All I'll say is that despite my multiple, recent rants about the NY 17/I-86 conversion being dead in the water for the foreseeable future, just yesterday I believe that there were signs that the dust is being blown off the old plans for current consideration.
As someone pointed out, nothing is STIPped, but I believe mumblings have begun.
(personal opinion expressed)
Good news indeed. Hopefully it comes true :)
Quote from: Rothman on November 19, 2015, 09:45:48 AM
All I'll say is that despite my multiple, recent rants about the NY 17/I-86 conversion being dead in the water for the foreseeable future, just yesterday I believe that there were signs that the dust is being blown off the old plans for current consideration.
I think I missed this. Why was it believed to be dead?
Relevant, taken about 5-6 weeks ago on I-84 west:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc2.staticflickr.com%2F6%2F5817%2F22280001655_1ebe443dcd_h.jpg&hash=0e8e47524b57a53daa6ca2d13c838b2c7c1b2c42)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc2.staticflickr.com%2F6%2F5744%2F21657281344_4a25e7f04d_h.jpg&hash=1015236bbbad03776f75af7ff85990690c5f5d29)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fc1.staticflickr.com%2F1%2F677%2F22280041165_4abecc0418_h.jpg&hash=ed7fe9647108fe8e29671c19f29bd2cdf7485d21)
I am not sure if the cover on the panel in the third picture as been taken down yet. I would assume it has, but don't quote me on that. On I go. :spin:
Are they taking the covers off the signs there finally? There have been covered I-86 shields from I-84 to NY 17K for years now.
Quote from: dgolub on November 19, 2015, 10:16:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on November 19, 2015, 09:45:48 AM
All I'll say is that despite my multiple, recent rants about the NY 17/I-86 conversion being dead in the water for the foreseeable future, just yesterday I believe that there were signs that the dust is being blown off the old plans for current consideration.
I think I missed this. Why was it believed to be dead?
At some point, every single conversion project not already in progress except Prospect Mountain Phase II got cancelled.
Quote from: vdeane on November 19, 2015, 12:52:21 PM
Are they taking the covers off the signs there finally? There have been covered I-86 shields from I-84 to NY 17K for years now.
Quote from: dgolub on November 19, 2015, 10:16:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on November 19, 2015, 09:45:48 AM
All I'll say is that despite my multiple, recent rants about the NY 17/I-86 conversion being dead in the water for the foreseeable future, just yesterday I believe that there were signs that the dust is being blown off the old plans for current consideration.
I think I missed this. Why was it believed to be dead?
At some point, every single conversion project not already in progress except Prospect Mountain Phase II got cancelled.
^This. Most I-86 conversion projects, especially those in Region 8, were put on hold indefinitely a few years ago, actually.
One great legend is when a former NYSDOT commissioner took a trip down NY 17 (back when Parksville was still under construction, I believe) and let "Why are we doing this again?" come out of her mouth. In other words, the political will to spend so much money on the total conversion of NY 17 into I-86 was no longer there. The benefits just could not outweigh the fact that NY had so many other needs in the state and limited funds to keep conditions from declining faster (NYSDOT still can't keep up with the decline). So, the decision was made at one point to make NY 17 "look like an Interstate" and the Parksville project in particular was really the last knell of the effort, despite the fact that there was acceptance that Prospect Mountain would have to be done (especially after Phase I...couldn't leave it in the condition it was in after the first phase).
In fact, I'd argue that NYSDOT traded the funding that was set for the conversion to go towards all sorts of other priorities more geared towards preservation (e.g., NY 347 and Utica N-S Arterial, amongst others).
So, for the past few years, I-86 conversion has essentially been dead. Yesterday was shockingly the first rumblings I had heard about it in literally years and getting the effort restarted would represent a 180° turn from where NYSDOT has been on the conversion for quite a while now.
Still, I wouldn't get anyone's hopes up too much, though. Reality might snap back into place when people really start looking at the price tags and Region 11 comes a-running with $2-$3B of urgent bridge rehabs to be done. :D
(personal opinion expressed)
Quote from: Rothman on November 19, 2015, 01:26:03 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 19, 2015, 12:52:21 PM
Are they taking the covers off the signs there finally? There have been covered I-86 shields from I-84 to NY 17K for years now.
Quote from: dgolub on November 19, 2015, 10:16:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on November 19, 2015, 09:45:48 AM
All I'll say is that despite my multiple, recent rants about the NY 17/I-86 conversion being dead in the water for the foreseeable future, just yesterday I believe that there were signs that the dust is being blown off the old plans for current consideration.
I think I missed this. Why was it believed to be dead?
At some point, every single conversion project not already in progress except Prospect Mountain Phase II got cancelled.
^This. Most I-86 conversion projects, especially those in Region 8, were put on hold indefinitely a few years ago, actually.
One great legend is when a former NYSDOT commissioner took a trip down NY 17 (back when Parksville was still under construction, I believe) and let "Why are we doing this again?" come out of her mouth. In other words, the political will to spend so much money on the total conversion of NY 17 into I-86 was no longer there. The benefits just could not outweigh the fact that NY had so many other needs in the state and limited funds to keep conditions from declining faster (NYSDOT still can't keep up with the decline). So, the decision was made at one point to make NY 17 "look like an Interstate" and the Parksville project in particular was really the last knell of the effort, despite the fact that there was acceptance that Prospect Mountain would have to be done (especially after Phase I...couldn't leave it in the condition it was in after the first phase).
In fact, I'd argue that NYSDOT traded the funding that was set for the conversion to go towards all sorts of other priorities more geared towards preservation (e.g., NY 347 and Utica N-S Arterial, amongst others).
So, for the past few years, I-86 conversion has essentially been dead. Yesterday was shockingly the first rumblings I had heard about it in literally years and getting the effort restarted would represent a 180° turn from where NYSDOT has been on the conversion for quite a while now.
Still, I wouldn't get anyone's hopes up too much, though. Reality might snap back into place when people really start looking at the price tags and Region 11 comes a-running with $2-$3B of urgent bridge rehabs to be done. :D
(personal opinion expressed)
Just curious, how many miles do they have left to convert to interstate standards? I imagine it would be quite a bit.
Quote from: Rothman on November 19, 2015, 01:26:03 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 19, 2015, 12:52:21 PM
Are they taking the covers off the signs there finally? There have been covered I-86 shields from I-84 to NY 17K for years now.
Quote from: dgolub on November 19, 2015, 10:16:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on November 19, 2015, 09:45:48 AM
All I'll say is that despite my multiple, recent rants about the NY 17/I-86 conversion being dead in the water for the foreseeable future, just yesterday I believe that there were signs that the dust is being blown off the old plans for current consideration.
I think I missed this. Why was it believed to be dead?
At some point, every single conversion project not already in progress except Prospect Mountain Phase II got cancelled.
^This. Most I-86 conversion projects, especially those in Region 8, were put on hold indefinitely a few years ago, actually.
One great legend is when a former NYSDOT commissioner took a trip down NY 17 (back when Parksville was still under construction, I believe) and let "Why are we doing this again?" come out of her mouth. In other words, the political will to spend so much money on the total conversion of NY 17 into I-86 was no longer there. The benefits just could not outweigh the fact that NY had so many other needs in the state and limited funds to keep conditions from declining faster (NYSDOT still can't keep up with the decline). So, the decision was made at one point to make NY 17 "look like an Interstate" and the Parksville project in particular was really the last knell of the effort, despite the fact that there was acceptance that Prospect Mountain would have to be done (especially after Phase I...couldn't leave it in the condition it was in after the first phase).
In fact, I'd argue that NYSDOT traded the funding that was set for the conversion to go towards all sorts of other priorities more geared towards preservation (e.g., NY 347 and Utica N-S Arterial, amongst others).
So, for the past few years, I-86 conversion has essentially been dead. Yesterday was shockingly the first rumblings I had heard about it in literally years and getting the effort restarted would represent a 180° turn from where NYSDOT has been on the conversion for quite a while now.
Still, I wouldn't get anyone's hopes up too much, though. Reality might snap back into place when people really start looking at the price tags and Region 11 comes a-running with $2-$3B of urgent bridge rehabs to be done. :D
(personal opinion expressed)
I hope that happens when they start converting NY 198 into a parkway.
The NY 17-Interstate 86 conversion should have been completed by now. The portion between Exits 84 and 87 should not be canceled, and money should be found to complete the process.
The way the road is now is very confusing to anyone not from the area (which is who signage is geared towards). It is singed in some spots as I-86 and some as NY-17, some as both, and some signed as only one when it should be signed as both.
What NYSDOT should do (if they don't complete the conversion) is either pretend it is an Interstate but using Future shields where necessary (are you allowed to use "Future" shield in guide signage?) or alternatively just designate all of the non-interstate portions as NY-86 (the current route 86 could be changed to something else), so that the road has one continuous number.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on November 19, 2015, 05:29:51 PM
The way the road is now is very confusing to anyone not from the area (which is who signage is geared towards). It is singed in some spots as I-86 and some as NY-17, some as both, and some signed as only one when it should be signed as both.
What NYSDOT should do (if they don't complete the conversion) is either pretend it is an Interstate but using Future shields where necessary (are you allowed to use "Future" shield in guide signage?) or alternatively just designate all of the non-interstate portions as NY-86 (the current route 86 could be changed to something else), so that the road has one continuous number.
If you're not allowed to use Future shields in guide signs, NCDOT has some serious 'splainin' to do.
Quote from: Alps on November 19, 2015, 07:12:19 PM
If you're not allowed to use Future shields in guide signs, NCDOT has some serious 'splainin' to do.
Does North Carolina use the "Future I-xx" markers on guide signs, or only on ground mounted assemblies? I've seen plenty of the latter (especially I-26) but not sure about the former.
Besides eliminating the at-grades in a couple of sections, what has to be done to get NY 17 up to interstate standards? It doesn't have the "toll booth cloverleaf" interchanges to convert like Kentucky did on the Pennyrile and Purchase parkways to get I-69 designated. I don't remember the freeway portion of NY 17 between Middletown and Binghamton having anything that didn't resemble an interstate. Of course I say the same thing about Kentucky's parkways, too.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 21, 2015, 12:40:59 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 19, 2015, 07:12:19 PM
If you're not allowed to use Future shields in guide signs, NCDOT has some serious 'splainin' to do.
Does North Carolina use the "Future I-xx" markers on guide signs, or only on ground mounted assemblies? I've seen plenty of the latter (especially I-26) but not sure about the former.
Besides eliminating the at-grades in a couple of sections, what has to be done to get NY 17 up to interstate standards? It doesn't have the "toll booth cloverleaf" interchanges to convert like Kentucky did on the Pennyrile and Purchase parkways to get I-69 designated. I don't remember the freeway portion of NY 17 between Middletown and Binghamton having anything that didn't resemble an interstate. Of course I say the same thing about Kentucky's parkways, too.
I've seen them on ground-mounted guide signs, i.e. on a green background. Can't say I've seen them overhead.
There's literally not much left to do. How did all that political will burn so quickly?
