New York

[SignBridge]

Yes vdeane, that cantilever sign in your link in Rochester looks like what Region-10 is installing these days. And LOL they're using even bigger pipes on traffic light mast-arms.

[amroad17]

It's good that NYSDOT is erecting those improved sign bridges and cantilever supports. 

[Mergingtraffic]

This gantry is being replaced.  Foundations going in now.

[storm2k]

amroad17, I don't know about the upstate regions, but NYSDOT Region-10 on Long Island has been building more substantial looking boxy sign gantries in recent years. Some of them use surprisingly large pipes. Many years ago I was told by a DOT engineer that they build for a higher wind load on Long Island than in most of the state.

Isn't that becoming more prevalent across all NYSDOT regions? I think R11 has picked up on this as well. Most of the masts along the Staten Island Expressway now have the much beefier pipes as well.

[Dougtone]

Come check out the Green Island Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between Troy and Green Island, New York. Its history involves tragic collapses and a transforming robot.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/03/green-island-bridge-troy-and-green.html

[noelbotevera]

Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...

What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?

At best I can think of it as the quick way from Erie to NYC, which seems like a pointless corridor -- for example, going from the Midwest to NYC, you'd take I-80 through PA. Buffalo to Albany could use the Thruway (which does suck but is it worth detouring down to Salamanca to pick up NY 17 to I-88?). At worst it seems to string along local traffic between towns in the Southern Tier and serving as a convenient terminus for US 220 and US 15. I don't doubt that it's the scenic way to NYC from points west, but from a long distance travel perspective it doesn't make much sense to detour to it.

The only timeframe where it might have had utility is the period before I-80 through PA was opened, but at that point little of NY 17 was a freeway. Otherwise, you may as well just take US highways through PA or hedge your bets on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

[Beltway]

Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...
What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?
At best I can think of it as the quick way from Erie to NYC, which seems like a pointless corridor -- for example, going from the Midwest to NYC, you'd take I-80 through PA.

The name Southern Tier Expressway pretty well sums it up.

Mainly serves the band of counties along the southern border of the state.

[lstone19]

Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...

What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?

End to end, it probably makes little sense given better routes exist. But you're forgetting all the short traffic on it for whom it does makes sense. I've been on 17 or now I-86 many times but never end-to-end or anything close to it (in fact, not at all between Binghamton and Harriman and east (south) of Harriman isn't really relevant to this question). But many times between Binghamton and Owego and a few between Horseheads and I-90 and for the latter, a major time saver compared to any alternative.

[jemacedo9]

Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...
What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?
At best I can think of it as the quick way from Erie to NYC, which seems like a pointless corridor -- for example, going from the Midwest to NYC, you'd take I-80 through PA.

The name Southern Tier Expressway pretty well sums it up.

Mainly serves the band of counties along the southern border of the state.

THIS.  NY 17 was a surface road connecting those towns (Jamestown, Olean, Hornell, Corning, Elmira, Binghamton, and then Binghamton to the Hudson Valley).  Then it was slowly upgraded to the Southern Tier Expwy, first as part freeway part expressway (and still so east of I-81), and then slowly (deathly slowly) (being) upgraded to I-86.

[cl94]

NY 17 was never meant to be more than a cross-state corridor serving communities along the southern edge of the state. Basically, a route connecting Lake Erie to New York City.

Before the expressway, NY 17 followed NY 394 west of Steamburg and NY 417 between Salamanca and Corning. The entirety of both routes is former alignments of NY 17. Arguably, this is a more major corridor than US 6 to the south and it would have likely received a US Route designation had New York not been so opposed to US Routes.

[noelbotevera]

So I'm guessing traffic in the Southern Tier was substantial enough to warrant a freeway. That, or in a rare moment of planning clairvoyance the state built NY 17 to freeway standards before traffic got really bad (barring some laggard bypasses like Horseheads and Parksville).

Ironically enough, NY 17 actually works better heading north or south -- say Williamsport to Rochester or Buffalo -- given that it spawns I-390, US 15, and meets some other important routes (I-81, I-88 by extension, and I-87/Thruway).

[cl94]

New York City - Binghamton was a busy corridor VERY early on, mainly due to vacation traffic to/from the Catskills. Parts of the Quickway were open by the early 50s and predate the Interstate system. In the 40s and 50s, the former surface road was one of the most dangerous roads in the country due to traffic and geometry. Much of former NY 17 can be driven today and there are several hairpin turns and steep grades through the Catskills. Fun to drive now that everybody uses the expressway, but a death trap when it was the major road through the region.

