Middletown Times Herald Record from 06-10-1998. https://photos.app.goo.gl/4fppAL4B4osybePW9.
iPhone
So? :D
Lucky for them they didn't mention a completion date for the highway. At one point it was "to be complete by 2012"!
They badly need to clean up this situation. Just rename SR 17 to SR 86 at this point. I've said this before, but put up fake (maybe black on white) Interstate shields like Rhode Island used to do to create the appearance of continuity.
Even if that's no longer allowed a NY 86 designation would be a lot cleaner than the current format.
Or at the very, very, very least sign "To 86" from I-87, you would never know that NY 17 exit leads to an interstate. I-84 has an undesignated part of I-86 signed as 86, I'm assuming to make clear that the interchange is for an Interstate corridor despite the current SR designation at that point in the route. Even if that is determined to be a mistake, they should just slap a "to" on there instead of covering it, and add a "To I-86" at the I-87 interchange. Again both of these are if you don't just want to make it NY 86.
I really could care less how the route is signed on the roadways itself, what I really care about is that 86 (be it SR or I) is on the signage on 81, 84, 87, and 90. Continuity on the roadway itself (NY 86, possible black on white I-shields) is a bonus.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on June 11, 2018, 02:43:15 AM
Even if that's no longer allowed a NY 86 designation would be a lot cleaner than the current format.
NY 86 already exists.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on June 11, 2018, 02:43:15 AM
They badly need to clean up this situation. Just rename SR 17 to SR 86 at this point. I've said this before, but put up fake (maybe black on white) Interstate shields like Rhode Island used to do to create the appearance of continuity.
When did RI do this?
Quote from: jon daly on June 11, 2018, 06:33:29 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on June 11, 2018, 02:43:15 AM
They badly need to clean up this situation. Just rename SR 17 to SR 86 at this point. I've said this before, but put up fake (maybe black on white) Interstate shields like Rhode Island used to do to create the appearance of continuity.
When did RI do this?
I believe he's referring to the white RI 195 shields that featured an outline of an Interstate shield (see below image for detail) which once graced the stretch of now-US 6 between I-295 & RI 10(?) during the mid-1980s. Although that stretch was originally envisioned to be part of the easternmost leg of I-84.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/RI_195_special.svg/800px-RI_195_special.svg.png?1528723179855)
Two decades, and they can't even get it all the way to Harriman! At least this is a more sensible location for the number than Hartford-Sturbridge.
The completion of Prospect Mountain (this year? next year?) will be a major milestone.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 11, 2018, 08:57:50 AM
Quote from: jon daly on June 11, 2018, 06:33:29 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on June 11, 2018, 02:43:15 AM
They badly need to clean up this situation. Just rename SR 17 to SR 86 at this point. I've said this before, but put up fake (maybe black on white) Interstate shields like Rhode Island used to do to create the appearance of continuity.
When did RI do this?
I believe he's referring to the white RI 195 shields that featured an outline of an Interstate shield (see below image for detail) which once graced the stretch of now-US 6 between I-295 & RI 10(?) during the mid-1980s. Although that stretch was originally envisioned to be part of the easternmost leg of I-84.
Thanks. Were there plans to renumber that stretch of highway to I-195?
Quote from: jon daly on June 11, 2018, 09:48:27 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 11, 2018, 08:57:50 AM
Quote from: jon daly on June 11, 2018, 06:33:29 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on June 11, 2018, 02:43:15 AM
They badly need to clean up this situation. Just rename SR 17 to SR 86 at this point. I've said this before, but put up fake (maybe black on white) Interstate shields like Rhode Island used to do to create the appearance of continuity.
When did RI do this?
I believe he's referring to the white RI 195 shields that featured an outline of an Interstate shield (see below image for detail) which once graced the stretch of now-US 6 between I-295 & RI 10(?) during the mid-1980s. Although that stretch was originally envisioned to be part of the easternmost leg of I-84.
Thanks. Were there plans to renumber that stretch of highway to I-195?
