News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

US-15 / Future I-99 Mileposts

Started by Beltway, September 16, 2017, 11:11:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sparker

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2017, 04:20:59 PM
US 15 between Williamsport and the PA/NY border will likely be signed as Interstate 99 eventually. We may have to live with the fact that Interstate 99 will likely always remain discontinuous.

As this section connects at both ends to Interstates (180, 86), it's probably a lock for I-99 signage within the next few years.  Just put "TO I-99" signage (enough to signal continuity) on US 220 SW of Williamsport and along I-80 between the two (future) I-99 interchanges, and be done with it until funds to actually effect an Interstate-grade connection are identified & apportioned. 

And -- I still think Rochester-area interests, once the PA segment is signed, will put pressure on NYDOT (and/or their local congressfolks) to renumber I-390 as I-99 (for the same reasons cities in other regions want a 2di serving their region).   


Roadgeek Adam

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2017, 04:20:59 PM
US 15 between Williamsport and the PA/NY border will likely be signed as Interstate 99 eventually. We may have to live with the fact that Interstate 99 will likely always remain discontinuous.

That's fine. There is no reason to do anything else. The better solution is to abandon I-99 in NY.
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University 2015-17
B.A. History, Montclair State University 2013-15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex (County) College 2009-13

Beltway

Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 21, 2017, 05:09:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2017, 04:20:59 PM
US 15 between Williamsport and the PA/NY border will likely be signed as Interstate 99 eventually. We may have to live with the fact that Interstate 99 will likely always remain discontinuous.
That's fine. There is no reason to do anything else. The better solution is to abandon I-99 in NY.

No reason why they can't sign what they have now (Bedford to I-80 and I-180 to NY state) and then build the middle section when they can in the future.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Roadgeek Adam

Why? Why can't it just be 220? Why do we need to build a freeway over this section?
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University 2015-17
B.A. History, Montclair State University 2013-15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex (County) College 2009-13

Alps

Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 21, 2017, 06:11:37 PM
Why? Why can't it just be 220? Why do we need to build a freeway over this section?
You know, regardless of traffic counts, it does have a reputation as a dangerous stretch of roadway.

Beltway

Quote from: Alps on September 21, 2017, 07:59:08 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 21, 2017, 06:11:37 PM
Why? Why can't it just be 220? Why do we need to build a freeway over this section?
You know, regardless of traffic counts, it does have a reputation as a dangerous stretch of roadway.

About 70% of it (between I-80 Exit 178 and I-180) is already built to freeway standards.  The rest of it should be built eventually, even if it takes 10 to 20 years to allocate the funding.

It took forever (over 40 years each) to build the other two segments of I-99, but they finally did it, and it is very good, and those are very long-lived improvements, probably be adequate for several decades into the future.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sparker

Quote from: Alps on September 21, 2017, 07:59:08 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 21, 2017, 06:11:37 PM
Why? Why can't it just be 220? Why do we need to build a freeway over this section?
You know, regardless of traffic counts, it does have a reputation as a dangerous stretch of roadway.

When I was through there late in 2001, I seem to recall a lot of "blind" side-road entrances on the full-access divided segment between PA 287 and Williamsport; a cursory look on today's GE seems to bear that out.  There was a substantial level of traffic even back then; with the completion of the freeway segment north of Williamsport and the extension of I-99 north to I-80 as "feeders", the situation is probably worse than before (if anyone more local than myself wants to chime in here with better info, please do so!).

briantroutman

^ Williamsport's my hometown and I'm very familiar with all of the roads in that area–including that stretch of US 220. Yes, there are numerous driveways and side roads in the non-freeway section that, in many cases, connect only to 220 and have no other outlet. And traffic volume is already higher in this area than in several other sections of the Susquehanna Beltway that were constructed as a full freeway 30-40 years ago.

I'll quote here from something I posted in another US 220-related thread last year:

Quote from: briantroutman on March 13, 2016, 12:04:55 AM
PennDOT's most recent traffic volume map for Lycoming County shows the gap between Jersey Shore and Williamsport ranging from 24,000 at Pine Run Road to 29,000 at Quenshuckney Road. Those numbers are significantly higher than the AADTs for the 220 freeway from Jersey Shore to Mill Hall, which range from about 16-20K.

The challenge with upgrading the existing roadway is that there's nearly continuous low-density development–residential and commercial–along the entirety of the gap. In many cases, homes have been built on dead-end roads fanning out from 220 leaving them completely cut off except for that single access point. With Jersey Shore/Lock Haven on one end and Williamsport on the other, there's inherently a significant volume of local traffic pulling out across multiple lanes of high-speed traffic or making U-turns in both directions and conflicting with an also significant volume of through traffic.