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 21, 2015, 02:24:51 AM
There's literally not much left to do. How did all that political will burn so quickly?
There's more left to do than you might think. The aforementioned Hale Eddy section (between exits 84 and 87) is currently the biggest problem since there are intersections and driveways for several miles there, and the terrain is rather mountainous. It would be difficult and expensive to eliminate all of them along the existing alignment and probably even more difficult and expensive to bypass. All for a section of road which is fairly lightly used, since if you want to get from Binghamton to NYC, 81/380/80 is faster than 17, with or without a full interstate conversion of the latter. For this segment in particular I would echo the "why are we doing this again?" sentiment. There is nothing functionally wrong with the road as it exists, no sense in throwing ridiculous sums of money at it just so it can carry a special red white and blue shield.
The RIRO at exit 111 is another noticeable item that would need fixing. As is the lack of a median barrier on much of the hill near Wurtsboro (this should be fixed regardless since it's a safety matter). Beyond that, there's all sorts of various humdrum - shoulders of substandard width, steep grades on ramps, etc.
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.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 21, 2015, 08:14:07 AMBeyond that, forget it.
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.
I'll check the entire list of projects when I get back to work on Monday, but although the big projects have been mentioned, there is a lot more left to do than people think in the plan to appease FHWA to get designation all the way between Region 6 and I-87.
Again, nothing is set in stone at this point. Just struck me as really odd that people were looking back into the conversion when, like I've said, NYSDOT has redirected a lot of the funds towards much more urgent projects.
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 21, 2015, 02:24:51 AM
There's literally not much left to do. How did all that political will burn so quickly?
Quote from: english si on November 21, 2015, 09:13:56 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 21, 2015, 08:14:07 AMBeyond that, forget it.
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.
It is by no means a small amount. If anything, Region 8 has the bulk of the remaining work to be done. Like I said above, I'll check it out on Monday.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 21, 2015, 12:40:59 AM
Does North Carolina use the "Future I-xx" markers on guide signs, or only on ground mounted assemblies? I've seen plenty of the latter (especially I-26) but not sure about the former.
Here is FUTURE I-295 on a guide sign before they went to using NC 295 shields - https://goo.gl/maps/KucyUZiqKZ82
Here is an I-26 with no banner but a ground level FUTURE shield next to it... - https://goo.gl/maps/jo8fgLVf6Vk
Here is a different way they did I-26 - https://goo.gl/maps/Kj5HnzSEVfv
Here is one with I-74 - https://goo.gl/maps/SeNMUaMgc9N2
Mike
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.
Exit 111 is an easy fix, just close it with some guardrail until the money to upgrade it comes along :P
As for those I-86 signs in Middletown, Region 8 has pretty much upgraded NY 17 in Orange County west of I-84. The plan was to sign it in that section. I don't know what became of that.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 21, 2015, 05:22:10 PM
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.
Mostly, but not completely. A couple of the exits are substandard.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 21, 2015, 06:03:52 PM
Exit 111 is an easy fix, just close it with some guardrail until the money to upgrade it comes along :P
NYSDOT has been trying to do that. There are a few individuals (mainly the person who owns the gas station at that exit) who keep blocking it.
Quote from: Rothman on November 21, 2015, 04:45:31 PM
I'll check the entire list of projects when I get back to work on Monday, but although the big projects have been mentioned, there is a lot more left to do than people think in the plan to appease FHWA to get designation all the way between Region 6 and I-87.
Agree completely. Most of the stuff west of Binghamton is being done (because there isn't much left). FHWA also isn't allowing nearly as much grandfathering as they used to. A lot of stuff has to meet current standards. The substandard portions are also in key locations. At a quick glance, here are notable locations that are substandard:
-Hale Eddy
-Exit 90 (NY 30)
-Exit 93
-Exit 108 (practically a RIRO)
-Exit 109
-Exit 111 (the RIRO)
-Exit 125 (practically a RIRO, should probably be closed as Exit 124 is immediately adjacent)
-Exit 128 (namely the EB entrance ramp)
As a major route must be a temporary terminus, I can tell immediately that the section between the current ET and US 209 cannot be signed due to substandard conditions. There's probably a ton of stuff I couldn't quickly pick up from a satellite.
I certainly don't expect any major realignments to the expressway itself on the 55 section outside of Hale Eddy. I think that would qualify for the "mountainous terrain" exemption for a lower design speed.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 21, 2015, 05:22:10 PM
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).
Quote from: Rothman on November 22, 2015, 12:11:15 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 21, 2015, 05:22:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Alps on November 21, 2015, 01:12:34 AM
I've seen them on ground-mounted guide signs, i.e. on a green background. Can't say I've seen them overhead.
Kentucky's done that too for I-66 and I-69.
Quote from: english si on November 21, 2015, 09:13:56 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: Alps on November 22, 2015, 12:45:41 AM
Quote from: Rothman on November 22, 2015, 12:11:15 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 21, 2015, 05:22:10 PM
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
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2015, 12:01:02 PM
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!
Quote from: Duke87 on November 21, 2015, 08:14:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Henry on November 22, 2015, 01:30:47 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 21, 2015, 08:14:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2015, 12:01:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2015, 12:01:02 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2015, 02:06:37 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2015, 12:01:02 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2015, 02:06:37 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2015, 12:01:02 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2015, 02:25:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2015, 02:06:37 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2015, 12:01:02 PM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2015, 03:01:28 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2015, 02:25:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 22, 2015, 02:06:37 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2015, 12:01:02 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2015, 02:25:01 PM
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 22, 2015, 03:17:54 PM
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?
Quote from: dgolub on November 23, 2015, 08:58:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 22, 2015, 03:17:54 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Rothman on November 23, 2015, 09:32:44 AM
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.
Quote from: cl94 on November 23, 2015, 09:44:19 AM
Quote from: Rothman on November 23, 2015, 09:32:44 AM
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.
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)
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2016, 07:54:58 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 01, 2016, 12:26:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2016, 07:54:58 AM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on February 01, 2016, 09:50:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2016, 07:54:58 AM
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.
Quote from: cl94 on February 01, 2016, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 01, 2016, 09:50:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2016, 07:54:58 AM
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.
It is, but the remaining overall costs in Region 8 dwarf it.
Quote from: Rothman on February 02, 2016, 10:35:49 AM
Quote from: cl94 on February 01, 2016, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 01, 2016, 09:50:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2016, 07:54:58 AM
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.
It is, but the remaining overall costs in Region 8 dwarf it.
Are there a bunch of bridge replacements in there? That's the only thing I could think of that would drive up the cost.
Quote from: cl94 on February 02, 2016, 11:34:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 02, 2016, 10:35:49 AM
Quote from: cl94 on February 01, 2016, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 01, 2016, 09:50:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2016, 07:54:58 AM
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.
It is, but the remaining overall costs in Region 8 dwarf it.
Are there a bunch of bridge replacements in there? That's the only thing I could think of that would drive up the cost.
The list of projects hasn't changed since I posted this: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16863.msg2107556#msg2107556
That said, I'm not sure what exactly the interchange upgrades entail in Region 8, but there they are.
I should also correct part of what I said earlier about I-86 shields needing to be posted on I-84 and I-87. There already are I-86 shields posted on I-84 approaching the interchange, I drove through there today.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 02, 2016, 03:32:54 PM
I should also correct part of what I said earlier about I-86 shields needing to be posted on I-84 and I-87. There already are I-86 shields posted on I-84 approaching the interchange, I drove through there today.
At one point, the plan was to sign it between the Orange/Sullivan line and I-84. I don't know if that will happen.
Quote from: cl94 on February 02, 2016, 04:08:23 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 02, 2016, 03:32:54 PM
I should also correct part of what I said earlier about I-86 shields needing to be posted on I-84 and I-87. There already are I-86 shields posted on I-84 approaching the interchange, I drove through there today.
At one point, the plan was to sign it between the Orange/Sullivan line and I-84. I don't know if that will happen.
Well the shields are up so it looks like it is. I didn't drive on the road itself so I don't know if it is posted in a reassurance context but on the guide signs from I-84 it is posted.
Quote from: cl94 on February 02, 2016, 11:34:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 02, 2016, 10:35:49 AM
Quote from: cl94 on February 01, 2016, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 01, 2016, 09:50:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2016, 07:54:58 AM
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.
It is, but the remaining overall costs in Region 8 dwarf it.
Are there a bunch of bridge replacements in there? That's the only thing I could think of that would drive up the cost.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of those are full depth reconstructions (or at least major rehabilitations) given Rothman's cost figures.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 02, 2016, 03:32:54 PM
I should also correct part of what I said earlier about I-86 shields needing to be posted on I-84 and I-87. There already are I-86 shields posted on I-84 approaching the interchange, I drove through there today.
Future I-86, or I-86 proper?
Quote from: AMLNet49Well the shields are up so it looks like it is. I didn't drive on the road itself so I don't know if it is posted in a reassurance context but on the guide signs from I-84 it is posted.
There are a few reassurance signs posted, at least around Middletown/Scotchtown, as well as trailblazers at the NY 302 interchange. They weren't consistent, though. And to answer yakra's question, the signs I saw were I-86 proper.
I guess an update on the I-86 page is in order? I'd hold off, though, until the substandard remainder of NY 17 is upgraded, and I wouldn't hold my breath on that either.
Quote from: Henry on March 10, 2016, 11:09:27 AM
I guess an update on the I-86 page is in order? I'd hold off, though, until the substandard remainder of NY 17 is upgraded, and I wouldn't hold my breath on that either.
An update isn't in order until the designation is approved.
Quote from: yakra on March 10, 2016, 01:50:02 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 02, 2016, 03:32:54 PM
I should also correct part of what I said earlier about I-86 shields needing to be posted on I-84 and I-87. There already are I-86 shields posted on I-84 approaching the interchange, I drove through there today.
Future I-86, or I-86 proper?
Quote from: froggie on March 10, 2016, 07:59:30 AM
And to answer yakra's question, the signs I saw were I-86 proper.
Yes the ones on I-84 are for I-86 proper. Wish they put them on I-87 too, but that won't happen for a while.
Will there be an upgrade between exit 84 and exit 87 any time soon? Or will we have to wait a few decades for NYSDOT to get its act together and finish the NY 17 to Interstate 86 conversion?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2016, 03:52:10 PM
Will there be an upgrade between exit 84 and exit 87 any time soon? Or will we have to wait a few decades for NYSDOT to get its act together and finish the NY 17 to Interstate 86 conversion?
Does it really need it? It's the second-least traveled section of 17 east of Elmira and I would argue money would be better spent elsewhere instead of bulldozing Hale Eddy for a couple extra lanes and an interchange.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 10, 2016, 04:45:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2016, 03:52:10 PM
Will there be an upgrade between exit 84 and exit 87 any time soon? Or will we have to wait a few decades for NYSDOT to get its act together and finish the NY 17 to Interstate 86 conversion?
Does it really need it? It's the second-least traveled section of 17 east of Elmira and I would argue money would be better spent elsewhere instead of bulldozing Hale Eddy for a couple extra lanes and an interchange.
