NY 17 / I-86 Conversion Resurrected?

[Michael]

I went from Exit 70 to 60 and back on October 22nd 2014.  The bridges between Johnson City and Owego were extremely narrow, and appear to still be based on the latest Street View images (September 2015).  My non-roadgeek friend even noticed how narrow they were.  According to Uglybridges, both the westbound and eastbound bridges on NY 17 over the Susquehanna River are 27.9 feet wide.  As a comparison, the narrowest through bridge in the I-81/I-690 interchange is I-81 southbound between North Townsend Street and the merge at Adams Street.  That bridge is 25.9 feet wide.

I also saw I-86 shields heading westbound, but I don't remember the exact locations.  I think the first one was near Owego.

[cl94]

They did some work on the bridges over the past year

[sparker]

I'm wondering if it would be possible to address the Hale Eddy situation much as TX is dealing with the ranchlands along I-69E through the King Ranch area -- have separated periodic turnouts along the side of the facility, with gates (possibly remotely activated by residents' devices -- and, along EB, tied in with the RR to avoid accidents).  Essentially, RIRO's separated from the main traffic lanes.  At most, one overpass in or near Hale Eddy itself would be required (and only if any local objections became too persistent).  Having driven this route several times -- and looking at GSV/GE views, this might be a reasonably low-cost and lower-impact alternative to any large-scale facility expansion.

[The Ghostbuster]

They do things a lot different in Texas than they would do in New York or most other states.

[Roadgeek Adam]

I'm wondering if it would be possible to address the Hale Eddy situation much as TX is dealing with the ranchlands along I-69E through the King Ranch area -- have separated periodic turnouts along the side of the facility, with gates (possibly remotely activated by residents' devices -- and, along EB, tied in with the RR to avoid accidents).  Essentially, RIRO's separated from the main traffic lanes.  At most, one overpass in or near Hale Eddy itself would be required (and only if any local objections became too persistent).  Having driven this route several times -- and looking at GSV/GE views, this might be a reasonably low-cost and lower-impact alternative to any large-scale facility expansion.

But is it necessary? 7,000 AADT is not worth justifying spending anything at all.

[abqtraveler]

I'm wondering if it would be possible to address the Hale Eddy situation much as TX is dealing with the ranchlands along I-69E through the King Ranch area -- have separated periodic turnouts along the side of the facility, with gates (possibly remotely activated by residents' devices -- and, along EB, tied in with the RR to avoid accidents).  Essentially, RIRO's separated from the main traffic lanes.  At most, one overpass in or near Hale Eddy itself would be required (and only if any local objections became too persistent).  Having driven this route several times -- and looking at GSV/GE views, this might be a reasonably low-cost and lower-impact alternative to any large-scale facility expansion.

But is it necessary? 7,000 AADT is not worth justifying spending anything at all.

Texas got away with at-grade ranch accesses when it upgraded US-66 to I-40 in the 1980s, so why wouldn't the FHWA and AASHTO allow the same on certain sections of US-77 being converted to I-69E in the rural area between Kingsville and Raymondville?

[Duke87]

But is it necessary? 7,000 AADT is not worth justifying spending anything at all.

What are the accident rates in the area? If they are notably above normal doing *something* might be justified by safety.

The cheapest and easiest "something" would probably be to simply eminent domain all of the properties which are currently accessible only via 17, barricade the driveways/intersections and let nature gradually handle the rest.

The core of Hale Eddy, at least, has another road giving them access to the outside world. As do the properties off of Bush Hill Rd. For not much extra cost you could throw the people in these places a bone by giving them a couple RIRO ramps rather than severing them from 17 completely.

[Roadgeek Adam]

The Hale Eddy-Broome Connector is not an intersection that can just be gated.

That said, there's still no reason to justify spending money on gate accesses for numerous intersections in a stretch that will never be heavily trafficked. These intersections are not dangerous and people have managed for the last 50 years.

It is just easier having I-86 shields disappear between exits 84 and 87.

[cl94]

I'm wondering if it would be possible to address the Hale Eddy situation much as TX is dealing with the ranchlands along I-69E through the King Ranch area -- have separated periodic turnouts along the side of the facility, with gates (possibly remotely activated by residents' devices -- and, along EB, tied in with the RR to avoid accidents).  Essentially, RIRO's separated from the main traffic lanes.  At most, one overpass in or near Hale Eddy itself would be required (and only if any local objections became too persistent).  Having driven this route several times -- and looking at GSV/GE views, this might be a reasonably low-cost and lower-impact alternative to any large-scale facility expansion.

But is it necessary? 7,000 AADT is not worth justifying spending anything at all.

