AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: NY 17/"I-86"  (Read 67881 times)

newyorker478

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 65
  • Last Login: March 28, 2012, 10:16:40 PM
NY 17/"I-86"
« on: October 27, 2011, 07:54:53 PM »

What do you feel about NY 17 being redesignated I-86? While i do understand the financial reasons and the fact that it would be an Interstate, but i think many proud New Yorkers like me will be deeply saddened the day that NY 17, one of our best routes, is no longer. What do you think?
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14135
  • fuck

  • Age: 13
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 03:42:43 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2011, 08:07:43 PM »

I still miss NY 6 (NYC to Rouses Point).

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4472
  • Last Login: Today at 01:21:04 PM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2011, 08:20:48 PM »

I feel that NY 17 should be to I-86 as NY 7 is to I-88 or US 11 is to I-81. It should be retained as the local parallel route.
Logged

NYhwyfan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 72
  • Location: Buffalo, NY
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 06:58:11 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2011, 10:43:33 PM »

I think designating NY 17 to I-86 was a great idea, however I feel the NY 17 designation should be saved or even designated as an "historic" corridor to signify its importance as principal route through the Southern Tier as it passes through Binghamton, Elmira, Corning, Olean and Jamestown.
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14284
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 01:26:03 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2011, 07:12:44 PM »

I would also support returning 17 to its former routing across the state. Take it up 17M, put it on 434, 417, anywhere at all that there's a former routing still under state maintenance, and then route it on I-86 otherwise. I think you get enough mileage off the Interstate to make that viable, and I'm all for consolidating designations.

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5671
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Stamford, CT
  • Last Login: July 24, 2021, 05:13:59 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2011, 07:49:51 PM »

Eh. I say kill the NY 17 designation entirely and make the remaining surface bit an extension of NY 32 (also include the piece of NY 59 west of US 202 in this). Better than having the designation randomly change at I-86, and ever since I-287 was finished it became kinda disconnected from NJ 17, so that continuity is no longer a concern.

The road around Hillburn between exit 15A and the one-way access to 287 can then become an unsigned reference route.

Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4472
  • Last Login: Today at 01:21:04 PM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2011, 08:24:22 PM »

I would also support returning 17 to its former routing across the state. Take it up 17M, put it on 434, 417, anywhere at all that there's a former routing still under state maintenance, and then route it on I-86 otherwise. I think you get enough mileage off the Interstate to make that viable, and I'm all for consolidating designations.

Don't need to limit it to state maintenance. NYSDOT routinely signs touring routes over county highways and municipal streets (rarely, even on town highways). That would cover the Delaware and Sullivan County portions as well.

A more viable option than reverting NY 17 as a state route would be for some independent organization to organize it as a historic route, just like US 66. I had the idea once to submit a proposal for inclusion in the NYS Scenic Byways program, but realized pretty quickly that I didn't have the wherewithal to accomplish that. :-)
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14135
  • fuck

  • Age: 13
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 03:42:43 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2011, 08:38:47 PM »

There's a state bike route 17 marked along old alignments. So even if NY 17 disappears, that will still be followable.

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12281
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 12:30:19 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2011, 11:45:19 AM »

Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2011, 04:19:12 PM »

I'd imagine New Yorkers feel about NY-17 what Californians felt about US-99. It will be a shame to see it go, given it was one of New York's most important highways for much of the 20th century.

I don't think all interstate-standard freeway necessarily has to be signed with the Interstate shield. Given how long NY-17 has been around, I would have just kept it signed as that.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11076
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 44
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 03:26:42 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2011, 11:02:29 PM »

I'd imagine New Yorkers feel about NY-17 what Californians felt about US-99. It will be a shame to see it go, given it was one of New York's most important highways for much of the 20th century.

I don't think all interstate-standard freeway necessarily has to be signed with the Interstate shield. Given how long NY-17 has been around, I would have just kept it signed as that.

Likewise for US-66 in Illinois, but I-55 took its place as the corridor was upgraded to freeway.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

Roadman66

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 41
  • Age: 32
  • Last Login: January 10, 2012, 10:43:04 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2011, 10:08:00 PM »

would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2011, 04:34:55 AM »

would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
The Interstate shield is far more recognizable than any state route shield. Not to mention I-86 is wholly engulfing NY-17, which means the latter would only exist through concurrency, making it redundant and pointless.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14284
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 01:26:03 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2011, 09:00:59 AM »

would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
Yes.