I agree that this section isn't bad the way it currently is, though recently I noticed signs indicating school buses stopping along that stretch, which must be a little odd for motorists not familiar with the area.
I really think it would be perfectly acceptable to leave Exits 84-87 as is until funding improves but still signing everything else as Interstate 86, with "To 86" banners along the Hale Eddy section.
Quote from: froggie on March 10, 2016, 07:59:30 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49Well the shields are up so it looks like it is. I didn't drive on the road itself so I don't know if it is posted in a reassurance context but on the guide signs from I-84 it is posted.
There are a few reassurance signs posted, at least around Middletown/Scotchtown, as well as trailblazers at the NY 302 interchange. They weren't consistent, though. And to answer yakra's question, the signs I saw were I-86 proper.
They looked pervasive (albeit covered up) the last time I was there, and also at the ramps on street view. I'm surprised there's been no application to have it designated.
Officially, nothing in Orange or Sullivan counties has been approved by AASHTO or FHWA, so none of it is part of I-86.
In terms of signage in the field, there are lots of I-86 shields posted (particularly between I-84 and the Sullivan/Orange county line) which are all supposed to be covered up until the designation is approved, but NYSDOT has employed zero vigilance in keeping them covered. There are even a bunch of mile markers with I-86 shields in them that never were covered.
It's almost a fun philosophical experiment in "at what point is a route considered signed?"
Quote from: upstatenyroads on March 10, 2016, 06:41:51 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 10, 2016, 04:45:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2016, 03:52:10 PM
Will there be an upgrade between exit 84 and exit 87 any time soon? Or will we have to wait a few decades for NYSDOT to get its act together and finish the NY 17 to Interstate 86 conversion?
Does it really need it? It's the second-least traveled section of 17 east of Elmira and I would argue money would be better spent elsewhere instead of bulldozing Hale Eddy for a couple extra lanes and an interchange.
I agree that this section isn't bad the way it currently is, though recently I noticed signs indicating school buses stopping along that stretch, which must be a little odd for motorists not familiar with the area.
I really think it would be perfectly acceptable to leave Exits 84-87 as is until funding improves but still signing everything else as Interstate 86, with "To 86" banners along the Hale Eddy section.
But even then. Can't we just forget ever upgrading this section? I don't seriously think it will ever get the AADT to the project's value.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 10, 2016, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on March 10, 2016, 06:41:51 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 10, 2016, 04:45:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2016, 03:52:10 PM
Will there be an upgrade between exit 84 and exit 87 any time soon? Or will we have to wait a few decades for NYSDOT to get its act together and finish the NY 17 to Interstate 86 conversion?
Does it really need it? It's the second-least traveled section of 17 east of Elmira and I would argue money would be better spent elsewhere instead of bulldozing Hale Eddy for a couple extra lanes and an interchange.
I agree that this section isn't bad the way it currently is, though recently I noticed signs indicating school buses stopping along that stretch, which must be a little odd for motorists not familiar with the area.
I really think it would be perfectly acceptable to leave Exits 84-87 as is until funding improves but still signing everything else as Interstate 86, with "To 86" banners along the Hale Eddy section.
But even then. Can't we just forget ever upgrading this section? I don't seriously think it will ever get the AADT to the project's value.
Well, can't they grandfather I-86? Some parts of the freeway were already constructed by the 60's or so.
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 11, 2016, 01:49:11 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 10, 2016, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on March 10, 2016, 06:41:51 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 10, 2016, 04:45:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2016, 03:52:10 PM
Will there be an upgrade between exit 84 and exit 87 any time soon? Or will we have to wait a few decades for NYSDOT to get its act together and finish the NY 17 to Interstate 86 conversion?
Does it really need it? It's the second-least traveled section of 17 east of Elmira and I would argue money would be better spent elsewhere instead of bulldozing Hale Eddy for a couple extra lanes and an interchange.
I agree that this section isn't bad the way it currently is, though recently I noticed signs indicating school buses stopping along that stretch, which must be a little odd for motorists not familiar with the area.
I really think it would be perfectly acceptable to leave Exits 84-87 as is until funding improves but still signing everything else as Interstate 86, with "To 86" banners along the Hale Eddy section.
But even then. Can't we just forget ever upgrading this section? I don't seriously think it will ever get the AADT to the project's value.
Well, can't they grandfather I-86? Some parts of the freeway were already constructed by the 60's or so.
Doesn't meet interstate standards. Hale Eddy has intersections and as noted, buses stop on the side of 17.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 11, 2016, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 11, 2016, 01:49:11 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 10, 2016, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on March 10, 2016, 06:41:51 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 10, 2016, 04:45:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2016, 03:52:10 PM
Will there be an upgrade between exit 84 and exit 87 any time soon? Or will we have to wait a few decades for NYSDOT to get its act together and finish the NY 17 to Interstate 86 conversion?
Does it really need it? It's the second-least traveled section of 17 east of Elmira and I would argue money would be better spent elsewhere instead of bulldozing Hale Eddy for a couple extra lanes and an interchange.
I agree that this section isn't bad the way it currently is, though recently I noticed signs indicating school buses stopping along that stretch, which must be a little odd for motorists not familiar with the area.
I really think it would be perfectly acceptable to leave Exits 84-87 as is until funding improves but still signing everything else as Interstate 86, with "To 86" banners along the Hale Eddy section.
But even then. Can't we just forget ever upgrading this section? I don't seriously think it will ever get the AADT to the project's value.
Well, can't they grandfather I-86? Some parts of the freeway were already constructed by the 60's or so.
Doesn't meet interstate standards. Hale Eddy has intersections and as noted, buses stop on the side of 17.
Then how was I-278 an interstate in the first place? Trucks are prohibited on a small part of it, which is a no go, the design is well substandard, also a no go, and there's a drawbridge on it.
Because I-278 was an "original Interstate route", i.e. designated as part of the official system. New routes added to the system since then have had to meet Interstate standards of the time before they get included.
Quote from: froggie on March 11, 2016, 04:46:38 PM
Because I-278 was an "original Interstate route", i.e. designated as part of the official system. New routes added to the system since then have had to meet Interstate standards of the time before they get included.
NY 17 also has a few true at-grade intersections with cross traffic. Won't find that on I-278 even with how substandard it is.
Quote from: cl94 on March 13, 2016, 08:51:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 11, 2016, 04:46:38 PM
Because I-278 was an "original Interstate route", i.e. designated as part of the official system. New routes added to the system since then have had to meet Interstate standards of the time before they get included.
NY 17 also has a few true at-grade intersections with cross traffic. Won't find that on I-278 even with how substandard it is.
No, but you will find it on I-70, I-78, and I-180.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 13, 2016, 11:03:45 PM
Quote from: cl94 on March 13, 2016, 08:51:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 11, 2016, 04:46:38 PM
Because I-278 was an "original Interstate route", i.e. designated as part of the official system. New routes added to the system since then have had to meet Interstate standards of the time before they get included.
NY 17 also has a few true at-grade intersections with cross traffic. Won't find that on I-278 even with how substandard it is.
No, but you will find it on I-70, I-78, and I-180.
And I-278 (as well as I-695 in MD) has a drawbridge on it.
Even the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge (I-95/495 over the Potomac) has a drawbridge. But while it exists (and is fairly rare), there's nothing that expressly prohibits Interstates from having drawbridges.
Preferred? No. But prohibited? Also no.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 13, 2016, 11:03:45 PM
Quote from: cl94 on March 13, 2016, 08:51:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 11, 2016, 04:46:38 PM
Because I-278 was an "original Interstate route", i.e. designated as part of the official system. New routes added to the system since then have had to meet Interstate standards of the time before they get included.
NY 17 also has a few true at-grade intersections with cross traffic. Won't find that on I-278 even with how substandard it is.
No, but you will find it on I-70, I-78, and I-180.
We know about Breezewood, and there used to be at-grades on I-70 (ex-I-70N) east of Frederick (Ijamsville Road, for example) before that gap was bypassed, but are there at-grades elsewhere on 70? And where are at-grades on I-78?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on March 14, 2016, 07:27:01 AM
And where are at-grades on I-78?
the Holland Tunnel approach on the NJ side has several streetlights.
Quote from: ixnay on March 14, 2016, 07:27:01 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 13, 2016, 11:03:45 PM
Quote from: cl94 on March 13, 2016, 08:51:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 11, 2016, 04:46:38 PM
Because I-278 was an "original Interstate route", i.e. designated as part of the official system. New routes added to the system since then have had to meet Interstate standards of the time before they get included.
NY 17 also has a few true at-grade intersections with cross traffic. Won't find that on I-278 even with how substandard it is.
No, but you will find it on I-70, I-78, and I-180.
We know about Breezewood, and there used to be at-grades on I-70 (ex-I-70N) east of Frederick (Ijamsville Road, for example) before that gap was bypassed, but are there at-grades elsewhere on 70? And where are at-grades on I-78?
ixnay
In New Jersey there are 4 intersections between the NJ-139 interchange and the tunnel
*reads back*
*yawns*
Still nothing but Woodbury Commons (Exit 131) going to happen in terms of I-86 conversion over the next five years unless there's a massive administration change and tidal change in political pressures.
Quote from: odditude on March 14, 2016, 08:41:01 AM
Quote from: ixnay on March 14, 2016, 07:27:01 AM
And where are at-grades on I-78?
the Holland Tunnel approach on the NJ side has several streetlights.
Yeah, that's right.
ixnay
Was there ever a plan to connect the Holland Tunnel and the end of the New Jersey Turnpike Newark Extension with a freeway? I've never seen any documentation that there was.
Exit 131 is in the Assembly budget. In unrelated budget news, BOTH the assembly and senate have rejected Cuomo's proposed tax credit on E-ZPass tolls over $50.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 15, 2016, 02:59:52 PM
Was there ever a plan to connect the Holland Tunnel and the end of the New Jersey Turnpike Newark Extension with a freeway? I've never seen any documentation that there was.
I've never seen a plan. I've drawn one up where you take one lane from 139 and one lane from 78, run them down the middle, and have two lanes on either side at ground level. In order to not cut off Marin Blvd., this would require AET: the freeway merges into one lane, and the ground ramps come together as the other tunnel lane. Or cut off Marin and use the existing toll plaza. Coming out of the city is easier, because you can get two lanes up on the freeway and onto either side without cutting anything off.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 13, 2016, 11:15:30 PM
And I-278 (as well as I-695 in MD) has a drawbridge on it.
Isn't 695 in Baltimore and AA Counties technically a state route, even though it's signed as an interstate? And that's how MD can get away with non-mileage-based exit numbers on 695, too?
QuoteAnd that's how MD can get away with non-mileage-based exit numbers on 695, too?
The MUTCD requirement for mileage-based exit numbers is not limited to Interstates. It should also be noted that most of those Maryland non-Interstates that have exit numbers (namely US 29 in Howard County, US 50, US 340, MD 32, MD 100, and MD 200) have mile-based exit numbers. The only exception I can think of offhand is US 15 through Frederick, but that's also much older-vintage freeway.