Texas got away with at-grade ranch accesses when it upgraded US-66 to I-40 in the 1980s, so why wouldn't the FHWA and AASHTO allow the same on certain sections of US-77 being converted to I-69E in the rural area between Kingsville and Raymondville?

That's also rural Texas in an area that is all ranches. Kenedy County has a much smaller population than the Town of Hancock, where Hale Eddy lies, and the fourth-lowest population of any county in the country. Believe it or not, there are actually people living in Hale Eddy, plus a motel, cabin area, 2 churches, and a few businesses. A rough estimate I made places the Hale Eddy area at 50-100 people.

At this point, I'm not convinced you need many improvements unless there are safety concerns. Excluding Exit 111, this is the only significant part of I-86 in Region 9 that isn't under construction to bring it to Interstate standards. The grade-separated 55 portion in Delaware County falls under the exemption for mountainous terrain and, as I-86 shields have been up along it for years, I doubt much needs to change.

[sparker]

They do things a lot different in Texas than they would do in New York or most other states.

Which is no reason to dismiss a possible solution that may find utility elsewhere.

But is it necessary? 7,000 AADT is not worth justifying spending anything at all.

What are the accident rates in the area? If they are notably above normal doing *something* might be justified by safety.

The cheapest and easiest "something" would probably be to simply eminent domain all of the properties which are currently accessible only via 17, barricade the driveways/intersections and let nature gradually handle the rest.

The core of Hale Eddy, at least, has another road giving them access to the outside world. As do the properties off of Bush Hill Rd. For not much extra cost you could throw the people in these places a bone by giving them a couple RIRO ramps rather than severing them from 17 completely.

Hale Eddy's actually cut in two by NY 17; the access mentioned above pertains to the north side of the community.  The south side, squished between the highway and the river, could easily be served by a couple of ramps in lieu of a RIRO. 

Texas got away with at-grade ranch accesses when it upgraded US-66 to I-40 in the 1980s, so why wouldn't the FHWA and AASHTO allow the same on certain sections of US-77 being converted to I-69E in the rural area between Kingsville and Raymondville?

Most of the ranch access along I-40 is not to actual residences but simply access points to grazing areas within large-scale ranch properties.  Since the King Ranch occupies most of Kenedy County on the US 77/I-69E alignment, I'm guessing that some sort of arrangement was made to avoid having at-grade crossings -- both to satisfy FHWA requirements as well as for the safety of ranch personnel. 

My guess is that if there's enough pressure to finally complete I-86, something will be done about the Hale Eddy segment unless significant waivers of standards can be obtained.  Just omitting Interstate reassurance signage along a 4-mile segment has no precedent as a permanent solution, although it might function as an interim measure.  This may be a case of "kick the can down the road" for NYDOT.  Maybe they could do what Caltrans did with I-5 in the Sacramento River canyon prior to the 1992 opening of the present freeway:  sign the substandard section as "Temporary I-86" (its I-5 iteration sufficed for nearly 20 years in that instance).     

[cl94]

There's no reason to upgrade the thing at this time. It's already used by most frequent travelers between west of I-81 in New York and New York City and NY 17 is a pretty well-known through route. Volumes just aren't high enough to justify the expense. If there's a large uptick in volume or accidents, maybe. Not for an AADT of 8-9,000. That area is literally the middle of nowhere in the SW Catskills.

As far as that road heading south from Hale Eddy, it has an AADT around 500, as well as the only bridge across the West Branch between Deposit Village and Hancock. Looks like most of that is to/from Hancock, so you'd need a bridge to handle that left turn movement, else it's a 10 mile detour.

[Duke87]

As far as that road heading south from Hale Eddy, it has an AADT around 500, as well as the only bridge across the West Branch between Deposit Village and Hancock. Looks like most of that is to/from Hancock, so you'd need a bridge to handle that left turn movement, else it's a 10 mile detour.

There is a local road heading down the PA side of the river which is not particularly longer (distancewise) than NY 17 between there and Hancock. And traffic going to Deposit has CR 249.

The connections DO exist, and while the 500 vehicles per day would be inconvenienced by needing to use local roads rather than being able to make lefts to/from NY 17 WB, it wouldn't be an unviable solution for the traffic volumes involved.

[cl94]

As far as that road heading south from Hale Eddy, it has an AADT around 500, as well as the only bridge across the West Branch between Deposit Village and Hancock. Looks like most of that is to/from Hancock, so you'd need a bridge to handle that left turn movement, else it's a 10 mile detour.

There is a local road heading down the PA side of the river which is not particularly longer (distancewise) than NY 17 between there and Hancock. And traffic going to Deposit has CR 249.

