podunk town, but they're only 2.5k apart.
Yeah, there's near-continuous development along I-86 between Corning and Elmira, making it feel almost like a single metro area.
(I might have actually guessed that Hornell was
bigger than Corning.. but that's knowing how small Corning is, and the four-lane divided section of NY 36 approaching Hornell always gives me "mid-sized city" vibes)
Quote from: webny99 on September 17, 2022, 10:20:10 PM
Quote from: James on September 17, 2022, 10:06:05 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 17, 2022, 09:41:36 PM
Quote from: kalvado on September 17, 2022, 06:50:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 17, 2022, 05:14:01 PM
Quote from: James on September 17, 2022, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2022, 08:49:04 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on September 16, 2022, 07:53:57 AM
Project D264886 will replace the overhead signs at the I-86 — I-390 split. The westbound control city is changing from Jamestown to Erie.
And I'm on board with Erie being the control city. I didn't have as big of an issue with Jamestown as some, but Erie is my preference.
Meh, Cleveland would be an even better control city.
Chicago!
Seattle!
Although I would prefer Cleveland as well.
At least I-86 ends near Erie. No reason to skip a city that's also used on I-90 in favor of one that's well beyond the end of I-86.
...and that same city probably shouldn't be signed on I-90 as well :D.
Why wouldn't it be used on I-90? It has the interstate junction with I-79, and I-86 practically ends there too.
It's just that I think I-90 should sign straight for Cleveland west out of Buffalo (or maybe even Pittsburgh/Cleveland to take the I-79 junction into account) so I-86 WB should also sign for Cleveland for consistency's sake...but tbh, I'd be alright with I-86 signing for Erie because like you said, that's very near where it ends.
Oh brother. Another stupid control city discussion has ensued despite the jokes.
Cleveland does not need to be a control on I-86. If anything, maybe a supplemental sign westbound before the I-86/I-390 split that says " "Buffalo use I-390 North" and "Cleveland use I-86 West" Erie/Cleveland should be used at major junctions on I-90 west of I-290 (I-190, NY 400, US 219).
Quote from: Rothman on September 17, 2022, 11:04:32 PM
Oh brother. Another stupid control city discussion has ensued despite the jokes.
Can you please stop denigrating every single thread you type in? In multiple regions? Warnings will follow.
When I finally drove I-86 west of I-390 last year, I was looking forward to seeing what Jamestown looked like after seeing it on distance and guide signs on NY 17 west since early childhood. It is almost one of those "Blink and you'll miss it" scenarios, as it went by so fast it was already behind us. At least with Corning, you see a lot of the town and definitely know you were there.
Erie, PA works as a destination. Binghamton would be fine for eastbound as I believe it is the most recognizable city in the Southern Tier. And with a population of 44k, it is definitely the largest.
Quote from: webny99 on September 17, 2022, 09:41:36 PM
Quote from: kalvado on September 17, 2022, 06:50:17 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 17, 2022, 05:14:01 PM
Quote from: James on September 17, 2022, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2022, 08:49:04 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on September 16, 2022, 07:53:57 AM
Project D264886 will replace the overhead signs at the I-86 — I-390 split. The westbound control city is changing from Jamestown to Erie.
And I'm on board with Erie being the control city. I didn't have as big of an issue with Jamestown as some, but Erie is my preference.
Meh, Cleveland would be an even better control city.
Chicago!
Seattle!
Although I would prefer Cleveland as well.
At least I-86 ends near Erie. No reason to skip a city that's also used on I-90 in favor of one that's well beyond the end of I-86.
I still want to see a more generic discussion of what control cities should mean. My impression so far that using 2 cities may be the best approach in many cases
Harborcreek
Quote from: Alex on September 18, 2022, 08:57:48 AM
When I finally drove I-86 west of I-390 last year, I was looking forward to seeing what Jamestown looked like after seeing it on distance and guide signs on NY 17 west since early childhood. It is almost one of those "Blink and you'll miss it" scenarios, as it went by so fast it was already behind us. At least with Corning, you see a lot of the town and definitely know you were there.
I definitely agree, however I think that has more to do with the Jamestown being located slightly south of I-86, rather than its size. It is surprisingly nearly 3x the size of Corning, but you don't notice it as much because I-86 doesn't pass as close to the city center.
Quote from: webny99 on September 17, 2022, 10:26:22 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 17, 2022, 10:05:11 PM
I feel like Corning punches above its weight due to proximity to Elmira (which has a metro area large enough to have a MPO) and Horseheads. Honestly, I'm surprised it's that low! I tend to think of Corning as somewhere and Hornell a middle of nowhere podunk town, but they're only 2.5k apart.
Yeah, there's near-continuous development along I-86 between Corning and Elmira, making it feel almost like a single metro area.
(I might have actually guessed that Hornell was bigger than Corning.. but that's knowing how small Corning is, and the four-lane divided section of NY 36 approaching Hornell always gives me "mid-sized city" vibes)
I actually always did think of them as a single metro area; I was surprised to learn that the MPO for the Elmira area does not include Corning.
Quote from: vdeane on September 18, 2022, 04:24:47 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 17, 2022, 10:26:22 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 17, 2022, 10:05:11 PM
I feel like Corning punches above its weight due to proximity to Elmira (which has a metro area large enough to have a MPO) and Horseheads. Honestly, I'm surprised it's that low! I tend to think of Corning as somewhere and Hornell a middle of nowhere podunk town, but they're only 2.5k apart.
Yeah, there's near-continuous development along I-86 between Corning and Elmira, making it feel almost like a single metro area.
(I might have actually guessed that Hornell was bigger than Corning.. but that's knowing how small Corning is, and the four-lane divided section of NY 36 approaching Hornell always gives me "mid-sized city" vibes)
I actually always did think of them as a single metro area; I was surprised to learn that the MPO for the Elmira area does not include Corning.
Concur. The stretch between Corning and Elmira/Horseheads is a bit reminiscent of I-64 between Ashland (well, the US 23 exit) and Huntington.
I was just looking at those sign plans; I was wondering why R6 is using "Erie" when R5 uses "Erie Pa".
Quote from: machias on September 18, 2022, 08:44:19 PM
I was just looking at those sign plans; I was wondering why R6 is using "Erie" when R5 uses "Erie Pa".
This is only a technicality, but I would actually prefer Erie PA.
The Thruway uses (or at least used to use?) "Pa Line" on mileage signs, and as a little kid, I used to think Pa Line was an actual place.
Quote from: webny99 on September 18, 2022, 09:54:59 PM
Quote from: machias on September 18, 2022, 08:44:19 PM
I was just looking at those sign plans; I was wondering why R6 is using "Erie" when R5 uses "Erie Pa".
This is only a technicality, but I would actually prefer Erie PA.
The Thruway uses (or at least used to use?) "Pa Line" on mileage signs, and as a little kid, I used to think Pa Line was an actual place.
Pa is old abbreviation standards being carbon copied over. Like Fla. for Florida, Okla. for Oklahoma and Colo. for Colorado.
Agree that it should be Erie PA. All state abbreviations should be standardized this day and age but replacing signs in kind means the old stuff continues.
The one thing I caught in the signage is the fact that the directional on the I-86 eastbound pull-thru at the I-390 interchange still has the directional to the left of the shield. I thought MUTCD made it mandatory for the directional to always be to the right of the shield or above it.
Quote from: skluth on September 17, 2022, 05:17:15 PM
Quote from: James on September 17, 2022, 04:35:55 PM
Also, if Jamestown will no longer be the WB control city, will it still be for EB? I feel like Corning is a little too small to sign from all the way in PA. Heck, I never even understood why Corning was signed on I-390 from all the way in Rochester.
Corning makes sense. It's an old (albeit smaller) industrial city at the intersection of two interstates, even if they weren't interstates in the original 1956 bill. I'd prefer Birmingham as an eastbound control city, but Corning is fine.
You do mean Binghamton, correct?
I could see Corning as an eastbound control city, now that Erie will be signed WB from Corning. Maybe there could be auxiliary signage along I-90 signed Jamestown/EXIT 37.
In a New York post, I brought up the question of why Erie instead of Jamestown was listed on the newly erected mileage sign just west of Painted Post along I-86 WB. These new posts here, obviously, answers my question. However, as I stated in my New York post, the Erie mileage needs to be amended to 185, not 195. Because of this, are mileage signs along I-86 WB going to be updated to reflect the control city change from Jamestown to Erie?
The one issue with some of these mileage signs along I-86 is that they are not consistent. New York usually signs mileages to city lines and not to the downtown areas. So, Erie and Jamestown are signed around 42 miles apart. For example, at the Findley Lake interchange (Exit 4), Erie is signed at 15 miles and Jamestown is signed at 27 miles. If you drive west on I-86 into Pennsylvania, Erie is signed at 17 miles on the first mileage sign one encounters. According to Google Maps, it is around 18 miles from the Findley Lake interchange to downtown Erie. New York has the mileage to the I-90/PA 8 interchange, maybe near a sign denoting the Erie city limits. With the new mileage sign erected showing Erie, the distances between Erie and Jamestown are 55 (should be 45) miles apart (195-140).
I-86 EB has very inconsistent (read incorrect) mileages to Binghamton. At the Findley Lake interchange, Binghamton is listed at 246 miles--which is downtown. The mileage sign after the Bemus Point rest area has Jamestown 5/Binghamton 216. How can there be a 219 mile difference west of Bemus Point (the correct version) and then a 211 mile difference there? The mileage should be 224. Then, between Jamestown and Seneca Junction, every Binghamton mileage is 10 miles too short--also based on the Binghamton city limit sign near mm 243 on I-86/NY 17 EB. Between Seneca Junction and Hinsdale, the Binghamton mileage is five miles short. Maybe these signs could be updated and corrected sometime in the near future.
NYSDOT should change signage at the I-86 interchanges to what Region 3 recently has done in which the Interstate highway's direction and control city are posted with no mileage signs posted at the interchanges. The mileage sign postings seem to be an old standard that NYSDOT still adheres to. That is what post interchange mileage signs are for--if they do get erected.