Given the fact that those shields ironically were taken down (in favor of the relocated US 6) after the extension/connection to I-95 was completed; my guess would be
no.
Quote from: Henry on June 11, 2018, 09:40:34 AM
Two decades, and they can't even get it all the way to Harriman! At least this is a more sensible location for the number than Hartford-Sturbridge.
It is because the political will for I-86 dissipated and there are other priorities as conditions in NY are still projected to decline given current funding levels.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Rothman on June 11, 2018, 12:28:34 PM
Quote from: Henry on June 11, 2018, 09:40:34 AM
Two decades, and they can't even get it all the way to Harriman! At least this is a more sensible location for the number than Hartford-Sturbridge.
It is because the political will for I-86 dissipated and there are other priorities as conditions in NY are still projected to decline given current funding levels.
(personal opinion emphasized)
What should be done, IMHO, is to sign the segments of NY 17 between I-81 and I-87 that
are (or near) Interstate standard as I-86 (including the approaches on I-84); as "spot" projects in the Catskills to deal with small deviations from those standards seem to be ongoing, this should not be an issue for problems that deal with
yards rather than
miles at a time. Hale Eddy's going to be a long-term issue; and Rothman is correct -- absent a continuing push within NYDOT or their political handlers for resolution of this issue, it'll simply sit there untouched for quite some time. The "solution", such as it is, would be to do what Caltrans did with I-5 in the Sacramento River Canyon before the final freeway projects commenced circa 1986 -- sign it as either "Temporary I-86" (the CA choice) or simply "TO I-86". And unlike the I-5 segment in CA where previous designations had been decommissioned, they've still got the NY 17 number to utilize along with the interim I-86 signage (seeing as how NYDOT generally prefers to sign the corridor as a multiplex of both routes). That should provide sufficient signage for both navigational purposes as well as any issues of legal designation -- and should do so for years to come until (hopefully) such time as actual completion of the corridor is re-prioritized. There are more ways of dealing with a problem than simply ignoring it and hoping it'll fade from view!
Quote from: AMLNet49 on June 11, 2018, 02:43:15 AM
I-84 has an undesignated part of I-86 signed as 86, I'm assuming to make clear that the interchange is for an Interstate corridor despite the current SR designation at that point in the route. Even if that is determined to be a mistake, they should just slap a "to" on there instead of covering it, and add a "To I-86" at the I-87 interchange.
I suspect those I-86 shields are supposed to be covered. There are a TON of those on that stretch of I-84, all the way to NY 17K, complete with "end I-86" shields at either end, dating back to a reconstruction project a few years ago. I personally suspect that it was intended to be signed as a third segment and wasn't for some reason.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 11, 2018, 10:00:55 AM
Quote from: jon daly on June 11, 2018, 09:48:27 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 11, 2018, 08:57:50 AM
Quote from: jon daly on June 11, 2018, 06:33:29 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on June 11, 2018, 02:43:15 AM
They badly need to clean up this situation. Just rename SR 17 to SR 86 at this point. I've said this before, but put up fake (maybe black on white) Interstate shields like Rhode Island used to do to create the appearance of continuity.
When did RI do this?
I believe he's referring to the white RI 195 shields that featured an outline of an Interstate shield (see below image for detail) which once graced the stretch of now-US 6 between I-295 & RI 10(?) during the mid-1980s. Although that stretch was originally envisioned to be part of the easternmost leg of I-84.
Thanks. Were there plans to renumber that stretch of highway to I-195?
Given the fact that those shields ironically were taken down (in favor of the relocated US 6) after the extension/connection to I-95 was completed; my guess would be no.
Can confirm. It was RI 195 and the I-shield must have been done to signify it was a freeway.
Quote from: 1 on June 11, 2018, 06:09:29 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on June 11, 2018, 02:43:15 AM
Even if that's no longer allowed a NY 86 designation would be a lot cleaner than the current format.
NY 86 already exists.
