NY 17/"I-86"

[seicer]

Have there been any news about interchange consolidation in that area?

[Roadgeek Adam]

Two decades ago there was thoughts of shutting 108 and 111 period for the 86 upgrades.

The only talk of consolidation recently I've seen is 114. There's a lot of debate on what to do with 114 because of the wb ramp. 122 is getting a C-D road.

[Henry]

I looked at both alternatives, and my biggest concern is, why must the WB offramp be further up the road than the onramp? That is an awkward-looking interchange, but a roundabout on the north side will make it even worse. On the south side, I like the folded-diamond setup, but again, can do without the roundabout.

[dzheng35]

I think we can say that we may not see I-86 completed in our lifetimes, but which segments do you think we'll be able to see upgraded and signed in our lifetimes? I personally think between Monticello and the Thruway, given that that section is the Route 17 enhancements corridor and maybe the remainder of the Southern Tier Expressway between Endicott/Vestal and I-81. I'm still very young, so I don't want to rule anything out entirely at the moment.

[The Ghostbuster]

They should upgrade and sign what they can along the corridor. I am sure the "gap" at Hale Eddy will be filled eventually, but it may be decades before that happens (I hope not).

[dzheng35]

They should upgrade and sign what they can along the corridor. I am sure the "gap" at Hale Eddy will be filled eventually, but it may be decades before that happens (I hope not).

I don't see why it should be so hard to get the section between exits 79 and 84 upgraded. I've driven the entire quickway a handful of times and looked at it from a map, and I believe the only issues that exist on that segment are mainline issues and some of the acceleration/deceleration lanes. It's not like any of the interchanges between Windsor and Deposit are substandard and need reconfiguration like the interchanges through the Catskills and the Hudson Valley.

[Strider]

They should upgrade and sign what they can along the corridor. I am sure the "gap" at Hale Eddy will be filled eventually, but it may be decades before that happens (I hope not).

I don't understand why NYSDOT have not gotten around to upgrading the "gap" at Hale Eddy, but they focus on other parts of NY-17/Future I-86... shouldn't they finish upgrading the gap first before dealing with other projects?

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't think the Hale Eddy gap is the most pressing issue at New York's DOT. I would have liked more of the NY 17 corridor to have been upgraded by now; I believe the original conversion completion date was 2009 when the Interstate 86 designation debuted in 1999. Here it is 2025, and while progress has been made in converting NY 17 to Interstate 86, it will be quite some time before the full conversion is completed.

[Strider]

I don't think the Hale Eddy gap is the most pressing issue at New York's DOT. I would have liked more of the NY 17 corridor to have been upgraded by now; I believe the original conversion completion date was 2009 when the Interstate 86 designation debuted in 1999. Here it is 2025, and while progress has been made in converting NY 17 to Interstate 86, it will be quite some time before the full conversion is completed.

Alright, but what is causing the delay? That is what I am curious about.

[seicer]

Well, just that. It's not a pressing issue. There is no funding for that outside of what has already been completed: a selected alignment and some preliminary engineering. It has very low traffic counts and isn't a high accident corridor. There are pressing safety-related issues and higher traffic counts further east.

[dzheng35]

These are some interchange concepts from the somewhat older 2021 PEL study and being completely honest, instead of the somewhat weirder concept that was shown at the exit 107 meeting board, why couldn't they just use the one shown here for exit 107, which is essentially a standard diamond interchange, except I don't think they even need a split westbound off ramp either: https://www.route17.dot.ny.gov/docs/8065.09_PEL_Report_Final_Attachment_3_Appendix_A_Concept_Plans.pdf

Also, given that 103 and 104 concepts weren't shown at the July 28th meeting board, I think of the 2 options for 103 illustrated from the PEL study, the first option is probably the better and cheaper of the two that they could use.

[pderocco]

Well, just that. It's not a pressing issue. There is no funding for that outside of what has already been completed: a selected alignment and some preliminary engineering. It has very low traffic counts and isn't a high accident corridor. There are pressing safety-related issues and higher traffic counts further east.

Also, it doesn't look easy. Three miles in which there are at-grade intersections, adjacent railroad, a real squeeze.

[dzheng35]

If by some miracle chance that I-86 ever does end up getting completed, do you think they'll finally make the exits mile-based as part of the completion package.

[vdeane]

If by some miracle chance that I-86 ever does end up getting completed, do you think they'll finally make the exits mile-based as part of the completion package.

Who knows.  On the one hand, that's what happened with I-99 and is happening with the I-81 work.  On the other, nothing of that sort happened when it was extended from US 220 to NY 26, although that change still has not been reflected in federal data sources, which is interesting.

Given how things have gone with I-81, I wonder how many years it would take to renumber the exits along I-86/NY 17, and whether they'd bother to fix the milemarkers in Chemung, Tioga, Broome, Delaware, and Sullivan Counties.

[webny99]

If by some miracle chance that I-86 ever does end up getting completed, do you think they'll finally make the exits mile-based as part of the completion package.

Who knows.  On the one hand, that's what happened with I-99 and is happening with the I-81 work.  On the other, nothing of that sort happened when it was extended from US 220 to NY 26, although that change still has not been reflected in federal data sources, which is interesting.