Back to the subject title, I hope the exit 84-87 segment of NY 17 is eventually upgraded to Interstate Standards. Otherwise, Interstate 86 should not go any further east.
If interest was already going ebb and eventually peter out, what was the point of having an interstate through the Catskills and Southern Tier? NY 17 as a freeway/expressway is good enough, besides, is there a ton of traffic that goes through Woodbury Commons or Hancock to Hale Eddy?
Woodbury Commons, definitely. That part of the state is very much part of NYC's suburbia, and Orange County is big enough to have its own MPO. Woodbury Commons is basically a large shopping mall.
Hale Eddy is the opposite. If that part of NY 17 ever becomes I-87, it will be in competition with the Northway in Essex County for least traveled section of interstate in NY.
Quote from: vdeane on March 17, 2016, 07:30:20 PM
Woodbury Commons, definitely. That part of the state is very much part of NYC's suburbia, and Orange County is big enough to have its own MPO. Woodbury Commons is basically a large shopping mall.
Hale Eddy is the opposite. If that part of NY 17 ever becomes I-86, it will be in competition with the Northway in Essex County for least traveled section of interstate in NY.
You have the traffic counts for that? I've been up there and there's a steady stream of cars.
Traffic Data Viewer (ohhhh... an update! The 2014 counts weren't available as of just yesterday!) puts the count at ~7500 west of Hale Eddy (August 2014 count).
The numbers I pulled are as follows. Hancock to Hale Eddy shows counts at 9047, while Hale Eddy to Deposit drops to 7598, and a small stretch west of there to the Sanford exit is 6683. 6215 is the lowest count on I-87.
Quote from: froggie on March 17, 2016, 04:05:39 PM
QuoteAnd that's how MD can get away with non-mileage-based exit numbers on 695, too?
The MUTCD requirement for mileage-based exit numbers is not limited to Interstates. It should also be noted that most of those Maryland non-Interstates that have exit numbers (namely US 29 in Howard County, US 50, US 340, MD 32, MD 100, and MD 200) have mile-based exit numbers. The only exception I can think of offhand is US 15 through Frederick, but that's also much older-vintage freeway.
US 15 does appear to have mileage based exit numbers (starts at brand new Exit 9 which is at US 15 MM 10). US 340 has no exit numbers on its solo freeway portion.
The already Interstate-quality section west of Deposit is the lowest on the Quickway and a good 10% more than the lowest count on I-87. 6683 isn't much more than parts near the western end, which nears 7000 west of Jamestown. I'll bet that traffic on that section of the Quickway is much less affected by the seasons than the Northway. Regardless, the section that would be upgraded would see 20% more traffic than the quiet part of the Northway and I only see that number increasing as Stroudsburg becomes more of a pain or if they increase the Jersey Exit Tax again.
Quote from: Snappyjack on March 17, 2016, 07:56:24 PM
Hancock to Hale Eddy shows counts at 9047, while Hale Eddy to Hancock drops to 7598
So wait, does this mean there is more traffic westbound than eastbound? Or did you mean to say "Deposit" in the second bit?
Quote from: Duke87 on March 17, 2016, 08:52:03 PM
Quote from: Snappyjack on March 17, 2016, 07:56:24 PM
Hancock to Hale Eddy shows counts at 9047, while Hale Eddy to Hancock drops to 7598
So wait, does this mean there is more traffic westbound than eastbound? Or did you mean to say "Deposit" in the second bit?
Yes, I meant Deposit. Fixed.
Quote from: Snappyjack on March 17, 2016, 07:56:24 PM
The numbers I pulled are as follows. Hancock to Hale Eddy shows counts at 9047, while Hale Eddy to Deposit drops to 7598, and a small stretch west of there to the Sanford exit is 6683. 6215 is the lowest count on I-87.
The numbers listed on top of the segments are run through forecasting formulas. Further, I've come to the conclusion that the update is still in progress, and they're also all
wrong right now (the most extreme example of this is the section of NY 342 south of I-781, which is still showing the pre-781 AADT value on the map; also, the shapefiles are missing all the stations that have 5000 series numbers) (finally, a tool we use internally called Traffic Data Forecaster is acting weird right now). If you click on the segment a window will pop up with an "Open Report" link that can be used to pull up the last count and get the "real" AADT from there, which is where my 7500 came from.
Quote from: froggie on March 17, 2016, 04:05:39 PM
QuoteAnd that's how MD can get away with non-mileage-based exit numbers on 695, too?
The MUTCD requirement for mileage-based exit numbers is not limited to Interstates.
Tell that to PA. They are still using sequential exit numbers for PA-28, even though all the Interstates (& PA Turnpike routes) were converted back in 2000.
As I recall, the PA 28 exit numbers predate the requirement.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 18, 2016, 09:28:33 PM
Tell that to PA. They are still using sequential exit numbers for PA-28, even though all the Interstates (& PA Turnpike routes) were converted back in 2000.
Also, 16 years later, I think it's time to remove the "Old Ext 32" (e.g.) signs, don't you? If someone's coming to PA and they remember the way they went > 16 years ago was to take "exit 32" someplace and it's now exit 257 or something... well, either they don't go to that place often enough and/or should distrust their memory.
Quote from: tckma on March 21, 2016, 12:05:08 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 18, 2016, 09:28:33 PM
Tell that to PA. They are still using sequential exit numbers for PA-28, even though all the Interstates (& PA Turnpike routes) were converted back in 2000.
Also, 16 years later, I think it's time to remove the "Old Ext 32" (e.g.) signs, don't you? If someone's coming to PA and they remember the way they went > 16 years ago was to take "exit 32" someplace and it's now exit 257 or something... well, either they don't go to that place often enough and/or should distrust their memory.
Maybe not in PA, but if the NJ Turnpike ever goes mileage-based, it will be a long time until people adjust.
Quote from: bzakharin on March 21, 2016, 01:03:09 PM
Quote from: tckma on March 21, 2016, 12:05:08 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 18, 2016, 09:28:33 PM
Tell that to PA. They are still using sequential exit numbers for PA-28, even though all the Interstates (& PA Turnpike routes) were converted back in 2000.
Also, 16 years later, I think it's time to remove the "Old Ext 32" (e.g.) signs, don't you? If someone's coming to PA and they remember the way they went > 16 years ago was to take "exit 32" someplace and it's now exit 257 or something... well, either they don't go to that place often enough and/or should distrust their memory.
Maybe not in PA, but if the NJ Turnpike ever goes mileage-based, it will be a long time until people adjust.
The exit numbers are ingrained into the culture ("what exit?"). A similar thing exists along the Northway (I-87) in the Albany area to the point where businesses have "Exit X" in the name (Exit 9 Wine and Liquor, Exit 11 Truck Stop, etc.).
Quote from: cl94 on March 21, 2016, 01:12:35 PM
The exit numbers are ingrained into the culture ("what exit?"). A similar thing exists along the Northway (I-87) in the Albany area to the point where businesses have "Exit X" in the name (Exit 9 Wine and Liquor, Exit 11 Truck Stop, etc.).
There were several businesses in Maine that were named after the old sequential exit numbers on I-95. Didn't stop them from changing.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 21, 2016, 07:43:20 PM
Quote from: cl94 on March 21, 2016, 01:12:35 PM
The exit numbers are ingrained into the culture ("what exit?"). A similar thing exists along the Northway (I-87) in the Albany area to the point where businesses have "Exit X" in the name (Exit 9 Wine and Liquor, Exit 11 Truck Stop, etc.).
There were several businesses in Maine that were named after the old sequential exit numbers on I-95. Didn't stop them from changing.
Same thing happened along I-81 in Pennsylvania north of Scranton. They adapted to the new exit numbers and I don't think anyone's head exploded in the process.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on March 21, 2016, 08:23:29 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 21, 2016, 07:43:20 PM
Quote from: cl94 on March 21, 2016, 01:12:35 PM
The exit numbers are ingrained into the culture ("what exit?"). A similar thing exists along the Northway (I-87) in the Albany area to the point where businesses have "Exit X" in the name (Exit 9 Wine and Liquor, Exit 11 Truck Stop, etc.).
There were several businesses in Maine that were named after the old sequential exit numbers on I-95. Didn't stop them from changing.
Same thing happened along I-81 in Pennsylvania north of Scranton. They adapted to the new exit numbers and I don't think anyone's head exploded in the process.
This saying is why the NJTP exits will never be renumbered:
http://www.cafalawblog.com/uploads/image/New%20Jersey.jpg
And I had relatives who ran a gas station named after an exit off of I-91 in VT
What about the Palisades Parkway? It has joint sequential numbering with NJ. Will they ever renumber it anytime?
They did do a number overhaul back in 1987 where the eliminated the A suffix exits as well as added numbers to the Anthony Wayne Recreation Area and US 6, which both never had numbers as 14A was for Lake Welch Drive to the south of it and 15 was the Seven Lakes Drive exit north of the US 6 merge.
I am sure that those back then got used to it when it happened especially north of the NY Thruway.
Also how about I-95 with its musical chairs exit numbering all along the Cross Bronx Expressway? I am sure that created the most confusion for motorists in the Bronx.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 22, 2016, 08:38:27 AM
Also how about I-95 with its musical chairs exit numbering all along the Cross Bronx Expressway? I am sure that created the most confusion for motorists in the Bronx.
Of all the things confusing motorists in the Bronx, I can assure you with 100% certainty that exit numbering is not chief among them.
Quote from: empirestate on March 22, 2016, 10:16:28 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 22, 2016, 08:38:27 AM
Also how about I-95 with its musical chairs exit numbering all along the Cross Bronx Expressway? I am sure that created the most confusion for motorists in the Bronx.
Of all the things confusing motorists in the Bronx, I can assure you with 100% certainty that exit numbering is not chief among them.
I agree. Exit numbers aren't a huge concern.
My point was, confusion or not, the exit numbers happened there and on the nearby PIP. I am sure if any cried over the ordeal they have gotten over it.
On the PIP, I was always amazed that the US 6 split was never given an exit number originally. I am guessing they applied the same principal as PennDOT did with PA's interstate to interstate connections that VTrans still has on I-91 at I-89.
Anyway, like it or not, they will get over it and with people of the Bronx, most do not drive anyway so to them who cares if the Major Deegan is Exit 1C or 2A. Plus names always seemed to be the issue from what I remember living up there. Who ever used the numbers as reference points anyhow anywhere in NYC or Nassau and Westchester?
Quote from: roadman65 on March 22, 2016, 11:55:15 AM
On the PIP, I was always amazed that the US 6 split was never given an exit number originally. I am guessing they applied the same principal as PennDOT did with PA's interstate to interstate connections that VTrans still has on I-91 at I-89.
That was NYSDOT policy for a while. Most of the numbered interstate-interstate connections are either suffixed or on roads that were first numbered after the policy changed.
Quote from: vdeane on March 22, 2016, 01:24:58 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 22, 2016, 11:55:15 AM
On the PIP, I was always amazed that the US 6 split was never given an exit number originally. I am guessing they applied the same principal as PennDOT did with PA's interstate to interstate connections that VTrans still has on I-91 at I-89.
