Future I-86/US 219 interchange

[I94RoadRunner]

The only piece of the US 219 extension that has actually happened between Springville and Salamanca was the 4 mile section that opened to traffic in 2012 thus far. After hearing about the high priority corridor for quite a few years, I had to have a look at where this highway would be built. I found out the ridiculous detail of the future I-86/US 219 interchange plan after viewing the following site: http://www.southerntierwest.org/pdfs/transportation/219study.pdf ..... Yep, you guessed it. NYSDOT is planning to build a brand new interchange and it is planned to be a diamond!  Evidently NYSDOT did not learn their lesson from the NY 17/US 15 junction in Painted Post .....?  Apparently it is the Seneca Indians that can be thanked for this as they wanted local access to the south of I-86 

[Duke87]

The question is, will the diamond be able to effectively handle the traffic volumes to and from US 219? The answer is not necessarily no.

At the very least, since no one is trying to make US 219 an interstate (unlike US 15), building the junction to interstate standards simply for the sake of meeting interstate standards is not necessary.

[I94RoadRunner]

I believe that the US 219 freeway is a high priority corridor being considered for an Interstate designation. I have heard I-67 as one possible number as well as an I-x86 number or possibly an extension of I-190. http://www.interstate-guide.com/future.html - See I-67#4 .....

[okc1]

I don't see Pennsylvania ever having the funds to build an interstate in north PA in the foreseeable future.  It's a safe bet to go with the diamond.

[WNYroadgeek]

They couldn't go with a cloverleaf to both give the Senecas their desired local access and to maintain high-speed connections from US 219 to I-86 and vice versa?

[hbelkins]

A cloverleaf isn't exactly high-speed. The diamond at I-68 and WV 43 seems to work just fine.

[I94RoadRunner]

I guess the point I am trying to make here is that a new freeway is proposed to be constructed and not to an existing interchange on I-86, but rather a brand new interchange that should just be built right the first time and be done with it. The logical interchange IMO would be a trumpet between I-86 and US 219 and if local connections are desired, then a frontage road system with connections to both freeways would be ideal .....

[empirestate]

...a brand new interchange that should just be built right the first time and be done with it.

You mean like this?
https://goo.gl/maps/OUE8M

[machias]

I guess the point I am trying to make here is that a new freeway is proposed to be constructed and not to an existing interchange on I-86, but rather a brand new interchange that should just be built right the first time and be done with it. The logical interchange IMO would be a trumpet between I-86 and US 219 and if local connections are desired, then a frontage road system with connections to both freeways would be ideal .....

Isn't space a little tight around the proposed interchange location? I know the terrain is quite hilly in that area.

[I94RoadRunner]

I guess the point I am trying to make here is that a new freeway is proposed to be constructed and not to an existing interchange on I-86, but rather a brand new interchange that should just be built right the first time and be done with it. The logical interchange IMO would be a trumpet between I-86 and US 219 and if local connections are desired, then a frontage road system with connections to both freeways would be ideal .....

Isn't space a little tight around the proposed interchange location? I know the terrain is quite hilly in that area.

Yes, however there is enough for a fairly nice trumpet to be built here. No need for a fully directional 3Y so less space and structures would be needed .....

[I94RoadRunner]

...a brand new interchange that should just be built right the first time and be done with it.

You mean like this?
https://goo.gl/maps/OUE8M

Yes, Exactly! I know, let's transplant this exact interchange which is a high speed trumpet that is really not needed there to I-86/NY 17 where it is needed! 

[amroad17]

Isn't the proposed interchange supposed to be at mm 62 on I-86?  According to what I observed on Google Street View (and my prior travels through this area), it appears to be embankments on each side of I-86 at that spot.

[I94RoadRunner]

A cloverleaf isn't exactly high-speed. The diamond at I-68 and WV 43 seems to work just fine.

I do agree about WV 43 at I-68. The difference at this junction is that there was already an existing diamond interchange on I-68 that WV 43 was built to. Also that there is right of way and specific plans to upgrade this interchange once it becomes necessary to a 3Y.

At the future I-86/NY 17 at US 219 interchange, there is no interchange there yet. Hence the reason the subject was brought up. Ergh to the Seneca Indians for delaying any part of this freeway that should have been built probably before I was even born! 

[ARMOURERERIC]

What do you all think will be the major non-freeflow movement at this interchange?  Is the 219 extension even on NY's STIP?

[okc1]

Is the 219 extension even on NY's STIP?

No.  All work is suspended https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region5/projects/us-route-219?nd=nysdot

[vdeane]

I guess the point I am trying to make here is that a new freeway is proposed to be constructed and not to an existing interchange on I-86, but rather a brand new interchange that should just be built right the first time and be done with it. The logical interchange IMO would be a trumpet between I-86 and US 219 and if local connections are desired, then a frontage road system with connections to both freeways would be ideal .....

Isn't space a little tight around the proposed interchange location? I know the terrain is quite hilly in that area.

Yes, however there is enough for a fairly nice trumpet to be built here. No need for a fully directional 3Y so less space and structures would be needed .....

That trumpet would have to go in the space marked "tourism".  What could possibly be going there?  There's nothing there now.

[okc1]

During the negotiations with the Senecas for constructing I-86, the Senecas insisted on giving up as little land as possible, although they were given land in compensation from the Park & adjacent landowners.  That is why there is a narrow median now, despite space for one of standard width.  I suspect that is the real reason for the diamond.

[I94RoadRunner]

During the negotiations with the Senecas for constructing I-86, the Senecas insisted on giving up as little land as possible, although they were given land in compensation from the Park & adjacent landowners.  That is why there is a narrow median now, despite space for one of standard width.  I suspect that is the real reason for the diamond.

I guess the Senecas don't understand much about an ideal road design .....?

[dlainhart]

I guess the Senecas don't understand much about an ideal road design .....?

No...it's that they don't care.

[I94RoadRunner]

I guess the Senecas don't understand much about an ideal road design .....?

No...it's that they don't care.

Good point .....

[Buffaboy]

Has it ever been proposed to reroute I-79 to the US 219 corridor?

[Bitmapped]

Has it ever been proposed to reroute I-79 to the US 219 corridor?

What would be the point of doing that? If this corridor needs an Interstate number, which IMHO it doesn't, a I-x86 would make much more sense.

[vdeane]

At one time PA wanted I-67, but I haven't heard anything about it recently.

[Buffaboy]

Has it ever been proposed to reroute I-79 to the US 219 corridor?

What would be the point of doing that? If this corridor needs an Interstate number, which IMHO it doesn't, a I-x86 would make much more sense.

My thought process was more aux routes could be added in the future for NY if needed, it could be tolled, etc. but now that I think about it the I-x86 idea makes sense. None of it would happen anyway!

[okc1]

When NYS gets the $$$ to do more, I'd recommend doing the Salamanca to north-of-Ellicottville portion next.  This would get 219 off the remainder of the original 1938 alignment, plus make the remainder to complete a "gap" to close, rather than an extension.