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12281
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 12:30:19 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2011, 11:25:02 AM »

would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
In some places they already have.  Many newer guide signs in region 6 only show I-86.  In parts of Sullivan County, covered I-86 shields outnumber NY 17 reassurance shields.



would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
The Interstate shield is far more recognizable than any state route shield. Not to mention I-86 is wholly engulfing NY-17, which means the latter would only exist through concurrency, making it redundant and pointless.
Not quite, but the remaining portion would just be a southern extension of NY 32.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 11:33:25 AM by deanej »
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Roadman66

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 41
  • Age: 32
  • Last Login: January 10, 2012, 10:43:04 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2011, 01:25:18 PM »

would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
In some places they already have.  Many newer guide signs in region 6 only show I-86.  In parts of Sullivan County, covered I-86 shields outnumber NY 17 reassurance shields.



would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
The Interstate shield is far more recognizable than any state route shield. Not to mention I-86 is wholly engulfing NY-17, which means the latter would only exist through concurrency, making it redundant and pointless.
Not quite, but the remaining portion would just be a southern extension of NY 32.

What about the old route 17, where the Red Apple Rest was?
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14284
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 01:26:03 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2011, 09:40:07 PM »

would they drop the NY 17 route markers altogether?
In some places they already have.  Many newer guide signs in region 6 only show I-86.  In parts of Sullivan County, covered I-86 shields outnumber NY 17 reassurance shields.


I believe you can thank our own Chris Jordan for that.

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16181
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 59
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: Today at 03:59:29 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2011, 09:21:53 AM »

You can see a bunch of photos from this area, and how NY 17 is handled, at http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2010_NY_Day_2/Pages/19.html.

This photo:



indicates that NY 17 is an afterthought that can be easily removed.

Coincidentally, I thought NY 15 was also supposed to be removed from the route and truncated.
Logged


I identify as vaccinated.

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12281
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 12:30:19 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2011, 11:33:00 AM »

It has been, but signs still remain.  I think they're just removing them as stuff gets replaced; the new I-390 shields south of Cohocton don't mention NY 15.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4472
  • Last Login: Today at 01:21:04 PM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2011, 11:53:59 AM »

Coincidentally, I thought NY 15 was also supposed to be removed from the route and truncated.

NY 15 has been truncated at Wayland for many years now. It's just that until recently they decided to sign it over the freeways until they rejoin US 15 at Painted Post. To me, it still makes sense for the route between Rochester and Pennsylvania/points south to have a single route number. US 15 was originally that number.
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16181
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 59
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: Today at 03:59:29 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2011, 04:38:14 PM »

It has been, but signs still remain.  I think they're just removing them as stuff gets replaced; the new I-390 shields south of Cohocton don't mention NY 15.

NY 15 has been truncated at Wayland for many years now. It's just that until recently they decided to sign it over the freeways until they rejoin US 15 at Painted Post. To me, it still makes sense for the route between Rochester and Pennsylvania/points south to have a single route number. US 15 was originally that number.

I offer as rebuttal the following photo, shot just past the 390/86 split. (Bonus points for it being a bubble shield!)

Logged


I identify as vaccinated.

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5156
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 02:47:56 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2011, 07:33:14 PM »

Re: NY 15 truncation.  It's clear in the NYSDOT documents [e.g., 2009 Traffic Data Report for New York State] that the route is officially truncated to its junction with I-390 near Wayland.  But as we've seen in posts here, some signage is still up...  So really, it's whether you believe signs or DOT docs.

Logged
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: https://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, weather, sports)

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12281
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 12:30:19 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #22 on: November 07, 2011, 10:39:45 AM »

Most signage is still up, actually.  The only area I know if where they've been removed is a five mile portion of I-390 south of Cohocton that was reconstructed just last year, so the decision to take NY 15 off signs is very recent.

NY routinely signs routes where they don't go, actually.  There are many places where a route goes one way and the signs go another (such as NY 12E near Watertown and NY 324 near I-190).
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

empirestate

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4472
  • Last Login: Today at 01:21:04 PM
    • Empire State Roads
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #23 on: November 07, 2011, 11:53:15 AM »

NY 15 has been truncated at Wayland for many years now. It's just that until recently they decided to sign it over the freeways until they rejoin US 15 at Painted Post. To me, it still makes sense for the route between Rochester and Pennsylvania/points south to have a single route number. US 15 was originally that number.

I offer as rebuttal the following photo, shot just past the 390/86 split. (Bonus points for it being a bubble shield!)



Well, as I say they have been signing NY 15 despite its truncation for years now. It should be no surprise that they're now signing it in spite of their decision not to sign it. :-D
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14284
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 01:26:03 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2011, 09:08:23 PM »


Well, as I say they have been signing NY 15 despite its truncation for years now. It should be no surprise that they're now signing it in spite of their decision not to sign it. :-D
Don't expect to ever see a new one, though. Pretty firm policy in place to delete 15 references as signs get replaced.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.