AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: NY 17/"I-86"  (Read 50801 times)

cl94

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5943
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Albany, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 11:52:04 AM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #325 on: July 24, 2020, 09:06:01 PM »

The Hale Eddy bypass will never be built and, frankly, it's unnecessary given the minimal benefit. AADT in Delaware County is consistently below 10K. Traffic jumps significantly at Windsor and Roscoe/Livingston Manor. This isn't like the Elmira section which A) required far less earthmoving and B) serves over 20K vehicles/day. The last plans I saw for Hale Eddy included a bypass due to how narrow the current ROW is, so yeah.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

amroad17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1223
  • A highway I know very well!

  • Age: 58
  • Location: Northern Kentucky
  • Last Login: August 10, 2020, 11:01:29 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #326 on: July 27, 2020, 02:23:58 AM »

Since the Southern Tier Expressway is very close to "Interstate standard", maybe I-86 should be signed from I-90 to I-81 only.  Leave the Quickway as NY 17, as it would take a large monetary effort to bring many sections up to "Interstate standard".  If the funding is available for upgrades, then after the work is complete, the Quickway could be signed as I-86.  However, for the time being, I-86 should exist west of I-81 and NY 17 should exist east of I-81, without any mention of I-86 anywhere.

The Quickway has worked well for traffic since it was completed.  It has a mixture of freeway and expressway segments, although not all "Interstate standard".  Two routes that I feel are similar to NY 17, as far as the mixture , are US 30 and US 35 in Ohio.  Both have freeway and expressway sections with little traffic issues.  Also, they do not have an Interstate shield signed on them either.  This does not stop motorists from using these highways.  As this has been said before in this forum, "Not every freeway needs to have an Interstate shield signed on it".
Logged
I don't need a GPS.  I AM the GPS! (for family and friends)

3467

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1171
  • Last Login: August 07, 2020, 10:02:25 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #327 on: July 27, 2020, 11:13:59 AM »

Couldn't you just call it all 88 of 86 and run it up to Albany and declare victory?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7049
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:53:08 AM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #328 on: July 27, 2020, 06:38:01 PM »

Since the Southern Tier Expressway is very close to "Interstate standard", maybe I-86 should be signed from I-90 to I-81 only.  Leave the Quickway as NY 17, as it would take a large monetary effort to bring many sections up to "Interstate standard".  If the funding is available for upgrades, then after the work is complete, the Quickway could be signed as I-86.  However, for the time being, I-86 should exist west of I-81 and NY 17 should exist east of I-81, without any mention of I-86 anywhere.

The Quickway has worked well for traffic since it was completed.  It has a mixture of freeway and expressway segments, although not all "Interstate standard".  Two routes that I feel are similar to NY 17, as far as the mixture , are US 30 and US 35 in Ohio.  Both have freeway and expressway sections with little traffic issues.  Also, they do not have an Interstate shield signed on them either.  This does not stop motorists from using these highways.  As this has been said before in this forum, "Not every freeway needs to have an Interstate shield signed on it".
Couldn't you just call it all 88 of 86 and run it up to Albany and declare victory?

Technically, no on both counts.  The whole of NY/former PA 17 from I-87 west to I-90 is a federal high-priority corridor (#36, courtesy of former senator Moynihan).  The I-86 designation was legislatively appended to that corridor's description a couple of years after the basic corridor concept was established.  And, to date, once that's done it has yet to be undone for any corridors so described.  But the actual signage -- at least until the corridor is fully Interstate standard -- is up to the local jurisdiction -- but like with all HPC's, particularly those projected as freeways, there's no "no build" provision available; it's always on the books but either unfunded or simply unaddressed.  And obviously, someone in NYDOT -- at least at one point -- wanted the whole shooting match to be signed (hence the sporadic shield deployment east of Deposit).  How it'll all shake out in the long run is anyone's guess -- but while completion certainly isn't being prioritized, neither is overall project abandonment.  I suppose the I-86 situation east of I-81 could best be described as either limbo or purgatory -- likely depending upon whether one has to deal with it on a regular basis.  But until such time as the legislative description of the corridor is changed, it'll always be hanging over any activity regarding disposition of the route.   
Logged

amroad17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1223
  • A highway I know very well!