DEIS work has now started for the upgrade in Orange and Sullivan Counties, including the addition of a third lane in both directions: https://midhudsonnews.com/2022/10/06/planning-moves-forward-to-upgrade-ny-17-to-i-86-2/
So is the upgrading of NY 17/future Interstate 86 starting in the eastern-most stretches of the highway, and then working its way westward? If so, it might be a long time before the upgrades reach Hale Eddy (where the upgrades are really needed).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 06, 2022, 04:45:25 PM
So is the upgrading of NY 17/future Interstate 86 starting in the eastern-most stretches of the highway, and then working its way westward? If so, it might be a long time before the upgrades reach Hale Eddy (where the upgrades are really needed).
We shall see. There's been this flash of optimism about the conversion this year and I wonder if it will disappear as quickly as it manifested.
The easternmost stretches of the highway are routinely near gridlock each weekend in the summer, partly because of a resurging Catskills economy and because of the rapid (re)growth of the Jewish communities. I was quite surprised the first time I was heading out of the Catskills and saw bumper-to-bumper traffic for close to 20 miles from the Thruway west on a Sunday evening. Of course, it was backed up to the toll barrier which is now gone, but the backups still persist to a large extent.
Further west, traffic counts drop to under 10,000 VPD so the need to rebuild entire segments on new terrain is a lot less.
Quote from: seicer on October 06, 2022, 08:04:39 PM
The easternmost stretches of the highway are routinely near gridlock each weekend in the summer, partly because of a resurging Catskills economy and because of the rapid (re)growth of the Jewish communities. I was quite surprised the first time I was heading out of the Catskills and saw bumper-to-bumper traffic for close to 20 miles from the Thruway west on a Sunday evening. Of course, it was backed up to the toll barrier which is now gone, but the backups still persist to a large extent.
Further west, traffic counts drop to under 10,000 VPD so the need to rebuild entire segments on new terrain is a lot less.
Last time I was in the Catskills, I was shocked by the number of vacant, rotting old "resorts."
I wonder how much of that traffic stays overnight somewhere, or just tramples all over Kaaterskill Falls.
The Jewish summer resorts (hotels, cabin colonies, and camps) initially developed in what because known as the "Borscht Belt" because of discrimination as the Jewish were prevented from rooming at many more traditional lakeside and mountain resorts in New York and northern New Jersey and they boomed until the 1960s. Air travel was becoming increasingly convenient and cheap, and the advent of interstate highways and expressways made long-distance automobile travel easier.
(Side note, I've captured a number of those resorts at my site (https://abandonedonline.net/locations/?wpv_view_count=53581&wpv-wpcf-location-type%5B%5D=Business&wpv-wpcf-location-states%5B%5D=New+York&wpv_sort_orderby=modified&wpv_sort_order=desc&wpv_filter_submit=Refine).)
Today, you have a new type of development pattern led by investors and newcomers. One of the former traditional mountainside resorts I explored years ago was snapped up by a Brooklyn couple and restored into an uber-luxury development. A few others were saved like that, but many others were too far gone or too far mangled with additions and complexities that they have been left abandoned or demolished. And then you have the new casino along NY 17... which has been planned for decades at various resorts and finally got built far away from any of them. Legoland was a surprise for me, but land is cheap up there, and it's heavily frequented by the Jewish during the summer months.
There is also the resurgence of natural tourism (which COVID played a part), and New York State has invested over $1 billion into its state park facilities during the Cuomo administration. Katterskill Falls is heavily overused, but at the least, the state has taken the task of rebuilding the north approach to the falls, building a north-south staircase (replacing an informal and dangerous descent), and adding much-needed parking areas. Many others are being controlled with permitting by the DEC because of overuse (looking at you Peekamoose Blue Hole). It's no different in the Adirondacks.
Although I love NY's state park system, possibly above all others, the Cuomo investment was not always best spent. Thacher's view from the cliff is now destroyed by the new VC. Kaaterskill needs a quota system rather than more and more parking lots. And, more rangers are desperately needed due to the rampant influx of people who don't know how to interact with nature responsibly.
As for Jewish tourism in the Catskills, one only needs to see Dirty Dancing.
There was one very bad joke floating around when a new train line was being proposed from the City to the Catskills...so bad that I won't repeat here.
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2022, 10:24:27 AM
Although I love NY's state park system, possibly above all others, the Cuomo investment was not always best spent. Thacher's view from the cliff is now destroyed by the new VC. Kaaterskill needs a quota system rather than more and more parking lots. And, more rangers are desperately needed due to the rampant influx of people who don't know how to interact with nature responsibly.
As for Jewish tourism in the Catskills, one only needs to see Dirty Dancing.
There was one very bad joke floating around when a new train line was being proposed from the City to the Catskills...so bad that I won't repeat here.
I definitely disagree with "Thacher's view from the cliff is now destroyed by the new VC." Views are just fine, mid-cliff trail is fine, streams were disappearing after the chain of earthquakes - and I am not sure what to think about those concrete "repairs".
Quotas are a touchy subject. I guess auctioning them is a good idea,
would keep undesirables away. would help to fund
donations to certain politicians upkeep of the area.
There is a real demand for those weekend trips from NYC folks; I assume the only real way to handle that is to get more point destinations. That is not best for the park, sure, but at least relieves the pressure on most demanded spots.
Quote from: kalvado on October 07, 2022, 10:52:37 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2022, 10:24:27 AM
Although I love NY's state park system, possibly above all others, the Cuomo investment was not always best spent. Thacher's view from the cliff is now destroyed by the new VC. Kaaterskill needs a quota system rather than more and more parking lots. And, more rangers are desperately needed due to the rampant influx of people who don't know how to interact with nature responsibly.
As for Jewish tourism in the Catskills, one only needs to see Dirty Dancing.
There was one very bad joke floating around when a new train line was being proposed from the City to the Catskills...so bad that I won't repeat here.
I definitely disagree with "Thacher's view from the cliff is now destroyed by the new VC." Views are just fine, mid-cliff trail is fine, streams were disappearing after the chain of earthquakes - and I am not sure what to think about those concrete "repairs".
Quotas are a touchy subject. I guess auctioning them is a good idea, would keep undesirables away. would help to fund donations to certain politicians upkeep of the area.
There is a real demand for those weekend trips from NYC folks; I assume the only real way to handle that is to get more point destinations. That is not best for the park, sure, but at least relieves the pressure on most demanded spots.
Then you didn't see the view before the VC was built. Before, it was just trees along there when you stood at the overlook. Now, there's this big ugly building. I understand the need for a VC, but it should have been built a little further back from the cliff. There was ample land to do so without ruining the classic view from the overlook.
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2022, 10:58:53 AM
Quote from: kalvado on October 07, 2022, 10:52:37 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2022, 10:24:27 AM
Although I love NY's state park system, possibly above all others, the Cuomo investment was not always best spent. Thacher's view from the cliff is now destroyed by the new VC. Kaaterskill needs a quota system rather than more and more parking lots. And, more rangers are desperately needed due to the rampant influx of people who don't know how to interact with nature responsibly.
As for Jewish tourism in the Catskills, one only needs to see Dirty Dancing.
There was one very bad joke floating around when a new train line was being proposed from the City to the Catskills...so bad that I won't repeat here.
I definitely disagree with "Thacher's view from the cliff is now destroyed by the new VC." Views are just fine, mid-cliff trail is fine, streams were disappearing after the chain of earthquakes - and I am not sure what to think about those concrete "repairs".
Quotas are a touchy subject. I guess auctioning them is a good idea, would keep undesirables away. would help to fund donations to certain politicians upkeep of the area.
There is a real demand for those weekend trips from NYC folks; I assume the only real way to handle that is to get more point destinations. That is not best for the park, sure, but at least relieves the pressure on most demanded spots.
Then you didn't see the view before the VC was built. Before, it was just trees along there when you stood at the overlook. Now, there's this big ugly building. I understand the need for a VC, but it should have been built a little further back from the cliff. There was ample land to do so without ruining the classic view from the overlook.
A view from the overlook.... I am just not sure if I should be more annoyed with the view of cars behind me, or by the eyesore of those plaza towers stuffed with NYS bureaucracy. Visitor center is a smaller issue than those for me... I don't think visitor center is visible form the outlook to begin with.
Quote from: kalvado on October 07, 2022, 11:05:02 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2022, 10:58:53 AM
Quote from: kalvado on October 07, 2022, 10:52:37 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2022, 10:24:27 AM
Although I love NY's state park system, possibly above all others, the Cuomo investment was not always best spent. Thacher's view from the cliff is now destroyed by the new VC. Kaaterskill needs a quota system rather than more and more parking lots. And, more rangers are desperately needed due to the rampant influx of people who don't know how to interact with nature responsibly.
As for Jewish tourism in the Catskills, one only needs to see Dirty Dancing.
There was one very bad joke floating around when a new train line was being proposed from the City to the Catskills...so bad that I won't repeat here.
I definitely disagree with "Thacher's view from the cliff is now destroyed by the new VC." Views are just fine, mid-cliff trail is fine, streams were disappearing after the chain of earthquakes - and I am not sure what to think about those concrete "repairs".
Quotas are a touchy subject. I guess auctioning them is a good idea, would keep undesirables away. would help to fund donations to certain politicians upkeep of the area.
There is a real demand for those weekend trips from NYC folks; I assume the only real way to handle that is to get more point destinations. That is not best for the park, sure, but at least relieves the pressure on most demanded spots.
Then you didn't see the view before the VC was built. Before, it was just trees along there when you stood at the overlook. Now, there's this big ugly building. I understand the need for a VC, but it should have been built a little further back from the cliff. There was ample land to do so without ruining the classic view from the overlook.
A view from the overlook.... I am just not sure if I should be more annoyed with the view of cars behind me, or by the eyesore of those plaza towers stuffed with NYS bureaucracy. Visitor center is a smaller issue than those for me... I don't think visitor center is visible form the outlook to begin with.
I'm on vacation, but the VC is right on the cliff. Of course it is visible.
I've got photos somewhere I can share.
