NY 17/"I-86"

[MATraveler128]

I still don't understand why they just don't mark the portions built to interstate standards as I-86, and the parts that are not up to interstate standards "To I-86". I doubt drivers are going to be confused.

I don't understand why they don't call the whole thing I-86, Erie to Harriman. If we're being honest, who gives a shit? Your average driver won't see a little at-grade in Hale Eddy and start cursing up a storm about Interstate Highway standards and how they've been ripped off.

There are plenty of examples out there, i.e Breezewood, I-180 Wyoming, I-676 New Jersey, but that was then and this is now. Breezewood was grandfathered in. I don't believe grandfathering is allowed anymore, so NYSDOT has to wait until Hale Eddy along with the rest of the corridor is up to full standards.

[Rothman]

FHWA NY Division insists that NY 17 be brought up to Interstate standards consistently across its length before I-86 can be designated.

Hale Eddy to Hancock is required.

Because the original Interstate Highway System is considered built out, FHWA has turned much more to its oversight role.  The good old days of Interstate shields being slapped on substandard segments are over.

Shoot, even Congress made portions of I-278 ineligible for Interstate Maintenance funding a long time ago due to using the system as defined by a particular date a long time ago.  I believe those sections are still ineligible for 90/10 funding because of that (i.e., since IM was absorbed into NHPP in MAP-21).

[empirestate]

I still don't understand why they just don't mark the portions built to interstate standards as I-86, and the parts that are not up to interstate standards "To I-86". I doubt drivers are going to be confused.

I don't understand why they don't call the whole thing I-86, Erie to Harriman. If we're being honest, who gives a shit? Your average driver won't see a little at-grade in Hale Eddy and start cursing up a storm about Interstate Highway standards and how they've been ripped off.

And for the same reason, why mightn't they just keep calling it the way it's called now? Sure, it's not an Interstate all the way along, but as you well illustrate, are the stakes really that high?

[sprjus4]

I still don't understand why they just don't mark the portions built to interstate standards as I-86, and the parts that are not up to interstate standards "To I-86". I doubt drivers are going to be confused.

I don't understand why they don't call the whole thing I-86, Erie to Harriman. If we're being honest, who gives a shit? Your average driver won't see a little at-grade in Hale Eddy and start cursing up a storm about Interstate Highway standards and how they've been ripped off.

I can support simply signing the entire route as I-86, although the route should not be continuous through the at-grade portion until it is upgraded to controlled access.

[abqtraveler]

FHWA NY Division insists that NY 17 be brought up to Interstate standards consistently across its length before I-86 can be designated.

Which makes absolutely no sense since the FHWA allowed almost the entire western section from PA to Waverly to be signed as I-86, and a 10-mile stretch from I-81 to Exit 79. Another 9-mile stretch from I-84 to NY-17K was upgraded to interstate standards years ago and has I-86 signs, but those signs are covered until the FHWA authorizes NYSDOT to uncover them. From my perspective, the aforementioned stretch of NY-17 should be signed as I-86 now as it already meets interstate standards and it connects to another interstate (I-84), and therefore meets all the criteria for interstate designation.

[jp the roadgeek]

At least sign the Waverly-Binghamton portion so we don't have that awful gap when it suddenly reappears east of I-81 (not that the new signage on I-81 has the I-86 shields exposed anyway).

[MATraveler128]

At least sign the Waverly-Binghamton portion so we don't have that awful gap when it suddenly reappears east of I-81 (not that the new signage on I-81 has the I-86 shields exposed anyway).

Is Waverly to Binghamton up to Interstate standards yet? If so, what’s stopping them from officially designating it?

[yakra]

Put the text "I-86" in a NY touring route shield.

[Rothman]

FHWA NY Division insists that NY 17 be brought up to Interstate standards consistently across its length before I-86 can be designated.

Which makes absolutely no sense since the FHWA allowed almost the entire western section from PA to Waverly to be signed as I-86, and a 10-mile stretch from I-81 to Exit 79. Another 9-mile stretch from I-84 to NY-17K was upgraded to interstate standards years ago and has I-86 signs, but those signs are covered until the FHWA authorizes NYSDOT to uncover them. From my perspective, the aforementioned stretch of NY-17 should be signed as I-86 now as it already meets interstate standards and it connects to another interstate (I-84), and therefore meets all the criteria for interstate designation.

It does make sense as those are the shorter segments that are compliant that hook into the rest of the Interstate Highway System.  At least in its NY Division, FHWA does not allow standalone segments that are not connected to other Interstates.

[Alps]

At least sign the Waverly-Binghamton portion so we don't have that awful gap when it suddenly reappears east of I-81 (not that the new signage on I-81 has the I-86 shields exposed anyway).

Is Waverly to Binghamton up to Interstate standards yet? If so, what's stopping them from officially designating it?

There was one project through there to bring it up to standards. I don't know if it's complete.

[sprjus4]

FHWA NY Division insists that NY 17 be brought up to Interstate standards consistently across its length before I-86 can be designated.