Beltway

Quote from: briantroutman on September 21, 2017, 11:38:14 PM
^ Williamsport's my hometown and I'm very familiar with all of the roads in that area–including that stretch of US 220. Yes, there are numerous driveways and side roads in the non-freeway section that, in many cases, connect only to 220 and have no other outlet. And traffic volume is already higher in this area than in several other sections of the Susquehanna Beltway that were constructed as a full freeway 30-40 years ago.

The main reason may be that the freeway segments are a bypass of the original US-220 and PA-147, and the original highway remains and still handles a considerable portion of the traffic.

Whereas this 4-lane nonlimited-access segment between Jersey Shore and Williamsport handles all the local and thru traffic on US-220.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sparker

Quote from: briantroutman on September 21, 2017, 11:38:14 PM
^ Williamsport's my hometown and I'm very familiar with all of the roads in that area–including that stretch of US 220. Yes, there are numerous driveways and side roads in the non-freeway section that, in many cases, connect only to 220 and have no other outlet. And traffic volume is already higher in this area than in several other sections of the Susquehanna Beltway that were constructed as a full freeway 30-40 years ago.

I'll quote here from something I posted in another US 220-related thread last year:

Quote from: briantroutman on March 13, 2016, 12:04:55 AM
PennDOT's most recent traffic volume map for Lycoming County shows the gap between Jersey Shore and Williamsport ranging from 24,000 at Pine Run Road to 29,000 at Quenshuckney Road. Those numbers are significantly higher than the AADTs for the 220 freeway from Jersey Shore to Mill Hall, which range from about 16-20K.

The challenge with upgrading the existing roadway is that there's nearly continuous low-density development–residential and commercial–along the entirety of the gap. In many cases, homes have been built on dead-end roads fanning out from 220 leaving them completely cut off except for that single access point. With Jersey Shore/Lock Haven on one end and Williamsport on the other, there's inherently a significant volume of local traffic pulling out across multiple lanes of high-speed traffic or making U-turns in both directions and conflicting with an also significant volume of through traffic.

Sounds like the completion of the freeway will require deployment of numerous frontage roads as well; of course, this will only add to the expense of the project.  I wouldn't be surprised to see some new-terrain mileage contained in upgrade plans, along with a lot of relatively narrow ROW (with close to absolute minimum inner shoulders, a K-rail, and the usual 10-ft outers) where the facility overlays the current alignment.  This won't be an easy build -- and it'll certainly be locally disruptive!  This is likely a long-term project at best.

Alps

Plans have been published for this stretch, and the leading contender was a bypass close to the west.

briantroutman

There had been a project website at susquehannabeltway.com, and though the site was indexed by archive.org, all of the map images are missing. I must have looked at them when they were current (about 13 years ago), but I don't recall any details now.

I did, however, come across a Lycoming County Planning Commission report on land use that included a map of that area with a strip of land shaded to show Alignment 2a2 of the missing Susquehanna Beltway link. I have to think that this was the "preferred alternative" .

According to the map, the freeway would have veered to the north of the existing alignment at the site of the current at-grade intersection with PA 287. PA 287 would have been realigned to the east to intersect with the freeway at an interchange just east of Larrys Creek. East of there, the new freeway would then generally parallel the existing road to the north, but the new alignment would gradually converge with the old alignment as it approached Quenshuckney Road. Then at that point, the freeway would be built essentially on top of the old road with additional right of way being taken from the south side, leaving the homes on the north side mostly untouched.

The plans also appeared to include an interchange about halfway between PA 287 and Fourth Street. The map's title refers to a "Pine Run Interchange" , and though there's a Pine Run Road in the vicinity, the shaded area seems to suggest that the interchange would be a diamond connecting to a new perpendicular access road linking the old and new alignments just east of the Harvest Moon Restaurant and Port Drive-In theater.


sparker

Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2017, 12:57:56 AM
There had been a project website at susquehannabeltway.com, and though the site was indexed by archive.org, all of the map images are missing. I must have looked at them when they were current (about 13 years ago), but I don't recall any details now.

I did, however, come across a Lycoming County Planning Commission report on land use that included a map of that area with a strip of land shaded to show Alignment 2a2 of the missing Susquehanna Beltway link. I have to think that this was the "preferred alternative" .

According to the map, the freeway would have veered to the north of the existing alignment at the site of the current at-grade intersection with PA 287. PA 287 would have been realigned to the east to intersect with the freeway at an interchange just east of Larrys Creek. East of there, the new freeway would then generally parallel the existing road to the north, but the new alignment would gradually converge with the old alignment as it approached Quenshuckney Road. Then at that point, the freeway would be built essentially on top of the old road with additional right of way being taken from the south side, leaving the homes on the north side mostly untouched.