The connections DO exist, and while the 500 vehicles per day would be inconvenienced by needing to use local roads rather than being able to make lefts to/from NY 17 WB, it wouldn't be an unviable solution for the traffic volumes involved.

But is the local road paved? I can't tell that from satellite imagery.

[sparker]

At least we're getting a reasonable dialogue going about how to (or how not to) address the shortcomings of this section of NY 17; much more productive than several months ago, when it seemed like the consensus was that the overall upgrade east of I-81 was in jeopardy.   

[Rothman]

At least we're getting a reasonable dialogue going about how to (or how not to) address the shortcomings of this section of NY 17; much more productive than several months ago, when it seemed like the consensus was that the overall upgrade east of I-81 was in jeopardy.   

That's still the consensus.  Nothing we say on here will change the fact that, outside of Prospect Mountain and Woodbury Commons, the conversion has come to a halt.

[Roadgeek Adam]

As far as that road heading south from Hale Eddy, it has an AADT around 500, as well as the only bridge across the West Branch between Deposit Village and Hancock. Looks like most of that is to/from Hancock, so you'd need a bridge to handle that left turn movement, else it's a 10 mile detour.

There is a local road heading down the PA side of the river which is not particularly longer (distancewise) than NY 17 between there and Hancock. And traffic going to Deposit has CR 249.

The connections DO exist, and while the 500 vehicles per day would be inconvenienced by needing to use local roads rather than being able to make lefts to/from NY 17 WB, it wouldn't be an unviable solution for the traffic volumes involved.

But is the local road paved? I can't tell that from satellite imagery.

I don't think Faulkner/Penn-York is paved between the West Branch Resort and Balls Eddy.

[NJRoadfan]

Once Exit 131 is addressed (whatever the feds problem with it is, looks interstate standard already), are there any plans to finally sign I-86 on that stretch?

[cl94]

Once Exit 131 is addressed (whatever the feds problem with it is, looks interstate standard already), are there any plans to finally sign I-86 on that stretch?

131 isn't the problem. It's 127-129. Those ramps are quite substandard. 131 is on the table because it's prone to backups.

[Roadgeek Adam]

Quite substandard would be an understatement. The only one I see an easy solution on is 128 would be a new ramp that connects on the south side of Craigville Road.

The easy solution seems like for 127 to eliminate it.

I don't even know what to do with 129.

[Beeper1]

The EB onramp at 127 doesn't look bad.   Is the problem the length of the WB off-ramp?

Also not sure what is sub-standard about the 128 ramp. 

129 is absolutely bad.  The EB offramp is probably alright, but the other two ramps are way too short.  I would just eliminate the EB entrance and WB exit. Traffic from points east can reach that area easily from Exit 130 and going either way around the lake.

[cl94]

Quite substandard would be an understatement.

Which is why that's the only limited-access segment that doesn't already have signs up. The first segment of the Quickway (118-124) opened in 1951, with it being completed to Exit 131 in 1955. So yes, the entire thing east of 118 predates the Interstate system, which is why it is so substandard. The Region 9 segment dates from the 60s, hence why just about everything but the at-grades is okay for designation.

127 is the WB exit ramp. 128 has a 20 mph hairpin turn with no banking and a deceleration lane that is nowhere near long enough to slow down from 65 to 20. 129 should be evident.

[Beeper1]

128 has a 20 mph hairpin turn with no banking and a deceleration lane that is nowhere near long enough to slow down from 65 to 20.

Ah.  That explains it.  Hard to tell the deceleration lane on the aerials.   

Also, the westbound Exit 122 ramps seem very sub-standard, though they were recently built for that shopping center.

[Alps]

Does any of it have to do with the lack of completeness of 127-129? 127 sort of complements 126, but the others are woeful.

[sam158]

I was driving along I-86 today from Corning to Binghamton and noticed that all the reassurance marker for 17 from exit 60 to exit 66 were actually covering I-86 shields. The direction on each one was covered up but I could see the blue direction sign underneath on some. If you go just past the shield on street view and look at the back of the sign, you can see the outline of the interstate shield behind the 17 shield.

Exit 62 https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0242788,-76.3743429,3a,75y,118.93h,75.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6NobfDmvBClD3w4APzXYbQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Exit 63- shows the blue direction sign
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0670921,-76.3218701,3a,75y,66.08h,77.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spiIvtqkb-hCUGThhTOFF1g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

After the Broome County line, all the reassurance markers had the 86 and 17 shields but all the 86 shields had a "TO" sign over them.

[Henry]

It could be years before we see I-86 completed all the way to the Thruway, but I'm betting that it gets done before I-69 between Indy and Memphis does!