Yeah, I think the I-86 conversion itself is the much taller order here. In the event it does happen, it seems fairly likely that mile-based exit numbers will follow.

[The Ghostbuster]

Outside of the Cross County Parkway, are there any other highways in New York that will be converting to mileage-based in the near future?

[Rothman]

Outside of the Cross County Parkway, are there any other highways in New York that will be converting to mileage-based in the near future?

I-81 is still converting.

[vdeane]

If by some miracle chance that I-86 ever does end up getting completed, do you think they'll finally make the exits mile-based as part of the completion package.

Who knows.  On the one hand, that's what happened with I-99 and is happening with the I-81 work.  On the other, nothing of that sort happened when it was extended from US 220 to NY 26, although that change still has not been reflected in federal data sources, which is interesting.

Yeah, I think the I-86 conversion itself is the much taller order here. In the event it does happen, it seems fairly likely that mile-based exit numbers will follow.

Given that I-86 would involve four regions rather than three, I'm curious as to how a switch would go, given I-81.

[Rothman]

If by some miracle chance that I-86 ever does end up getting completed, do you think they'll finally make the exits mile-based as part of the completion package.

Who knows.  On the one hand, that's what happened with I-99 and is happening with the I-81 work.  On the other, nothing of that sort happened when it was extended from US 220 to NY 26, although that change still has not been reflected in federal data sources, which is interesting.

Yeah, I think the I-86 conversion itself is the much taller order here. In the event it does happen, it seems fairly likely that mile-based exit numbers will follow.

Given that I-86 would involve four regions rather than three, I'm curious as to how a switch would go, given I-81.

*predicted order of completion of exit number conversion*

1) 9
2) 6
3) 5
4) 8

(personal opinion emphasized)

[amroad17]

When and if I-86 is switched to mile-based exit numbers, are we going to see a "1,3,1,9" order of exit numbers starting from I-90 near Erie?  I personally wouldn't be confused by this but some drivers...

Also, speaking of Erie, is NYSDOT going to update mileage signs along I-86 westbound from I-390 reflecting the control city change from Jamestown to Erie?  Mileage signs (the three or four I have seen between Avoca and Olean) could be easily changed with Hornell/Jamestown/Erie and Olean/Jamestown/Erie.  The more costly change would be replacing all the Jamestown ones at the interchanges.  Of course, whenever a new sign project occurs, the signs could be replaced with an I-86 WEST/Erie like the ones for I-81 that Region 3 erected a few years ago.

By the way, I see on GSV that there is an Erie 221 mileage sign at the Wilawana interchange (Exit 59A, future Exit 202😁).
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MpZVNGe8QqicfLYc9

[Rothman]

Also, speaking of Erie, is NYSDOT going to update mileage signs along I-86 westbound from I-390 reflecting the control city change from Jamestown to Erie? 

No. 

When the sign is to be replaced in a replacement contract, I'd bet on it being replaced in kind.

[amroad17]

Also, speaking of Erie, is NYSDOT going to update mileage signs along I-86 westbound from I-390 reflecting the control city change from Jamestown to Erie? 

No. 

When the sign is to be replaced in a replacement contract, I'd bet on it being replaced in kind.

Well at least there is one mileage sign that now has Erie on it (near Painted Post) although the number is 10 miles too high (should be 185 not 195).  The next mileage sign that has Erie on it is the one past the Hinsdale interchange (Olean 6/Erie 98). 

It is too bad that many DOT's "carbon copy" signs instead of updating signs to reflect changes that have occurred over the past 20-30 years.  However, NYSDOT has done some updating in the last decade such as changing I-86 control cities from Elmira to Corning and from Jamestown to Erie as well as using Scranton instead of Port Jervis on I-84.

[webny99]

Also, speaking of Erie, is NYSDOT going to update mileage signs along I-86 westbound from I-390 reflecting the control city change from Jamestown to Erie? 

No. 

When the sign is to be replaced in a replacement contract, I'd bet on it being replaced in kind.

The I-86/I-390 signage begs to differ.

[Rothman]

Also, speaking of Erie, is NYSDOT going to update mileage signs along I-86 westbound from I-390 reflecting the control city change from Jamestown to Erie? 

No. 

When the sign is to be replaced in a replacement contract, I'd bet on it being replaced in kind.

The I-86/I-390 signage begs to differ.

We're talking mileage signs.

[amroad17]

Also, speaking of Erie, is NYSDOT going to update mileage signs along I-86 westbound from I-390 reflecting the control city change from Jamestown to Erie? 

No. 

When the sign is to be replaced in a replacement contract, I'd bet on it being replaced in kind.

The I-86/I-390 signage begs to differ.

We're talking mileage signs.

The sign I mentioned in my post above near Painted Post  used to have Jamestown 140 on the bottom line instead of the current Erie 195.  However, it could be a "one-off" for all I know.

In my first post concerning this subject, my point was if NYSDOT has a sign project, because some of these signs are quite old, would they change the interchange signs west of Avoca similar to this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/yW5jUMDGeq36cyoi6 instead of what is currently there? https://maps.app.goo.gl/LFrktZ5NmVuVX6au7