That was NYSDOT policy for a while. Most of the numbered interstate-interstate connections are either suffixed or on roads that were first numbered after the policy changed.
While some (I-690/I-81, I-81/I-88) remain unnumbered. A very notable exception was always Albany's Exit 1, which was numbered as such when the policy existed (we know this because of Exit 6A).
Exit 1 is technically for US 9W, despite SB signage (no doubt from back when the Northway was supposed to parallel the Thruway to I-787). More notable is I-787 exit 5 and unbuilt Northway exit 3.
Quote from: vdeane on March 22, 2016, 06:38:20 PM
Exit 1 is technically for US 9W, despite SB signage (no doubt from back when the Northway was supposed to parallel the Thruway to I-787). More notable is I-787 exit 5 and unbuilt Northway exit 3.
I meant the other Exit 1 (also technically in Albany). Thought I was clear about that. My apologies.
Quote from: cl94 on March 22, 2016, 04:42:40 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 22, 2016, 01:24:58 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 22, 2016, 11:55:15 AM
On the PIP, I was always amazed that the US 6 split was never given an exit number originally. I am guessing they applied the same principal as PennDOT did with PA's interstate to interstate connections that VTrans still has on I-91 at I-89.
That was NYSDOT policy for a while. Most of the numbered interstate-interstate connections are either suffixed or on roads that were first numbered after the policy changed.
While some (I-690/I-81, I-81/I-88) remain unnumbered. A very notable exception was always Albany's Exit 1, which was numbered as such when the policy existed (we know this because of Exit 6A).
I always found it interesting that I-81/NY 17 west is unnumbered as well, like they always planned for NY 17 west of Binghamton to be an interstate. I-81 South to NY 17 east is unnumbered, but I-81 north to NY 17 east is numbered exit 2E.
I-81 to I-90 wasn't numbered until 1984.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 22, 2016, 11:55:15 AM
My point was, confusion or not, the exit numbers happened there and on the nearby PIP. I am sure if any cried over the ordeal they have gotten over it.
And mine was simply to take a jab at the overall confusedness of drivers in the Bronx. ;-)
QuoteAnyway, like it or not, they will get over it and with people of the Bronx, most do not drive anyway so to them who cares if the Major Deegan is Exit 1C or 2A. Plus names always seemed to be the issue from what I remember living up there. Who ever used the numbers as reference points anyhow anywhere in NYC or Nassau and Westchester?
Actually, I used to live right by Exit 11 on the Deegan and would refer to it as such–and I wasn't the first to do so. But in that case it was more expeditious to say "Exit 11" than "Van Cortlandt Park South"; overall, the practice is rare.
I have no idea, really, what up in the big city. All I know is the traffic reports never use exit numbers. WINS, WCBS, and other would say names as reference points. On the LIE it was always places along the way such as "The Fairgrounds to the Tanks" as the greatest choke point along the road.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on March 22, 2016, 08:24:32 PM
I always found it interesting that I-81/NY 17 west is unnumbered as well, like they always planned for NY 17 west of Binghamton to be an interstate. I-81 South to NY 17 east is unnumbered, but I-81 north to NY 17 east is numbered exit 2E.
I-81 to I-90 wasn't numbered until 1984.
I recall reading on the 3di guide that I-390 was originally supposed to be numbered I-486, which would point to that proposal being much older than 1999.
I presume I-81 south to NY 17 east is unnumbered because it's technically the freeway mainline.
Quote from: vdeane on March 23, 2016, 01:08:58 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on March 22, 2016, 08:24:32 PM
I always found it interesting that I-81/NY 17 west is unnumbered as well, like they always planned for NY 17 west of Binghamton to be an interstate. I-81 South to NY 17 east is unnumbered, but I-81 north to NY 17 east is numbered exit 2E.
I-81 to I-90 wasn't numbered until 1984.
I recall reading on the 3di guide that I-390 was originally supposed to be numbered I-486, which would point to that proposal being much older than 1999.
I presume I-81 south to NY 17 east is unnumbered because it's technically the freeway mainline.
From what I can gather, the portion from the Chautauqua Lake bridge west was always intended to be part of the Interstate system.
I-390 is also relatively recent. There was a portion near the southern end that was a super two until the 80s. My dad remembers it from visiting his stepbrother at Geneseo in the early 80s and one bridge on one of the sides was not complete. I think it this bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4405839,-77.4627814,3a,75y,104.74h,80.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDrWVB3LLIa9VNnDNLtG3Vg!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656). Notice the two different types of guardrail.
According to the 3di guide, I-486 was proposed as far back as 1971.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix86.html
Quote from: vdeane on March 23, 2016, 05:37:03 PM
According to the 3di guide, I-486 was proposed as far back as 1971.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix86.html
Not surprising. The portion of I-86 west of I-390 is pretty unnecessary without a connection to I-90 in Pennsylvania, so it makes sense that I-86 was in long-range plans when NY 17 was being upgraded.
I recall hearings for what is now 390 back in the 60's when it was proposed as NY 401. The portion completed when the 390 designation took place (between Dansville and Wayland) was temporarily designated NY245.
The two-lane portion was over wetlands between exits 6 and 7, where there was difficulty getting the soil to stabilize.
Quote from: vdeane on March 23, 2016, 05:37:03 PM
According to the 3di guide, I-486 was proposed as far back as 1971.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix86.html
Something similar to I-390 and I-86 was requested in 1970 from then-BPR as a result of the 1968 Highway Act that added 1500 miles to the system.
Looks like NYSDOT really wants to sign I-86 west of I-84. There is one lone JCT I-86 sign uncovered on NY-211 at NY-17. There are also END I-86 signs in place but covered eastbound at the I-84 interchange. I can see why the NY-32 ramp needs to be rebuilt (the overpass is kinda old and falling apart, loop ramp from NY-17N to W is tight), but it really shouldn't hold up an interstate designation. Maybe they can get the NYSTA to pay for it, after all it could technically be part of Exit 16 :wink: :wink:
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 26, 2016, 07:01:00 PM
Looks like NYSDOT really wants to sign I-86 west of I-84. There is one lone JCT I-86 sign uncovered on NY-211 at NY-17. There are also END I-86 signs in place but covered eastbound at the I-84 interchange. I can see why the NY-32 ramp needs to be rebuilt (the overpass is kinda old and falling apart, loop ramp from NY-17N to W is tight), but it really shouldn't hold up an interstate designation. Maybe they can get the NYSTA to pay for it, after all it could technically be part of Exit 16 :wink: :wink:
Regions 8 and 9 have had signs up for years. Under every NY 17 reassurance shield in Region 9 outside of Hale Eddy is an I-86 shield and uncovered direction banners are white on blue (if you haven't noticed, most direction banners are covered). Region 9 is dying to sign it between I-81 and US 220.
The exit 131 project is in the budget. As for everything else, I wouldn't be surprised if I-86 is eventually done, even if it takes 50 years, if only because everything left besides Hale Eddy is the type of stuff that would be addressed in a substantial rehabilitation/reconstruction, which will almost certainly have to happen eventually.
Meanwhile Region 6 seems to want to hold on to NY 17. Project D263125, I-86 from Exit 46 to the Chemung County line, includes replacing signs including new NY 17 signs.
Quote from: vdeane on April 03, 2016, 03:29:04 PM
The exit 131 project is in the budget. As for everything else, I wouldn't be surprised if I-86 is eventually done, even if it takes 50 years, if only because everything left besides Hale Eddy is the type of stuff that would be addressed in a substantial rehabilitation/reconstruction, which will almost certainly have to happen eventually.
50 years might be a safe bet. :D
A more interesting bet would be if Hale Eddy to Hancock is done by the time I retire.
Quote from: GenExpwy on April 04, 2016, 01:41:26 AM
Meanwhile Region 6 seems to want to hold on to NY 17. Project D263125, I-86 from Exit 46 to the Chemung County line, includes replacing signs including new NY 17 signs.
Depends on the traffic engineer. The past two wanted to take down the NY 17 signs when doing projects. The current one directs the signage person to replace in kind. Honestly, IMO they should be taking down the NY 17 signs... I hate pointless overlaps.
I would get rid of the Interstate 86/NY 17 duplex and let the road just be Interstate 86.
Quote from: vdeane on April 04, 2016, 12:55:30 PM
Quote from: GenExpwy on April 04, 2016, 01:41:26 AM
Meanwhile Region 6 seems to want to hold on to NY 17. Project D263125, I-86 from Exit 46 to the Chemung County line, includes replacing signs including new NY 17 signs.
Depends on the traffic engineer. The past two wanted to take down the NY 17 signs when doing projects. The current one directs the signage person to replace in kind. Honestly, IMO they should be taking down the NY 17 signs... I hate pointless overlaps.
I hate "replace in kind". Circumstances change, priorities change, traffic patterns change, signing standards and expectations change. Some traffic engineers are just afraid or too lazy to think.
What is the current status of I-86 construction in New York? Where, if anywhere are they currently working on upgrading the highway to interstate standards?
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on January 05, 2017, 10:00:52 AM
What is the current status of I-86 construction in New York? Where, if anywhere are they currently working on upgrading the highway to interstate standards?
The Binghamton project is still going. I went through on New Year's Eve, and I-86 shields were now fully displayed from the I-81 junction. Most of the work seems to have shifted to the NY 7 interchange now (didn't see what was happening west of I-81).
Outside of Prospect Mountain (a/k/a Kamikaze Curve), not a whole lot is going on currently. Exit 131 (Woodbury Commons) is tentatively scheduled to be let in 2018, but you can place your bets as to whether that'll happen or not. Hale Eddy to Hancock isn't in the current program at all.
One problem is that since there was the push to do the conversion some years ago, a few of the conversion projects designs were started. However, because they never proceeded to ROW or construction, they may be at risk at running afoul of the FHWA's 10-year PE rule, where the design money may need to be paid back ("FAINed," as they say). Not really seeing NYSDOT going ahead with the projects and NYSDOT will probably just pay back the design funds, but it's an interesting situation.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: empirestate on January 05, 2017, 10:35:55 AM
The Binghamton project is still going. I went through on New Year's Eve, and I-86 shields were now fully displayed from the I-81 junction. Most of the work seems to have shifted to the NY 7 interchange now (didn't see what was happening west of I-81).
East of I-81, I'm assuming. How about along the I-81 multiplex?
Quote from: yakra on January 05, 2017, 03:23:15 PM
Quote from: empirestate on January 05, 2017, 10:35:55 AM
The Binghamton project is still going. I went through on New Year's Eve, and I-86 shields were now fully displayed from the I-81 junction. Most of the work seems to have shifted to the NY 7 interchange now (didn't see what was happening west of I-81).
East of I-81, I'm assuming. How about along the I-81 multiplex?
All of the current work is happening on the multiplex. They're braiding the NY 7 ramps with the interchange just west of the river.