Much of the Southern Tier Expressway (current NY 17 west of Binghamton) was constructed with ADHS funds as Corridor T, but there were proposals to upgrade it pre-ADHS. West of Jamestown was not part of the original plan and was originally a super 2, not being widened to 4 lanes until the late 90s.

[Beltway]

Much of the Southern Tier Expressway (current NY 17 west of Binghamton) was constructed with ADHS funds as Corridor T, but there were proposals to upgrade it pre-ADHS. West of Jamestown was not part of the original plan and was originally a super 2, not being widened to 4 lanes until the late 90s.

The ADHS was a big boost to building a 4-lane corridor on that route and getting nearly all done by the 1980s.

ADHS in its early years provided 80% federal funding for construction and from a large account that was separate from other federal highway accounts.

[AcE_Wolf_287]

Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...

What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?

At best I can think of it as the quick way from Erie to NYC, which seems like a pointless corridor -- for example, going from the Midwest to NYC, you'd take I-80 through PA. Buffalo to Albany could use the Thruway (which does suck but is it worth detouring down to Salamanca to pick up NY 17 to I-88?). At worst it seems to string along local traffic between towns in the Southern Tier and serving as a convenient terminus for US 220 and US 15. I don't doubt that it's the scenic way to NYC from points west, but from a long distance travel perspective it doesn't make much sense to detour to it.

The only timeframe where it might have had utility is the period before I-80 through PA was opened, but at that point little of NY 17 was a freeway. Otherwise, you may as well just take US highways through PA or hedge your bets on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Easy way for truckers in erier to go to NYC, or Hartford, or Newburgh or etc

[empirestate]

Extremely dumb question, but I'm curious, so...

What exactly is the purpose of NY 17?

It helps to go back to the time of the railroads, when transportation corridors were basically private ventures and control of them was the source of much competition. In the early days of the railroad, there was something of a race to connect New York City to the Great Lakes–above the falls of Niagara, mind you. Vanderbilt's New York Central had control of the "water-level route", following the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers through their natural valleys, and then heading west through the relatively flat corridor enjoyed by the Erie Canal.

At the same time, the Erie Railroad had the idea that they could compete for this traffic by heading along the Susquehanna, Chemung and upper Allegheny Rivers, along with Lake Chautauqua, to meet Lake Erie well upstream of Buffalo. Why this route, through much more difficult terrain with sharper curves and steeper grades, was thought feasible is somewhat of a mystery in hindsight, but it was an optimistic time...

Anyway, long story short, the Erie route was eventually finished, but not before the water-level route had established its primacy as the way to get between the city and the hinterlands. It's still the principal rail corridor, and was later chosen by the Thruway (and earlier by the canal) as well. Meanwhile, the Erie route has always been an available back door–and has always lagged along behind. The early canals along the Southern Tier route have all long vanished, the railroad was a late finisher, and the expressway conversion was equally slow to complete, being unfinished even to this day.

So maybe that confirms your question–perhaps that route never has made much sense as an end-to-end alternative, but it's also never been abandoned, despite the challenges of completion. Maybe it's nothing more than manifest destiny. :-)

[webny99]

Should also point out that most other states have tons of rural divided highways compared to New York. We need more here, not less. Just to scratch the surface on some roads that NY could upgrade to four lane divided highway (and still be way behind other states): NY 14, NY 13, NY 104, NY5/US20, NY 96, US 20A, US 11 north of Watertown, and the list goes on and on.

NY 17 becoming I-86 and coming up to interstate standards is an entirely separate question, but the concept of a four-lane highway is certainly not excessive for the Southern Tier. There are plenty of segments that simply would not work as a 2-lane road, I-390 to Binghamton being the most prominent, with tons of long haul truck traffic along that segment too, especially from I-390 to Corning.

[ixnay]

Arguably, this is a more major corridor than US 6 to the south and it would have likely received a US Route designation had New York not been so opposed to US Routes.

What were the politics behind the Empire State's opposition to US route designations?

ixnay

[Rothman]

Just to scratch the surface on some roads that NY could upgrade to four lane divided highway (and still be way behind other states): NY 14, NY 13, NY 104, NY5/US20, NY 96, US 20A, US 11 north of Watertown, and the list goes on and on.