So what? It's expendable for a pseudo-Interstate.
Five bucks says the 'dad' isn't in jail 20 years later...
Quote from: Henry on June 11, 2018, 09:40:34 AM
Two decades, and they can't even get it all the way to Harriman! At least this is a more sensible location for the number than Hartford-Sturbridge.
Besides what Rothman posted, have you even bothered to look at the topography between Deposit and Hancock? There's no easy (or inexpensive) way to retain access to those isolated pockets and make 17 fully controlled access, even if the political will was still there. Nevermind that New York is a large state with a large state highway system and a huge population with plenty of pressing needs elsewhere...
How much do you all want to bet that even 20 years from now, Interstate 86 still won't be complete?
Adam: There is a plan to complete that segment: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock
The website was last updated in 2013, so it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence to me that it will be built anytime soon.
Sherman: I was aware of the older plan. But it doesn't invalidate my earlier statement.
I can remember looking at that page when it claimed construction would be this year. Of course, that was before I-86 was put on indefinite hold.
Quote from: seicer on June 15, 2018, 05:38:55 PM
Adam: There is a plan to complete that segment: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock
...and there may always be.
There was a slight chance two years ago or so that Hale Eddy to Hancock was actually going to be in the MOU between NYSDOT and the Legislature. It was rather quickly snuffed out as other projects took priority. That was the last push for it I heard. Hasn't been on the radar since.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Besides, I-86 is useless. Just live with NY 17
Quote from: Rothman on June 16, 2018, 09:57:27 AM
Quote from: seicer on June 15, 2018, 05:38:55 PM
Adam: There is a plan to complete that segment: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock
...and there may always be.
There was a slight chance two years ago or so that Hale Eddy to Hancock was actually going to be in the MOU between NYSDOT and the Legislature. It was rather quickly snuffed out as other projects took priority. That was the last push for it I heard. Hasn't been on the radar since.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I really think any stretch that doesn't meet Interstate specs should just be marked "To I-86" and anything that does meet specs should be marked "I-86". Keep everything else (mileposts, exit numbers) intact for continuity. When traffic counts warrant an upgrade, upgrade it, but don't upgrade the at-grade sections just for continuity's sake.
Quote from: upstatenyroads on June 16, 2018, 10:50:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 16, 2018, 09:57:27 AM
Quote from: seicer on June 15, 2018, 05:38:55 PM
Adam: There is a plan to complete that segment: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region9/projects/nys-rte17-hale_eddy-hancock
...and there may always be.
There was a slight chance two years ago or so that Hale Eddy to Hancock was actually going to be in the MOU between NYSDOT and the Legislature. It was rather quickly snuffed out as other projects took priority. That was the last push for it I heard. Hasn't been on the radar since.
(personal opinion emphasized)
I really think any stretch that doesn't meet Interstate specs should just be marked "To I-86" and anything that does meet specs should be marked "I-86". Keep everything else (mileposts, exit numbers) intact for continuity. When traffic counts warrant an upgrade, upgrade it, but don't upgrade the at-grade sections just for continuity's sake.
Are there even any more remaining at-grade sections other than Hale Eddy?
There are a bunch of remaining projects to bring the remaining stretches up to IHS standards.
It's not just Hale Eddy. There are numerous exits that would never pass (109, 110, 111, 114, 125, 126, 127 come to mind immediately).
The questions are this:
A) Is it worth it to spend money on a section of NY 17 that sees less than 10000 people in AADT? (Hale Eddy)
B) Exits 109-111 are in the middle of nowhere. Is it worth spending the money to bring these three exits to standards for local roads?
C) If the interstate designation just ended at say 81, wouldn't it be easier to handle than trying to get it all the way out to 87? Does it make any sense to really continue further?
D) Do people in Deposit, Hancock, Parksville, Liberty, etc? all really care if its 17 versus 86?
Quote from: Henry on June 11, 2018, 09:40:34 AM
Two decades, and they can't even get it all the way to Harriman! At least this is a more sensible location for the number than Hartford-Sturbridge.