The only part I'm most concerned about is the section between Exit 84 and Exit 87. Still no plans to convert that section to freeway standards?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 05, 2017, 04:18:42 PM
The only part I'm most concerned about is the section between Exit 84 and Exit 87. Still no plans to convert that section to freeway standards?
None. Hale Eddy is staying as it is for the foreseeable future.
There's still no reason to do anything there. Just make I-86 shields quietly disappear through that stretch and leave it alone. Volume is still too low.
Quote from: yakra on January 05, 2017, 03:23:15 PM
Quote from: empirestate on January 05, 2017, 10:35:55 AM
The Binghamton project is still going. I went through on New Year's Eve, and I-86 shields were now fully displayed from the I-81 junction. Most of the work seems to have shifted to the NY 7 interchange now (didn't see what was happening west of I-81).
East of I-81, I'm assuming. How about along the I-81 multiplex?
Along the multiplex is what I mean.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 05, 2017, 06:12:20 PM
There's still no reason to do anything there. Just make I-86 shields quietly disappear through that stretch and leave it alone. Volume is still too low.
Have to agree; other than for the designation itself, I have a hard time seeing a Hale Eddy upgrade as necessary (same with Parksville, but that's already done).
I remember when Rothman posted that project list and there was something listed for western Broome County. I wonder if that would have been rolled into the Prospect Mountain projects, given that it seems that I-86 will be designated between US 220 and I-81 when Phase II is complete? I'm curious what it could be; my guess would be something to do with exit 68.
Quote from: empirestate on January 05, 2017, 10:35:55 AM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on January 05, 2017, 10:00:52 AM
What is the current status of I-86 construction in New York? Where, if anywhere are they currently working on upgrading the highway to interstate standards?
The Binghamton project is still going. I went through on New Year's Eve, and I-86 shields were now fully displayed from the I-81 junction. Most of the work seems to have shifted to the NY 7 interchange now (didn't see what was happening west of I-81).
So, looking at the map, the construction is where NY-17 meets I-81 on the Eastern side of Binghamton.
I found the NYDOT page on the project.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/prospectmountain
It is lacking in detail.
Does anyone know how much of NY-17 will be signed as I-86 after the construction is done? From the map it looks like all of the I-86/I-81 overlap. And at least some of NY-17 going east. But maps can be deceiving. How much of NY-17 going from South Waverly to I-81 is at interstate standards already?
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on January 06, 2017, 09:34:40 AM
Quote from: empirestate on January 05, 2017, 10:35:55 AM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on January 05, 2017, 10:00:52 AM
What is the current status of I-86 construction in New York? Where, if anywhere are they currently working on upgrading the highway to interstate standards?
The Binghamton project is still going. I went through on New Year's Eve, and I-86 shields were now fully displayed from the I-81 junction. Most of the work seems to have shifted to the NY 7 interchange now (didn't see what was happening west of I-81).
So, looking at the map, the construction is where NY-17 meets I-81 on the Eastern side of Binghamton.
I found the NYDOT page on the project.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/prospectmountain
It is lacking in detail.
Does anyone know how much of NY-17 will be signed as I-86 after the construction is done? From the map it looks like all of the I-86/I-81 overlap. And at least some of NY-17 going east. But maps can be deceiving. How much of NY-17 going from South Waverly to I-81 is at interstate standards already?
This is what I'm saying...the overlap is now signed as both I-81 and I-86 (at least on guide signage coming from the north). That's the stretch
east of the Prospect Mountain project, which is at the
western junction of I-81 and I-86. That junction, while pretty far east in the metro area overall, is situated on the western end of Binghamton proper. Construction-wise, work has now shifted from the junction itself to the interchange with NY 7, which is situated along the overlap.
At the
eastern junction of I-81 and I-86, signage had already been posted for I-86 as far eastward as Windsor; that's been the case for several years. So now, I-86 is signed at least from its
western junction with I-81, eastward to Windsor.
As I say, I didn't go west of I-81, so I don't know if I-86 has also been extended westward, which was your other question (along with the rest of us, I would say). All we ever seem to hear is that "a few spots" in Tioga County need updating to Interstate standards, but I've had a hard time finding out exactly what and where, or whether any work is actually happening to address them. Certainly, the stretch immediately west of I-81 is newly reconstructed, so it should be possible to sign I-86 at least a little ways west toward Johnson City, if not all the way to Waverly.
My question above was poorly worded. But anyway. I'm trying to figure out whether, for the TravelMapping project, the I-81 multiplex should be taken out of the Future I-86 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?u=&r=ny.i086futbin) file and added to I-86 proper (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?u=&r=ny.i086bin) instead.
Is I-86 fully signed along the overlap now in both directions? north/westbound too?
Officially, there's still a gap between Exits 61 and 72. It is signed both entering WB and mainline WB at Exit 61. As far as the multiplex, it is questionable, as the designation hasn't been approved.
Quote from: yakra on January 06, 2017, 02:14:05 PM
My question above was poorly worded. But anyway. I'm trying to figure out whether, for the TravelMapping project, the I-81 multiplex should be taken out of the Future I-86 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?u=&r=ny.i086futbin) file and added to I-86 proper (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?u=&r=ny.i086bin) instead.
Is I-86 fully signed along the overlap now in both directions? north/westbound too?
Don't know about north/westbound. Someone closer by will have to check on that; I won't be back in that area anytime soon.
I-86 is fully signed on the multiplex in both directions. New signage at exit 4 onramps also indicates I-86.
West of the I-81/I-86 junction, signage is hit and miss at this time as far west as exit 67. Onramps at exits 71, 70, and 67 all indicate I-86 in both directions. Exits 72 and 68 have I-86 signage with temporary "TO" markers attached. Exit 69 indicates I-86 westbound but only NY-17 eastbound. On the highway itself, all of the reassurance shields have a temporary "TO" above.
Quote from: Bumppoman on January 06, 2017, 07:16:06 PM
I-86 is fully signed on the multiplex in both directions. New signage at exit 4 onramps also indicates I-86.
West of the I-81/I-86 junction, signage is hit and miss at this time as far west as exit 67. Onramps at exits 71, 70, and 67 all indicate I-86 in both directions. Exits 72 and 68 have I-86 signage with temporary "TO" markers attached. Exit 69 indicates I-86 westbound but only NY-17 eastbound. On the highway itself, all of the reassurance shields have a temporary "TO" above.
This standard is similar for the 20 miles, on westbound, east of Binghamton.
For Tioga County, I believe the issues were mainly acceleration/deceleration lane length... at least, that's the only work that was obvious. The project was done a few years ago. The Broome County project would have been west of the Binghamton city line... no idea if that was done, what it is/was, if it was rolled into something else, or if NYSDOT plans to sign I-86 without doing it.
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2017, 08:44:00 PM
For Tioga County, I believe the issues were mainly acceleration/deceleration lane length... at least, that's the only work that was obvious. The project was done a few years ago. The Broome County project would have been west of the Binghamton city line... no idea if that was done, what it is/was, if it was rolled into something else, or if NYSDOT plans to sign I-86 without doing it.
The only "work" I noticed in that area when I was last up there (August) was a continuous line of construction barrels along the right shoulder between Exit 70S and Exit 66...no more.
Interesting... I wonder if something was up with the shoulders.
I went from Exit 70 to 60 and back on October 22nd 2014. The bridges between Johnson City and Owego were extremely narrow, and appear to still be based on the latest Street View images (September 2015). My non-roadgeek friend even noticed how narrow they were. According to Uglybridges, both the westbound (http://uglybridges.com/1380453) and eastbound (http://uglybridges.com/1380452) bridges on NY 17 over the Susquehanna River are 27.9 feet wide. As a comparison, the narrowest through bridge in the I-81/I-690 interchange is I-81 southbound between North Townsend Street and the merge at Adams Street. That bridge is 25.9 feet wide (http://uglybridges.com/1380369).
I also saw I-86 shields heading westbound, but I don't remember the exact locations. I think the first one was near Owego.
They did some work on the bridges over the past year
I'm wondering if it would be possible to address the Hale Eddy situation much as TX is dealing with the ranchlands along I-69E through the King Ranch area -- have separated periodic turnouts along the side of the facility, with gates (possibly remotely activated by residents' devices -- and, along EB, tied in with the RR to avoid accidents). Essentially, RIRO's separated from the main traffic lanes. At most, one overpass in or near Hale Eddy itself would be required (and only if any local objections became too persistent). Having driven this route several times -- and looking at GSV/GE views, this might be a reasonably low-cost and lower-impact alternative to any large-scale facility expansion.
They do things a lot different in Texas than they would do in New York or most other states.
Quote from: sparker on January 09, 2017, 04:35:46 PM
I'm wondering if it would be possible to address the Hale Eddy situation much as TX is dealing with the ranchlands along I-69E through the King Ranch area -- have separated periodic turnouts along the side of the facility, with gates (possibly remotely activated by residents' devices -- and, along EB, tied in with the RR to avoid accidents). Essentially, RIRO's separated from the main traffic lanes. At most, one overpass in or near Hale Eddy itself would be required (and only if any local objections became too persistent). Having driven this route several times -- and looking at GSV/GE views, this might be a reasonably low-cost and lower-impact alternative to any large-scale facility expansion.
But is it necessary? 7,000 AADT is not worth justifying spending anything at all.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 10, 2017, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 09, 2017, 04:35:46 PM
I'm wondering if it would be possible to address the Hale Eddy situation much as TX is dealing with the ranchlands along I-69E through the King Ranch area -- have separated periodic turnouts along the side of the facility, with gates (possibly remotely activated by residents' devices -- and, along EB, tied in with the RR to avoid accidents). Essentially, RIRO's separated from the main traffic lanes. At most, one overpass in or near Hale Eddy itself would be required (and only if any local objections became too persistent). Having driven this route several times -- and looking at GSV/GE views, this might be a reasonably low-cost and lower-impact alternative to any large-scale facility expansion.
But is it necessary? 7,000 AADT is not worth justifying spending anything at all.
Texas got away with at-grade ranch accesses when it upgraded US-66 to I-40 in the 1980s, so why wouldn't the FHWA and AASHTO allow the same on certain sections of US-77 being converted to I-69E in the rural area between Kingsville and Raymondville?
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 10, 2017, 04:29:03 PM
But is it necessary? 7,000 AADT is not worth justifying spending anything at all.
What are the accident rates in the area? If they are notably above normal doing *something* might be justified by safety.
The cheapest and easiest "something" would probably be to simply eminent domain all of the properties which are currently accessible only via 17, barricade the driveways/intersections and let nature gradually handle the rest.
The core of Hale Eddy, at least, has another road giving them access to the outside world. As do the properties off of Bush Hill Rd. For not much extra cost you could throw the people in these places a bone by giving them a couple RIRO ramps rather than severing them from 17 completely.
The Hale Eddy-Broome Connector is not an intersection that can just be gated.
That said, there's still no reason to justify spending money on gate accesses for numerous intersections in a stretch that will never be heavily trafficked. These intersections are not dangerous and people have managed for the last 50 years.
It is just easier having I-86 shields disappear between exits 84 and 87.
