Cars Kill, So Why Are We Adding More of Them to Route 17?

The New York State Department of Transportation wants your feedback on their plans to (finally) convert Route 17 to Interstate 86. Here's why adding a third lane will backfire on all of us.

Since Memorial Day is the unofficial beginning of Summer, this week I want to focus on some of the challenges we are going to face as it gets hotter outside.

2023 was the hottest Summer ever recorded. 2024 is likely to be hotter.

And that hot temperature can kill.

So, yesterday, I told you about the New York State Democrats and their plan to derail a bill that would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions through land preservation.

Today, we’re going to take a look at the Route 17 to Interstate 86 conversion project.

The public comment period for the NYS Route 17 Mobility & Access Improvement Project ends tomorrow, May 30th.

You can email your comments to Rt17MobilityAccess@dot.ny.gov or visit this website to share your thoughts with the NYS Department of Transportation.

There are four-ish options being presented to the public as part of this project to finish the conversion of Route 17 to Interstate 86. Something that’s been in the works since the late ‘90s. You can see all four described in the video below.

In Brief:

1. No Build / Do Nothing. This isn’t really an option if we want to complete the conversion, but it’s a possibility due to the cost (an estimated $117M, as projected in 2002, which means it’ll cost around $203M in today’s dollars to do ALL of the following, including adding the third lane.)

2. Address traffic and safety concerns between Exit 113 in Sullivan County and I-87 in Orange County. NO third lane added.

3. Address those safety concerns AND add a part-time third lane that would only be available during peak traffic hours. (Note: It’s not clear what the peak hours would be from the above DOT video.)

4. Address the concerns AND add a full-time third lane between Exist 113 and Exit 131.

I’m going to share with you my email, which picks Option 2 (no third lane, but doing the safety improvements). This will sound counterintuitive, but as you’ll see, the logic and data suggests it’s sound.

You can copy and paste it to send to the NYS DOT if you agree.

And if you disagree, I encourage you to email the DOT just the same and share your opinion.

This project will impact everyone.

So, it’s important for you to speak up.

Here’s my letter:

Email: Rt17MobilityAccess@dot.ny.gov

Subject: No Third Lane, Add Mass Transit Option

Body:

Dear Members of the NYS Route 17 Mobility & Access Improvements Project Team,

During the Public Scoping Meetings held in May of 2024, you presented four options to the public concerning the conversion of Route 17 to Interstate 86.

Those four options were: No build, make safety improvements but not add a third lane, make those safety improvements and add a part-time third lane, or make safety improvements and add a full-time third lane.

I am writing in support of option two.

This would not add a third lane to Route 17 for cars, but make the necessary changes to improve safety for travelers on that road which involve interchange improvements and operational improvements.

These include:

1. Adding Collector-Distributor Roads from Exit 120-122, Exit 122A-124.

2. Adding Auxiliary lanes from Exit 130 and 130A.

I believe the auxiliary lanes and collector-distributor roads will improve traffic flow as well as reduce the risk of traffic accidents.

I am opposed to adding a third lane for cars, whether it be part-time or full-time for the following reasons:

1. Adding a third lane would create more traffic, not less, because of a phenomenon called “Induced Demand.” In short, adding a third lane would only temporarily relieve traffic congestion, but over time, generate the same kind of traffic congestion that the third lane was meant to stop.

2. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, greenhouse gases contribute to climate change, and pollutants from vehicles produce not only more greenhouse gas, but also harmful byproducts like nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, benzene, and formaldehyde. In addition, vehicles emit carbon dioxide, the most common human-caused greenhouse gas. The air quality in Orange County, for example, has already been cited by the EPA for needing improvement. Adding more cars to the road will not help in the county’s efforts to improve the air quality for all residents.

Finally, I am requesting the Department of Transportation consider inclusion of mass transit as part of the scoping phase of this project.

While electric vehicles are admirable, they do not help in the overall goal of having fewer cars on the road. The battery manufacturing process, while not as dangerous environmentally as the oil industry, for example, still pose its own heavy environmental risk because of their reliance on lithium extraction.

Orange County also lacks the critical infrastructure for residents to charge their electric vehicles.

For example, there are only ten charging stations according to the New York State Environmental Research and Development Authority. Three of which are located within Woodbury Common. Another is located within a nearby Mercedes Benz dealership. That leaves only six charging stations that are publicly accessible for a population of just over 400,000 residents. Not to mention, tens of thousands more who visit the region throughout the year.

The New York State DOT should absolutely consider inclusion of charging stations along the Route 17 / Interstate 86 corridor once the conversion is finished. But for now, the shared goal and vision we should all have is to get as many cars off the road as we can.

The total cost of adding a full-time third lane to Route 17/Interstate 86 — as well as making the additional recommended improvements — will cost roughly $203M.

For another $77M, Orange County could have fully function mass transit service provided by New Jersey Transit and Metro-North on the Port Jervis Line. The projected cost, according to the MTA, would be $277M for this to happen.

At the moment, Orange County does not have fully functional mass transit options beyond limited train service and Coach USA buses.

Due to the projected growth of the region, and the need for more housing throughout the state, it’s incumbent on the Department of Transportation and other agencies to plan now for the needs of future residents while scoping projects such as the conversion of Route 17 to Interstate 86. This must include suitable mass transit options up and down the Interstate 86 corridor from Jamestown to Woodbury.

Placing a functional mass transit option along Interstate 86 will allow environmentally sustainable communities, utilizing high density housing, to be constructed, lessening the need to have a car.

The best, most environmentally friendly option would be to add light-rail where the proposed third lane would go, connecting Exits 113 and 131, and potentially points beyond. A light-rail option running alongside cars will advertise itself as a better, cleaner, and healthier option for travelers while helping New York State meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.

If this is not possible, Orange County and Rockland County are both criss-crossed by numerous private train lines. I urge the DOT to connect with these private rail providers to explore the feasibility of adding passenger rail service to them and connected that passenger rail with the overall infrastructure improvements being made to Route 17. There is at least one rail line, operated by New York Susquehanna & Western Railway Corp, that connects Orange County and Sullivan County much in the same way Route 17 / Interstate 86 does.

As you work to complete the conversion of Route 17 to Interstate 86, I encourage you to keep the environmental consequences of your decision front and center.

Thank you for your time.

(Your name here.)