Look at I-72 in Missouri.
Quote from: Rothman on June 16, 2018, 10:42:59 PM
There are a bunch of remaining projects to bring the remaining stretches up to IHS standards.
Any funded or in the queue to date?
No.
Quote from: Rothman on June 25, 2018, 07:42:02 AM
No.
Although Cuomo keeps talking about his $100 billion transportation program for New York. So where is all of that money going to, if they can't spare even a billion (or perhaps less) to finish converting Rt 17 to I-86?
Preservation. The fact that even amongst us roadgeeks there are those of us who are ignorant of NY's horrific lack of funding to just maintain conditions is terrifying. How that message is not getting out semi-befuddles me.
Quote from: abqtraveler on June 26, 2018, 12:13:49 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 25, 2018, 07:42:02 AM
No.
Although Cuomo keeps talking about his $100 billion transportation program for New York. So where is all of that money going to, if they can't spare even a billion (or perhaps less) to finish converting Rt 17 to I-86?
Quote from: Rothman on June 26, 2018, 12:31:34 AM
Preservation. The fact that even amongst us roadgeeks there are those of us who are ignorant of NY's horrific lack of funding to just maintain conditions is terrifying. How that message is not getting out semi-befuddles me.
That "horrific lack of funding" isn't unique to NY; capacity-improvement projects in virtually every Eastern state (save NC) are "back-burnered" in order to preserve funds for simple maintenance of the system
in situ. It's not a matter of ignorance -- deliberate or otherwise -- regarding such, it's just that many states (including my own out west) have a byzantine system of dispersing what funds there are, often subsidizing locally-administered programs or, in some cases, parsed out for non-road purposes. Some of us have lives separate from transportation issues and simply can't spare the time to peruse policy-related documents from every state with funding issues that often prevent projects, however well-meaning and relevant at their outset, from being fulfilled -- i.e., we don't always know -- or intuit -- exactly what piece of the puzzle is in play in any given jurisdiction that's creating or exacerbating the problem. Maybe if we were in the position of the poster whose daily routine regularly confronts these problems, we'd have a better idea what's going on -- but as we don't, occasionally we need to be reminded of the circumstances -- not all of us internalize every little detail of what goes on 2500 miles away.
But now that we've all been reminded of those circumstances, it may be germane to delve into
why, with one of the higher fuel taxes in the region if not the country, the funding issue persists -- is it that NYC metro sucks so much out of the available pool that there's effectively nothing left; are political issues that either direct funding to a particular area and/or prevent it from reaching other specific uses to blame? Is it mismanagement/ineffectual divisions of prerogative and/or responsibility within the agencies tasked with fund disbursement? The "right hand" not communicating with the "left hand" (a seeming Caltrans specialty!)? All of the above? Inquiring minds want to know!
So, you say that it isn't a matter of ignorance...and then admit you don't really know what is going on...which is ignorance. Setting that aside:
Gas tax revenue does get robbed for other purposes here in NY, but the fact of the matter is that there simply isn't enough money anyway to fulfill the current need. NYSDOT has been screaming for years that even at current levels of funding, conditions will decline. This is why the "Preservation First" approach was adopted some years back and so-called "Beyond Preservation" projects are tightly controlled.
The traffic on I-86 just doesn't warrant pumping in the millions of dollars for conversion -- that is now the reigning assessment at NYSDOT. Those millions represent sorely needed bridge rehabs and replacements elsewhere. That really is all there is to it.
How did NY get into this situation? There probably was a mismanagement of the program over the decades just in misallocation of resources to the wrong types of projects. Robert Moses Parkway out in Niagara Falls comes to mind as a prime example -- spent lots back in the day only to now be spending some to remove a big chunk of it. Regional decisions as management control has gone back and forth between the Main Office and Regions have also been a factor: NYSDOT's Region 1 also went through phases where, in hindsight, too many resources went towards keeping interstates in good condition while the rest of the system rotted, for example. The management of state gas tax revenues is also a factor as mentioned, but also the federal decision to not peg federal gas taxes to inflation. You hear people waxing nostalgic about the good old days when federal funds flowed much more freely.
