Why can't US 15 north of Williamsport, PA be signed as I-99.
Because I-83 is the correct number. :-P
I'm not entirely sure of the serious answer. Exits were numbered a year or so ago, so that's progress. Ditto for the 70 mph speed limit. My best guess would be that it's probably waiting on a redesign of the interchange with I-180/US 220, which could be any number of years down the road.
Because I-99 is the WORST interstate numbered in the United States! Could be like I-74 in North Carolina too, but whatever.
An I-x80 or I-x86 would possible work.
Quote from: webny99 on October 31, 2019, 08:42:05 PM
I'm not entirely sure of the serious answer. Exits were numbered a year or so ago, so that's progress. Ditto for the 70 mph speed limit. My best guess would be that it's probably waiting on a redesign of the interchange with I-180/US 220, which could be any number of years down the road.
It is a decent enough interchange between the two freeways.
Better than the westerly interchange between I-80 and 1/2 mile of PA-26 to I-99, and that segment of I-99 has been posted.
Controversial number aside and back to the original question, my not-a-highway-engineer eye did not notice anything that should prevent it from being a signed interstate highway when I drove it from Corning to Williamsport last week.
There is that one little blink-and-you-miss-it intersection with a dirt road (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4179881,-77.069299,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seDwpwQYKHrpnf7larRlcCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in the Steam Valley section that was built around 1970.
But yes, I-83 would be the correct number (← see avatar) :nod:
Quote from: Mountain Parkway on October 31, 2019, 08:03:12 PM
Why can't US 15 north of Williamsport, PA be signed as I-99.
It will; it just needs Congressional approval for it to go forward.
Quote from: GenExpwy on November 01, 2019, 03:18:43 AM
There is that one little blink-and-you-miss-it intersection with a dirt road (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4179881,-77.069299,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seDwpwQYKHrpnf7larRlcCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in the Steam Valley section that was built around 1970.
But yes, I-83 would be the correct number (← see avatar) :nod:
That's a fun one. Doesn't look like there's much room there to build off any sort of separation for the RIRO.
Quote from: Verlanka on November 01, 2019, 05:17:51 AM
Quote from: Mountain Parkway on October 31, 2019, 08:03:12 PM
Why can't US 15 north of Williamsport, PA be signed as I-99.
It will; it just needs Congressional approval for it to go forward.
Given that the portion in NY is designated and signed, I'm not sure that's an issue with respect to getting the shields up.
Quote from: storm2k on November 01, 2019, 10:47:42 AM
Quote from: GenExpwy on November 01, 2019, 03:18:43 AM
There is that one little blink-and-you-miss-it intersection with a dirt road (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4179881,-77.069299,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seDwpwQYKHrpnf7larRlcCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in the Steam Valley section that was built around 1970.
But yes, I-83 would be the correct number (← see avatar) :nod:
That's a fun one. Doesn't look like there's much room there to build off any sort of separation for the RIRO.
I don't understand why it was left in when they were just doing work to remove the at-grades there a few years ago. It looks like it's connected to other roads on Google Maps, so why not just block it off? Or does PA plan to do just that, but not until the portion of I-99 is between I-80 and Williamsport is ready to be signed?
It's been a few years since I've been north of Williamsport on US 15, but I think they had all the at-grades removed when I was on it.
To the OP: I'm old enough to remember when KY 205, not KY 705, was the road that crossed US 460 at Grassy Creek. KY 205 was relocated and the old route was renumbered in the mid-80s. Grassy Auto Parts is well-known in this area as a great place to buy used parts. I've been through Grassy Creek more times than I can count, and was in Morgan County for work Wednesday evening. Grassy Creek is the home of New Cummer Road.
I'm pretty sure they are in the process of converting US 15 to I-99. I was on this road this past summer and saw a few "Future I-99" signs.
