Construction on US 220 north of I-80 - UPDATE 10/14

[CobaltYoshi27]

Forget the Rochester pipedream. I'm more interested in when they might convert the two future Interstate 99 junctions with Interstate 80 to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.

We'll be lucky to see the first interchange finally get built in the next 15 years. Nothing's going to happen with the northern one for a long, long time (if ever).

While I-83 to Rochester would be nice...

Ftfy

As for the rest of your comment, I'd rather see I-99 extended to Cumberland than to even Williamsport. I-68 to I-80 is fine, IMO

I think the North is being worked on first: New York has pretty much completed their segment of I-99.

[AMLNet49]

Forget the Rochester pipedream. I'm more interested in when they might convert the two future Interstate 99 junctions with Interstate 80 to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.

We'll be lucky to see the first interchange finally get built in the next 15 years. Nothing's going to happen with the northern one for a long, long time (if ever).

While I-83 to Rochester would be nice...

Ftfy

As for the rest of your comment, I'd rather see I-99 extended to Cumberland than to even Williamsport. I-68 to I-80 is fine, IMO

I think the North is being worked on first: New York has pretty much completed their segment of I-99.

Why is I-99 not signed on the Pennsylvania side of the state line until limited access ends? Because as currently composed I-99 as a complete route is almost unfollowable and useless.

[roadman65]

If they ever do finish I-99 is anyone ever going to travel it from end to end?  The way I see it the road will have two sets of users.   Ones going from Bedford to Williamsport (the US 220 users), and the US 15 users will use the other part.  Is there that many traveling between US 220 north and US 15 north in Williamsport?

[CobaltYoshi27]

Forget the Rochester pipedream. I'm more interested in when they might convert the two future Interstate 99 junctions with Interstate 80 to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.

We'll be lucky to see the first interchange finally get built in the next 15 years. Nothing's going to happen with the northern one for a long, long time (if ever).

While I-83 to Rochester would be nice...

Ftfy

As for the rest of your comment, I'd rather see I-99 extended to Cumberland than to even Williamsport. I-68 to I-80 is fine, IMO

I think the North is being worked on first: New York has pretty much completed their segment of I-99.

Why is I-99 not signed on the Pennsylvania side of the state line until limited access ends? Because as currently composed I-99 as a complete route is almost unfollowable and useless.

I wouldn't say useless. It does give access to central PA, including Penn State University and the town of Altoona, and is a good substitute for I-81 or I-79 if you want to go from I-80 to I-76 or vice versa.

[AMLNet49]

Forget the Rochester pipedream. I'm more interested in when they might convert the two future Interstate 99 junctions with Interstate 80 to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.

We'll be lucky to see the first interchange finally get built in the next 15 years. Nothing's going to happen with the northern one for a long, long time (if ever).

While I-83 to Rochester would be nice...

Ftfy

As for the rest of your comment, I'd rather see I-99 extended to Cumberland than to even Williamsport. I-68 to I-80 is fine, IMO

I think the North is being worked on first: New York has pretty much completed their segment of I-99.

Why is I-99 not signed on the Pennsylvania side of the state line until limited access ends? Because as currently composed I-99 as a complete route is almost unfollowable and useless.

I wouldn't say useless. It does give access to central PA, including Penn State University and the town of Altoona, and is a good substitute for I-81 or I-79 if you want to go from I-80 to I-76 or vice versa.

But I meant as a complete route (Turnpike to I-86). If the section north of Williamsport was signed, you would have a mostly complete route with one glaring incomplete section. The way it is signed now, it is basically a regional route through central PA plus what is essentially an unrelated stub in New York.

Fixed quote. - rmf67

[Duke87]

I think PA really only wanted the road between Bedford and State College and upgrades to US 15.  As soon as that was accomplished, all interest in I-99 appeared to vanish.

Sensibly so, because the upgrades to 220 which would be required to give it an interstate designation are not necessary. The only remaining upgrade in PA that really makes sense to build is a proper interchange between 99 and 80.

That said, Bob Shuster leaving congress may have also contributed to waning interest. Seeing as it was his pet project to begin with.