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 10, 2017, 07:35:44 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 10, 2017, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 09, 2017, 04:35:46 PM
I'm wondering if it would be possible to address the Hale Eddy situation much as TX is dealing with the ranchlands along I-69E through the King Ranch area -- have separated periodic turnouts along the side of the facility, with gates (possibly remotely activated by residents' devices -- and, along EB, tied in with the RR to avoid accidents). Essentially, RIRO's separated from the main traffic lanes. At most, one overpass in or near Hale Eddy itself would be required (and only if any local objections became too persistent). Having driven this route several times -- and looking at GSV/GE views, this might be a reasonably low-cost and lower-impact alternative to any large-scale facility expansion.
But is it necessary? 7,000 AADT is not worth justifying spending anything at all.
Texas got away with at-grade ranch accesses when it upgraded US-66 to I-40 in the 1980s, so why wouldn't the FHWA and AASHTO allow the same on certain sections of US-77 being converted to I-69E in the rural area between Kingsville and Raymondville?
That's also rural Texas in an area that is all ranches. Kenedy County has a much smaller population than the Town of Hancock, where Hale Eddy lies, and the fourth-lowest population of any county in the country. Believe it or not, there are actually people living in Hale Eddy, plus a motel, cabin area, 2 churches, and a few businesses. A rough estimate I made places the Hale Eddy area at 50-100 people.
At this point, I'm not convinced you need many improvements unless there are safety concerns. Excluding Exit 111, this is the only significant part of I-86 in Region 9 that isn't under construction to bring it to Interstate standards. The grade-separated 55 portion in Delaware County falls under the exemption for mountainous terrain and, as I-86 shields have been up along it for years, I doubt much needs to change.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 10, 2017, 04:11:04 PM
They do things a lot different in Texas than they would do in New York or most other states.
Which is no reason to dismiss a possible solution that may find utility elsewhere.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 10, 2017, 07:52:10 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 10, 2017, 04:29:03 PM
But is it necessary? 7,000 AADT is not worth justifying spending anything at all.
What are the accident rates in the area? If they are notably above normal doing *something* might be justified by safety.
The cheapest and easiest "something" would probably be to simply eminent domain all of the properties which are currently accessible only via 17, barricade the driveways/intersections and let nature gradually handle the rest.
The core of Hale Eddy, at least, has another road giving them access to the outside world. As do the properties off of Bush Hill Rd. For not much extra cost you could throw the people in these places a bone by giving them a couple RIRO ramps rather than severing them from 17 completely.
Hale Eddy's actually cut in two by NY 17; the access mentioned above pertains to the north side of the community. The south side, squished between the highway and the river, could easily be served by a couple of ramps in lieu of a RIRO.
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 10, 2017, 07:35:44 PM
Texas got away with at-grade ranch accesses when it upgraded US-66 to I-40 in the 1980s, so why wouldn't the FHWA and AASHTO allow the same on certain sections of US-77 being converted to I-69E in the rural area between Kingsville and Raymondville?
Most of the ranch access along I-40 is not to actual residences but simply access points to grazing areas within large-scale ranch properties. Since the King Ranch occupies most of Kenedy County on the US 77/I-69E alignment, I'm guessing that some sort of arrangement was made to avoid having at-grade crossings -- both to satisfy FHWA requirements as well as for the safety of ranch personnel.
My guess is that if there's enough pressure to finally complete I-86,
something will be done about the Hale Eddy segment unless significant waivers of standards can be obtained. Just omitting Interstate reassurance signage along a 4-mile segment has no precedent as a permanent solution, although it might function as an interim measure. This may be a case of "kick the can down the road" for NYDOT. Maybe they could do what Caltrans did with I-5 in the Sacramento River canyon prior to the 1992 opening of the present freeway: sign the substandard section as "Temporary I-86" (its I-5 iteration sufficed for nearly 20 years in that instance).
There's no reason to upgrade the thing at this time. It's already used by most frequent travelers between west of I-81 in New York and New York City and NY 17 is a pretty well-known through route. Volumes just aren't high enough to justify the expense. If there's a large uptick in volume or accidents, maybe. Not for an AADT of 8-9,000. That area is literally the middle of nowhere in the SW Catskills.
As far as that road heading south from Hale Eddy, it has an AADT around 500, as well as the only bridge across the West Branch between Deposit Village and Hancock. Looks like most of that is to/from Hancock, so you'd need a bridge to handle that left turn movement, else it's a 10 mile detour.
Quote from: cl94 on January 10, 2017, 10:00:35 PM
As far as that road heading south from Hale Eddy, it has an AADT around 500, as well as the only bridge across the West Branch between Deposit Village and Hancock. Looks like most of that is to/from Hancock, so you'd need a bridge to handle that left turn movement, else it's a 10 mile detour.
There is a local road heading down the PA side of the river which is not particularly longer (distancewise) than NY 17 between there and Hancock. And traffic going to Deposit has CR 249.
The connections DO exist, and while the 500 vehicles per day would be inconvenienced by needing to use local roads rather than being able to make lefts to/from NY 17 WB, it wouldn't be an unviable solution for the traffic volumes involved.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 10, 2017, 10:14:57 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 10, 2017, 10:00:35 PM
As far as that road heading south from Hale Eddy, it has an AADT around 500, as well as the only bridge across the West Branch between Deposit Village and Hancock. Looks like most of that is to/from Hancock, so you'd need a bridge to handle that left turn movement, else it's a 10 mile detour.
There is a local road heading down the PA side of the river which is not particularly longer (distancewise) than NY 17 between there and Hancock. And traffic going to Deposit has CR 249.
The connections DO exist, and while the 500 vehicles per day would be inconvenienced by needing to use local roads rather than being able to make lefts to/from NY 17 WB, it wouldn't be an unviable solution for the traffic volumes involved.
But is the local road paved? I can't tell that from satellite imagery.
At least we're getting a reasonable dialogue going about how to (or how not to) address the shortcomings of this section of NY 17; much more productive than several months ago, when it seemed like the consensus was that the overall upgrade east of I-81 was in jeopardy.
Quote from: sparker on January 11, 2017, 05:51:45 AM
At least we're getting a reasonable dialogue going about how to (or how not to) address the shortcomings of this section of NY 17; much more productive than several months ago, when it seemed like the consensus was that the overall upgrade east of I-81 was in jeopardy.
That's still the consensus. Nothing we say on here will change the fact that, outside of Prospect Mountain and Woodbury Commons, the conversion has come to a halt.
Quote from: cl94 on January 10, 2017, 10:28:51 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 10, 2017, 10:14:57 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 10, 2017, 10:00:35 PM
As far as that road heading south from Hale Eddy, it has an AADT around 500, as well as the only bridge across the West Branch between Deposit Village and Hancock. Looks like most of that is to/from Hancock, so you'd need a bridge to handle that left turn movement, else it's a 10 mile detour.
There is a local road heading down the PA side of the river which is not particularly longer (distancewise) than NY 17 between there and Hancock. And traffic going to Deposit has CR 249.
The connections DO exist, and while the 500 vehicles per day would be inconvenienced by needing to use local roads rather than being able to make lefts to/from NY 17 WB, it wouldn't be an unviable solution for the traffic volumes involved.
But is the local road paved? I can't tell that from satellite imagery.
I don't think Faulkner/Penn-York is paved between the West Branch Resort and Balls Eddy.
Once Exit 131 is addressed (whatever the feds problem with it is, looks interstate standard already), are there any plans to finally sign I-86 on that stretch?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 11, 2017, 04:25:54 PM
Once Exit 131 is addressed (whatever the feds problem with it is, looks interstate standard already), are there any plans to finally sign I-86 on that stretch?
131 isn't the problem. It's 127-129. Those ramps are quite substandard. 131 is on the table because it's prone to backups.
Quite substandard would be an understatement. The only one I see an easy solution on is 128 would be a new ramp that connects on the south side of Craigville Road.
The easy solution seems like for 127 to eliminate it.
I don't even know what to do with 129.
The EB onramp at 127 doesn't look bad. Is the problem the length of the WB off-ramp?
Also not sure what is sub-standard about the 128 ramp.
129 is absolutely bad. The EB offramp is probably alright, but the other two ramps are way too short. I would just eliminate the EB entrance and WB exit. Traffic from points east can reach that area easily from Exit 130 and going either way around the lake.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 11, 2017, 06:25:30 PM
Quite substandard would be an understatement.
Which is why that's the only limited-access segment that doesn't already have signs up. The first segment of the Quickway (118-124) opened in 1951, with it being completed to Exit 131 in 1955. So yes, the entire thing east of 118 predates the Interstate system, which is why it is so substandard. The Region 9 segment dates from the 60s, hence why just about everything but the at-grades is okay for designation.
127 is the WB exit ramp. 128 has a 20 mph hairpin turn with no banking and a deceleration lane that is nowhere near long enough to slow down from 65 to 20. 129 should be evident.
Quote from: cl94 on January 11, 2017, 07:33:59 PM
128 has a 20 mph hairpin turn with no banking and a deceleration lane that is nowhere near long enough to slow down from 65 to 20.
Ah. That explains it. Hard to tell the deceleration lane on the aerials.
Also, the westbound Exit 122 ramps seem very sub-standard, though they were recently built for that shopping center.
Does any of it have to do with the lack of completeness of 127-129? 127 sort of complements 126, but the others are woeful.
I was driving along I-86 today from Corning to Binghamton and noticed that all the reassurance marker for 17 from exit 60 to exit 66 were actually covering I-86 shields. The direction on each one was covered up but I could see the blue direction sign underneath on some. If you go just past the shield on street view and look at the back of the sign, you can see the outline of the interstate shield behind the 17 shield.
Exit 62 https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0242788,-76.3743429,3a,75y,118.93h,75.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6NobfDmvBClD3w4APzXYbQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Exit 63- shows the blue direction sign
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0670921,-76.3218701,3a,75y,66.08h,77.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spiIvtqkb-hCUGThhTOFF1g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
After the Broome County line, all the reassurance markers had the 86 and 17 shields but all the 86 shields had a "TO" sign over them.
It could be years before we see I-86 completed all the way to the Thruway, but I'm betting that it gets done before I-69 between Indy and Memphis does!
Drove through the Prospect Mountain Project a week ago today and took some rainy photos. Noted that the APL at the I-81 north / NY 17 split already has I-86 acknowledged for the Southern Tier Expressway westbound.
https://www.aaroads.com/blog/2017/01/24/prospect-mountain-project/
Also spotted a state-named shield for I-81 still standing on the mainline, Surprisingly it appears next to a I-86 trailblazer.
Corning is now the control city for the Southern Tier Expressway out of Binghamton! Considering Elmira was always the control place and you have to pass to it to get to Corning, and a fairly decent size community to boot, it does not seem very logical.
Unless the name Elmira has a bad rap being the state prison is there where Corning is known for the Corning Glass factory, is something NYSDOT think is better association. However, I think that Bud Shuster and his I-99 strikes again, being his route and this new interstate meet there make it a junction city.
