NY 17/"I-86"

[vdeane]

I did find the scope of the proposed NY 17 widening to be rather surprising. There is a very strong case for widening between Harriman and Goshen or perhaps Middletown. Beyond that I think there are much higher regional priorities; I'd much rather funding go towards an I-87/I-287 widening in Rockland County or US 6 upgrades than NY 17 west (north) of Middletown.

From the scoping report, the widening alternative would only widen from exit 120 to 130A (Middletown-Harriman).  The only people I hear talking about widening west of there are the advocates, both for and against.

[dzheng35]

Here's what I think is the best option. I'd say start with option one from the Project Scoping Report and make mainline deficiency improvements as well as upgrade interchanges and other things just enough so that it meets interstate designation requirements while keeping it in its existing two-lane configuration and see how that works out for the time being. Like the people who don't want a third lane said, there's no requirement that an interstate has to be 3 lanes per direction, and that most interstates work fine with 2 lanes per direction. If that's not working well, then consider adding a third lane. If anyone objects, I'm ready.

[Roadgeek Adam]

I'd rather improve traffic than worry about the Interstate 86 nonsense. Again, none of this solves the true problems in this county, even if I agree that the road needs three lanes in two sections (120-122 is already getting it and east of 129). If we have to build the traffic improvement to a standard that violates interstate standards, I'd rather take the traffic improvement over the nonsense I-86 designation. (NY 17 has existed for 101 years now, it isn't gonna kill anyone.)

[webny99]

I agree that the road needs three lanes in two sections (120-122 is already getting it

Is that part of the Exit 122 project? I wasn't aware that there was a mainline widening involved with that.

[vdeane]

I agree that the road needs three lanes in two sections (120-122 is already getting it

Is that part of the Exit 122 project? I wasn't aware that there was a mainline widening involved with that.

I'm not aware of one either... I assume @Roadgeek Adam is counting the c/d lane.

Interestingly, it appears that expanding that into a full express/local system from 120-122 (with another one from 122A-124) is a common feature to the alternatives for the exits 113-131 project.

[webny99]

I agree that the road needs three lanes in two sections (120-122 is already getting it

Is that part of the Exit 122 project? I wasn't aware that there was a mainline widening involved with that.

I'm not aware of one either... I assume @Roadgeek Adam is counting the c/d lane.

There is this diagram, which shows Exit 122 adding a westbound through lane through Exit 121. And there is some ongoing median work that looks a lot like a widening, so it's at least possible that westbound will end up with an auxiliary lane extending from Exit 122 through Exit 121 and becoming the exit only lane for Exit 120.

However, that does contrast with what I've seen elsewhere, which is a mirror of the eastbound configuration with the Exit 122 on-ramp splitting in two (separate ramps to NY 17 WB and I-84 EB) and no added through lane.

Interestingly, it appears that expanding that into a full express/local system from 120-122 (with another one from 122A-124) is a common feature to the alternatives for the exits 113-131 project.

That would make a lot of sense for 120-122, but seems more like a solution in search of a problem for 122A-124, which is already 6 lanes with decent exit spacing.

[vdeane]

I agree that the road needs three lanes in two sections (120-122 is already getting it

Is that part of the Exit 122 project? I wasn't aware that there was a mainline widening involved with that.

I'm not aware of one either... I assume @Roadgeek Adam is counting the c/d lane.

There is this diagram, which shows Exit 122 adding a westbound through lane through Exit 121. And there is some ongoing median work that looks a lot like a widening, so it's at least possible that westbound will end up with an auxiliary lane extending from Exit 122 through Exit 121 and becoming the exit only lane for Exit 120.

However, that does contrast with what I've seen elsewhere, which is a mirror of the eastbound configuration with the Exit 122 on-ramp splitting in two (separate ramps to NY 17 WB and I-84 EB) and no added through lane.

Interestingly, it appears that expanding that into a full express/local system from 120-122 (with another one from 122A-124) is a common feature to the alternatives for the exits 113-131 project.

That would make a lot of sense for 120-122, but seems more like a solution in search of a problem for 122A-124, which is already 6 lanes with decent exit spacing.

Ah right, I forgot about that.  That said, everything I'm seeing shows the same c/d road from 122 to 121E and then an aux lane from there connecting to the existing one to 120.

Looking at the interchange design plans, the express local system would change 122A-124 from 3:3 to 1:2:2:1 or 1:3:3:1 depending on the alternative.  I assume it's due to a heavy merge from 123.  Those interchanges are also fairly close together and the public meeting boards show speed reductions and increased crashes there.

Those exits look fairly close together to me, especially for a 65 mph road.  Also, some alternatives for exit 123 make it a full interchange.

