New York

[seicer]

I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.

[froggie]

The curves in New Hampshire aren't nearly as sharp as they are on the Quickway (i.e. NY 17 east of Binghamton), so you can throw out that comparison.  And IIRC the speed limit on the curvy section of the West Virginia Turnpike is 60.

[Roadsguy]

Most of that 55 section is due to terrain and geometry.  NY 17 through the Catskills is probably the craziest non-parkway road in the northeast excluding the PA Turnpike. It simply isn't safe to have a higher limit with many of those curves.

At least the Turnpike can mostly be safely driven at 70 (realistically 80), but it isn't nearly as curvy or hilly as that part of 17. I've never driven it, but from looking at it it seems just 65 is too much for it.

[empirestate]

I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.

It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.

[vdeane]

I feel perfectly safe driving that section of NY 17 at 65.  Pity it isn't legal; it's hard to keep my speed down there.

There is some serious Corten (the steel that rusts) guardrail rot along NY 8 in the Adirondacks region, with entire sections and supports rusted apart. I know other states use Corten extensively as guardrails and have not seen this much rot - is it from a bad batch of steel? And speaking of that - there is a lot of inconsistency in the application of Corten and regular guardrails, with a mixture of both on many scenic roadways.

NYSDOT is currently replacing all rustic (Corten) rail with standard galvanized guiderail, so that's where the inconsistency comes from.  The rail literally rots from the inside out.  I can only assume that other states are OK with replacing guiderail every decade.

[seicer]

Well, the argument -could- be made that NY 17 is still 55 MPH east of the intersections at Hale Eddy because it's a state highway, but remember that NY 17 elsewhere (and prior to I-86's introduction) was and is signed at 65 MPH. Those curves are no more sharp than what you would encounter on the West Virginia Turnpike (which is 60 MPH with many curves signed at 55 MPH and thereabouts) or I-79 (which is 70 MPH with plenty of 60 MPH curves). The argument that there are some curves therefore the entire 30 or so mile stretch of highway needs to be under-posted to 55 MPH is irrational.

It's also a speed trap. It's faster to travel to New York City via I-81/380/80 than it is to take I-86/NY 17 or I-81/I-84/NY 17 purely based on the speed limits and traffic.

That's not to say the entire state is under-posted at 65 MPH when 70 MPH or 75 MPH is realistic and safe. More progressive states have long switched to 70 MPH or even 75 MPH.

As for the guardrails - that's understandable. I just haven't seen the rot on Corten W-shaped guardrails - perhaps the salt is infiltrating inside the box beam and collecting inside?

[cl94]

I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.

It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.

Which is most likely the reason. If I had a say, that section of NY 17 would be posted at 60. Yes, I take it at 65-70, but there's a pretty good reason why it's posted at 55. I think it has a design speed of 60 because of terrain and that section wouldn't even see an upgrade because it falls under an acceptable waiver category (mountainous terrain). Personally, I don't think that an expressway signed at 65 should have 50 mph curves (of which there are multiple), but that's a matter of opinion.

East of East Branch could realistically see 65. East Branch-Hancock shouldn't go over 60. And since New York doesn't post 60, 55 it is. Those curves see a ton of accidents, especially in the winter months.

[RobbieL2415]

I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.

It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.

Which is most likely the reason. If I had a say, that section of NY 17 would be posted at 60. Yes, I take it at 65-70, but there's a pretty good reason why it's posted at 55. I think it has a design speed of 60 because of terrain and that section wouldn't even see an upgrade because it falls under an acceptable waiver category (mountainous terrain). Personally, I don't think that an expressway signed at 65 should have 50 mph curves (of which there are multiple), but that's a matter of opinion.

East of East Branch could realistically see 65. East Branch-Hancock shouldn't go over 60. And since New York doesn't post 60, 55 it is. Those curves see a ton of accidents, especially in the winter months.

The only other SRs I know of that have 65mph limits are NY 49 and NY 531.  I'm sure there's more though.