Current rates of borrowing money also have me concerned as the State has resorted to bond funds to shore up the capital program, including on massive projects like improving access to JFK Airport (Van Wyck improvements) and Hunts Point. Gives the illusion that tax revenues have increased when we are just borrowing more.
So, anyway, NYSDOT is slowly taking measures to unbuild overbuilt areas of the system, but, in short, there just isn't enough money.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Highway construction and maintenance costs have distressing grown tremendously in every state over the last 20 years, and more and more projects have slipped from the TIP to the 'wish list'. :-(
Re the "ignorance" issue: I'm not as close to the NY situation as yourself, so what I was requesting, in a backhanded way, was that you at some point enlighten the rest of us regarding that which with you're most familiar. It's simply what I'd do (and have done) vis-Ã -vis info about any CA activities for which I have insight. That's all; the matter's done.
I presume NYDOT and other relevant jurisdictions have looked at the process of "unbuilding" overbuilt (and hopefully also underutilized!) facilities to determine if the cost of alterations is at least offset by a corresponding lessening of maintenance costs. However, I do have a related question: will properties made superfluous by the unbuilding process be sold or ceded to other jurisdictions -- or held in "reserve" for such a time at which traffic levels dictate a rebuild? I've seen housing developments out here where arterials originally 2+2 divided were literally halved by tearing out one directional carriageway and restriping the other for 2-way traffic -- at least until said arterial either gains enough volume to justify the other two lanes, or extends beyond its original parameters (usually into another tract). More recent housing (examples can be found in Lathrop and Ripon) features arterials with only half the 4-lane ROW initially paved (looks like they learned their lesson!); presumably to be expanded as the need arises.
Quote from: sparker on June 26, 2018, 04:18:29 PM
Re the "ignorance" issue: I'm not as close to the NY situation as yourself, so what I was requesting, in a backhanded way, was that you at some point enlighten the rest of us regarding that which with you're most familiar. It's simply what I'd do (and have done) vis-Ã -vis info about any CA activities for which I have insight. That's all; the matter's done.
I presume NYDOT and other relevant jurisdictions have looked at the process of "unbuilding" overbuilt (and hopefully also underutilized!) facilities to determine if the cost of alterations is at least offset by a corresponding lessening of maintenance costs. However, I do have a related question: will properties made superfluous by the unbuilding process be sold or ceded to other jurisdictions -- or held in "reserve" for such a time at which traffic levels dictate a rebuild? I've seen housing developments out here where arterials originally 2+2 divided were literally halved by tearing out one directional carriageway and restriping the other for 2-way traffic -- at least until said arterial either gains enough volume to justify the other two lanes, or extends beyond its original parameters (usually into another tract). More recent housing (examples can be found in Lathrop and Ripon) features arterials with only half the 4-lane ROW initially paved (looks like they learned their lesson!); presumably to be expanded as the need arises.
I feel like the things they were referring to are more in the realm of the decommissioning of I-895 or the demolition of the Syracuse Viaduct. Could be wrong though
Quote from: AMLNet49 on June 27, 2018, 03:01:40 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 26, 2018, 04:18:29 PM
Re the "ignorance" issue: I'm not as close to the NY situation as yourself, so what I was requesting, in a backhanded way, was that you at some point enlighten the rest of us regarding that which with you're most familiar. It's simply what I'd do (and have done) vis-Ã -vis info about any CA activities for which I have insight. That's all; the matter's done.