[webny99]

Ah right, I forgot about that.  That said, everything I'm seeing shows the same c/d road from 122 to 121E and then an aux lane from there connecting to the existing one to 120.

That is definitely the configuration I'd prefer, and seems to align with the current roadwork, so if that's what's happening I'll be glad to see it. The "split ramp" mirroring eastbound must have come from an older document.

Looking at the interchange design plans, the express local system would change 122A-124 from 3:3 to 1:2:2:1 or 1:3:3:1 depending on the alternative.  I assume it's due to a heavy merge from 123.  Those interchanges are also fairly close together and the public meeting boards show speed reductions and increased crashes there.

Those exits look fairly close together to me, especially for a 65 mph road.  Also, some alternatives for exit 123 make it a full interchange.

Not saying a C/D wouldn't be beneficial there, but I'd make 120-122 a much higher priority. A lot of I-84 traffic is probably using 120 and 122 anyways, so the improvement to conditions on mainline 17 would be significant.

[Roadgeek Adam]

125-124-123-122A flows pretty well for the current setup. I'd argue there's no need for a C-D there (or really a widening).

However, especially with the new facility there, I don't think there's room to make a full interchange out of 123.  Not opposed to it, given there is business along 6/17M there, especially for trucks, but that's gonna be a tough weave ramp going from 17 eastbound.

Keep in mind 126, 125 and 124 have all be changed since the Quickway was originally built and are pretty good even by their current standards.

[dzheng35]

I'd think 127, 128, and 129 could definitely use some work to improve traffic since they are only partial interchanges that don't provide full access in both directions. They talked about removing 127 and 129 and making 128 a full interchange, which I don't mind, given the proximity of all these interchanges.

[Roadgeek Adam]

I mind 129 being removed because of the park and ride. As I said, that thing is a madhouse and the access from exit 129 is why.

I would rather just build eastbound ramps for 128 and an eastbound off-ramp for 127.

[dzheng35]

I mind 129 being removed because of the park and ride. As I said, that thing is a madhouse and the access from exit 129 is why.

I would rather just build eastbound ramps for 128 and an eastbound off-ramp for 127.

Part of the package for removing 129 would be to relocate the park-and-ride to exit 130, as depicted in the interchange design plans in the project scoping report.

[Roadgeek Adam]

I would probably like to see if Monroe's gonna throw a fit on that one. The roads off 130 are already congested.

[vdeane]

I would probably like to see if Monroe's gonna throw a fit on that one. The roads off 130 are already congested.

The interchange design plans also show a redesign of exit 130.

[Roadgeek Adam]

The problem is the traffic from KJ and Monroe congest 208 from 17M to 17. Rebuilding the interchange isn't gonna rectify that, especially if the plan is to move all the 129 traffic to 130.

[dzheng35]

Regarding exit 114, I think either adding a westbound on-ramp and applying for an exemption, or one of the full buildout options, could be done if people really need that exit.

[amroad17]

I see a new mileage sign has been installed just west of the I-86/I-390 interchange that has Erie on it.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rXxgkpVinnnKsTZa9

That is nice to see since the newly installed overhead signs at the 86/390 interchange now list Erie.  The only issue is that Erie should be 161 miles away, not 176.

[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.

We're talking mileage signs.

I see a new mileage sign has been installed just west of the I-86/I-390 interchange that has Erie on it.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rXxgkpVinnnKsTZa9

   This does, however, appear to be a brand-new install, not a replacement.

[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.

I see a new mileage sign has been installed just west of the I-86/I-390 interchange that has Erie on it.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rXxgkpVinnnKsTZa9

   This does, however, appear to be a brand-new install, not a replacement.

Yes, this has replaced the former WB mileage sign that was amongst the interchange about 1000 feet before passing over I-390.  The former mileage sign had Hornell 20/Olean 67/Jamestown 117.https://maps.app.goo.gl/HxSN1d3ijt9qvnMDA

[Bitmapped]

I see a new mileage sign has been installed just west of the I-86/I-390 interchange that has Erie on it.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rXxgkpVinnnKsTZa9

   This does, however, appear to be a brand-new install, not a replacement.

Yes, this has replaced the former WB mileage sign that was amongst the interchange about 1000 feet before passing over I-390.  The former mileage sign had Hornell 20/Olean 67/Jamestown 117.https://maps.app.goo.gl/HxSN1d3ijt9qvnMDA

Looking at the new sign, Hornell 19/Belmont 42/Erie 176 is an odd combination. Belmont is a village with fewer than 1000 people that's 3 miles off the Interstate. The old middle destination of Olean makes much more sense to me since (a) it's a regionally significant city that people might have actually heard of, (b) it's much larger, and (c) it's directly on I-86.