[cl94]

I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.

It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.

Which is most likely the reason. If I had a say, that section of NY 17 would be posted at 60. Yes, I take it at 65-70, but there's a pretty good reason why it's posted at 55. I think it has a design speed of 60 because of terrain and that section wouldn't even see an upgrade because it falls under an acceptable waiver category (mountainous terrain). Personally, I don't think that an expressway signed at 65 should have 50 mph curves (of which there are multiple), but that's a matter of opinion.

East of East Branch could realistically see 65. East Branch-Hancock shouldn't go over 60. And since New York doesn't post 60, 55 it is. Those curves see a ton of accidents, especially in the winter months.

The only other SRs I know of that have 65mph limits are NY 49 and NY 531.  I'm sure there's more though.

5 west of Syracuse, 7 in Colonie, 400, 481, 690, 695, as well as US 219. All of these are generally built to 70s-90s Interstate standards (NY 7 was supposed to be I-88), unlike NY 17 east of Binghamton, which predates the Interstate system.

[seicer]

Well, NY 17 is still 65 MPH further east in the Catskills, and was 65 MPH prior to I-86's introduction.

[Alps]

I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.

It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.

Which is most likely the reason. If I had a say, that section of NY 17 would be posted at 60. Yes, I take it at 65-70, but there's a pretty good reason why it's posted at 55. I think it has a design speed of 60 because of terrain and that section wouldn't even see an upgrade because it falls under an acceptable waiver category (mountainous terrain). Personally, I don't think that an expressway signed at 65 should have 50 mph curves (of which there are multiple), but that's a matter of opinion.

East of East Branch could realistically see 65. East Branch-Hancock shouldn't go over 60. And since New York doesn't post 60, 55 it is. Those curves see a ton of accidents, especially in the winter months.

The only other SRs I know of that have 65mph limits are NY 49 and NY 531.  I'm sure there's more though.

5 west of Syracuse, 7 in Colonie, 400, 481, 690, 695, as well as US 219. All of these are generally built to 70s-90s Interstate standards (NY 7 was supposed to be I-88), unlike NY 17 east of Binghamton, which predates the Interstate system.

I'm not convinced NY 7 was meant to be I-88. I've seen various plans for I-88 and NY 7 is generally not in them.

[seicer]

I came across a document via Google Books that had the various routings proposed for I-88 in the Binghamton area. One was to the east via Fox Hollow, another was along NY 7 and the other was along its current alignment. I can't recall if there was one proposed north of Chenango Bridge.

[cl94]

I meant after the intersections, where it's a freeway to the Thruway. Even with those curves - many of which can be remedied with advanced curve notice signage, there is no reason that it can't be signed for 70 MPH. Ask West Virginia or New Hampshire or practically any progressive state how it handles their higher speed limits.

It could be something as simple as it's 55 because it isn't 65. In other words, the default state speed limit is 55, but action can be taken to raise the limit on some freeways to 65. Perhaps they simply haven't taken that action yet.

Which is most likely the reason. If I had a say, that section of NY 17 would be posted at 60. Yes, I take it at 65-70, but there's a pretty good reason why it's posted at 55. I think it has a design speed of 60 because of terrain and that section wouldn't even see an upgrade because it falls under an acceptable waiver category (mountainous terrain). Personally, I don't think that an expressway signed at 65 should have 50 mph curves (of which there are multiple), but that's a matter of opinion.

East of East Branch could realistically see 65. East Branch-Hancock shouldn't go over 60. And since New York doesn't post 60, 55 it is. Those curves see a ton of accidents, especially in the winter months.

The only other SRs I know of that have 65mph limits are NY 49 and NY 531.  I'm sure there's more though.

5 west of Syracuse, 7 in Colonie, 400, 481, 690, 695, as well as US 219. All of these are generally built to 70s-90s Interstate standards (NY 7 was supposed to be I-88), unlike NY 17 east of Binghamton, which predates the Interstate system.