Which makes absolutely no sense since the FHWA allowed almost the entire western section from PA to Waverly to be signed as I-86, and a 10-mile stretch from I-81 to Exit 79. Another 9-mile stretch from I-84 to NY-17K was upgraded to interstate standards years ago and has I-86 signs, but those signs are covered until the FHWA authorizes NYSDOT to uncover them. From my perspective, the aforementioned stretch of NY-17 should be signed as I-86 now as it already meets interstate standards and it connects to another interstate (I-84), and therefore meets all the criteria for interstate designation.

It does make sense as those are the shorter segments that are compliant that hook into the rest of the Interstate Highway System.  At least in its NY Division, FHWA does not allow standalone segments that are not connected to other Interstates.

So why is the segment connected to I-84 not signed? It meets interstate standards and connects to another interstate highway (I-84).

[Rothman]

FHWA NY Division insists that NY 17 be brought up to Interstate standards consistently across its length before I-86 can be designated.

Which makes absolutely no sense since the FHWA allowed almost the entire western section from PA to Waverly to be signed as I-86, and a 10-mile stretch from I-81 to Exit 79. Another 9-mile stretch from I-84 to NY-17K was upgraded to interstate standards years ago and has I-86 signs, but those signs are covered until the FHWA authorizes NYSDOT to uncover them. From my perspective, the aforementioned stretch of NY-17 should be signed as I-86 now as it already meets interstate standards and it connects to another interstate (I-84), and therefore meets all the criteria for interstate designation.

It does make sense as those are the shorter segments that are compliant that hook into the rest of the Interstate Highway System.  At least in its NY Division, FHWA does not allow standalone segments that are not connected to other Interstates.

So why is the segment connected to I-84 not signed? It meets interstate standards and connects to another interstate highway (I-84).

You'd have to ask FHWA.

[cl94]

I don't know if NY even formally applied for the segment west of I-84. Regardless. I don't expect any changes on that front until the Orange County improvement/widening project is complete. Once that is, you'll have anywhere from 25 to ~70 miles of continuous Interstate-grade freeway depending on how far west they send that project (study area was well into Sullivan). Assuming it goes well into Sullivan, the main thing remaining would be Hale Eddy.

[english si]

Put the text "I-86" in a NY touring route shield.

or this approach to interstate gaps that aren't to interstate standards

[Jim]

Put the text "I-86" in a NY touring route shield.

or this approach to interstate gaps that aren't to interstate standards

Yes, this.  Isn't the point of the numbering to help drivers navigate more easily?  How is it better in that respect to have the I-86 designation appear and disappear along the way when it's a perfectly functional, continuous highway.  Sure, switch from I-86 to Future I-86 to "To I-86" as appropriate to satisfy the keepers of the standards, but a driver should be able to go end to end following signs that say some flavor of "I-86".

[empirestate]

Put the text "I-86" in a NY touring route shield.

or this approach to interstate gaps that aren't to interstate standards

Yes, this.  Isn't the point of the numbering to help drivers navigate more easily?  How is it better in that respect to have the I-86 designation appear and disappear along the way when it's a perfectly functional, continuous highway.  Sure, switch from I-86 to Future I-86 to "To I-86" as appropriate to satisfy the keepers of the standards, but a driver should be able to go end to end following signs that say some flavor of "I-86".

Or "NY 17", if we adopt the current thinking that the Interstate designation isn't as all-important as was once thought.

[sprjus4]

Put the text "I-86" in a NY touring route shield.

or this approach to interstate gaps that aren't to interstate standards

Yes, this.  Isn't the point of the numbering to help drivers navigate more easily?  How is it better in that respect to have the I-86 designation appear and disappear along the way when it's a perfectly functional, continuous highway.  Sure, switch from I-86 to Future I-86 to "To I-86" as appropriate to satisfy the keepers of the standards, but a driver should be able to go end to end following signs that say some flavor of "I-86".

Or "NY 17", if we adopt the current thinking that the Interstate designation isn't as all-important as was once thought.

That would make no sense to demote a long distance interstate highway back to a state route.

[empirestate]

Put the text "I-86" in a NY touring route shield.

or this approach to interstate gaps that aren't to interstate standards

Yes, this.  Isn't the point of the numbering to help drivers navigate more easily?  How is it better in that respect to have the I-86 designation appear and disappear along the way when it's a perfectly functional, continuous highway.  Sure, switch from I-86 to Future I-86 to "To I-86" as appropriate to satisfy the keepers of the standards, but a driver should be able to go end to end following signs that say some flavor of "I-86".

Or "NY 17", if we adopt the current thinking that the Interstate designation isn't as all-important as was once thought.

That would make no sense to demote a long distance interstate highway back to a state route.

Right, nor would it make sense to promote only pieces of the state route to Interstate status. So if full promotion is off the table, then does the demotion better solves the stated problem: "Isn't the point of the numbering to help drivers navigate more easily?"

[cl94]

Put the text "I-86" in a NY touring route shield.

or this approach to interstate gaps that aren't to interstate standards

Yes, this.  Isn't the point of the numbering to help drivers navigate more easily?  How is it better in that respect to have the I-86 designation appear and disappear along the way when it's a perfectly functional, continuous highway.  Sure, switch from I-86 to Future I-86 to "To I-86" as appropriate to satisfy the keepers of the standards, but a driver should be able to go end to end following signs that say some flavor of "I-86".