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2022, 11:28:14 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 07, 2022, 11:05:02 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2022, 10:58:53 AM
Quote from: kalvado on October 07, 2022, 10:52:37 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2022, 10:24:27 AM
Although I love NY's state park system, possibly above all others, the Cuomo investment was not always best spent. Thacher's view from the cliff is now destroyed by the new VC. Kaaterskill needs a quota system rather than more and more parking lots. And, more rangers are desperately needed due to the rampant influx of people who don't know how to interact with nature responsibly.
As for Jewish tourism in the Catskills, one only needs to see Dirty Dancing.
There was one very bad joke floating around when a new train line was being proposed from the City to the Catskills...so bad that I won't repeat here.
I definitely disagree with "Thacher's view from the cliff is now destroyed by the new VC." Views are just fine, mid-cliff trail is fine, streams were disappearing after the chain of earthquakes - and I am not sure what to think about those concrete "repairs".
Quotas are a touchy subject. I guess auctioning them is a good idea, would keep undesirables away. would help to fund donations to certain politicians upkeep of the area.
There is a real demand for those weekend trips from NYC folks; I assume the only real way to handle that is to get more point destinations. That is not best for the park, sure, but at least relieves the pressure on most demanded spots.
Then you didn't see the view before the VC was built. Before, it was just trees along there when you stood at the overlook. Now, there's this big ugly building. I understand the need for a VC, but it should have been built a little further back from the cliff. There was ample land to do so without ruining the classic view from the overlook.
A view from the overlook.... I am just not sure if I should be more annoyed with the view of cars behind me, or by the eyesore of those plaza towers stuffed with NYS bureaucracy. Visitor center is a smaller issue than those for me... I don't think visitor center is visible form the outlook to begin with.
I'm on vacation, but the VC is right on the cliff. Of course it is visible.
I've got photos somewhere I can share.
Well, if you are talking about free overlook - no, edge of the cliff has an S like shape, and hides that building. As you walk towards the trail, you get to the visibility point, of course.
And if you are a real old timer, you may remember a swimming pool in Thatchers. It was closed for the reconstruction and supposed to open a year or two later. That is a real eyesore, if you know where to look....
Quote from: kalvado on October 08, 2022, 08:25:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2022, 11:28:14 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 07, 2022, 11:05:02 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2022, 10:58:53 AM
Quote from: kalvado on October 07, 2022, 10:52:37 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2022, 10:24:27 AM
Although I love NY's state park system, possibly above all others, the Cuomo investment was not always best spent. Thacher's view from the cliff is now destroyed by the new VC. Kaaterskill needs a quota system rather than more and more parking lots. And, more rangers are desperately needed due to the rampant influx of people who don't know how to interact with nature responsibly.
As for Jewish tourism in the Catskills, one only needs to see Dirty Dancing.
There was one very bad joke floating around when a new train line was being proposed from the City to the Catskills...so bad that I won't repeat here.
I definitely disagree with "Thacher's view from the cliff is now destroyed by the new VC." Views are just fine, mid-cliff trail is fine, streams were disappearing after the chain of earthquakes - and I am not sure what to think about those concrete "repairs".
Quotas are a touchy subject. I guess auctioning them is a good idea, would keep undesirables away. would help to fund donations to certain politicians upkeep of the area.
There is a real demand for those weekend trips from NYC folks; I assume the only real way to handle that is to get more point destinations. That is not best for the park, sure, but at least relieves the pressure on most demanded spots.
Then you didn't see the view before the VC was built. Before, it was just trees along there when you stood at the overlook. Now, there's this big ugly building. I understand the need for a VC, but it should have been built a little further back from the cliff. There was ample land to do so without ruining the classic view from the overlook.
A view from the overlook.... I am just not sure if I should be more annoyed with the view of cars behind me, or by the eyesore of those plaza towers stuffed with NYS bureaucracy. Visitor center is a smaller issue than those for me... I don't think visitor center is visible form the outlook to begin with.
I'm on vacation, but the VC is right on the cliff. Of course it is visible.
I've got photos somewhere I can share.
Well, if you are talking about free overlook - no, edge of the cliff has an S like shape, and hides that building. As you walk towards the trail, you get to the visibility point, of course.
And if you are a real old timer, you may remember a swimming pool in Thatchers. It was closed for the reconstruction and supposed to open a year or two later. That is a real eyesore, if you know where to look....
Like I said, I should have photos. From the overlook on the main park road, the view is quite marred.
I would like to discuss something about Exit 17: why are the ramps split to allow more direct left and right turns, when the interchange is sparsely used and serves no areas of real population?
Another interesting thing on this route is the potentially overbuilt Exit 10. I understand this stub was part of the Southern Tier Expressway before the Chautauqua Lake bridge was built, but now it just seems ridiculous. Also, I love how some of the signs for the stub's only exit still say Exit 10, because this was Exit 10 of the expressway at one point.
https://goo.gl/maps/sr8GQBz9CmiS38xGA (https://goo.gl/maps/sr8GQBz9CmiS38xGA)
Keep in mind that the entire contraption serves two state parks and a village of 300.
Exit 10 was also built to have room for the Chautauqua Lakeway (reserved NY 393). Current NY 430 would be truncated and turned over to the county. It was controversial then and is never being built now.
Exit 17 definitely gets more traffic than you'd think for such a remote interchange in Steamburg.
Quote from: kirbykart on November 15, 2022, 12:00:56 PM
I would like to discuss something about Exit 17: why are the ramps split to allow more direct left and right turns, when the interchange is sparsely used and serves no areas of real population?
Another interesting thing on this route is the potentially overbuilt Exit 10. I understand this stub was part of the Southern Tier Expressway before the Chautauqua Lake bridge was built, but now it just seems ridiculous. Also, I love how some of the signs for the stub's only exit still say Exit 10, because this was Exit 10 of the expressway at one point.
https://goo.gl/maps/sr8GQBz9CmiS38xGA (https://goo.gl/maps/sr8GQBz9CmiS38xGA)
Keep in mind that the entire contraption serves two state parks and a village of 300.
NYSDOT is not going to deconstruct what is already finished, unlike Florida (FL 417, FL 408, FL 429) and North Carolina (the freeway that was north of PTI Airport).
Quote from: amroad17 on November 15, 2022, 02:22:49 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 15, 2022, 12:00:56 PM
I would like to discuss something about Exit 17: why are the ramps split to allow more direct left and right turns, when the interchange is sparsely used and serves no areas of real population?
Another interesting thing on this route is the potentially overbuilt Exit 10. I understand this stub was part of the Southern Tier Expressway before the Chautauqua Lake bridge was built, but now it just seems ridiculous. Also, I love how some of the signs for the stub's only exit still say Exit 10, because this was Exit 10 of the expressway at one point.
https://goo.gl/maps/sr8GQBz9CmiS38xGA (https://goo.gl/maps/sr8GQBz9CmiS38xGA)
Keep in mind that the entire contraption serves two state parks and a village of 300.
NYSDOT is not going to deconstruct what is already finished, unlike Florida (FL 417, FL 408, FL 429) and North Carolina (the freeway that was north of PTI Airport).
I-895...I-81 Viaduct in a few years...
Quote from: Rothman on November 15, 2022, 02:24:14 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on November 15, 2022, 02:22:49 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 15, 2022, 12:00:56 PM
I would like to discuss something about Exit 17: why are the ramps split to allow more direct left and right turns, when the interchange is sparsely used and serves no areas of real population?
Another interesting thing on this route is the potentially overbuilt Exit 10. I understand this stub was part of the Southern Tier Expressway before the Chautauqua Lake bridge was built, but now it just seems ridiculous. Also, I love how some of the signs for the stub's only exit still say Exit 10, because this was Exit 10 of the expressway at one point.
https://goo.gl/maps/sr8GQBz9CmiS38xGA (https://goo.gl/maps/sr8GQBz9CmiS38xGA)
Keep in mind that the entire contraption serves two state parks and a village of 300.
NYSDOT is not going to deconstruct what is already finished, unlike Florida (FL 417, FL 408, FL 429) and North Carolina (the freeway that was north of PTI Airport).
I-895...I-81 Viaduct in a few years...
Nobody is complaining about the Bemus Point connector "dividing" neighborhoods though.
Quote from: cockroachking on November 15, 2022, 03:30:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 15, 2022, 02:24:14 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on November 15, 2022, 02:22:49 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on November 15, 2022, 12:00:56 PM
I would like to discuss something about Exit 17: why are the ramps split to allow more direct left and right turns, when the interchange is sparsely used and serves no areas of real population?
Another interesting thing on this route is the potentially overbuilt Exit 10. I understand this stub was part of the Southern Tier Expressway before the Chautauqua Lake bridge was built, but now it just seems ridiculous. Also, I love how some of the signs for the stub's only exit still say Exit 10, because this was Exit 10 of the expressway at one point.
https://goo.gl/maps/sr8GQBz9CmiS38xGA (https://goo.gl/maps/sr8GQBz9CmiS38xGA)
Keep in mind that the entire contraption serves two state parks and a village of 300.
NYSDOT is not going to deconstruct what is already finished, unlike Florida (FL 417, FL 408, FL 429) and North Carolina (the freeway that was north of PTI Airport).
I-895...I-81 Viaduct in a few years...
Nobody is complaining about the Bemus Point connector "dividing" neighborhoods though.
Exit 17 I-87 Northway.
https://www.townofmoreau.org/documents/PIN%20104342_U.S.%20Route%209%20over%20Interstate%2087%20at%20Exit%2017_Public%20Information%20Brochure.pdf
There are so many interchanges that are overbuilt that could stand to be condensed or consolidated. For the instance you linked to, NYSDOT is already planning to replace the bridge, which at one time carried four through lanes of traffic for US 9 (and two acceleration/deceleration lanes) over the interstate. It was once planned that US 9 would be four-laned throughout that area, but those plans were scuttled decades ago. And what was once four lanes is now two, rendering about a third of that superstructure unused. What is proposed is a simplified two-lane bridge structure and a simplified ramp structure that preserves half of the interchange.
But that one interchange isn't dividing much of anything. It's a rural area with alternative connections abound. At the least this will make the corridor safer for cyclists (of which there are plenty in the warmer months).
