I-86 Approved 20 Years Ago

[ccurley100]

Middletown Times Herald Record from 06-10-1998. https://photos.app.goo.gl/4fppAL4B4osybePW9.


iPhone

[Rothman]

So?

[NJRoadfan]

Lucky for them they didn't mention a completion date for the highway. At one point it was "to be complete by 2012"!

[AMLNet49]

They badly need to clean up this situation. Just rename SR 17 to SR 86 at this point. I've said this before, but put up fake (maybe black on white) Interstate shields like Rhode Island used to do to create the appearance of continuity.

Even if that's no longer allowed a NY 86 designation would be a lot cleaner than the current format.

Or at the very, very, very least sign "To 86"  from I-87, you would never know that NY 17 exit leads to an interstate. I-84 has an undesignated part of I-86 signed as 86, I'm assuming to make clear that the interchange is for an Interstate corridor despite the current SR designation at that point in the route. Even if that is determined to be a mistake, they should just slap a "to"  on there instead of covering it, and add a "To I-86"  at the I-87 interchange. Again both of these are if you don't just want to make it NY 86.

I really could care less how the route is signed on the roadways itself, what I really care about is that 86 (be it SR or I) is on the signage on 81, 84, 87, and 90. Continuity on the roadway itself (NY 86, possible black on white I-shields) is a bonus.

[hotdogPi]

Even if that's no longer allowed a NY 86 designation would be a lot cleaner than the current format.

NY 86 already exists.

[jon daly]

They badly need to clean up this situation. Just rename SR 17 to SR 86 at this point. I've said this before, but put up fake (maybe black on white) Interstate shields like Rhode Island used to do to create the appearance of continuity.

When did RI do this?

[PHLBOS]

They badly need to clean up this situation. Just rename SR 17 to SR 86 at this point. I've said this before, but put up fake (maybe black on white) Interstate shields like Rhode Island used to do to create the appearance of continuity.

When did RI do this?

I believe he's referring to the white RI 195 shields that featured an outline of an Interstate shield (see below image for detail) which once graced the stretch of now-US 6 between I-295 & RI 10(?) during the mid-1980s.  Although that stretch was originally envisioned to be part of the easternmost leg of I-84.

[Henry]

Two decades, and they can't even get it all the way to Harriman! At least this is a more sensible location for the number than Hartford-Sturbridge.

[webny99]

The completion of Prospect Mountain (this year? next year?) will be a major milestone.

[jon daly]

They badly need to clean up this situation. Just rename SR 17 to SR 86 at this point. I've said this before, but put up fake (maybe black on white) Interstate shields like Rhode Island used to do to create the appearance of continuity.

When did RI do this?

I believe he's referring to the white RI 195 shields that featured an outline of an Interstate shield (see below image for detail) which once graced the stretch of now-US 6 between I-295 & RI 10(?) during the mid-1980s.  Although that stretch was originally envisioned to be part of the easternmost leg of I-84.

Thanks. Were there plans to renumber that stretch of highway to I-195?

[PHLBOS]

They badly need to clean up this situation. Just rename SR 17 to SR 86 at this point. I've said this before, but put up fake (maybe black on white) Interstate shields like Rhode Island used to do to create the appearance of continuity.

When did RI do this?

I believe he's referring to the white RI 195 shields that featured an outline of an Interstate shield (see below image for detail) which once graced the stretch of now-US 6 between I-295 & RI 10(?) during the mid-1980s.  Although that stretch was originally envisioned to be part of the easternmost leg of I-84.

Thanks. Were there plans to renumber that stretch of highway to I-195?

Given the fact that those shields ironically were taken down (in favor of the relocated US 6) after the extension/connection to I-95 was completed; my guess would be no.

[Rothman]

Two decades, and they can't even get it all the way to Harriman! At least this is a more sensible location for the number than Hartford-Sturbridge.

It is because the political will for I-86 dissipated and there are other priorities as conditions in NY are still projected to decline given current funding levels.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[sparker]

Two decades, and they can't even get it all the way to Harriman! At least this is a more sensible location for the number than Hartford-Sturbridge.

It is because the political will for I-86 dissipated and there are other priorities as conditions in NY are still projected to decline given current funding levels.

(personal opinion emphasized)

What should be done, IMHO, is to sign the segments of NY 17 between I-81 and I-87 that are (or near) Interstate standard as I-86 (including the approaches on I-84); as "spot" projects in the Catskills to deal with small deviations from those standards seem to be ongoing, this should not be an issue for problems that deal with yards rather than miles at a time.  Hale Eddy's going to be a long-term issue; and Rothman is correct -- absent a continuing push within NYDOT or their political handlers for resolution of this issue, it'll simply sit there untouched for quite some time.  The "solution", such as it is, would be to do what Caltrans did with I-5 in the Sacramento River Canyon before the final freeway projects commenced circa 1986 -- sign it as either "Temporary I-86" (the CA choice) or simply "TO I-86".  And unlike the I-5 segment in CA where previous designations had been decommissioned, they've still got the NY 17 number to utilize along with the interim I-86 signage (seeing as how NYDOT generally prefers to sign the corridor as a multiplex of both routes).  That should provide sufficient signage for both navigational purposes as well as any issues of legal designation -- and should do so for years to come until (hopefully) such time as actual completion of the corridor is re-prioritized.  There are more ways of dealing with a problem than simply ignoring it and hoping it'll fade from view! 

[vdeane]

I-84 has an undesignated part of I-86 signed as 86, I'm assuming to make clear that the interchange is for an Interstate corridor despite the current SR designation at that point in the route. Even if that is determined to be a mistake, they should just slap a "to"  on there instead of covering it, and add a "To I-86"  at the I-87 interchange.

I suspect those I-86 shields are supposed to be covered.  There are a TON of those on that stretch of I-84, all the way to NY 17K, complete with "end I-86" shields at either end, dating back to a reconstruction project a few years ago.  I personally suspect that it was intended to be signed as a third segment and wasn't for some reason.

[Alps]

They badly need to clean up this situation. Just rename SR 17 to SR 86 at this point. I've said this before, but put up fake (maybe black on white) Interstate shields like Rhode Island used to do to create the appearance of continuity.

When did RI do this?

I believe he's referring to the white RI 195 shields that featured an outline of an Interstate shield (see below image for detail) which once graced the stretch of now-US 6 between I-295 & RI 10(?) during the mid-1980s.  Although that stretch was originally envisioned to be part of the easternmost leg of I-84.

Thanks. Were there plans to renumber that stretch of highway to I-195?

Given the fact that those shields ironically were taken down (in favor of the relocated US 6) after the extension/connection to I-95 was completed; my guess would be no.

Can confirm. It was RI 195 and the I-shield must have been done to signify it was a freeway.

[AMLNet49]

Even if that's no longer allowed a NY 86 designation would be a lot cleaner than the current format.

NY 86 already exists.

So what? It's expendable for a pseudo-Interstate.

[SectorZ]

Five bucks says the 'dad' isn't in jail 20 years later...

[froggie]

Two decades, and they can't even get it all the way to Harriman! At least this is a more sensible location for the number than Hartford-Sturbridge.

Besides what Rothman posted, have you even bothered to look at the topography between Deposit and Hancock?  There's no easy (or inexpensive) way to retain access to those isolated pockets and make 17 fully controlled access, even if the political will was still there.  Nevermind that New York is a large state with a large state highway system and a huge population with plenty of pressing needs elsewhere...

[The Ghostbuster]

How much do you all want to bet that even 20 years from now, Interstate 86 still won't be complete?

[seicer]

Adam: There is a plan to complete that segment: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock

[The Ghostbuster]

The website was last updated in 2013, so it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence to me that it will be built anytime soon.

[froggie]

Sherman:  I was aware of the older plan.  But it doesn't invalidate my earlier statement.

[vdeane]

I can remember looking at that page when it claimed construction would be this year.  Of course, that was before I-86 was put on indefinite hold.

[Rothman]

Adam: There is a plan to complete that segment: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock

...and there may always be.

There was a slight chance two years ago or so that Hale Eddy to Hancock was actually going to be in the MOU between NYSDOT and the Legislature.  It was rather quickly snuffed out as other projects took priority.  That was the last push for it I heard.  Hasn't been on the radar since.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[Roadgeek Adam]

Besides, I-86 is useless. Just live with NY 17