[Alps]

I think PA really only wanted the road between Bedford and State College and upgrades to US 15.  As soon as that was accomplished, all interest in I-99 appeared to vanish.

Sensibly so, because the upgrades to 220 which would be required to give it an interstate designation are not necessary. The only remaining upgrade in PA that really makes sense to build is a proper interchange between 99 and 80.

That said, Bob Shuster leaving congress may have also contributed to waning interest. Seeing as it was his pet project to begin with.

Disagree. Getting rid of the at-grades between I-80 and Williamsport is a really good idea. Some of them are around curves and driveways on a high-speed multilane road are always preferable to avoid. The issue is finding the money for a proper freeway through there.

[ixnay]

I never said they were the panacea for economic development. Sure, they help, but they alone won't do anything without businesses and workers.

Which is a shame, because Cumberland is a pretty big town in Maryland in need of commerce, and I-99 would help it tremendously.

You effectively said it here.

Case in point, has US 6 in PA (and to some degree, US 6N) been pulling in big business since they unveiled 800 milemarkers (2 directions of 400) denoting the Do 6 program? I care to disagree.

I was under the distinct impression (especially after receiving comments on it from Jeff Kitsko when it came out) that "Do 6" was put in for tourism reasons and not for "economic development".  Nevermind that they're actual milemarkers which IMO should have been added anyway.

PennDOT being creative, turning U.S. 6 into PA's version of the Overseas Highway or NC 12.  I wish the "Do 6" corridor luck.

ixnay

[Mr_Northside]

If they ever do finish I-99 is anyone ever going to travel it from end to end?  The way I see it the road will have two sets of users.   Ones going from Bedford to Williamsport (the US 220 users), and the US 15 users will use the other part.  Is there that many traveling between US 220 north and US 15 north in Williamsport?

Not that myself and my family count as any useful data, but every couple of years we'll use the stretch between Altoona (@US-22) and Corning/Painted Post to get to that area of the New York Southern Tier region.

[Alps]

I never said they were the panacea for economic development. Sure, they help, but they alone won't do anything without businesses and workers.

Which is a shame, because Cumberland is a pretty big town in Maryland in need of commerce, and I-99 would help it tremendously.

You effectively said it here.

Case in point, has US 6 in PA (and to some degree, US 6N) been pulling in big business since they unveiled 800 milemarkers (2 directions of 400) denoting the Do 6 program? I care to disagree.

I was under the distinct impression (especially after receiving comments on it from Jeff Kitsko when it came out) that "Do 6" was put in for tourism reasons and not for "economic development".  Nevermind that they're actual milemarkers which IMO should have been added anyway.

PennDOT being creative, turning U.S. 6 into PA's version of the Overseas Highway or NC 12.  I wish the "Do 6" corridor luck.

ixnay

6 was a one night stand for me. After doing 6, I have no desire to even see it again.

[CentralPAGal]

How is it hard to put in a second bridge next to the first one?

From what I'm gathering, the layout of the interchange does not leave enough space for a parallel bridge without substantial changes.

[Duke87]

Disagree. Getting rid of the at-grades between I-80 and Williamsport is a really good idea. Some of them are around curves and driveways on a high-speed multilane road are always preferable to avoid. The issue is finding the money for a proper freeway through there.

Fair enough. I'm looking at this from a traffic volume perspective. From a safety perspective, you have a point.

Still, is an interstate-standard freeway really necessary to solve all of the safety issues? There are plenty of expressway grade roads out there that aren't problematic from a safety perspective.

[Alps]

Disagree. Getting rid of the at-grades between I-80 and Williamsport is a really good idea. Some of them are around curves and driveways on a high-speed multilane road are always preferable to avoid. The issue is finding the money for a proper freeway through there.

Fair enough. I'm looking at this from a traffic volume perspective. From a safety perspective, you have a point.

Still, is an interstate-standard freeway really necessary to solve all of the safety issues? There are plenty of expressway grade roads out there that aren't problematic from a safety perspective.

I see AADT of about 10K at Pine Run. That could be a WV style "freeway".

[hbelkins]

I've driven the entire I-99 corridor (Cumberland to Corning) at least twice. Would have done it at least a couple times more if not for taking alternate routes to clinch highways or collect counties.