Quote from: seicer on November 15, 2022, 08:20:56 PM
There are so many interchanges that are overbuilt that could stand to be condensed or consolidated. For the instance you linked to, NYSDOT is already planning to replace the bridge, which at one time carried four through lanes of traffic for US 9 (and two acceleration/deceleration lanes) over the interstate. It was once planned that US 9 would be four-laned throughout that area, but those plans were scuttled decades ago. And what was once four lanes is now two, rendering about a third of that superstructure unused. What is proposed is a simplified two-lane bridge structure and a simplified ramp structure that preserves half of the interchange.
It looks like the old bridges here were at the end of their service life. Building a new bridge that's less than half the width is going to save a substantial amount of money now. Narrowing the bridge and unnecessary ramps will also reduce maintenance costs going forward. This is a prudent redesign.
Most agencies aren't going to actively remove rural infrastructure until it's reached the end of its service life. The cost of removal would likely outweigh maintenance savings at that point. But when it comes to the point that structures need to be replaced, most agencies are going to start questioning if they are really needed. PennDOT did this with the PA 8 freeway south of Franklin recently, where traffic counts are a fraction of when the road was built, when it needed a full rehab recently. After a lot of local outcry, they decided to rebuild the freeway as-is.
I would imagine NYSDOT will consider removing the Bemis Point interchange and Route 945H when those bridges are due for replacement.
That's interesting about the PA 8 freeway. I remembered driving on that before its rehab, and it did not appear that PennDOT had done much to the roadway since it opened around 1975. There was also next to no traffic. I don't think PennDOT will be completing the freeway to I-80 any time soon. But the rehab cost... $30 million? If one carriageway was removed and passing lanes added to the other carriageway, would it have saved PennDOT that much money? Perhaps not, but once those Sandy Creek Bridges reach the end of their service life that may be another question.
Quote from: seicer on November 16, 2022, 02:17:54 PM
That's interesting about the PA 8 freeway. I remembered driving on that before its rehab, and it did not appear that PennDOT had done much to the roadway since it opened around 1975. There was also next to no traffic. I don't think PennDOT will be completing the freeway to I-80 any time soon. But the rehab cost... $30 million? If one carriageway was removed and passing lanes added to the other carriageway, would it have saved PennDOT that much money? Perhaps not, but once those Sandy Creek Bridges reach the end of their service life that may be another question.
My understanding was that the lack of savings ultimately led to PennDOT leaving PA 8 as-is.
Quote from: seicer on November 15, 2022, 08:20:56 PM
At the least this will make the corridor safer for cyclists (of which there are plenty in the warmer months).
I was wondering (with some annoyance) why they were removing those free-flowing right-turn movements. But this makes sense.
Quote from: yakra on November 17, 2022, 10:23:54 AM
Quote from: seicer on November 15, 2022, 08:20:56 PM
At the least this will make the corridor safer for cyclists (of which there are plenty in the warmer months).
I was wondering (with some annoyance) why they were removing those free-flowing right-turn movements. But this makes sense.
Worth noting that one of these eliminated free right turns (US-9 NB to I-87 SB) served a measly 225 cars/day. Hard to justify plowing that ramp in the winter.
The I-86 was closed today (I don't know what stretch) due to a (probably snow-related) car accident.
Control City Freak just uploaded a new video about I-86. In that video, he complaned that NYC is signed in Binghamton for I-86 when I-81/I-380/I-80 is faster. Thoughts?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 08, 2022, 02:02:47 PM
Control City Freak just uploaded a new video about I-86. In that video, he complaned that NYC is signed in Binghamton for I-86 when I-81/I-380/I-80 is faster. Thoughts?
To the George Washington Bridge, it seems to be basically the same mileage and same time (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/42.1066691,-75.8499702/40.8499263,-73.944063/@41.2728712,-75.6852408,8.32z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0). Maps to generic "New York City" which hits in lower Manhattan, it's approx. 11 miles shorter (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/42.1066691,-75.8499702/New+York+City,+NY/@41.3522901,-75.3956548,8.74z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!3e0). This seems like a nothingburger complaint.
Yes, it is faster to go through PA and NJ to get to Lower Manhattan, but it's it's close enough that it depends on where in the city you're going. I agree that it's a non-issue. It's not really any different than the Thruway signing Boston for I-87 South to the Berkshire Connector instead of free I-90.
I thought about Middletown as a control for 86 East at the 81 split, and while it is an interstate junction, more traffic would be going to NYC, and it will be a more viable option should the gaps ever be filled. The funny thing is someone suggested Hartford as a control, which of course requires a transfer to I-84. Yes, Hartford was once a control for I-86...the old one that ran from East Hartford to Sturbridge.
Oh, and if PennDOT really had it out for the NYTA, they'd make NYC the control for I-86 on the I-90 Exit. And I would've put Erie and Cleveland on that first mileage sign in PA westbound; who is taking I-86 West into PA to go to Buffalo?
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 08, 2022, 05:27:20 PM
Oh, and if PennDOT really had it out for the NYTA, they'd make NYC the control for I-86 on the I-90 Exit.
That would stick it to NYSTA, but it would also keep travelers in New York state. They'd rather keep NYC-bound traffic in Pennsylvania the whole way by taking I-79 to I-80 (which is also about 20 minutes faster).
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 08, 2022, 05:27:20 PM
And I would've put Erie and Cleveland on that first mileage sign in PA westbound; who is taking I-86 West into PA to go to Buffalo?
That's the thing. It's not the fastest route for anything. Those ramps should be removed, as you can cut over on PA 89 and PA/NY 426.
Quote from: kirbykart on December 09, 2022, 08:36:40 AM
Those ramps should be removed, as you can cut over on PA 89 and PA/NY 426.
FHWA does not approve of this message.
Surprisingly, region 9's STIP projects list talks about actually constructing the Hale Eddy improvement on route 17 within the next few years. If you look at project number 906783, it mentions some details about what's going to happen with Hale Eddy with some new interchanges that will be built, and it talks about the construction phase in 2026.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/stip/files/R9.pdf
Quote from: dzheng35 on February 03, 2023, 02:01:18 PM
Surprisingly, region 9's STIP projects list talks about actually constructing the Hale Eddy improvement on route 17 within the next few years. If you look at project number 906783, it mentions some details about what's going to happen with Hale Eddy with some new interchanges that will be built, and it talks about the construction phase in 2026.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/stip/files/R9.pdf
Great news. I will definitely take this tradeoff for US 219 being canned. I recall seeing the alternatives for this project at some point, but can't seem to find them now.
Quote from: webny99 on February 03, 2023, 02:56:01 PM
Quote from: dzheng35 on February 03, 2023, 02:01:18 PM
Surprisingly, region 9's STIP projects list talks about actually constructing the Hale Eddy improvement on route 17 within the next few years. If you look at project number 906783, it mentions some details about what's going to happen with Hale Eddy with some new interchanges that will be built, and it talks about the construction phase in 2026.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/stip/files/R9.pdf
Great news. I will definitely take this tradeoff for US 219 being canned. I recall seeing the alternatives for this project at some point, but can't seem to find them now.
Wait, what's going on with US 219? Also, who knows if the Hale Eddy project is actually going to happen still despite being listed. Also, if it happens, what's the alternative going to be.
Also, about exit 122, the westbound ramp reconstruction, what's the new ramp going to look like? I remember seeing it on a website at one point, but it was years ago. I don't know if they're still going to use that design or if they changed it.
Quote from: dzheng35 on February 03, 2023, 03:10:58 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 03, 2023, 02:56:01 PM
Quote from: dzheng35 on February 03, 2023, 02:01:18 PM
Surprisingly, region 9's STIP projects list talks about actually constructing the Hale Eddy improvement on route 17 within the next few years. If you look at project number 906783, it mentions some details about what's going to happen with Hale Eddy with some new interchanges that will be built, and it talks about the construction phase in 2026.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/stip/files/R9.pdf
Great news. I will definitely take this tradeoff for US 219 being canned. I recall seeing the alternatives for this project at some point, but can't seem to find them now.
Wait, what's going on with US 219? Also, who knows if the Hale Eddy project is actually going to happen still despite being listed. Also, if it happens, what's the alternative going to be.
The fact that construction is set in FFY 26 is surprising - that's in the active program. Looks like the MO pumped in funding...possibly as a parting gift from the RPPM that recently retired.
(personal opinion emphasized)
So, they are finally going to convert the Hale Eddy segment of NY 17/future Interstate 86 to Interstate Standards in 2026? I'll believe it when I see it.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 03, 2023, 05:02:16 PM
So, they are finally going to convert the Hale Eddy segment of NY 17/future Interstate 86 to Interstate Standards in 2026? I'll believe it when I see it.
Exactly. Quite surprising. I'd watch for more STIP amendments as the year approaches.
NYSDOT Hale Eddy plans: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock
Alternatives proposed: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock/repository/906691_prs_PIM_11x17Plan1_03-2009.pdf and https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock/repository/906691_prs_PIM_11x17Plan2_03-2009.pdf
Quote from: seicer on February 03, 2023, 07:48:25 PM
NYSDOT Hale Eddy plans: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock
Alternatives proposed: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock/repository/906691_prs_PIM_11x17Plan1_03-2009.pdf and https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock/repository/906691_prs_PIM_11x17Plan2_03-2009.pdf
Heh. WEPI. Cute.
(personal opinion emphasized)
WEPI?
Quote from: seicer on February 03, 2023, 08:01:00 PM
WEPI?
Let's just say the project information on the public-facing website is subject to a lot of change.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: seicer on February 03, 2023, 07:48:25 PM
NYSDOT Hale Eddy plans: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock
Alternatives proposed: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock/repository/906691_prs_PIM_11x17Plan1_03-2009.pdf and https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock/repository/906691_prs_PIM_11x17Plan2_03-2009.pdf
Given that the web page was last updated in 2013 and the alternatives are from 2009, I would expect some changes if/when (mainly if IMO) this project is actually planned.