Quote from: J Route Z on November 01, 2019, 08:59:15 PM
I'm pretty sure they are in the process of converting US 15 to I-99. I was on this road this past summer and saw a few "Future I-99" signs.
Those have been there for at least 15-20 years. There were a few projects done a decade ago to fill in the freeway gaps. Ironically, the at-grade posted here was right in the middle of one.
Perhaps we will have to wait until the Interstate 80 (west)/Interstate 99 interchange is completed, and wait until/if the portion of US 220 between Interstate 80 and Interstate 180/US 15 is fully up to freeway standards before 99 will be signposted along US 15 north of Williamsport (ditto for getting rid of that at-grade dirt road connection). As for making the highway an extension of Interstate 83, I think the prospects of Interstate 83 being extended north of Harrisburg are nil, so save it for Fictional Highways.
We don't need 99 north of 80 [/grumble grumble]
Realistically that section of 220 is never going to happen at all.
The intersection between PA 287 and US 220, plus the US 220 junction with I-80 and PA politics wasting money.
Number of reasons besides the scourge of the number itself.
I'm vocally against adding to the interstate system, but the point is, we don't need to waste the 2019 dollars to upgrade a section of 220 that doesn't really need it. I've been on the stretch in question. It isn't that overloaded in traffic.
It's not like the number 220 made much sense for a north-south route that ends at N-S US 1, and crosses N-S US 29, 11, and 15. It would have been much better as a x15 or x11. So, it only makes sense that I-99 is here!
.
Really, with I-99 signed in New York, it would be perfectly acceptable for PA to submit it south from the NY Line to end temporarily at the 15/220 interchange. Just do TEMP 99, the same way we had TEMP 85 for years in NC, and TEMP 75 in Michigan. Even better, get New York to extend over 86, replace 390 to 590, and then follow 590 all as a northern I-99 extension. At least then it's a bit more of a "corridor".
My point is more that we don't need to extend I-99 from 80 on north. It's a waste. The stretch of 220 doesn't need to be a freeway. There are better projects that deserve that money.
The interstate system is antiquated in 2019. We don't need to waste that time. FHA should cease and desist from adding more numbers to the system.
You're not changing my mind.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on November 06, 2019, 05:19:30 PM
FHA should cease and desist from adding more numbers to the system.
That reminds me of this 2014 post:
Quote from: vtk on June 03, 2014, 03:35:51 AM
Quote from: ysuindy on June 02, 2014, 10:54:24 PM
4-5 lane, $331 million project receives FHA approval
Since when does the Federal Housing Administration approve roads?
You get what I meant.
I-99 could and should be posted on US-15 between I-180 and NY I-99, imho.
Whether or not it was a good use of funds to upgrade US 15 to a freeway between Williamsport and Corning, it is one now, so it seems worthy of the I shield. It connects to Interstates on both ends and best I can tell from this thread there's just that one dirt road access.
Quote from: Jim on November 06, 2019, 09:13:40 PM
Whether or not it was a good use of funds to upgrade US 15 to a freeway between Williamsport and Corning, it is one now, so it seems worthy of the I shield. It connects to Interstates on both ends and best I can tell from this thread there's just that one dirt road access.
In two states as well, not just one state.
The unbuilt segments between I-180/US-15 and I-80 near Lock Haven are worthy projects, but will probably take a long time to fund.
It could even be a 3-state Interstate highway, if the segment between Bedford and Cumberland ever gets revived.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on November 06, 2019, 05:19:30 PM
My point is more that we don't need to extend I-99 from 80 on north. It's a waste. The stretch of 220 doesn't need to be a freeway. There are better projects that deserve that money.
The interstate system is antiquated in 2019. We don't need to waste that time. FHA should cease and desist from adding more numbers to the system.
You're not changing my mind.
By pure volume, there are rarely delays there - not never, I've seen them - but rarely. But the existing road has no shoulders, not always turn lanes, lots of cross traffic. It's been under proposal to be bypassed for decades upon decades, well before I-99 was conceived. I support it.