They're using Corning because of I-99 and it being control city for two other Interstates. Elmira was used in the past because that's where the freeway section (and later I-86) began. New York likes minimizing the number of control cities when possible and it isn't the first time they have deleted a control city. I wouldn't be shocked if Jamestown disappears in the relatively near future.
Quote from: cl94 on January 24, 2017, 04:52:34 PMI wouldn't be shocked if Jamestown disappears in the relatively near future.
Then what would the westbound control city be past Corning? Erie? Rochester east of I-390?
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on January 24, 2017, 09:52:54 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 24, 2017, 04:52:34 PMI wouldn't be shocked if Jamestown disappears in the relatively near future.
Then what would the westbound control city be past Corning? Erie? Rochester east of I-390?
Would look strange if PennDOT kept Jamestown as a control city for I-86 east from I-90, but NYSDOT eliminated it. If Jamestown were eliminated, I think you'd see Rochester/Erie westbound between I-99 and I-390, and Erie only west of there. If PennDOT were to eliminate it, you might see Binghamton as a control city.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 24, 2017, 10:16:28 PM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on January 24, 2017, 09:52:54 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 24, 2017, 04:52:34 PMI wouldn't be shocked if Jamestown disappears in the relatively near future.
Then what would the westbound control city be past Corning? Erie? Rochester east of I-390?
Would look strange if PennDOT kept Jamestown as a control city for I-86 east from I-90, but NYSDOT eliminated it. If Jamestown were eliminated, I think you'd see Rochester/Erie westbound between I-99 and I-390, and Erie only west of there. If PennDOT were to eliminate it, you might see Binghamton as a control city.
No, you'd see Corning, because that's what NYSDOT uses (as does PennDOT for US 15).
Quote from: cl94 on January 24, 2017, 04:52:34 PM
They're using Corning because of I-99 and it being control city for two other Interstates. Elmira was used in the past because that's where the freeway section (and later I-86) began. New York likes minimizing the number of control cities when possible and it isn't the first time they have deleted a control city. I wouldn't be shocked if Jamestown disappears in the relatively near future.
Why would Jamestown be eliminated? Having lived in the small city for several years I can tell you that it's a small city but it's certainly viable as a control city. It's not the city's fault that the expressway was built on the wrong side of Chautauqua Lake. :)
I always thought that the I-90 exit in PA for I-86 should have "Jamestown / New York" or "Jamestown / Corning" or something like that. Just having Jamestown seems silly to me.
At one time Olean was used at the I-390 interchange. As far as control cities go, if NYSDOT likes to minimize control cities go to Orange County. There on NY 17 you will find Monroe, Chester, and Goshen used WB instead of something like Middletown, Monticello, or Binghamton.
EB NYC is used from I-81 yet Binghamton is only used from I-84 westward. Oh yes one sign on NY 17 NB where it enters the freeway to go west does use Monticello 42. The NYSTA uses Harriman like its a local interchange, but they are not NYSDOT, but considering that Scranton is now used at Exit 17, we may see Binghamton soon at Exit 16.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 24, 2017, 10:16:28 PM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on January 24, 2017, 09:52:54 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 24, 2017, 04:52:34 PMI wouldn't be shocked if Jamestown disappears in the relatively near future.
Then what would the westbound control city be past Corning? Erie? Rochester east of I-390?
Would look strange if PennDOT kept Jamestown as a control city for I-86 east from I-90, but NYSDOT eliminated it. If Jamestown were eliminated, I think you'd see Rochester/Erie westbound between I-99 and I-390, and Erie only west of there. If PennDOT were to eliminate it, you might see Binghamton as a control city.
Not really. Where I-64 splits from I-77 in West Virginia, Lewisburg is used. Where 64 splits from I-81 in Virginia, Charleston is used (bypassing Beckley, which is the next interstate junction.)
Quote from: roadman65 on January 25, 2017, 09:23:49 AM
At one time Olean was used at the I-390 interchange. As far as control cities go, if NYSDOT likes to minimize control cities go to Orange County. There on NY 17 you will find Monroe, Chester, and Goshen used WB instead of something like Middletown, Monticello, or Binghamton.
EB NYC is used from I-81 yet Binghamton is only used from I-84 westward. Oh yes one sign on NY 17 NB where it enters the freeway to go west does use Monticello 42. The NYSTA uses Harriman like its a local interchange, but they are not NYSDOT, but considering that Scranton is now used at Exit 17, we may see Binghamton soon at Exit 16.
The only "official" control cities as NYSDOT sees them are on pull-throughs. By your logic, Saratoga Springs, Glens Falls and Plattsburgh would be I-87 control cities. Goshen and Middletown could be considered US 6 control cities as they are only signed on US 6 pull-throughs. NY 17 itself has Binghamton on pull-throughs well east of I-84 and the NY 17 Middletown one is in NYSTA territory.
Quote from: cl94 on January 25, 2017, 07:34:03 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 25, 2017, 09:23:49 AM
At one time Olean was used at the I-390 interchange. As far as control cities go, if NYSDOT likes to minimize control cities go to Orange County. There on NY 17 you will find Monroe, Chester, and Goshen used WB instead of something like Middletown, Monticello, or Binghamton.
EB NYC is used from I-81 yet Binghamton is only used from I-84 westward. Oh yes one sign on NY 17 NB where it enters the freeway to go west does use Monticello 42. The NYSTA uses Harriman like its a local interchange, but they are not NYSDOT, but considering that Scranton is now used at Exit 17, we may see Binghamton soon at Exit 16.
The only "official" control cities as NYSDOT sees them are on pull-throughs. By your logic, Saratoga Springs, Glens Falls and Plattsburgh would be I-87 control cities.
:D
https://goo.gl/maps/KZigbxtSpR72
I do not disagree with NYSDOT giving way to standard control points as I am all for Montreal on the Northway and Binghamton for all of NY 17 along the Quickway, but you stated NYSDOT gives consistency to keeping one city when in fact Orange County uses the next exits city from NY 208, NY 94, and such. Binghamton, yes, is used where US 6 splits from the freeway on the pull through.
In retrospect, I would like to see Binghamton used on the Thruway at Exit 16 being NY 17 is a major freeway and it should be signed for long distance travel.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 26, 2017, 12:48:28 PM
In retrospect, I would like to see Binghamton used on the Thruway at Exit 16 being NY 17 is a major freeway and it should be signed for long distance travel.
I think Binghamton would work quite well for Thruway northbound at Exit 16, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for Thruway southbound. I'd go with Middletown for I-87 SB at Exit 16, as traffic that's headed to Binghamton would most likely take I-84 west to NY 17/I-86.
SB, Harriman would work. To/from the north, that interchange only sees local traffic. Anyone to Middletown would use I-84. Binghamton traffic from north of I-84 would cut across using US 209 or NY 28/30
I amend my though about Binghamton for Exit 16 as, after being pointed out it does no good SB. Leave as is there, but use both Harriman and Binghamton together NB.
Also to point out "Albany" is used on I-81 SB in Binghamton for I-88 even though anyone heading South on I-81 would use the Thruway from Syracuse to make that trip. So using Binghamton is not that far off the scale. Of course there are countless examples where the control city is listed that is useless especially when previous other exits would be better. Heck Florida has many!
I-81 also has traffic from Ithaca and Cortland coming in south of Syracuse. Not really a good comparison.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 27, 2017, 11:53:52 AM
I amend my though about Binghamton for Exit 16 as, after being pointed out it does no good SB. Leave as is there, but use both Harriman and Binghamton together NB.
Also to point out "Albany" is used on I-81 SB in Binghamton for I-88 even though anyone heading South on I-81 would use the Thruway from Syracuse to make that trip. So using Binghamton is not that far off the scale. Of course there are countless examples where the control city is listed that is useless especially when previous other exits would be better. Heck Florida has many!
Not like there is really anything else on I-88 though besides Oneonta.
Quote from: sam158 on January 31, 2017, 12:25:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 27, 2017, 11:53:52 AM
I amend my though about Binghamton for Exit 16 as, after being pointed out it does no good SB. Leave as is there, but use both Harriman and Binghamton together NB.
Also to point out "Albany" is used on I-81 SB in Binghamton for I-88 even though anyone heading South on I-81 would use the Thruway from Syracuse to make that trip. So using Binghamton is not that far off the scale. Of course there are countless examples where the control city is listed that is useless especially when previous other exits would be better. Heck Florida has many!
Not like there is really anything else on I-88 though besides Oneonta.
Oneonta, population <14K. New York wouldn't use it unless it's a major junction point. Granted, Corning is smaller, but that is used because of I-99/US 15 and there being nothing else logical for I-390.
Oneonta is the control city at NY-7 east entering I-88.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1339533,-75.8933305,3a,75y,7.79h,92.03t,0.31r/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd9HKxJE7Xbt_HBo99RAVCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: Bumppoman on January 31, 2017, 04:45:38 PM
Oneonta is the control city at NY-7 east entering I-88.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1339533,-75.8933305,3a,75y,7.79h,92.03t,0.31r/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd9HKxJE7Xbt_HBo99RAVCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
We could argue that it's a NY 7 control city. Per the official AASHTO control city list, it isn't one for I-88.
Is there anything left besides Hale Eddy and some substandard ramps preventing I-86 from being complete to Harriman?
When I was young and naive I thought it was going to be done within a few years, but now I question whether it will even be complete to interstate standards and signed as I-86 within my lifetime.
Find my previous post where I laid out the remaining projects. There are still a half dozen projects to do or so and the costs are estimated to be quite significant.
I haven't heard official discussion of moving forward with I-86 in quite a long time.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I wouldn't be surprised if the remaining Region 8 projects involve removing more bunny hops (which was the reason for the reconstruction near Middletown). That would certainly drive the cost up.
Quote from: vdeane on January 24, 2018, 01:08:02 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the remaining Region 8 projects involve removing more bunny hops (which was the reason for the reconstruction near Middletown). That would certainly drive the cost up.
A lot of them are substandard ramps. Almost every exit from 108-131 inclusive is substandard (the recently-reconstructed Middletown ones being the major exception) and most of that is Region 8. 131 is being redone in the near future. Other than eastern Sullivan and the Hale Eddy bypass, little work remaining in Region 9, as the 55 section gets a terrain exemption.
Will the casino opening cause any of these improvements to be expedited?
Quote from: cl94 on January 24, 2018, 03:31:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 24, 2018, 01:08:02 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the remaining Region 8 projects involve removing more bunny hops (which was the reason for the reconstruction near Middletown). That would certainly drive the cost up.
A lot of them are substandard ramps. Almost every exit from 108-131 inclusive is substandard (the recently-reconstructed Middletown ones being the major exception) and most of that is Region 8. 131 is being redone in the near future. Other than eastern Sullivan and the Hale Eddy bypass, little work remaining in Region 9, as the 55 section gets a terrain exemption.
Rothman's list included multiple projects on the mainline in addition to interchanges, including the entirety of the road east of I-84. He also noted that the majority of the remaining costs were in Region 8, suggesting that those mainline projects are fairly involved.