Quote from: dzheng35 on February 03, 2023, 03:10:58 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 03, 2023, 02:56:01 PM
I will definitely take this tradeoff for US 219 being canned. I recall seeing the alternatives for this project at some point, but can't seem to find them now.
Wait, what's going on with US 219?
There was some hope that the freeway south of Buffalo would be continued to meet I-86 at Salamanca, but it was officially shelved earlier this year (or maybe last year? can't remember for sure now).
Quote from: webny99 on February 04, 2023, 01:54:12 PM
Quote from: dzheng35 on February 03, 2023, 03:10:58 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 03, 2023, 02:56:01 PM
I will definitely take this tradeoff for US 219 being canned. I recall seeing the alternatives for this project at some point, but can't seem to find them now.
Wait, what's going on with US 219?
There was some hope that the freeway south of Buffalo would be continued to meet I-86 at Salamanca, but it was officially shelved earlier this year (or maybe last year? can't remember for sure now).
Was it cancelled that recent? I thought it was axed long before then.
Quote from: cockroachking on February 04, 2023, 02:13:54 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 04, 2023, 01:54:12 PM
Quote from: dzheng35 on February 03, 2023, 03:10:58 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 03, 2023, 02:56:01 PM
I will definitely take this tradeoff for US 219 being canned. I recall seeing the alternatives for this project at some point, but can't seem to find them now.
Wait, what's going on with US 219?
There was some hope that the freeway south of Buffalo would be continued to meet I-86 at Salamanca, but it was officially shelved earlier this year (or maybe last year? can't remember for sure now).
Was it cancelled that recent? I thought it was axed long before then.
It's been unlikely for a long time, but the cancellation was only made official recently. I know it came up on the forum at the time, but can't seem to find it now.
Quote from: seicer on February 03, 2023, 07:48:25 PM
NYSDOT Hale Eddy plans: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock
Alternatives proposed: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock/repository/906691_prs_PIM_11x17Plan1_03-2009.pdf and https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock/repository/906691_prs_PIM_11x17Plan2_03-2009.pdf
To the extent that we can read in to these alternatives from 10 years ago... I definitely prefer Options 3 and 4, the ones with the second interchange.
I like Option 4, but I feel the interchange road should line up with Bush Hill Road.
Which sections of route 17 do you all think are more difficult for upgrades to interstate standards, and which ones do you think are rather easy for upgrades? I'd say Hale Eddy to Hancock is the hardest, and the section from Exit 79 to 84 is the easiest.
Note: These are just my opinions.
When Rothman analyzed these needs a few years ago, it turned out the Region 8 projects had the highest cost, so those, probably. As for what is needed between exits 79 and 84, let's consult the NYSDOT freight plan appendix (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/Main-Projects/projects/P11618881-Home/P11618881-repository/NYS%20Freight%20Plan%20Appendices%20July_28th_2022.pdf) (see page 82/F-18), since this is honestly the best publicly-available source of what the needs are that I've found:
Quote
Reconstruct 5 bridges to improve vertical
clearance and improve the section of
New York State Route 17 from Windsor
to Deposit to meet interstate standards.
Any ideas on what still has to be done on the southern tier expressway section before the remaining gets signed and when?
^
Quote
Enhance interchange 67 on Route 17 to
achieve Interstate standards in the towns
of Vestal and Union, Broome County.
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2023, 08:33:06 PM
^
Quote
Enhance interchange 67 on Route 17 to
achieve Interstate standards in the towns
of Vestal and Union, Broome County.
I thought the main reason NY 17 is not signed as I-86 through Vestal and Endwell, and to a larger extent between Waverly and Johnson City*, was the non-Interstate standard bridges over the Susquehanna east of Exit 68, over Vestal Road, over N. Main St., and over Choconut Creek. I agree that Exit 67 could use some improvement, however, those bridges have very little room as far as shoulder width.
*-on GSV and on "Full Length Interstates'" videos, I see that I-86 is somewhat signed between Exit 70 and I-81. I also see that I-86 is posted at Exit 67, even though it is not considered "official" at that point.
Quote from: amroad17 on February 27, 2023, 11:35:20 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 26, 2023, 08:33:06 PM
^
Quote
Enhance interchange 67 on Route 17 to
achieve Interstate standards in the towns
of Vestal and Union, Broome County.
I thought the main reason NY 17 is not signed as I-86 through Vestal and Endwell, and to a larger extent between Waverly and Johnson City*, was the non-Interstate standard bridges over the Susquehanna east of Exit 68, over Vestal Road, over N. Main St., and over Choconut Creek. I agree that Exit 67 could use some improvement, however, those bridges have very little room as far as shoulder width.
*-on GSV and on "Full Length Interstates'" videos, I see that I-86 is somewhat signed between Exit 70 and I-81. I also see that I-86 is posted at Exit 67, even though it is not considered "official" at that point.
I mean, given how narrow the shoulders are, don't you think that they should replace it with bridges with standard shoulder width just for a safety thing in the event a truck carrying an oversized load crosses those bridges. Is it even possible for oversized load trucks to fit on those bridges. Besides those bridges are outdated and will probably be due for replacement sooner or later.
Also, what's the issue with exit 67 the cloverleaf interchange there.
There is a bridge replacement project listed in the freight plan project wish list, but not as part of the I-86 upgrade.
Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2023, 12:28:28 PM
There is a bridge replacement project listed in the freight plan project wish list, but not as part of the I-86 upgrade.
Not part of the I-86 upgrade, but the bridges do have a substandard shoulder width. Since it's not part of the upgrade, who knows whether the substandard bridges would actually keep that section from getting an interstate designation?
Take this bridge on I-86 over the Cohocton River a little west of Corning for example.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1880088,-77.1575925,3a,75y,117.86h,77.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1h8KnIrmXgVzOyXJiKkq6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
Also, I'm not too familiar with interchange standards, so do you have any ideas about what the issue with exit 67 is?
I'm afraid I'm not an engineer.
I see at NY 17K's western terminus I-86 shields are erected.
https://goo.gl/maps/8mZwXyk2wkrLzDqR8
From I-84 only Westbound is signed. Yet Wikipedia don't acknowledge it being a route east of Windsor, NY.
A question about interstate standards for the DOT crowd and others who know something about the topic...
I got thinking about I-86 in NY vs. I-476 in Pennsylvania. 476 was similarly re-signed as an interstate after decades as PA 9. It seems to me that a lot of the work that's being done to convert NY 17 to I-86 was never done on I-476. For one thing, 476 has no left shoulders, and the lanes feel like they're narrower than most interstates if I'm not crazy. I would also guess that at least some of the curves wouldn't pass muster for a brand-new interstate built today.
How did Pennsylvania get away with calling 476 an interstate, but New York is getting stuck with some pretty costly upgrades before putting interstate shields on the remaining pieces of I-86? I'm not suggesting that the interstate shields should go up while there are still at-grade intersections - that's a reasonable standard. But there are other things standing in the way (exit spacing, vertical curvature) that seem more minor. And the I-81/I-86 junction seems like it cost a fortune, just to get some curves to a wider radius.
Is Pennsylvania more willing to request waivers of interstate standards for things like this? Or have the standards really changed that much in the 20-ish years after PA 9 became I-476?
Quote from: dantheman on April 11, 2023, 05:46:32 PM
A question about interstate standards for the DOT crowd and others who know something about the topic...
I got thinking about I-86 in NY vs. I-476 in Pennsylvania. 476 was similarly re-signed as an interstate after decades as PA 9. It seems to me that a lot of the work that's being done to convert NY 17 to I-86 was never done on I-476. For one thing, 476 has no left shoulders, and the lanes feel like they're narrower than most interstates if I'm not crazy. I would also guess that at least some of the curves wouldn't pass muster for a brand-new interstate built today.
How did Pennsylvania get away with calling 476 an interstate, but New York is getting stuck with some pretty costly upgrades before putting interstate shields on the remaining pieces of I-86? I'm not suggesting that the interstate shields should go up while there are still at-grade intersections - that's a reasonable standard. But there are other things standing in the way (exit spacing, vertical curvature) that seem more minor. And the I-81/I-86 junction seems like it cost a fortune, just to get some curves to a wider radius.
Is Pennsylvania more willing to request waivers of interstate standards for things like this? Or have the standards really changed that much in the 20-ish years after PA 9 became I-476?
FHWA got pickier over the 30 years since I-476 came to be. That's the short of it. Also, to this day, every division of FHWA enforces regulations differently.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 05, 2023, 01:45:07 AM
I see at NY 17K's western terminus I-86 shields are erected.
https://goo.gl/maps/8mZwXyk2wkrLzDqR8
From I-84 only Westbound is signed. Yet Wikipedia don't acknowledge it being a route east of Windsor, NY.
Those shields have been there for a decade. In many cases, the covers fell off. Still not official yet.
Quote from: cl94 on April 13, 2023, 11:29:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 05, 2023, 01:45:07 AM
I see at NY 17K's western terminus I-86 shields are erected.
https://goo.gl/maps/8mZwXyk2wkrLzDqR8
From I-84 only Westbound is signed. Yet Wikipedia don't acknowledge it being a route east of Windsor, NY.
Those shields have been there for a decade. In many cases, the covers fell off. Still not official yet.
Because the FHWA and AASHTO have not yet approved the I-86 designation between I-84 and NY-17K (at least I can't find any record of that). The I-86 signs were installed and covered, pending that approval, but apparently the covers have fallen off at least some of the signs on that stretch.
Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2023, 05:49:34 PM
FHWA got pickier over the 30 years since I-476 came to be. That's the short of it. Also, to this day, every division of FHWA enforces regulations differently.
Thanks. I didn't realize that there was that much regional variation... that does explain a lot.
Quote from: cl94 on April 13, 2023, 11:29:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 05, 2023, 01:45:07 AM
I see at NY 17K's western terminus I-86 shields are erected.
https://goo.gl/maps/8mZwXyk2wkrLzDqR8
From I-84 only Westbound is signed. Yet Wikipedia don't acknowledge it being a route east of Windsor, NY.
Those shields have been there for a decade. In many cases, the covers fell off. Still not official yet.