To me, the US 220/I-99/I-80 corridor is preferable to the I-68/I-70/I-81 corridor if one is going from Cumberland ,to a point that requires passing through the I-80/I-81 interchange.

[briantroutman]

Disagree. Getting rid of the at-grades between I-80 and Williamsport is a really good idea. Some of them are around curves and driveways on a high-speed multilane road are always preferable to avoid. The issue is finding the money for a proper freeway through there.

Fair enough. I'm looking at this from a traffic volume perspective. From a safety perspective, you have a point.

Still, is an interstate-standard freeway really necessary to solve all of the safety issues? There are plenty of expressway grade roads out there that aren't problematic from a safety perspective.

I see AADT of about 10K at Pine Run. That could be a WV style "freeway".

I'm not sure where you're getting that 10K number. 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.

[Alps]

Disagree. Getting rid of the at-grades between I-80 and Williamsport is a really good idea. Some of them are around curves and driveways on a high-speed multilane road are always preferable to avoid. The issue is finding the money for a proper freeway through there.

Fair enough. I'm looking at this from a traffic volume perspective. From a safety perspective, you have a point.

Still, is an interstate-standard freeway really necessary to solve all of the safety issues? There are plenty of expressway grade roads out there that aren't problematic from a safety perspective.

I see AADT of about 10K at Pine Run. That could be a WV style "freeway".

I'm not sure where you're getting that 10K number. 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.

I looked up AADT and got it from a random source. So I yield to better sources. At over 20K I would say a freeway can be justified. Dead ends will require frontage roads.

[Duke87]

I looked up AADT and got it from a random source. So I yield to better sources. At over 20K I would say a freeway can be justified. Dead ends will require frontage roads.

Look not at the dead ends but at all of the driveways leading directly out onto 220. Lots of buildings fairly close to the road. Then look at Larrys Creek where there is development IN the median.

I don't see PennDOT transforming that into a freeway along the existing alignment. It would cause much less community disruption to bypass it. Although, a northerly bypass would require cutting a lot of hills up, and a southerly bypass would require crossing the river at least twice, possibly four times, to achieve the "avoid community disruption" goal.

Hence why I argue an interstate-grade freeway through there would not be worth it. If there were an easy path of little resistance to build one along, I'd say sure, go for it. But there isn't, and the corridor is in close proximity to a river (part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed!). So, any freeway to close the gap there would be expensive both due to the technical challenges and due to the environmental mitigation measures that would be required. Seems like an awful waste for a road that is not known for suffering from any congestion issues in its current state.

[hbelkins]

This is a bit reminiscent of the discussion about widening the Mountain Parkway along the KY 114 extension. The two proposals are to widen along the existing route, with a few minor relocations. This would create a whole bunch of at-grade intersections along the four-lane route, but it wouldn't be up to interstate standards. The other option is to build a full freeway on a new alignment. The new alignment option is only marginally more expensive than using the existing alignment due to the number of right of way purchases and relocations that would have to be made. The terrain there is similar to that between Salyersville and Prestonsburg. It's entirely possible that the cost of a new-terrain alignment might be close to using the existing US 220.

[briantroutman]

As I recall, PennDOT was considering a few freeway alignment alternatives around 2002-2003, all of which paralleled the existing 220 either to the north or south. The Internet Archive shows that PennDOT's project website was active up until early 2004 when the incoming Biehler administration summarily canceled a number of projects in parts of the state unfriendly to Gov. Rendell (this project, CSVT, Capital Beltway improvements) while simultaneously launching a frantic effort to institute tolls on I-80.

In a Lycoming County regional planning report, I found some land use projection maps that all reference "Alignment 2a2" –which I have to assume was the preferred alternative before the project was idled. As you can see in the image below if you zoom in, Alignment 2a2 paralleled the existing 220 to the north with interchanges at PA 287 and Pine Run Road. The freeway right of way appears to merge with the old alignment at Quenshuckney Road, indicating that the freeway between Linden and Williamsport would be built on top of the old road, assumably with frontage roads for local traffic.

[briantroutman]

How is it hard to put in a second bridge next to the first one?

From what I'm gathering, the layout of the interchange does not leave enough space for a parallel bridge without substantial changes.