  • Age: 58
  • Location: Northern Kentucky
  • Last Login: August 10, 2020, 11:01:29 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #329 on: July 28, 2020, 02:46:57 AM »

I realize that the I-86 corridor is "legislatively defined" much like I-73/I-74 and I-99.  Just another form of government intrusion from the House and Senate--although if New York put in an application to have NY 17 become an Interstate highway, "86" probably would have been the chosen number.  Yes, the number does fit in the "grid" and I have no quarrels about that.  The hypothetical question would be where would New York (and Pennsylvania) request for I-86.  All of NY 17 or the section from I-90 to I-81? 

I do not believe that NY 17 east of I-81 will be totally upgraded within 25 years for it to receive the I-86 signs.  Yes, there are plenty of sections that are "Interstate standard" (I-81 to Windsor, Parksville bypass, Liberty area, around I-84), however, the biggest obstacles seem to be Hale Eddy as well as available funding.  If these obstacles could be overcome, then great!  Break out the I-86 signs!

I thought NY 15 signs were supposed to be taken down along I-86 and I-390.  I still see some posted when looking at GSV (August 2019).

Also, if Corning is now the chosen control point going west from Binghamton, maybe some of the mileage signs could be updated to include Corning instead of carbon copying various mileage signs that either do not have Corning listed or has Jamestown listed on them.
Logged
I don't need a GPS.  I AM the GPS! (for family and friends)

machias

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 734
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Chicago, IL
  • Last Login: August 10, 2020, 10:54:11 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #330 on: July 28, 2020, 08:11:17 AM »

I realize that the I-86 corridor is "legislatively defined" much like I-73/I-74 and I-99.  Just another form of government intrusion from the House and Senate--although if New York put in an application to have NY 17 become an Interstate highway, "86" probably would have been the chosen number.  Yes, the number does fit in the "grid" and I have no quarrels about that.  The hypothetical question would be where would New York (and Pennsylvania) request for I-86.  All of NY 17 or the section from I-90 to I-81? 

I do not believe that NY 17 east of I-81 will be totally upgraded within 25 years for it to receive the I-86 signs.  Yes, there are plenty of sections that are "Interstate standard" (I-81 to Windsor, Parksville bypass, Liberty area, around I-84), however, the biggest obstacles seem to be Hale Eddy as well as available funding.  If these obstacles could be overcome, then great!  Break out the I-86 signs!

I thought NY 15 signs were supposed to be taken down along I-86 and I-390.  I still see some posted when looking at GSV (August 2019).

Also, if Corning is now the chosen control point going west from Binghamton, maybe some of the mileage signs could be updated to include Corning instead of carbon copying various mileage signs that either do not have Corning listed or has Jamestown listed on them.

For the past 30 years I've felt NYSDOT needs to address their post interchange distance signing practices. You're right, they shouldn't be replacing in kind. They need to use three destinations like other states do:

(next destination/exit)  X
(next control point)  X
(last control point in state or first control point in next state)   X

Apalachin   9
Corning    68
Jamestown 213

Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7049
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:53:08 AM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #331 on: July 28, 2020, 01:21:58 PM »

I realize that the I-86 corridor is "legislatively defined" much like I-73/I-74 and I-99.  Just another form of government intrusion from the House and Senate--although if New York put in an application to have NY 17 become an Interstate highway, "86" probably would have been the chosen number.  Yes, the number does fit in the "grid" and I have no quarrels about that.  The hypothetical question would be where would New York (and Pennsylvania) request for I-86.  All of NY 17 or the section from I-90 to I-81? 

I do not believe that NY 17 east of I-81 will be totally upgraded within 25 years for it to receive the I-86 signs.  Yes, there are plenty of sections that are "Interstate standard" (I-81 to Windsor, Parksville bypass, Liberty area, around I-84), however, the biggest obstacles seem to be Hale Eddy as well as available funding.  If these obstacles could be overcome, then great!  Break out the I-86 signs!

I thought NY 15 signs were supposed to be taken down along I-86 and I-390.  I still see some posted when looking at GSV (August 2019).

Also, if Corning is now the chosen control point going west from Binghamton, maybe some of the mileage signs could be updated to include Corning instead of carbon copying various mileage signs that either do not have Corning listed or has Jamestown listed on them.