Then why also is the future overlap with I-81 not signed as if I-81 already an interstate?
Quote from: roadman65 on April 16, 2023, 01:39:28 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 13, 2023, 11:29:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 05, 2023, 01:45:07 AM
I see at NY 17K's western terminus I-86 shields are erected.
https://goo.gl/maps/8mZwXyk2wkrLzDqR8
From I-84 only Westbound is signed. Yet Wikipedia don't acknowledge it being a route east of Windsor, NY.
Those shields have been there for a decade. In many cases, the covers fell off. Still not official yet.
Then why also is the future overlap with I-81 not signed as if I-81 already an interstate?
Wut? Last I checked, it was:
I-81
https://maps.app.goo.gl/noVLve6Du53BrrFG9
After wondering for so many years why the segment in Orange County between I-84 and NY 17K with the covered I-86 shields is still covered and not officially signed yet, here's why. This was from the draft PEL report during the PEL study, and someone brought this up. The explanation is vague but it mentioned something. Go to page 947 and zoom in.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/806509-Home/806509-Repository/8065.09_PEL%20Report%20Draft_Attachment%205_Public%20Involvement%20Documents_Sept2021.pdf
It mentioned that it's still not interstate standards unfortunately despite the reconstruction and upgrade years ago.
Quote from: dzheng35 on April 21, 2023, 03:40:58 AM
After wondering for so many years why the segment in Orange County between I-84 and NY 17K with the covered I-86 shields is still covered and not officially signed yet, here's why. This was from the draft PEL report during the PEL study, and someone brought this up. The explanation is vague but it mentioned something. Go to page 947 and zoom in.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/806509-Home/806509-Repository/8065.09_PEL%20Report%20Draft_Attachment%205_Public%20Involvement%20Documents_Sept2021.pdf
It mentioned that it's still not interstate standards unfortunately despite the reconstruction and upgrade years ago.
For so many years? All you had to do was read this thread. :D
Quote from: Rothman on April 21, 2023, 06:55:58 AM
Quote from: dzheng35 on April 21, 2023, 03:40:58 AM
After wondering for so many years why the segment in Orange County between I-84 and NY 17K with the covered I-86 shields is still covered and not officially signed yet, here's why. This was from the draft PEL report during the PEL study, and someone brought this up. The explanation is vague but it mentioned something. Go to page 947 and zoom in.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/806509-Home/806509-Repository/8065.09_PEL%20Report%20Draft_Attachment%205_Public%20Involvement%20Documents_Sept2021.pdf
It mentioned that it's still not interstate standards unfortunately despite the reconstruction and upgrade years ago.
For so many years? All you had to do was read this thread. :D
It's ridiculous that they spent (wasted) all that money on reconstructing NY-17 around the I-84 interchange, yet they failed to bring that stretch up to interstate standards. SMH.
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 21, 2023, 09:06:55 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 21, 2023, 06:55:58 AM
Quote from: dzheng35 on April 21, 2023, 03:40:58 AM
After wondering for so many years why the segment in Orange County between I-84 and NY 17K with the covered I-86 shields is still covered and not officially signed yet, here's why. This was from the draft PEL report during the PEL study, and someone brought this up. The explanation is vague but it mentioned something. Go to page 947 and zoom in.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/806509-Home/806509-Repository/8065.09_PEL%20Report%20Draft_Attachment%205_Public%20Involvement%20Documents_Sept2021.pdf
It mentioned that it's still not interstate standards unfortunately despite the reconstruction and upgrade years ago.
For so many years? All you had to do was read this thread. :D
It's ridiculous that they spent (wasted) all that money on reconstructing NY-17 around the I-84 interchange, yet they failed to bring that stretch up to interstate standards. SMH.
I believe there was a mentality for a few years that converting to full Interstate standards was a waste of funding, so the idea of "make it look Interstate-ish" was followed -- limited and necessary mobility improvements, but not going whole hog in pursuing the conversion.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Rothman on April 21, 2023, 09:32:24 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 21, 2023, 09:06:55 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 21, 2023, 06:55:58 AM
Quote from: dzheng35 on April 21, 2023, 03:40:58 AM
After wondering for so many years why the segment in Orange County between I-84 and NY 17K with the covered I-86 shields is still covered and not officially signed yet, here's why. This was from the draft PEL report during the PEL study, and someone brought this up. The explanation is vague but it mentioned something. Go to page 947 and zoom in.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/806509-Home/806509-Repository/8065.09_PEL%20Report%20Draft_Attachment%205_Public%20Involvement%20Documents_Sept2021.pdf
It mentioned that it's still not interstate standards unfortunately despite the reconstruction and upgrade years ago.
For so many years? All you had to do was read this thread. :D
It's ridiculous that they spent (wasted) all that money on reconstructing NY-17 around the I-84 interchange, yet they failed to bring that stretch up to interstate standards. SMH.
I believe there was a mentality for a few years that converting to full Interstate standards was a waste of funding, so the idea of "make it look Interstate-ish" was followed -- limited and necessary mobility improvements, but not going whole hog in pursuing the conversion.
(personal opinion emphasized)
In that case it looks like NYSDOT made "modest" spot improvements in the vicinity of I-84, assuming the FHWA would simply grant a waiver for any remaining design deficiencies along that stretch. NYSDOT clearly failed to take into account that, in recent years, the FHWA has been very stingy in granting "design exceptions" that would allow a highway with some substandard elements to receive an interstate designation. In other words, the FHWA is requiring a highway to fully meet interstate design standards, with extremely limited exceptions, before they will allow it to be signed as an interstate.
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 21, 2023, 10:17:05 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 21, 2023, 09:32:24 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on April 21, 2023, 09:06:55 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 21, 2023, 06:55:58 AM
Quote from: dzheng35 on April 21, 2023, 03:40:58 AM
After wondering for so many years why the segment in Orange County between I-84 and NY 17K with the covered I-86 shields is still covered and not officially signed yet, here's why. This was from the draft PEL report during the PEL study, and someone brought this up. The explanation is vague but it mentioned something. Go to page 947 and zoom in.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/content/delivery/region8/projects/806509-Home/806509-Repository/8065.09_PEL%20Report%20Draft_Attachment%205_Public%20Involvement%20Documents_Sept2021.pdf
It mentioned that it's still not interstate standards unfortunately despite the reconstruction and upgrade years ago.
For so many years? All you had to do was read this thread. :D
It's ridiculous that they spent (wasted) all that money on reconstructing NY-17 around the I-84 interchange, yet they failed to bring that stretch up to interstate standards. SMH.
I believe there was a mentality for a few years that converting to full Interstate standards was a waste of funding, so the idea of "make it look Interstate-ish" was followed -- limited and necessary mobility improvements, but not going whole hog in pursuing the conversion.
(personal opinion emphasized)
In that case it looks like NYSDOT made "modest" spot improvements in the vicinity of I-84, assuming the FHWA would simply grant a waiver for any remaining design deficiencies along that stretch. NYSDOT clearly failed to take into account that, in recent years, the FHWA has been very stingy in granting "design exceptions" that would allow a highway with some substandard elements to receive an interstate designation. In other words, the FHWA is requiring a highway to fully meet interstate design standards, with extremely limited exceptions, before they will allow it to be signed as an interstate.
Nah. NYSDOT has known FHWA demands for the conversion. My point was that I believe not meeting those demands in the case of I-84/NY 17 was a deliberate money-saving decision by NYSDOT at the time.
FHWA is picky about non-standard justifications -- just that item has held up many-a-project as FHWA has insisted on justifications being tweaked to their desire.
Therefore, this would not be NYSDOT justifying non-standard features in hopes of FHWA just approving the conversion, but rather just to keep the interchange as-is with the spot improvements.
(personal opinion emphasized)
If consultants are to be believed, design for Hale Eddy to Hancock is progressing. Had a meeting with the prime consultant today.
Quote from: Rothman on July 26, 2023, 04:10:26 PM
If consultants are to be believed, design for Hale Eddy to Hancock is progressing. Had a meeting with the prime consultant today.
Any rough ideas of what they plan on doing with hale eddy in terms of right of way or interchanges, including where the interchange will be and the type of interchange that will be built? All I recall is the STIP website stating that it would be a diamond interchange.
When upgrades finally do come to Hale Eddy, will they be on-alignment upgrades, or could a northern bypass of the existing alignment be constructed?
Quote from: dzheng35 on July 26, 2023, 05:53:25 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 26, 2023, 04:10:26 PM
If consultants are to be believed, design for Hale Eddy to Hancock is progressing. Had a meeting with the prime consultant today.
Any rough ideas of what they plan on doing with hale eddy in terms of right of way or interchanges, including where the interchange will be and the type of interchange that will be built? All I recall is the STIP website stating that it would be a diamond interchange.
My meeting with them wasn't specifically on Hale Eddy. They mentioned it tangentially to our main topic. However, they did say there were two main interchanges they were working on for the stretch.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 26, 2023, 07:22:59 PM
When upgrades finally do come to Hale Eddy, will they be on-alignment upgrades, or could a northern bypass of the existing alignment be constructed?
Due to the topography of the area, it is probably cheaper to buy out all of the properties along the existing ROW and upgrade the substandard geometry, rather than blast a new alignment through the mountains like in Parksville. The renderings from 10+ years ago seemed to concur with this sentiment, though things can change over such a time period.
There are fewer active properties along the highway than 15 or so years ago.
Quote from: seicer on July 26, 2023, 10:19:08 PM
There are fewer active properties along the highway than 15 or so years ago.
Thanks to the population shifting from the rural to the urban areas. Seems like everyone wants to live in or very near a big city nowadays.
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 27, 2023, 11:13:37 AM
Quote from: seicer on July 26, 2023, 10:19:08 PM
There are fewer active properties along the highway than 15 or so years ago.
Thanks to the population shifting from the rural to the urban areas. Seems like everyone wants to live in or very near a big city nowadays.
When I go through small towns around the area, I often ask myself "what do those people do for a living?"
There were plenty of towns supporting even more scattered farms. Those farms are more industrial these days with fewer people overall.