Or "NY 17", if we adopt the current thinking that the Interstate designation isn't as all-important as was once thought.

That would make no sense to demote a long distance interstate highway back to a state route.

Right, nor would it make sense to promote only pieces of the state route to Interstate status. So if full promotion is off the table, then does the demotion better solves the stated problem: "Isn't the point of the numbering to help drivers navigate more easily?"

As it is, the local name for the entire road is "Route 17". Very few people actually refer to it as "I-86".

[vdeane]

Honestly, if it were up to me, there wouldn't be short pieces designated outside of the main section from I-90 to US 220, but that ship has sailed.  IIRC, the story that used to be passed around roadgeek circles is that the reason the part east of Binghamton got signed is because the sign covers on I-81's guide signs kept falling off.  I'm not really a fan of how NC handles I-26 because it basically disincentivize actually upgrading the route to an interstate (as such signage makes the route virtually indistinguishable anyways).  Just look at how long the I-26 status quo has lasted.  It seems to be the corridor they are least interested in, despite it being one of the oldest excluding the ones in the original system.  I do not believe that to be a coincidence, given that very few non-roadeeks would be able to tell where I-26 ends and "future 26" begins.  Of course, I tend to be obsessed with the network of blue lines displayed on Travel Mapping, which I think is safe to say a concern exclusive to the hobby (and which doesn't seem to be shared even with most roadgeeks, if we're being honest).

I don't know if NY even formally applied for the segment west of I-84. Regardless. I don't expect any changes on that front until the Orange County improvement/widening project is complete. Once that is, you'll have anywhere from 25 to ~70 miles of continuous Interstate-grade freeway depending on how far west they send that project (study area was well into Sullivan). Assuming it goes well into Sullivan, the main thing remaining would be Hale Eddy.

Yes, this.  While it's fairly safe to say given the signage that was installed that the intent was to sign a short piece as I-86 there, it's worth noting that the project there was completed around the same time Cuomo effectively cancelled the remainder of the I-86 upgrade.  And now that Hochul's revived (part of) it, the big push is widening in Orange County and possibly Sullivan County as well, and it's been more than a decade with the shields covered, so there's no push to designate this short piece when there's a good chance that work will soon obsolete the signage anyways (note that the covered signs include end signs at both NY 17K and I-84).

[webny99]

Worth noting that "Future I-99" signs are in use on US 15 in northern PA, despite the fact that it could be decades before I-99 is officially connected and designated there.

I don't see why something similar couldn't be done for the Hale Eddy portion of I-86. Of course, the powers that be would probably have to have a plan to bring it to interstate standards before that could happen, so a "future" designation might not be viable until we get that.

[cl94]

TBH, if they're never going to do Hale Eddy (why bother?), just designate what gets upgraded on the east end as I-387 (987 if you want to minimize duplication) or I-584 if people insist on a signed I-designation and call it a day.

[vdeane]

I get the feeling Hale Eddy is a lot like things like the remainder of A-30 in Québec - likely to not happen any time soon if ever, but cold happen if it became a priority of a future government (I could honestly see a future governor wanting to be the one to say they built I-86 if that became the last project - similar to how Cuomo got with exit 3).  At least if the full section Hochul is pushing gets done along with that last project west of I-81, we'd have two large I-86 sections and a small piece of lightly traveled NY 17 in between.

Worth noting that "Future I-99" signs are in use on US 15 in northern PA, despite the fact that it could be decades before I-99 is officially connected and designated there.

I don't see why something similar couldn't be done for the Hale Eddy portion of I-86. Of course, the powers that be would probably have to have a plan to bring it to interstate standards before that could happen, so a "future" designation might not be viable until we get that.

Last I checked, the I-99 signage is stuff like this periodically posted similar to memorial highway names and the like (incidentally, NY 17 at least used to have signage like that for future I-86).  Not like NC, which signs it as prominently as a regular interstate designation, just with "future" in place of "interstate" or as a banner.

[Roadgeek Adam]

The widening project (strongly supported by Schumer) would indeed cover most of the territory listed here. Most of the rest of the road outside of Hale Eddy meets standards. Note that modern Interstate standards still allow for lower design standards in mountainous regions, which Hancock-Roscoe is close to meeting. A few improvements are necessary, but these are pretty minor compared to everything else.

TBH, nothing between Windsor and Roscoe really needs an upgrade. It serves the traffic it gets just fine and there's a legitimate argument to be made that upgrading Hale Eddy might kill what remains of it. See how everything in Parksville closed after the bypass opened.

It would. The Parksville bypass in retrospect was an incredible waste of money.

[webny99]

TBH, if they're never going to do Hale Eddy (why bother?), just designate what gets upgraded on the east end as I-387 (987 if you want to minimize duplication) or I-584 if people insist on a signed I-designation and call it a day.

I think I'd rather just leave the section west of Binghamton as NY 17 than add another 3di to the mix.