NY doesn't have the funding to maintain -- let alone improve -- conditions on its system.  Even if it did, I'm not seeing much reason for these upgrades given traffic volumes.

[froggie]

^ Agree that NYSDOT lacks funding.  But there are valid capacity reasons for 4-lanes along some of those routes.  The ones that stick out the most are 299 east of New Paltz, 13 between Ithaca and Cortland, and 104 as far as Sodus.  And although I don't think the entire Watertown-Rouses Point corridor warrants 4 lanes, it's worth noting that a NYSDOT study from a couple years ago recommended 4 lanes (and bypasses) along US 11 between Canton and Potsdam.

[cl94]

NY 13 between Elmira and Cortland has been part of upgrade proposals for 50 years. It should be noted that Tompkins County is one of the largest in the country without a 4-lane connection to the rest of the US.

NY 299 east of New Paltz and US 9W Newburgh-Highland definitely stick out, as do the super-2 section of US 6 and NY 35 west of the Taconic, both of which have the ROW for an easy upgrade.

[Snappyjack]

The ROW of 299 for a good mile and a half east of the Thruway has been taken over by the new Empire State Trail, so you can consider that the final nail for any potential widening.

[Rothman]

I drive between Syracuse and Ithaca frequently.  NY 13 has never been an issue as is.  I suspect this is because the availability of back road routes has helped keep traffic down.  I don't see a pressing need to upgrade NY 13.

[webny99]

I drive between Syracuse and Ithaca frequently.  NY 13 has never been an issue as is.  I suspect this is because the availability of back road routes has helped keep traffic down.  I don't see a pressing need to upgrade NY 13.

Yeah, Google will sometimes even route you through Freeville and McLean on back roads and avoid most of NY 13 altogether. If that alternate didn't exist, NY 13 would be a much bigger problem.

As it is, I think Ithaca-Elmira is a bigger problem than Ithaca-Cortland.
I also find Geneva (or Thruway Exit 42) to Ithaca very frustrating. Unfortunately, NY 96 is probably at least 4th in line for an upgraded connection to Ithaca, behind both directions of NY 13 and NY 79.

[seicer]

Traffic counts and accident rates favor dualization or, at the least, access control between Ithaca and Cortland. There is a project underway to study NY Route 13 between Lansing and Dryden: https://tompkinscountyny.gov/planning/transportation-choices/rt13corridor

[webny99]

Just to scratch the surface on some roads that NY could upgrade to four lane divided highway (and still be way behind other states): NY 14, NY 13, NY 104, NY5/US20, NY 96, US 20A, US 11 north of Watertown, and the list goes on and on.

NY doesn't have the funding to maintain -- let alone improve -- conditions on its system.  Even if it did, I'm not seeing much reason for these upgrades given traffic volumes.

Certainly, not all those routes in entirety need four lanes. To get a bit more specific:

NY 14: Definitely between Geneva and the Thruway, if nothing else. I do feel that many states would have long since four-laned the entire Geneva to Watkins Glen section as well, which has plenty of truck traffic and would be very nice to have, but is not a pressing need.

NY 13: Already been discussed.

NY 104: Froggie is right that Williamson to Sodus is the immediate need. Sodus to Wolcott is a classic easy-upgrade Super 2 that many other states would have long since four-laned/divided. NY 370 feels like the logical spot to extend four lanes, as there's plenty of traffic taking that route to/from the Syracuse area.

NY5/US20: NY 318 to Auburn, which already has occasional passing lanes. And Canandaigua to Geneva.

NY 96: It's a pipe dream, but I really want a four lane connection from Rochester to Ithaca. NY 96A between Geneva and Ovid is the most logical starting point (the four-laning is already started at the north end of 96A...), then continuing from Ovid along NY 96 to Ithaca. It's not a totally dysfunctional corridor, but 50 miles with not so much as a passing lane can be torture on a nice summer afternoon.

US 20A: If we could somehow get rid of the truck ban through Warsaw (or build a Warsaw bypass  ), it would make sense to four-lane the entire thing from NY 400 to NY 39. Until then, a few passing lanes would suffice.

US 11: I would prioritize Fort Drum to Potsdam. Widening is not really needed east of Potsdam, as traffic to Massena or the Cornwall border will turn off at NY 56, while NY 11B provides some redundancy between Potsdam and Malone.