Many small mines are either depleted or not profitable. Small manufacturing isn't willing to stay in the woods as well.
So, it's not about "who wants to live", more about "where jobs are?"
Quote from: kalvado on July 27, 2023, 11:39:27 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 27, 2023, 11:13:37 AM
Quote from: seicer on July 26, 2023, 10:19:08 PM
There are fewer active properties along the highway than 15 or so years ago.
Thanks to the population shifting from the rural to the urban areas. Seems like everyone wants to live in or very near a big city nowadays.
When I go through small towns around the area, I often ask myself "what do those people do for a living?"
There were plenty of towns supporting even more scattered farms. Those farms are more industrial these days with fewer people overall.
Many small mines are either depleted or not profitable. Small manufacturing isn't willing to stay in the woods as well.
So, it's not about "who wants to live", more about "where jobs are?"
Have you ever known any of these people?
Quote from: kalvado on July 27, 2023, 11:39:27 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 27, 2023, 11:13:37 AM
Quote from: seicer on July 26, 2023, 10:19:08 PM
There are fewer active properties along the highway than 15 or so years ago.
Thanks to the population shifting from the rural to the urban areas. Seems like everyone wants to live in or very near a big city nowadays.
When I go through small towns around the area, I often ask myself "what do those people do for a living?"
There were plenty of towns supporting even more scattered farms. Those farms are more industrial these days with fewer people overall.
Many small mines are either depleted or not profitable. Small manufacturing isn't willing to stay in the woods as well.
So, it's not about "who wants to live", more about "where jobs are?"
True to a point. Farming has become largely automated as corporate operations have mostly replaced mom-and-pop farms. We all know about the American heavy industry's 50-year death spiral that's still playing out in slow motion, and the transition of American economy from industrial based to services based. What remains of America's industries have relocated to major cities to be near key logistics hubs and ports to shorten the supply chain from the point of production to the consumer. Of course, jobs like manufacturing, production, logistics, healthcare, and retail require employees to do their work onsite as their work involves direct interaction with their employers and clients.
However (comma), the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that for those who work in professional services (office workers), many functions can be performed from anywhere. Consequently, a lot of folks seeking work today prefer either fully remote work or some sort of hybrid model where they work remotely part time and go into the office part time. Employers also see the benefit of this model by reducing their PP&E (building/facility) costs, while achieving the same level of production from their employees.
But...my point being, you can remote work from anywhere with an Internet connection. If it were me being able to remote work from anywhere, I wouldn't mind being in a quiet rural area on 20 acres of land. Sure beats the stress of living in the chaos of a big city.
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 28, 2023, 10:08:58 AM
Quote from: kalvado on July 27, 2023, 11:39:27 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 27, 2023, 11:13:37 AM
Quote from: seicer on July 26, 2023, 10:19:08 PM
There are fewer active properties along the highway than 15 or so years ago.
Thanks to the population shifting from the rural to the urban areas. Seems like everyone wants to live in or very near a big city nowadays.
When I go through small towns around the area, I often ask myself "what do those people do for a living?"
There were plenty of towns supporting even more scattered farms. Those farms are more industrial these days with fewer people overall.
Many small mines are either depleted or not profitable. Small manufacturing isn't willing to stay in the woods as well.
So, it's not about "who wants to live", more about "where jobs are?"
True to a point. Farming has become largely automated as corporate operations have mostly replaced mom-and-pop farms. We all know about the American heavy industry's 50-year death spiral that's still playing out in slow motion, and the transition of American economy from industrial based to services based. What remains of America's industries have relocated to major cities to be near key logistics hubs and ports to shorten the supply chain from the point of production to the consumer. Of course, jobs like manufacturing, production, logistics, healthcare, and retail require employees to do their work onsite as their work involves direct interaction with their employers and clients.
However (comma), the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that for those who work in professional services (office workers), many functions can be performed from anywhere. Consequently, a lot of folks seeking work today prefer either fully remote work or some sort of hybrid model where they work remotely part time and go into the office part time. Employers also see the benefit of this model by reducing their PP&E (building/facility) costs, while achieving the same level of production from their employees.
But...my point being, you can remote work from anywhere with an Internet connection. If it were me being able to remote work from anywhere, I wouldn't mind being in a quiet rural area on 20 acres of land. Sure beats the stress of living in the chaos of a big city.
Which is true, again to a point.
A lot of relocation from NYC happens into towns along NYC-Albany corridor, with local news weekly stories about locals displaced by rent increases.
I-86 corridor in general, and Hale Eddy specifically, is much closer to the middle of nowhere. It may be less than attractive idea to an average office worker that the nearest grocery supermarket is some 40 miles away, and convenience store with very limited selection is still a 5 mile drive. If you can plow yourself out of the snow, of course.
I am not sure what kind of internet connection is available in Hale Eddy, cable internet isn't really guaranteed in those areas. on a wireless side, Tmobile shows "extended 5G" - their 600 MHz band. WHich may or may not be good for the home 5G internet, if you want to do video conferencing...
Quote from: Rothman on July 26, 2023, 04:10:26 PM
If consultants are to be believed, design for Hale Eddy to Hancock is progressing. Had a meeting with the prime consultant today.
:bigass:
Well, that is good news. It's a start.
Quote from: kalvado on July 28, 2023, 10:20:24 AM
I am not sure what kind of internet connection is available in Hale Eddy, cable internet isn't really guaranteed in those areas. on a wireless side, Tmobile shows "extended 5G" - their 600 MHz band. WHich may or may not be good for the home 5G internet, if you want to do video conferencing...
According to the FCC broadband map, the entire area has gigabit symmetric fiber courtesy of TDS Communications or The Hancock Telephone Co. Yeah, somehow they have better internet then suburban areas of the NYC metro area. Thanks rural broadband grants!
I was looking at GSV images of I-86/NY-17 west of Waverly and noticed in several locations between the current east end of I-86 in Waverly and around Exit 28 in Cuba, GSV imagery from the past year shows that Route 17 signs on that stretch have been removed (The LGSs still show I-86/NY-17, but the reassurance sign assemblies following interchanges now show only I-86). Are we seeing the demise of Route 17 along stretches of the Southern Tier Expressway that have been upgraded to I-86?
^From cl94 on the Travel Mapping Forum:
Quote from: cl94 on April 11, 2022, 09:53:12 PM
Alright, some NY 17 fun. Our source at Region 6 posted in one of the Facebook groups that NYSDOT is making a conscious decision to remove all NY 17 signage west of US 220, as well as NY 15 signage along the I-86 and I-390 overlaps. 15 has already been truncated on TM, but this would effectively delete all of current NY NY 17. All of 17 west of Waverly/220 is concurrent with I-86, so nothing would be deleted from the system other than the NY 17 designation.
I can confirm that, apart from a couple of older overheads that are scheduled to be replaced within the next few years, most NY 17 signs are gone west of Waverly as of last week. The remaining ground-mounted signs are supposed to come down this year. This effectively means that NY 17 will be unsigned west of US 220 in the very near future (it already does not officially exist west of there according to Region 6).
And from vdeane:
Quote from: vdeane on November 25, 2022, 04:54:28 PM
I drove I-86 from Hornell to US 219 today. No ground-mounted NY 17 signs in Region 6, but they reappeared upon entering Region 5.
Since Interstate 86 is the only route signed on large stretches of the highway, it is apparent that NYSDOT sees that co-designating the roadway as NY 17 is overkill (and rightfully so). The NY 17 will continue to co-exist with Interstate 86, but until it is officially truncated, it is probably better that the 17 designation remains unsigned.
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 17, 2023, 10:45:40 PM
I was looking at GSV images of I-86/NY-17 west of Waverly and noticed in several locations between the current east end of I-86 in Waverly and around Exit 28 in Cuba, GSV imagery from the past year shows that Route 17 signs on that stretch have been removed (The LGSs still show I-86/NY-17, but the reassurance sign assemblies following interchanges now show only I-86). Are we seeing the demise of Route 17 along stretches of the Southern Tier Expressway that have been upgraded to I-86?
someone on this forum is responsible for that.
Quote from: abqtraveler on July 28, 2023, 10:08:58 AM
However (comma), the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that for those who work in professional services (office workers), many functions can be performed from anywhere. Consequently, a lot of folks seeking work today prefer either fully remote work or some sort of hybrid model where they work remotely part time and go into the office part time. Employers also see the benefit of this model by reducing their PP&E (building/facility) costs, while achieving the same level of production from their employees.
But...my point being, you can remote work from anywhere with an Internet connection. If it were me being able to remote work from anywhere, I wouldn't mind being in a quiet rural area on 20 acres of land. Sure beats the stress of living in the chaos of a big city.
This. I'll also note that, for those of us working in software engineering, this trend was already starting before the pandemic. COVID-19 vastly accelerated it, but it probably would have happened anyway.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 18, 2023, 07:10:15 AM
^From cl94 on the Travel Mapping Forum:
Quote from: cl94 on April 11, 2022, 09:53:12 PM
Alright, some NY 17 fun. Our source at Region 6 posted in one of the Facebook groups that NYSDOT is making a conscious decision to remove all NY 17 signage west of US 220, as well as NY 15 signage along the I-86 and I-390 overlaps. 15 has already been truncated on TM, but this would effectively delete all of current NY NY 17. All of 17 west of Waverly/220 is concurrent with I-86, so nothing would be deleted from the system other than the NY 17 designation.
I can confirm that, apart from a couple of older overheads that are scheduled to be replaced within the next few years, most NY 17 signs are gone west of Waverly as of last week. The remaining ground-mounted signs are supposed to come down this year. This effectively means that NY 17 will be unsigned west of US 220 in the very near future (it already does not officially exist west of there according to Region 6).
And from vdeane:
Quote from: vdeane on November 25, 2022, 04:54:28 PM
I drove I-86 from Hornell to US 219 today. No ground-mounted NY 17 signs in Region 6, but they reappeared upon entering Region 5.
Meh. I'd wait for NYSDOT to become consistent before changing anything.
