NY 17/"I-86"

[vdeane]

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).

[seicer]

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

[hbelkins]

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?

[seicer]

I never knew that and looking at the Streetview imagery, it's brilliant.

[Jim]

Here's the way it was as of July 17, 2018, my last ride up that way.

[Beltway]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[hotdogPi]

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:

(alpsroads)

[vdeane]

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".

[seicer]

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.

[sprjus4]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[amroad17]

^ 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).

[Beltway]

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.

[seicer]

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.

[amroad17]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[sbeaver44]

^ 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.

[74/171FAN]

^ 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.

[hbelkins]

^ 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.

[jp the roadgeek]

^ 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...

[Rothman]

This thread has digressed.

[AcE_Wolf_287]

What Happened to the "I-86" in the Middletown region? it was completed in 2013 and still hasn't been signed?

[webny99]

Has anyone been through the Binghamton/Prospect Mountain project area recently, and if so, is all the construction work finally complete!?

[seicer]

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.