Last weekend, I managed to visit the new US 220 interchange with Fairground/Auction Road just north of I-80 and took some pictures. The northbound ramps seem to swing out artificially wide as if to leave room for a second parallel overpass for a future parallel carriageway. That said, unlike some other super 2s that have since been upgraded to four-lane freeways, the vicinity of the interchange has not been pre-graded for the second set of lanes.

(looking northward from US 220)


I was surprised by the tight geometry of the southbound looping off-ramp, which from an unscientific glance appeared closer to what you might expect from one of Pennsylvania's '50s-'60s-era junior expressways. Combined with the somewhat awkward grading just south of the new overpass (see the dip just before the bridge in the upper photo) leads me to believe that PennDOT is unsure of the exact alignment of the freeway between here and I-80 and will do some pretty significant reconfiguration of the road south of here when and if a freeway-freeway connection is made at I-80


(looking southward from Fairground Road)

[qguy]

As I recall, PennDOT was considering a few freeway alignment alternatives around 2002-2003, all of which paralleled the existing 220 either to the north or south. The Internet Archive shows that PennDOT's project website was active up until early 2004 when the incoming Biehler administration summarily canceled a number of projects in parts of the state unfriendly to Gov. Rendell (this project, CSVT, Capital Beltway improvements) while simultaneously launching a frantic effort to institute tolls on I-80.

In a Lycoming County regional planning report, I found some land use projection maps that all reference "Alignment 2a2" –which I have to assume was the preferred alternative before the project was idled. As you can see in the image below if you zoom in, Alignment 2a2 paralleled the existing 220 to the north with interchanges at PA 287 and Pine Run Road. The freeway right of way appears to merge with the old alignment at Quenshuckney Road, indicating that the freeway between Linden and Williamsport would be built on top of the old road, assumably with frontage roads for local traffic.

Yes, PennDOT's selected alignment was that route to the north of the current alignment, definitely not on the current alignment. When that project was indefinitely deferred by Governor Ed Rendell, PennDOT District 3 officials really felt like they had their legs kicked out from under them. Quite a lot of intensive planning had already gone into that project. They were quite angry at the time.

Rendell did the same thing to the project to upgrade the last remaining non-freeway portion of US 322 between State College and Potter's Mills. PennDOT District 2 officials were literally within one week of selecting an alternative when that project was cancelled. They were extremely frustrated as well.

Interestingly, the Potter's Mills segment of that project has finally been advanced and is now under construction. A freeway is being constructed from a new interchange at Poe Valley to the Potter's Mills area, including through Potter's Mills Gap. Here's the project link: http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-2/ConstructionsProjectsAndRoadwork/Pages/Potters_Mills_Gap_Transportation_Project.aspx

[74/171FAN]

Safety project planned on US 220 on the non-freeway section just west of Williamsport to start around 2019.  I am kinda surprised that if this portion is supposed to be part of future I-99 why the residents want traffic signals instead.

[Duke87]

Safety project planned on US 220 on the non-freeway section just west of Williamsport to start around 2019.  I am kinda surprised that if this portion is supposed to be part of future I-99 why the residents want traffic signals instead.

The residents want what they perceive to be safest.

I also would not assert that "this portion is supposed to be part of future I-99". PennDOT's proposed improvements to the road physically conflict with making it a full freeway. This would seem to indicate they have no current intention of completing I-99 through there.

[qguy]

As I mentioned in my previous post just up-thread, PennDOT's selected alignment for a freeway through this segment of the US 220 corridor is not on the current alignment of the roadway. So PennDOT can install all the signal lights it wants on the current roadway and it won't make it any more difficult to construct a freeway when the time comes.

[74/171FAN]

As I mentioned in my previous post just up-thread, PennDOT's selected alignment for a freeway through this segment of the US 220 corridor is not on the current alignment of the roadway. So PennDOT can install all the signal lights it wants on the current roadway and it won't make it any more difficult to construct a freeway when the time comes.

I think I just saw the part about Ed Rendell cancelling the project and making District 3 mad than actually reading the US 220 info.  I really have not heard anything about that part of future I-99 since I moved to PA though.  (I guess since the CSVT is the higher priority.)