From what I understand, the HPC #36 corridor definition was applied to NY 17 to expedite the availability of federal funds for "fixes" on the existing road.  The Interstate 86 "appendage" was, curiously, instigated as part of a masters' thesis project by an intern in Sen. Moynihan's office who was attending Binghamton University (formerly SUNY Binghamton) and who was a "local", residing in Vestal.  She commissioned a survey of cities and individuals arrayed along the Southern Tier asking for input as to whether an Interstate along 17 would be beneficial to the area; the responses were positive, and Moynihan himself became interested in actually manifesting the project's concepts.  The simplest way to legislatively accomplish that was to append an Interstate designation to the existing Corridor 36 definition, which covered the entirety of NY 17 (and the PA equivalent for that matter) all the way east to I-87.  The appendage got through the process and at the end of 1999 there was a newly-minted I-86 authorized for as much of NY 17 as met system criteria.  Of course, that meant the western end east to as far as Corning could be immediately signed, which it was by 2001.  Since progress since then is part & parcel of this thread, I won't cover already trod ground there -- but the simple fact is that west of I-87 all of NY 17 is by federal definition the I-86 corridor.  IMO, a "working" division, with Binghamton as the dividing point, is appropriate; as a commercial corridor, the western portion is more vital than the eastern, so "tidying up" the few remaining substandard features west of I-81 should be prioritized; the rest can be addressed as funds allow. 
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11269
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: August 10, 2020, 08:45:34 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #332 on: July 28, 2020, 01:27:56 PM »

I do not believe that NY 17 east of I-81 will be totally upgraded within 25 years for it to receive the I-86 signs.  Yes, there are plenty of sections that are "Interstate standard" (I-81 to Windsor, Parksville bypass, Liberty area, around I-84), however, the biggest obstacles seem to be Hale Eddy as well as available funding.  If these obstacles could be overcome, then great!  Break out the I-86 signs!

I thought NY 15 signs were supposed to be taken down along I-86 and I-390.  I still see some posted when looking at GSV (August 2019).
While Hale Eddy is certainly the most visible deficiency, judging by Rothman's posts, I'm pretty sure it's not the most expensive.

There isn't actually an effort to actively remove the NY 15 signage; instead, it's slowly going away as shield assemblies are replaced.  Last I saw, it was pretty much gone from I-390 by now, but still all over the place on I-86.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

cl94

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5943
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Albany, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 11:52:04 AM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #333 on: July 28, 2020, 01:46:35 PM »

While Hale Eddy is certainly the most visible deficiency, judging by Rothman's posts, I'm pretty sure it's not the most expensive.

AFAIK, that is correct. Almost every exit east of Wurtsboro needs to be upgraded to meet standards (aside from the handful that have already been done), in addition to the bunny hops that need to be removed. Delaware County mostly meets waiver standards aside from Hale Eddy and Sullivan has been slowly upgraded as bridge replacements are due, with the Rock Hill RIRO being the biggest item there.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

seicer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1429
  • Last Login: August 10, 2020, 07:30:09 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #334 on: July 28, 2020, 02:05:10 PM »

I noticed the I-86 shields end at the Bloomingburg interchange. The westbound NY 17 exit is especially odd - just a slip ramp down the side of the hill. Both ramps are easily reachable just a half mile down.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 340
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: August 10, 2020, 11:57:56 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #335 on: July 29, 2020, 02:26:53 PM »

While Hale Eddy is certainly the most visible deficiency, judging by Rothman's posts, I'm pretty sure it's not the most expensive.

AFAIK, that is correct. Almost every exit east of Wurtsboro needs to be upgraded to meet standards (aside from the handful that have already been done), in addition to the bunny hops that need to be removed. Delaware County mostly meets waiver standards aside from Hale Eddy and Sullivan has been slowly upgraded as bridge replacements are due, with the Rock Hill RIRO being the biggest item there.

Aside from remaining at-grade sections that would obviously have to be upgraded, why wouldn't NYSDOT apply for a waiver for the remaining substandard freeway sections to get the remainder of NY-17 signed as I-86? There's plenty of historical precedence where the FHWA approved "design exceptions" to add routes to the interstate system. For example, routes like I-278 and I-678 in NYC, or even the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95/395) that are nowhere near interstate standard yet they're signed as interstates.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

cl94

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5943
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Albany, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 11:52:04 AM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #336 on: July 29, 2020, 03:25:42 PM »

Aside from remaining at-grade sections that would obviously have to be upgraded, why wouldn't NYSDOT apply for a waiver for the remaining substandard freeway sections to get the remainder of NY-17 signed as I-86? There's plenty of historical precedence where the FHWA approved "design exceptions" to add routes to the interstate system. For example, routes like I-278 and I-678 in NYC, or even the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95/395) that are nowhere near interstate standard yet they're signed as interstates.