*mutters about how regional control of the capital program is a double-edged sword, but infinitely better than if all programming control happened in Albany*
Quote from: Rothman on August 20, 2023, 08:49:54 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 18, 2023, 07:10:15 AM
^From cl94 on the Travel Mapping Forum:
Quote from: cl94 on April 11, 2022, 09:53:12 PM
Alright, some NY 17 fun. Our source at Region 6 posted in one of the Facebook groups that NYSDOT is making a conscious decision to remove all NY 17 signage west of US 220, as well as NY 15 signage along the I-86 and I-390 overlaps. 15 has already been truncated on TM, but this would effectively delete all of current NY NY 17. All of 17 west of Waverly/220 is concurrent with I-86, so nothing would be deleted from the system other than the NY 17 designation.
I can confirm that, apart from a couple of older overheads that are scheduled to be replaced within the next few years, most NY 17 signs are gone west of Waverly as of last week. The remaining ground-mounted signs are supposed to come down this year. This effectively means that NY 17 will be unsigned west of US 220 in the very near future (it already does not officially exist west of there according to Region 6).
And from vdeane:
Quote from: vdeane on November 25, 2022, 04:54:28 PM
I drove I-86 from Hornell to US 219 today. No ground-mounted NY 17 signs in Region 6, but they reappeared upon entering Region 5.
Meh. I'd wait for NYSDOT to become consistent before changing anything.
*mutters about how regional control of the capital program is a double-edged sword, but infinitely better than if all programming control happened in Albany*
Now imagine what happens when your local and regional control is still in Albany....
Just wondering, are there parts of I-86 that technically don't meet modern interstate standards despite being given the designation since standards have changed over the years and the western 177 miles of I-86 were designated in 1999?
Quote from: dzheng35 on September 18, 2023, 01:40:40 PM
Just wondering, are there parts of I-86 that technically don't meet modern interstate standards despite being given the designation since standards have changed over the years and the western 177 miles of I-86 were designated in 1999?
There are some bridges that seem substandard by today's standards, especially between Corning and Binghamton (such as
this one (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Fis1H9Enx2Vqu5kk9)). But given the minor issues preventing the segment east of Binghamton from being designated, those bridges must not be an issue or they wouldn't have been designated. West of Elmira, it's a reasonably high quality road. I can't think of anything else that would be substandard besides the bridges.
I drove the entire Quickway twice within the past couple of months. Have the police seem to lighten up on the 55 mph speed limit enforcement throughout the entire stretch in Delaware County? I didn't see any cops on that entire stretch both times I drove it this summer.
Quote from: dzheng35 on September 18, 2023, 10:02:39 PM
I drove the entire Quickway twice within the past couple of months. Have the police seem to lighten up on the 55 mph speed limit enforcement throughout the entire stretch in Delaware County? I didn't see any cops on that entire stretch both times I drove it this summer.
And I was stuck behind one going 62mph from Hale Eddy to Roscoe on July 4th. YMMV
While I drove past Exit 105 in Monticello on Route 17, I never got off of Route 17 at Exit 105 to see how the interchange reconstruction was going there. Besides, it was dark at night when I drove the Quickway. To anyone who has during the daytime, any updates on the current status of the interchange reconstruction such as the ramps or the roundabouts that are being installed?
Quote from: dzheng35 on September 30, 2023, 04:47:15 PM
While I drove past Exit 105 in Monticello on Route 17, I never got off of Route 17 at Exit 105 to see how the interchange reconstruction was going there. Besides, it was dark at night when I drove the Quickway. To anyone who has during the daytime, any updates on the current status of the interchange reconstruction such as the ramps or the roundabouts that are being installed?
Here's a GSV of Exit 105 from August 2023. Looks like the loop ramps have been closed and are in the process of being removed and the new ramps being paved.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6638444,-74.6788696,3a,79.2y,134.54h,68.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syDQj_6_vGLJMEpv7cGYPKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Quick thoughts: Interestingly enough 17 is my favorite number so it'll suck to see the designation disappear completely but I'd like to see 17C become 17 again, or 417 (unlikely). The map isn't to be trifiled with but I think it will remained a unsigned
concurrency/afterthought in the future, or removed completely. Or 17 can Absorb 17k. I know those who are in favor of at least preserving it, or restoring the old alignments. IMO, 417 and 17C(?) in Binghamton restored as 17 with a (unsigned or signed) concurrency with 86 to connect the two would be a pain but would be a win-win for those on both sides of the coin. Who knows really.
Would it be possible (or likely) that NY 17 along completed portions of Interstate 86 may simply be de-signed, but not actually truncated or decommissioned? That way, NY 17A-NY 17M would not have to be decommissioned or renumbered.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 15, 2023, 11:21:03 AM
Would it be possible (or likely) that NY 17 along completed portions of Interstate 86 may simply be de-signed, but not actually truncated or decommissioned? That way, NY 17A-NY 17M would not have to be decommissioned or renumbered.
That's basically that status quo on parts of the Southern Tier Expressway, but I don't believe that's the intended end state for if/when I-86 is finished. That said, I wouldn't assume that the suffixed routes "have" to be decommissioned or renumbered even if NY 17 does go away - it's not like the I-x78 routes have been decommissioned or renumbered, after all.
Well I would think that the NY peeps would have posted this already, but I did not know that this I-86 EB shield existed before Saturday. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219981070077597&set=pcb.10219981105758489)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53528706407_1bfc2dc4d0_c.jpg)
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 14, 2024, 05:07:36 PM
Well I would think that the NY peeps would have posted this already, but I did not know that this I-86 EB shield existed before Saturday. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219981070077597&set=pcb.10219981105758489)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53528706407_1bfc2dc4d0_c.jpg)
And this particular shield has been there since 2008 at least... wow.
I would like to see far more Interstate 86 signs erected where there currently aren't any, even if upgrades to Interstate Standards aren't completed yet. Maybe it would give some incentive to get a move on making the Interstate upgrade improvements. After all, the Interstate conversion of the entire corridor was once planned to be completed by 2009 (or at least that's what then-Governor George Pataki said in 1998, was he off by at least a few decades).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 14, 2024, 11:02:05 PM
I would like to see far more Interstate 86 signs erected where there currently aren't any, even if upgrades to Interstate Standards aren't completed yet. Maybe it would give some incentive to get a move on making the Interstate upgrade improvements. After all, the Interstate conversion of the entire corridor was once planned to be completed by 2009 (or at least that's what then-Governor George Pataki said in 1998, was he off by at least a few decades).
Your opinion is noted and I think NYSDOT will continue to do its best to comply with FHWA and AASHTO. :D
Hey, if we wanted that, we'd bring back Cuomo 😉
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 14, 2024, 11:02:05 PM
I would like to see far more Interstate 86 signs erected where there currently aren't any, even if upgrades to Interstate Standards aren't completed yet. Maybe it would give some incentive to get a move on making the Interstate upgrade improvements. After all, the Interstate conversion of the entire corridor was once planned to be completed by 2009 (or at least that's what then-Governor George Pataki said in 1998, was he off by at least a few decades).
Not sure how much of an incentive it would be, given that this part (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4533613,-74.3729353,3a,28.7y,340h,91.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEXITFlFslSFjCCewXBaXfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) and this part (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1151507,-75.9045569,3a,32.8y,276.62h,94.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMNe0HKBQi7pybjoSpTA3ag!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) are still years away at best (the former at least has a project being studied; the latter, I have no clue about). And in North Carolina, where "future I-26" shields are posted that look just like regular interstate shields, if anything it seems to have deflated any push there might have been to get things finished.
Yeah, 2009 turned out to be a bit off. The conversion ended up being more expensive than expected and fell way down the state's priority list when money got tight (for a while, it was even off the list entirely).
Quote from: vdeane on February 15, 2024, 12:51:56 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 14, 2024, 11:02:05 PM
I would like to see far more Interstate 86 signs erected where there currently aren't any, even if upgrades to Interstate Standards aren't completed yet. Maybe it would give some incentive to get a move on making the Interstate upgrade improvements. After all, the Interstate conversion of the entire corridor was once planned to be completed by 2009 (or at least that's what then-Governor George Pataki said in 1998, was he off by at least a few decades).
Not sure how much of an incentive it would be, given that this part (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4533613,-74.3729353,3a,28.7y,340h,91.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEXITFlFslSFjCCewXBaXfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) and this part (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1151507,-75.9045569,3a,32.8y,276.62h,94.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMNe0HKBQi7pybjoSpTA3ag!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) are still years away at best (the former at least has a project being studied; the latter, I have no clue about). And in North Carolina, where "future I-26" shields are posted that look just like regular interstate shields, if anything it seems to have deflated any push there might have been to get things finished.
Yeah, 2009 turned out to be a bit off. The conversion ended up being more expensive than expected and fell way down the state's priority list when money got tight (for a while, it was even off the list entirely).
I've got a hunch that the State is regretting putting the conversion back on the table. The big money came in and a newer crew of leadership approved a bunch of megaprojects without knowing the sultry history of some of them, leading to "unexpected" overruns (i.e., overruns the old crew knew were inevitable, but held to a party line the new crew took as the gospel truth). So, all of a sudden, there's a lot of sweating over available funding as NYSDOT lumbers towards its upcoming capital program update.
Eh, just my opinion on how I see things unrolling. The projects will probably still get done, but probably at a cost to the "core" program.
We shall see. Probably.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on February 14, 2024, 05:45:49 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 14, 2024, 05:07:36 PM
Well I would think that the NY peeps would have posted this already, but I did not know that this I-86 EB shield existed before Saturday. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219981070077597&set=pcb.10219981105758489)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53528706407_1bfc2dc4d0_c.jpg)
And this particular shield has been there since 2008 at least... wow.
It's interesting how NYSDOT is being very inconsistent at this particular interchange. Given the overhead sign with I-86, there are no ground-mounted I-86 signs, only NY-17 signs. But...approaching the same interchange from the opposite direction on NY-52, there is a JCT NY-17/I-86 sign. Just to add to more of the confusion of what's really going on with the I-86 conversion along the stretch.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7907776,-74.7343433,3a,54.8y,172.37h,80.75t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sknU6_gdVkhe1P8R5um-FUw!2e0!5s20220901T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu