NY 17 / I-86 Conversion Resurrected?

[Duke87]

No designation for the eastern end? I-87 to I-84 would make a decent signed 3di that is probably worth the small amount of remaining upgrades.

Eh. Binghamton is a logical cutoff point since 17 east and west of there is physically two separate roads that one must use I-81 to connect between. I see no reason to add a designation to only part of the eastern section. Or, more to the point, if the section from 84 to 87 were to be added to the interstate system (as I-284 or whatever), I would leave it a secret designation and not bother signing it.

As for the problem with the eastern end, I'm assuming it's the lack of median of any sort at the toll plaza?

[Pete from Boston]

It isn't going to help things to sign the eastern part as some new Interstate.  You would need to rename the 17 east of Binghamton too, since there would otherwise be two discontinuous 17s (the eastern/southernmost of which becomes NJ Route 17, so changing that doesn't make sense).

Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.

[cl94]

17 between 84 and 87 has been pretty much up to interstate standards for years.  At least that portion should receive the I-86 designation, if not even as far as US 209.

I believe there's a significant issue where 17 comes into I-87 at Woodbury Common.  Because that connection is not up to standard, the interstate designation cannot be given from I-87 westward.  Otherwise, it would have been already designated, I bet (given the I-86 portion east of Binghamton).

That doesn't sound right to me. Besides, that's getting fixed with the NYSTA project at Woodbury/Harriman.

The issue is Exit 131 itself

[roadman65]

It isn't going to help things to sign the eastern part as some new Interstate.  You would need to rename the 17 east of Binghamton too, since there would otherwise be two discontinuous 17s (the eastern/southernmost of which becomes NJ Route 17, so changing that doesn't make sense).

Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.

NY 24 and NY 42.  They are both discontinuous!

[Henry]

In terms of how to handle the designation problem, I'd abort any attempts to convert 17 east of Binghamton and have I-86 consume I-88 to end in Schenectady. Existing I-86 for a few miles east of I-81 can become "secret" I-181 for the sake of keeping it in the interstate system since it already is. Beyond that, forget it.

Which would be ironic, because the original I-86 east of Hartford was consumed by I-84 when the road to Providence was cancelled. The planned I-86 east of Binghamton is facing the same problem too.

[roadman65]

In terms of how to handle the designation problem, I'd abort any attempts to convert 17 east of Binghamton and have I-86 consume I-88 to end in Schenectady. Existing I-86 for a few miles east of I-81 can become "secret" I-181 for the sake of keeping it in the interstate system since it already is. Beyond that, forget it.

Which would be ironic, because the original I-86 east of Hartford was consumed by I-84 when the road to Providence was cancelled. The planned I-86 east of Binghamton is facing the same problem too.

It isn't going to help things to sign the eastern part as some new Interstate.  You would need to rename the 17 east of Binghamton too, since there would otherwise be two discontinuous 17s (the eastern/southernmost of which becomes NJ Route 17, so changing that doesn't make sense).

Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.

NY 24 and NY 42.  They are both discontinuous!

Its even more ironic that I-86 from Hartford to the MA Pike was originally I-84 to begin with.

I always thought that when I-88 (the real I-88 not the impostor in Illinois) was first built I always thought that it should consume NY 17 west of Binghamton as well.  That would make mores sense as I-88 as is wastes a good 2 digit route being so short.

[vdeane]

It isn't going to help things to sign the eastern part as some new Interstate.  You would need to rename the 17 east of Binghamton too, since there would otherwise be two discontinuous 17s (the eastern/southernmost of which becomes NJ Route 17, so changing that doesn't make sense).

Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.

Just get rid of NY 17 south of Harriman and make it a southern extension of NY 32.

[roadman65]

It isn't going to help things to sign the eastern part as some new Interstate.  You would need to rename the 17 east of Binghamton too, since there would otherwise be two discontinuous 17s (the eastern/southernmost of which becomes NJ Route 17, so changing that doesn't make sense).

Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.

Just get rid of NY 17 south of Harriman and make it a southern extension of NY 32.

Considering that the Hillburn Bypass is severed (well going NB anyway) it might as well be and let NJ 17 end at Exit 15 of the Thruway or at the State Line to be technical.  I do not see NJ going through the paperwork to truncate less than a half a mile of interstate overlap for the sake of changing its endpoint, so that is why I say that.   

NY 32 is the obvious choice for the Orange Turnpike.  Of course NY 17 is full of children that will become orphans that we will have, but that is not the only case that situation ever happened.

[Pete from Boston]

It isn't going to help things to sign the eastern part as some new Interstate.  You would need to rename the 17 east of Binghamton too, since there would otherwise be two discontinuous 17s (the eastern/southernmost of which becomes NJ Route 17, so changing that doesn't make sense).

Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.

Just get rid of NY 17 south of Harriman and make it a southern extension of NY 32.

There's no meaningful benefit to going to these lengths of renumbering.  The map is not a toy.

[roadman65]

I think we are talking ideally, although it has merit.  Having NY 32 become NY 17 when both run into each other at Harriman, would make it less confusing.

It would not be the first time this would be done as many other places have eliminated route numbers in favor of extending others for continuity purposes. 

[vdeane]

It isn't going to help things to sign the eastern part as some new Interstate.  You would need to rename the 17 east of Binghamton too, since there would otherwise be two discontinuous 17s (the eastern/southernmost of which becomes NJ Route 17, so changing that doesn't make sense).

Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.

Just get rid of NY 17 south of Harriman and make it a southern extension of NY 32.

There's no meaningful benefit to going to these lengths of renumbering.  The map is not a toy.

There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to having NY 17 and NY 32 turn into each other at a random point.  And it WILL be a random point, as NY 17 WILL be truncated if/when I-86 is completed all the way from PA to I-87.  NYSDOT is NOT moving it back onto old 17, and it is NOT retaining NY 17 on the converted sections.  In fact, as far as Regions 5 and 6 are concerned, it's already dead west of US 220, and the only reason NY 17 signs exist in those regions AT ALL is to appease people who don't want the transition.  Newer signs on the sections that have been I-86 for a while omit NY 17 entirely (as well as NY 15 where applicable, which was truncated to I-390, and the Southern Tier Expressway trailblazer, which is also being phased out).

I'm all in favor of making systems more logical and orderly.

I'd be in favor of truncating NJ 17 to where it meets I-287 for the same reason.  IMO it shouldn't take much paperwork, though I've been in government long enough to know that bureaucrats like to invent paperwork for the heck of it.  What should be a quick exchange with the boss and a database edit instead becomes an endless series of meetings where people find every excuse under the sun to make the task more complicated than it needs to be.

[Pete from Boston]

It isn't going to help things to sign the eastern part as some new Interstate.  You would need to rename the 17 east of Binghamton too, since there would otherwise be two discontinuous 17s (the eastern/southernmost of which becomes NJ Route 17, so changing that doesn't make sense).

Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.

Just get rid of NY 17 south of Harriman and make it a southern extension of NY 32.

There's no meaningful benefit to going to these lengths of renumbering.  The map is not a toy.

There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to having NY 17 and NY 32 turn into each other at a random point.  And it WILL be a random point, as NY 17 WILL be truncated if/when I-86 is completed all the way from PA to I-87.  NYSDOT is NOT moving it back onto old 17, and it is NOT retaining NY 17 on the converted sections.  In fact, as far as Regions 5 and 6 are concerned, it's already dead west of US 220, and the only reason NY 17 signs exist in those regions AT ALL is to appease people who don't want the transition.  Newer signs on the sections that have been I-86 for a while omit NY 17 entirely (as well as NY 15 where applicable, which was truncated to I-390, and the Southern Tier Expressway trailblazer, which is also being phased out).

I'm all in favor of making systems more logical and orderly.

I'd be in favor of truncating NJ 17 to where it meets I-287 for the same reason.  IMO it shouldn't take much paperwork, though I've been in government long enough to know that bureaucrats like to invent paperwork for the heck of it.  What should be a quick exchange with the boss and a database edit instead becomes an endless series of meetings where people find every excuse under the sun to make the task more complicated than it needs to be.

Those people own the roads, and they are not inherently necessarily logical and orderly, and the "boss" works for and answers to them.  Their opinion counts.

Renumbering roads with which people have familiarity should be undertaken only if there is a major benefit in doing so.  I still see only minor benefit in the changes proposed above, particularly when weighed against the many instances of confusion that will result.   I know that for a lot of folks "the map is more satisfying this way" constitutes major benefit, but that's really logic for the Fictional Highways forum.

[roadman65]

NJ never truncated US 46 as it ends midspan on the GWB.  IMO, that should have been addressed when I-80 was completed.  US 46 before the interstates served a purpose being co-signed with US 1 & 9 all the way to the NY State Line to provide continuity into the big city.  However, US 46 is a local road now and really should be downgraded to a state route, and that is another story.

If NJ really wanted paperwork for the fun of it, getting AASHTO to remove US 46 from the list would be a great project for them at least from the bridge anyway.  The rest would require NJDOT to replace thousands of signs which would cost NJ thousands.

[Duke87]

There's no meaningful benefit to going to these lengths of renumbering.  The map is not a toy.

Someone please explain that to the people in Albany who think that renaming bridges and tunnels is jolly good fun. Changing signs to make Orange Turnpike part of NY 32 would have significantly greater material benefit than changing signs to rename roads after dead politicians!

Or putting up signs memorializing locations where some state trooper scratched his balls one day, for that matter.

[dgolub]

NJ never truncated US 46 as it ends midspan on the GWB.  IMO, that should have been addressed when I-80 was completed.  US 46 before the interstates served a purpose being co-signed with US 1 & 9 all the way to the NY State Line to provide continuity into the big city.  However, US 46 is a local road now and really should be downgraded to a state route, and that is another story.

Speaking of which, not to go off on a tangent, but do you know why US 46 extends to the state line?  Was it supposed to continue into New York?

[cl94]

NJ never truncated US 46 as it ends midspan on the GWB.  IMO, that should have been addressed when I-80 was completed.  US 46 before the interstates served a purpose being co-signed with US 1 & 9 all the way to the NY State Line to provide continuity into the big city.  However, US 46 is a local road now and really should be downgraded to a state route, and that is another story.

Speaking of which, not to go off on a tangent, but do you know why US 46 extends to the state line?  Was it supposed to continue into New York?

He might know, but it always ended on the bridge. From what I can tell, they just slapped the designation on former NJ 6.

[Rothman]

Here are what I consider to be the outstanding projects for the NY 17/I-86 conversion.  Looking at about $500M in work, at least (hard to trust numbers when projects aren't actually included yet in the capital program).  $400M, at least, in Region 8:

RTE. 17/I86 UPGRADE TIOGA CO. LN. TO W. BINGHAMTON CITY LN.
RTE 17/I86 CONVERSION EXIT 79 TO EXIT 84
RT 17 UPGRADE TO I86: EXIT 129
RTE. 17/I86 INTERCHANGE IMP. EXIT'S 102, 103, 104, 107, 108
I86/RTE 17 INT-CHANGE IMP., EXIT 109, 110, 111, 112, 114,115
RTE 42 V.MONTICELLO LN. TO RTE 17 WB OFF RAMP
RTE. 17/I86 INTER IMP., EXIT'S 87, 87A, 89, 90, 92, 93
RTE 17/I86 INTERCHANGE IMP., EXIT'S 100A,100, AND 101
RTE 17/I86 CONVERSION HALE EDDY TO HANCOCK
ROUTE 17: EXIT 122 INTERCHANGE PHASE 2
RT 17 UPGRADE TO I-86: EXIT 122A-EXIT 126
ROUTE 17 UPGRADE TO I86: EXIT 127 AND 128
RT 17 UPGRADE TO I86: EXIT 126-EXIT 130A
ROUTE 17 UPGRADE TO I-86: EXIT 130A TO EXIT 131

Keep in mind, I don't believe these to be on NYSDOT's official program and I don't believe the go-ahead has been given to start up the conversion effort again. 

And, of course, this is just lil' ol' me talking here and this post represents my own personal opinion on the conversion effort and where it stands.

[cl94]

Here are what I consider to be the outstanding projects for the NY 17/I-86 conversion.  Looking at about $500M in work, at least (hard to trust numbers when projects aren't actually included yet in the capital program).  $400M, at least, in Region 8:

RTE. 17/I86 UPGRADE TIOGA CO. LN. TO W. BINGHAMTON CITY LN.
RTE 17/I86 CONVERSION EXIT 79 TO EXIT 84
RT 17 UPGRADE TO I86: EXIT 129
RTE. 17/I86 INTERCHANGE IMP. EXIT'S 102, 103, 104, 107, 108
I86/RTE 17 INT-CHANGE IMP., EXIT 109, 110, 111, 112, 114,115
RTE 42 V.MONTICELLO LN. TO RTE 17 WB OFF RAMP
RTE. 17/I86 INTER IMP., EXIT'S 87, 87A, 89, 90, 92, 93
RTE 17/I86 INTERCHANGE IMP., EXIT'S 100A,100, AND 101
RTE 17/I86 CONVERSION HALE EDDY TO HANCOCK
ROUTE 17: EXIT 122 INTERCHANGE PHASE 2
RT 17 UPGRADE TO I-86: EXIT 122A-EXIT 126
ROUTE 17 UPGRADE TO I86: EXIT 127 AND 128
RT 17 UPGRADE TO I86: EXIT 126-EXIT 130A
ROUTE 17 UPGRADE TO I-86: EXIT 130A TO EXIT 131

Keep in mind, I don't believe these to be on NYSDOT's official program and I don't believe the go-ahead has been given to start up the conversion effort again. 

And, of course, this is just lil' ol' me talking here and this post represents my own personal opinion on the conversion effort and where it stands.

That's about what I figured. Most of the major stuff appears to be in Delaware and Sullivan Counties in Region 9. Hale Eddy will probably be the most expensive part of it.

[Rothman]

Here are what I consider to be the outstanding projects for the NY 17/I-86 conversion.  Looking at about $500M in work, at least (hard to trust numbers when projects aren't actually included yet in the capital program).  $400M, at least, in Region 8:

RTE. 17/I86 UPGRADE TIOGA CO. LN. TO W. BINGHAMTON CITY LN.
RTE 17/I86 CONVERSION EXIT 79 TO EXIT 84
RT 17 UPGRADE TO I86: EXIT 129
RTE. 17/I86 INTERCHANGE IMP. EXIT'S 102, 103, 104, 107, 108
I86/RTE 17 INT-CHANGE IMP., EXIT 109, 110, 111, 112, 114,115
RTE 42 V.MONTICELLO LN. TO RTE 17 WB OFF RAMP
RTE. 17/I86 INTER IMP., EXIT'S 87, 87A, 89, 90, 92, 93
RTE 17/I86 INTERCHANGE IMP., EXIT'S 100A,100, AND 101
RTE 17/I86 CONVERSION HALE EDDY TO HANCOCK
ROUTE 17: EXIT 122 INTERCHANGE PHASE 2
RT 17 UPGRADE TO I-86: EXIT 122A-EXIT 126
ROUTE 17 UPGRADE TO I86: EXIT 127 AND 128
RT 17 UPGRADE TO I86: EXIT 126-EXIT 130A
ROUTE 17 UPGRADE TO I-86: EXIT 130A TO EXIT 131

Keep in mind, I don't believe these to be on NYSDOT's official program and I don't believe the go-ahead has been given to start up the conversion effort again. 

And, of course, this is just lil' ol' me talking here and this post represents my own personal opinion on the conversion effort and where it stands.

That's about what I figured. Most of the major stuff appears to be in Delaware and Sullivan Counties in Region 9. Hale Eddy will probably be the most expensive part of it.

Hale Eddy to Hancock's definitely the most expensive chunk out of the bunch, but the bulk of the overall cost by far is in Region 8.

[Rothman]

UPDATE:

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

(personal opinion expressed)

[cl94]

UPDATE:

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

(personal opinion expressed)

As I figured. That needs to be done because it's a CF.

[AMLNet49]

My question is that the route number is essentially useless if it isn't signed at both ends. So I feel like if they are giving up on actually completing it, they need to put "TO I-86" next to every NY-17 shield after the I-86 designation ends, especially at the interchanges with I-84 and I-87. So all instances of entrances onto the Southern Tier Expressway would have either I-86 shields or TO I-86 shields.

[cl94]

My question is that the route number is essentially useless if it isn't signed at both ends. So I feel like if they are giving up on actually completing it, they need to put "TO I-86" next to every NY-17 shield after the I-86 designation ends, especially at the interchanges with I-84 and I-87. So all instances of entrances onto the Southern Tier Expressway would have either I-86 shields or TO I-86 shields.

In a couple of years, the currently-designated sections will be linked, as the Binghamton work is pretty much the only thing stopping it. As long as the eastern half remains signed as NY 17, all is good. Not like anybody knows it as I-86, anyway.

[vdeane]

UPDATE:

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

(personal opinion expressed)

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

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

[cl94]

UPDATE:

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

(personal opinion expressed)

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

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

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