I'm not convinced NY 7 was meant to be I-88. I've seen various plans for I-88 and NY 7 is generally not in them.

Regardless of what it became, it was in the general area where I-88 was planned to run, plus I-787's Exit 9 was built along with 787 for I-88. We know that from an Official Description sitting on my desk (east end of the Collar City Bridge was the listed end of I-88 until some point in the 80s). I-87's Exit 7 was likely reserved for the freeway that became I-88 and later NY 7. "Alternate 7" was an I-88 replacement. But we're getting off topic.

[cl94]

NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions. Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.

[kalvado]

NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions. Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.

I wonder if that would affect, to any extent, I-81 Syracuse discussion...

[seicer]

This bridge: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=42.02391,-76.36201&z=17&t=H

[SGwithADD]

Better photos of the damage to the NY 17 bridge

[seicer]

http://www.wbng.com/story/35945355/dot-says-rough-patch-of-route-88-will-be-repaired-by-fall

So the I-88 repair project in Port Crane at the southern terminus involves full-depth concrete repairs but not an asphalt overlay. The asphalt patches that are in place are temporary and are very rough. From the article, it seems that they will be replaced with concrete (and I hope the surface diamond ground).

[KEVIN_224]

"STATE route 88"? What the heck!

[empirestate]

NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions. Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.

I took a trip upstate last week and passed through the detour in both directions. Westbound, they dump you off at Lounsberry–which I'd always thought sounded like the name of some unwashed sleazy guy with a raspy voice, but turns out to be a quite pleasant little riverside settlement–and you follow East River Road into the village of Nichols. A temporary traffic signal is set up at the NY 282 junction, and you follow northbound 282 out of the village on West River Road.

For the westbound re-entry, there's a rather interesting arrangement: where West River Road meets the eastbound ramps of I-86, all traffic is forced to turn right (even traffic not re-joining the freeway) onto the eastbound entrance ramp. Then you cross the eastbound carriageway and make a U-turn through an ad hoc median break onto the westbound carriageway. Then, if you had intended to stay on West River Road (as I did, since I wanted to fill up at the Dandy mart just west of there), you can get right back off via the usual westbound exit for NY 282.

Looking at the map, I can see why they arranged it this way. If the westbound detour used the westbound onramp, that stream of traffic would have to cross the stream of traffic taking the eastbound detour, which would be turning left from the eastbound offramp. The principal drawback would be for local traffic, since you can't proceed straight through on West River Road going westbound (eastbound you can, and there's a temporary signal set up there as well).

[Buffaboy]

NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions. Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.

temporary traffic signal

Speaking of these, does NY use them very much? I saw 3 in a row on my trip through Coudersport, via PA 44.

[SectorZ]

"STATE route 88"? What the heck!

Then they get it correct later. Something about consistency, hobgoblins, little minds, etc.

[vdeane]

NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions. Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.

temporary traffic signal

Speaking of these, does NY use them very much? I saw 3 in a row on my trip through Coudersport, via PA 44.

They're pretty standard in Region 1 at least.

[empirestate]

NY 17 closed indefinitely between Exits 62 and 63 in both directions. Flash flooding overnight took out a pair of bridges over Wappasening Creek.

temporary traffic signal

Speaking of these, does NY use them very much? I saw 3 in a row on my trip through Coudersport, via PA 44.

They're pretty standard in Region 1 at least.

I wouldn't say "very much", but they're not vanishingly rare, either. I certainly wasn't at all taken aback at seeing them the other day.

[D-Dey65]

Another NY 22 question, near the Appalachian Trail;

I saw an abandoned section of Quaker Hill Road (Dutchess CR 68) south of the trail crossing:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/41%C2%B035'34.4%22N+73%C2%B035'16.8%22W/@41.5900977,-73.5892479,700m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d41.5929!4d-73.588?hl=en

https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=12&lat=41.566667&lon=-73.6

So why no wye?