I presume NYDOT and other relevant jurisdictions have looked at the process of "unbuilding" overbuilt (and hopefully also underutilized!) facilities to determine if the cost of alterations is at least offset by a corresponding lessening of maintenance costs. However, I do have a related question: will properties made superfluous by the unbuilding process be sold or ceded to other jurisdictions -- or held in "reserve" for such a time at which traffic levels dictate a rebuild? I've seen housing developments out here where arterials originally 2+2 divided were literally halved by tearing out one directional carriageway and restriping the other for 2-way traffic -- at least until said arterial either gains enough volume to justify the other two lanes, or extends beyond its original parameters (usually into another tract). More recent housing (examples can be found in Lathrop and Ripon) features arterials with only half the 4-lane ROW initially paved (looks like they learned their lesson!); presumably to be expanded as the need arises.
I feel like the things they were referring to are more in the realm of the decommissioning of I-895 or the demolition of the Syracuse Viaduct. Could be wrong though
The downgrading of I-895 is certainly in that category, as is the demolition of the inner Rochester loop. The Syracuse Viaduct is still in the realm of a "political football"; the "unbuilding" of which remains up for debate. But these are isolated and unique situations tethered (although the Rochester example was primarily due to obsolescence) to urban theory that has not quite become gospel within official circles. The actions regarding I-895 are quite different from that of I-81; one was an all but useless stub, the remnant of a long-abandoned corridor, while the other continues to function as it always has (to the consternation of those who primarily "want to make a point!").
But tearing down limited-access facilities in urban regions is not the only form of "unbuilding"; reduction of capacity or diversion of traffic flow on surface streets and highways -- possibly by "shrinking" a divided facility in half by removing one of the carriageways, or even what's been termed "road diets" (popular in areas with an active cyclist contingent). Such are methods often employed when it is determined that the need for higher capacity facilities no longer exists. What I'm wondering is if NYDOT has in place a standing assessment protocol for evaluating their system (or other localized networks receiving some level of state funding) with an eye toward curtailing maintenance expenses by simply having less to maintain (this is assuming the "kick-the-can-down-a-notch" approach exemplified by basic route relinquishment isn't an ongoing program). It'd be interesting to see, if such a process is indeed extant, just what makes up the criteria for taking reductionist action.
I was in a diaper back then. Soon I'll have my own apartment.
Quote from: Buffaboy on June 29, 2018, 12:58:33 AM
I was in a diaper back then. Soon I'll have my own apartment.
I wonder if they'll let you out of the rest home to drive it all end to end when they finish it.
Quote from: Roadsguy on June 29, 2018, 01:25:11 AM
Quote from: Buffaboy on June 29, 2018, 12:58:33 AM
I was in a diaper back then. Soon I'll have my own apartment.
I wonder if they'll let you out of the rest home to drive it all end to end when they finish it.
I'm sure it will be in a self-driving car, so it's all good.
Will NY 17 cease to be signed and exist west of Binghamton? The signs near Waverly are basically overlays atop I-86 signs, so when the new designation is ready to be applied, the NY 17 shields can be removed at ease (at least on the mainline).
I wonder how the reference marker debacle around Salamanca / Senecas will be handled. They were revised for the I-86 designation but had to revert to NY 17 on account of the Senecas protesting.
Quote from: seicer on July 04, 2018, 11:15:20 PM
Will NY 17 cease to be signed and exist west of Binghamton? The signs near Waverly are basically overlays atop I-86 signs, so when the new designation is ready to be applied, the NY 17 shields can be removed at ease (at least on the mainline).
I wonder how the reference marker debacle around Salamanca / Senecas will be handled. They were revised for the I-86 designation but had to revert to NY 17 on account of the Senecas protesting.
If NYDOT hasn't pulled off the NY 17 signs west of Corning as of yet, it's likely they have no intention of doing so for the Corning-Binghamton section. That route likely has too much historical significance to simply ignore in the field. Actually, I was always surprised that 17 wasn't reestablished over NY 417 after I-86 was commissioned!
Not entirely but in many instances, the 86 shield is the only one remaining. I also
wonder in the far eastern stretches. There is more than one instance of a covered 86 shield standing solo practically in front of a 17 assembly.