FHWA has tightened the waiver rules in the past couple decades to eliminate grandfather clauses. The only waivers they are still willing to issue are for mountainous areas, which are not subject to the same design standards as long as access control is maintained. Hancock-Liberty generally qualifies for a lower design speed, but sightline and ramp issues need to be corrected.
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5974
  • Last Login: Today at 10:04:35 AM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #337 on: July 29, 2020, 04:06:37 PM »

Yep.  FHWA and NYSDOT worked closely together on the projects that would need to be done to earn the Interstate shield.

I also wonder if the Albany Division is more stringent than others.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

webny99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4507
  • Roadgeek Forever!

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Rochester, NY
  • Last Login: August 10, 2020, 03:56:51 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #338 on: July 29, 2020, 04:11:49 PM »

Aside from remaining at-grade sections that would obviously have to be upgraded, why wouldn't NYSDOT apply for a waiver for the remaining substandard freeway sections to get the remainder of NY-17 signed as I-86? There's plenty of historical precedence where the FHWA approved "design exceptions" to add routes to the interstate system.

I guess the other question is, what's the point of putting up more I-86 shields if there's still going to be a gap at Hale Eddy?
It doesn't seem worthwhile to keep taking more half measures - either leave it be, or finish it properly to where the whole thing can be signed.
Logged
Left Lane is For Passing, Not Camping!

NJRoadfan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1442
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: August 08, 2020, 08:33:07 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #339 on: July 29, 2020, 07:19:43 PM »

The section east of Wurtsboro has had quite a bit of "upgrade" work done to it over the years funded by the enabling legislation. I-86 should be signed between I-84 and the Thruway at this point!
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 340
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: August 10, 2020, 11:57:56 PM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #340 on: July 30, 2020, 08:49:02 AM »

Aside from remaining at-grade sections that would obviously have to be upgraded, why wouldn't NYSDOT apply for a waiver for the remaining substandard freeway sections to get the remainder of NY-17 signed as I-86? There's plenty of historical precedence where the FHWA approved "design exceptions" to add routes to the interstate system. For example, routes like I-278 and I-678 in NYC, or even the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95/395) that are nowhere near interstate standard yet they're signed as interstates.

FHWA has tightened the waiver rules in the past couple decades to eliminate grandfather clauses. The only waivers they are still willing to issue are for mountainous areas, which are not subject to the same design standards as long as access control is maintained. Hancock-Liberty generally qualifies for a lower design speed, but sightline and ramp issues need to be corrected.

That's some rugged terrain through which that section of 17 goes through. I think that could qualify as a mountainous area and make it easier for NYSDOT to get a waiver from the FHWA.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3544
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 10:36:28 AM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #341 on: July 30, 2020, 12:42:21 PM »

The section east of Wurtsboro has had quite a bit of "upgrade" work done to it over the years funded by the enabling legislation. I-86 should be signed between I-84 and the Thruway at this point!
What is the point?
For someone in upstate, like me, interstate designation is a sign  of certain road standard. Over here, US or state road can easily be an undivided 2-lane going through all the lights in town center.  So I-86 through Catskill would be a big deal sending a strong message
In NYC area, though, road network is more built up; distances are shorter; and interstate designation doesn't relay that big of a message since many lower tier roads are of comparable quality.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5974
  • Last Login: Today at 10:04:35 AM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #342 on: July 30, 2020, 11:32:24 PM »

Aside from remaining at-grade sections that would obviously have to be upgraded, why wouldn't NYSDOT apply for a waiver for the remaining substandard freeway sections to get the remainder of NY-17 signed as I-86? There's plenty of historical precedence where the FHWA approved "design exceptions" to add routes to the interstate system. For example, routes like I-278 and I-678 in NYC, or even the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95/395) that are nowhere near interstate standard yet they're signed as interstates.

FHWA has tightened the waiver rules in the past couple decades to eliminate grandfather clauses. The only waivers they are still willing to issue are for mountainous areas, which are not subject to the same design standards as long as access control is maintained. Hancock-Liberty generally qualifies for a lower design speed, but sightline and ramp issues need to be corrected.

That's some rugged terrain through which that section of 17 goes through. I think that could qualify as a mountainous area and make it easier for NYSDOT to get a waiver from the FHWA.