Quote from: Alps on November 06, 2019, 10:35:58 PM
By pure volume, there are rarely delays there - not never, I've seen them - but rarely. But the existing road has no shoulders, not always turn lanes, lots of cross traffic. It's been under proposal to be bypassed for decades upon decades, well before I-99 was conceived. I support it.
The Appalachian Thruway was first proposed in the late 1950s.
Basically a freeway paralleling US-220 and US-15, Cumberland-Bedford-Altoona-Lock Haven-Williamsport-Corning.
http://digitalcollections.library.cmu.edu/awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=556593
But we can spend a lot less money cleaning up a bit rather than bypassing it completely because of a linear designation that no longer has value.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on November 06, 2019, 11:45:23 PM
But we can spend a lot less money cleaning up a bit rather than bypassing it completely because of a linear designation that no longer has value.
But we can actually clean it up properly.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on November 06, 2019, 11:45:23 PM
a linear designation that no longer has value.
As Beltway noted above, it was proposed in the 1950s, long before the I-99 designation came to fruition.
It's a needed project IMO. Fixing the existing road with spot improvements would be a waste of money compared to spending slightly more and getting a 4-lane limited-access freeway out of it instead of a high-quality 2-lane road that still lacks access control, multiple lanes, etc.
If traffic counts were low (<5,000 - 10,000 AADT), I could see fixing up the road to a high-quality 2-lane, but it appears the traffic volumes warrant 4-lanes, and it's best to do that on a new location alignment as a freeway.
Quote from: Beltway on November 06, 2019, 11:05:24 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 06, 2019, 10:35:58 PM
By pure volume, there are rarely delays there - not never, I've seen them - but rarely. But the existing road has no shoulders, not always turn lanes, lots of cross traffic. It's been under proposal to be bypassed for decades upon decades, well before I-99 was conceived. I support it.
The Appalachian Thruway was first proposed in the late 1950s.
Basically a freeway paralleling US-220 and US-15, Cumberland-Bedford-Altoona-Lock Haven-Williamsport-Corning.
http://digitalcollections.library.cmu.edu/awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=556593
One of the original iterations of the Appalachian Thruway continued NE well beyond Corning to Ithaca, Cortland, and Utica before finally curving back NW roughly along NY 12 to the Watertown area. It was essentially a "connect-the-dots" route intended to serve those cities initially left out of the Interstate system -- or at least the N-S aspect of the network. The "Continental One" routing, mostly an upgrade of US 219, was a similar proposal but situated slightly to the west of the proposed "Thruway" -- but initiated using a similar basic rationale. These proposals have been either active or dormant for decades -- resulting from the presence of the "gap" between the I-79 and I-81 alignments and the often politically-motivated quest for a remedy.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 07, 2019, 12:56:12 AM
If traffic counts were low (<5,000 - 10,000 AADT), I could see fixing up the road to a high-quality 2-lane, but it appears the traffic volumes warrant 4-lanes, and it's best to do that on a new location alignment as a freeway.
The western 3 miles that is two lanes definitely needs 4 lanes, and the right-of-way is already limited access. May as well make that a freeway and with at least a trumpet interchange with I-80.
The 8-mile section east of Jersey Shore is 4 lanes and high speed and works fairly well. But at some time in the future when funds can be found, it would be worthwhile to build a freeway bypass.
It's not like they'd need to start design from scratch on the Jersey Shore—Williamsport section, either. PennDOT's been basically sitting on a near-final design for 15 years since it was last shelved.
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 07, 2019, 09:26:45 AM
It's not like they'd need to start design from scratch on the Jersey Shore—Williamsport section, either. PennDOT's been basically sitting on a near-final design for 15 years since it was last shelved.
And it would be stored in a CADD (Computer Aided Design and Drafting) system where it would be straightforward to make any needed modifications to it.
