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.