You don't think these conversations have already been had?  Like I said, NYSDOT and FHWA worked together on the plan for the NY 17/I-86 conversion.  It is what it is now.  There is very little room for applying for waivers and right now -- no will to do so, anyway.  I-86 conversion is no longer a priority for NYSDOT and hasn't been for quite a few years now.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

cl94

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5943
  • Trust me, I'm a transportation engineer

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Albany, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 11:52:04 AM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #343 on: July 31, 2020, 11:57:23 AM »

I doubt it is still there, but I remember the NYSDOT website having a list of the remaining I-86 projects 10 or so years ago. All of the flashy ones aside from Hale Eddy have been completed at this point, but there are a LOT of small projects, particularly in Sullivan and Orange Counties. Acceleration/deceleration lanes, bunny hops and other sight line issues, bridges, etc. Much of this is being done as part of nearby projects or when bridges are due for replacement. Aren't some of the issues near Goshen being remedied with the Legoland projects?
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

SGwithADD

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 43
  • Location: Pittsburgh
  • Last Login: Today at 07:39:28 AM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #344 on: August 01, 2020, 06:17:40 AM »

I doubt it is still there, but I remember the NYSDOT website having a list of the remaining I-86 projects 10 or so years ago. All of the flashy ones aside from Hale Eddy have been completed at this point, but there are a LOT of small projects, particularly in Sullivan and Orange Counties. Acceleration/deceleration lanes, bunny hops and other sight line issues, bridges, etc. Much of this is being done as part of nearby projects or when bridges are due for replacement. Aren't some of the issues near Goshen being remedied with the Legoland projects?

vdeane has been keeping track of this: http://nysroads.com/i86-ny17.php

I saw that some improvements were being made as part of the Legoland project, but it looks like much of the issue is that the Quickway is just so old, and was designed when standards were not nearly as high (and even then, was designed only to NYSDOT standards, since much of it predates the Interstate system).  From what I'm reading, the Legoland-related work is just for Exit 125, but in February of this year, NYSDOT had plans to start a study on the updates required for conversion.  No idea where this stands now, in light of COVID.

This article has more detail on the study and project: $5 million allocated for a 12-to-18-month study, for a 20-plus year project expected to run $500 million (which is expected to include a third lane from Monticello all the way to the Thruway).  Apparently there are 96 miles of the Quickway in Delaware, Sullivan, and Orange Counties that need to be upgraded to meet Interstate standards.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7049
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:53:08 AM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #345 on: August 01, 2020, 01:22:45 PM »

I doubt it is still there, but I remember the NYSDOT website having a list of the remaining I-86 projects 10 or so years ago. All of the flashy ones aside from Hale Eddy have been completed at this point, but there are a LOT of small projects, particularly in Sullivan and Orange Counties. Acceleration/deceleration lanes, bunny hops and other sight line issues, bridges, etc. Much of this is being done as part of nearby projects or when bridges are due for replacement. Aren't some of the issues near Goshen being remedied with the Legoland projects?

vdeane has been keeping track of this: http://nysroads.com/i86-ny17.php

I saw that some improvements were being made as part of the Legoland project, but it looks like much of the issue is that the Quickway is just so old, and was designed when standards were not nearly as high (and even then, was designed only to NYSDOT standards, since much of it predates the Interstate system).  From what I'm reading, the Legoland-related work is just for Exit 125, but in February of this year, NYSDOT had plans to start a study on the updates required for conversion.  No idea where this stands now, in light of COVID.

This article has more detail on the study and project: $5 million allocated for a 12-to-18-month study, for a 20-plus year project expected to run $500 million (which is expected to include a third lane from Monticello all the way to the Thruway).  Apparently there are 96 miles of the Quickway in Delaware, Sullivan, and Orange Counties that need to be upgraded to meet Interstate standards.

Which is going to take time -- and probably several STIP editions to spread out the cost -- to complete.  As no one seems to be in any particular hurry to "git 'er done", my previous hint regarding prioritization of the "spot" fixes to achieve standards west of I-81 still stands and if anything is somewhat more validated.  That segment can be readily reached from NYC and vicinity by a combination of I-80, I-380, and I-81 via Scranton, so through traffic to western upstate has a reasonably efficient path.  By no means remove any trace of I-86 between I-81 and I-87; let it stand as a reminder that the corridor still exists and will have to be addressed at some time.  But for the time being, concentrate any efforts on the section that is more vital to regional connectivity. 
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5974
  • Last Login: Today at 10:04:35 AM
Re: NY 17/"I-86"
« Reply #346 on: August 01, 2020, 09:34:27 PM »

Another stupid study? The one from 15 years ago arguing billions in economic benefits for the Southern Tier was laughed out of the room.

But hey, it seems NYSDOT has to spend millions on studies that really go nowhere as it is Cuomo's method of appeasement (e.g., LI crossing, Rooftop...).
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.