I drove I-86 eastbound from I-90 to NY 16 over the weekend. Seeing only two cities used on mileage signs, with one of them being Binghamton 200+ miles away, was frustrating. With I-86 still having sequential exit numbers, it's hard to figure out where you're at on the highway while driving without a GPS. If you're going to use Erie and Binghamton as the control cities, at least consistently list the larger places like Jamestown, Olean, Hornell, Corning, and Elmira as the middle row on 3-row signs so people have some rough idea of where they are.

[webny99]

Looking at the new sign, Hornell 19/Belmont 42/Erie 176 is an odd combination. Belmont is a village with fewer than 1000 people that's 3 miles off the Interstate. The old middle destination of Olean makes much more sense to me since (a) it's a regionally significant city that people might have actually heard of, (b) it's much larger, and (c) it's directly on I-86.

A few thoughts on this one. I agree that Belmont is an odd choice. However, it is also used on the next distance sign, so it is at least consistent with that. I would also note that Hornell (NY 36) and Belmont (NY 19) are the next two state route junctions from this location, so there is some logic to it from that perspective, though I would still much prefer a larger, more well-known locale (in this case, Olean). You could also make an argument that Howard should be the top line but it is so obscure that I'm OK with skipping it.

For I-86 between Erie PA and Binghamton I would use the following:

EB:
Erie to Jamestown: [Next Interchange] / Jamestown
Jamestown to Salamanca: [Next Interchange] / Salamanca / Corning
Salamanca to Olean: [Next Interchange] / Olean / Corning
Olean to Hornell: [Next Interchange] / Hornell / Corning
Hornell to Corning: [Next Interchange] / Corning / Binghamton
Corning to Elmira: [Next Interchange] / Elmira / Binghamton
Elmira to Owego: [Next Interchange] / Owego / Binghamton
Owego to Binghamton: [Next Interchange] / Binghamton

WB:
Binghamton to Owego: [Next Interchange] / Owego / Corning
Owego to Elmira: [Next Interchange] / Elmira / Corning
Elmira to Corning: [Next Interchange] / Corning / Erie
Corning to Hornell: [Next Interchange] / Hornell / Erie
Hornell to Olean: [Next Interchange] / Olean / Erie
Olean to Salamanca: [Next Interchange] / Salamanca / Erie
Salamanca to Jamestown: [Next Interchange] / Jamestown / Erie
Jamestown to Erie: [Next Interchange] / [I-90] / Erie

This is somewhat arbitrary as to when Binghamton and Erie are introduced, but I don't feel Binghamton needs to be signed all the way from Erie or vice versa, so Corning makes for a good interim control city (and NYSDOT clearly agrees). At the same time, I am OK with Jamestown remaining as the control city for I-86 in PA and waiting until after Jamestown to introduce Corning (though Corning could easily be added if preferred). Meanwhile, I think Erie is large enough to warrant being introduced before Corning heading west, as is Binghamton large enough to be introduced before Corning heading east.

I drove I-86 eastbound from I-90 to NY 16 over the weekend. Seeing only two cities used on mileage signs, with one of them being Binghamton 200+ miles away, was frustrating. With I-86 still having sequential exit numbers, it's hard to figure out where you're at on the highway while driving without a GPS. If you're going to use Erie and Binghamton as the control cities, at least consistently list the larger places like Jamestown, Olean, Hornell, Corning, and Elmira as the middle row on 3-row signs so people have some rough idea of where they are.

The use of only two cities seems to be a Region 5 thing. Region 6 (and most other NYSDOT regions for that matter) seem to be fairly consistent with using three cities, though which three can be an open question for much of I-86/NY 17.

[dzheng35]

Well, more information on exits 103, 104, and 107 upgrades has been released:
https://www.route17.dot.ny.gov/docs/Rt%2017%20103%20104%20107_25_12_08_Open%20House_Boards.pdf

So what do you all think of the concepts for 103 and 104 as well as the preferred alternative for 107.

[PColumbus73]

For the WB Exit Ramp from NY 17 / I-86, it looks like the ramp curve would enable high speeds through the roundabout. It looks like there is enough space to have it connect to the WB Entrance Ramp with stop sign.

[seicer]

I'm surprised they are considering replacing the SR 17B bridge over SR 17 at Exit 104. It was built in 1993 and still has 30+ years of service life remaining.

[dzheng35]

I'm surprised they are considering replacing the SR 17B bridge over SR 17 at Exit 104. It was built in 1993 and still has 30+ years of service life remaining.

Probably because it doesn't meet the 16 ft vertical clearance requirement.