The plans also appeared to include an interchange about halfway between PA 287 and Fourth Street. The map's title refers to a "Pine Run Interchange" , and though there's a Pine Run Road in the vicinity, the shaded area seems to suggest that the interchange would be a diamond connecting to a new perpendicular access road linking the old and new alignments just east of the Harvest Moon Restaurant and Port Drive-In theater.



Are the plans themselves tentative -- or even shelved for the time being? -- or are they in an "active but awaiting funding ID" mode -- i.e., has a definitive corridor alignment been selected since these maps were published circa 2004 or so?  If the "target year" is 2025 for a 2004 document -- and nothing has progressed since then, it seems like everything would be delayed by the time passage of 13 years -- making the new "target" 2038!  If that is indeed the case, then once I-99 is signed north of Williamsport, if I were PennDOT, I'd simply do the rational (and cheapest) thing and put a bunch of "TO I-99" signs along both I-80 and US 220, along with corresponding signage of all 3 interchanges involved. (the 2 along I-80 and the I-180 interchange in Williamsport).  That should take care of I-99 "virtual" continuity for the next 21 years.

qguy

Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2017, 12:57:56 AMI have to think that this was the "preferred alternative" .



This was indeed the preferred alignment. I was working at PennDOT District 6 at the time and remember it quite well. District 3 had just identified the preferred alignment and was preparing to forge ahead with the remainder of the process of constructing that missing segment of the freeway when Governor Rendell halted the entire project.

Incidentally, this was at the same time that he halted all work on the project to construct the missing freeway segment of US 322 between State College and Potter's Mills–mere weeks prior to that district identifying it's preferred alignment there. It was part of a larger shut-down of projects across the state by the governor.

PennDOT officials in both districts were furious. They were eager to fix the huge safety issues that both roadways represented in their respective districts, but were told to stand down.

Since the preferred alignment for this segment of US 220 was identified, the plans are, as you say, sitting on the shelf and waiting to be dusted off. Of course, that's doing no favors for property values along the north side of the project area.

sparker

Quote from: qguy on September 22, 2017, 06:25:28 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2017, 12:57:56 AMI have to think that this was the "preferred alternative" .



This was indeed the preferred alignment. I was working at PennDOT District 6 at the time and remember it quite well. District 3 had just identified the preferred alignment and was preparing to forge ahead with the remainder of the process of constructing that missing segment of the freeway when Governor Rendell halted the entire project.

Incidentally, this was at the same time that he halted all work on the project to construct the missing freeway segment of US 322 between State College and Potter's Mills–mere weeks prior to that district identifying it's preferred alignment there. It was part of a larger shut-down of projects across the state by the governor.

PennDOT officials in both districts were furious. They were eager to fix the huge safety issues that both roadways represented in their respective districts, but were told to stand down.

Since the preferred alignment for this segment of US 220 was identified, the plans are, as you say, sitting on the shelf and waiting to be dusted off. Of course, that's doing no favors for property values along the north side of the project area.

Sounds like Rendell stole the idea from the Brown/Gianturco regime in CA 1975-83 -- just don't fund any projects not already underway.  But in CA, at least the successor administrations attempted to step up the highway program to, if not make up for the 8 lost years, at least set a tone for the future -- although Brown's successor, Deukmejian, was a notorious tightwad, electing to "carry over" some the B/G "economies" regarding project scale and/or capacity.  Also, that was, of course, a period of higher-than-normal inflation; the 8-year delay meant that some projects were relegated to the back burner because they simply cost too much after 1983.

IIRC, Rendell's "schtick" was simply to shift highway funds over to urban transit (primarily in SE PA), regardless of the origin or stated purpose of any specific funding arrangements.  (note to PA locals: this is the impression I've gotten from gleaning several accounts of the Rendell years.....if I'm either overstating or understating the situation, feel free to correct me).  In any case, the CA approach was a bit more subtle than that -- cancel selected projects, sell off any properties accumulated in the preliminary stages of said projects, and back-burner most of the rest (except for Interstate projects -- primarily in the San Diego/Inland Empire areas and mostly related to the 1968 I-15 extension; even Brown & Gianturco weren't about to jeopardize the 90% chargeable federal portion!). 

02 Park Ave

The 2017 Pennsylvania Tourism and Transportation Map, published by PENNDOT, identifies the portion of I-99 in New York as only being US 15.
C-o-H

Beltway

Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 04, 2017, 01:28:43 PM
The 2017 Pennsylvania Tourism and Transportation Map, published by PENNDOT, identifies the portion of I-99 in New York as only being US 15.

The Future I-99 signs are still posted on the highway.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

kkt

Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2017, 12:57:56 AM
There had been a project website at susquehannabeltway.com, and though the site was indexed by archive.org, all of the map images are missing.

The images were probably all on Photobucket.  :(



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.