Not like the old days when it would have been on manually drafted sheets.
Quote from: sparker on November 07, 2019, 05:37:17 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 06, 2019, 11:05:24 PM
The Appalachian Thruway was first proposed in the late 1950s.
Basically a freeway paralleling US-220 and US-15, Cumberland-Bedford-Altoona-Lock Haven-Williamsport-Corning.
http://digitalcollections.library.cmu.edu/awweb/awarchive?
One of the original iterations of the Appalachian Thruway continued NE well beyond Corning to Ithaca, Cortland, and Utica before finally curving back NW roughly along NY 12 to the Watertown area.
It discusses the southern sections discussed above.
Even in 1985 there were proposals to use a lower-level design --
Maryland's Department of Transportation gave the final three miles of the Thruway at the southern end design status last year and is in the process of exploring environmental impact and cost estimates for the various corridors.
The 19.5-mile section of Route 220 from the Maryland border to the finished sections near the Pennsylvania Turnpike are not programmed by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. The Thruway is working to have this section upgraded rather than rebuilt, saving millions of dollars.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on November 06, 2019, 11:45:23 PM
But we can spend a lot less money cleaning up a bit rather than bypassing it completely because of a linear designation that no longer has value.
Who Defines Value? The citizens of Pennsylvania and New York (not New Jersey) do, and their state DOTs chose to create the non-chargeable corridor through the "middle" of 79-81, connecting Rochester to Williamsport to State College to Altoona to the I-70 corridor to Washington DC. You don't determine value. You can't "clean up" a dangerous two-way split with narrow rights-of-way (Larrys Creek), poor sightlines, floodplain crossings, and low clearance rail crossings (not an 11'8" but low enough) with a "cleanup". You need a new structural solution, barely more than 6 miles in length, and a interchange rehab at PA 26/I-99/I-80 in the west and US 220/I-99/I-80 in the east. Traffic is significant westerly from Williamsport, and that segment southwest through to State College, Altoona, and the Penna Tpk provides access to one of the nation's largest public land grant institutions, Penn State University. It needs to be built.
Whether the FHA agrees or not. (And why the housing administration matters, is a great question!!) And whether the FHWA agrees or not -- they don't decide where states build highways. And AASHTO's USRN committee long ago approved extensions of numbering highways as I-99 beyond the original Shuster-driven legislated I-99.
Quote from: Beltway on November 06, 2019, 11:05:24 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 06, 2019, 10:35:58 PM
By pure volume, there are rarely delays there - not never, I've seen them - but rarely. But the existing road has no shoulders, not always turn lanes, lots of cross traffic. It's been under proposal to be bypassed for decades upon decades, well before I-99 was conceived. I support it.
The Appalachian Thruway was first proposed in the late 1950s.
Basically a freeway paralleling US-220 and US-15, Cumberland-Bedford-Altoona-Lock Haven-Williamsport-Corning.
http://digitalcollections.library.cmu.edu/awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=556593
This would take so much traffic off I-81, which is desperately needed!
Quote from: LeftyJR on November 08, 2019, 08:00:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 06, 2019, 11:05:24 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 06, 2019, 10:35:58 PM
By pure volume, there are rarely delays there - not never, I've seen them - but rarely. But the existing road has no shoulders, not always turn lanes, lots of cross traffic. It's been under proposal to be bypassed for decades upon decades, well before I-99 was conceived. I support it.
The Appalachian Thruway was first proposed in the late 1950s.
Basically a freeway paralleling US-220 and US-15, Cumberland-Bedford-Altoona-Lock Haven-Williamsport-Corning.
http://digitalcollections.library.cmu.edu/awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=556593
This would take so much traffic off I-81, which is desperately needed!
Don't see that happening, 81 connects to 84 and 80 and vice versa, for bypassing the DC Metro area for those going to New England and the Tristate Metro area, especially truckers, 99 would take them out of the way. 81 needs to be rebuild, to spec, the original spec was never done north of Harrisburg and until that is done, 81 will be a terrible road.
If converting US 220 into a four-lane Interstate Standard freeway from Interstate 80 to Interstate 180 can't be done, maybe 99 would have to follow Interstate 80 to 180, and replace 180 in its entirety. I do realize that such a convoluted and backtracking proposal wouldn't make much sense, but I doubt a new freeway connecting Interstate 80 with US 15 in Williamsport would be built along any other alignment.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2019, 01:39:53 PM
If converting US 220 into a four-lane Interstate Standard freeway from Interstate 80 to Interstate 180 can't be done, maybe 99 would have to follow Interstate 80 to 180, and replace 180 in its entirety. I do realize that such a convoluted and backtracking proposal wouldn't make much sense, but I doubt a new freeway connecting Interstate 80 with US 15 in Williamsport would be built along any other alignment.
I would give it time.
Even if it takes 20 years, let be eventually built.
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2019, 04:54:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2019, 01:39:53 PM
If converting US 220 into a four-lane Interstate Standard freeway from Interstate 80 to Interstate 180 can't be done, maybe 99 would have to follow Interstate 80 to 180, and replace 180 in its entirety. I do realize that such a convoluted and backtracking proposal wouldn't make much sense, but I doubt a new freeway connecting Interstate 80 with US 15 in Williamsport would be built along any other alignment.
I would give it time.
Even if it takes 20 years, let be eventually built.
If it's anything like I-73 in Virginia, I'd estimate another at least 30 years before anything breaks ground.
The existing corridor is mostly 4-lane divided highway with the southern end as the exception (that simply needs twinning), and as you've noted before that an interstate isn't needed when a high-speed 4-lane arterial with town bypasses already exists. Now, while I disagree with this way of thinking, it's just worth mentioning as this corridor already exists as a 4-lane divided highway, and based on your other posts, this would seem to be a very low priority project.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 15, 2019, 07:02:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2019, 04:54:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2019, 01:39:53 PM
If converting US 220 into a four-lane Interstate Standard freeway from Interstate 80 to Interstate 180 can't be done, maybe 99 would have to follow Interstate 80 to 180, and replace 180 in its entirety. I do realize that such a convoluted and backtracking proposal wouldn't make much sense, but I doubt a new freeway connecting Interstate 80 with US 15 in Williamsport would be built along any other alignment.
I would give it time.
Even if it takes 20 years, let be eventually built.
If it's anything like I-73 in Virginia, I'd estimate another at least 30 years before anything breaks ground.
22 miles is already built, if the alignment is revised to US-220 west of Martinsville.
220 Martinsville Bypass US-220 segment, Henry County, freeway ....................... 11.61
220 Roy Webber Highway (Southwest Expressway), City of Roanoke, freeway .... 3.54
220 I-581 / US-220 City of Roanoke, freeway ............................................... 6.75
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2019, 07:54:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 15, 2019, 07:02:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2019, 04:54:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2019, 01:39:53 PM
If converting US 220 into a four-lane Interstate Standard freeway from Interstate 80 to Interstate 180 can't be done, maybe 99 would have to follow Interstate 80 to 180, and replace 180 in its entirety. I do realize that such a convoluted and backtracking proposal wouldn't make much sense, but I doubt a new freeway connecting Interstate 80 with US 15 in Williamsport would be built along any other alignment.
I would give it time.
Even if it takes 20 years, let be eventually built.
If it's anything like I-73 in Virginia, I'd estimate another at least 30 years before anything breaks ground.
22 miles is already built, if the alignment is revised to US-220 west of Martinsville.
220 Martinsville Bypass US-220 segment, Henry County, freeway ....................... 11.61
220 Roy Webber Highway (Southwest Expressway), City of Roanoke, freeway .... 3.54
220 I-581 / US-220 City of Roanoke, freeway ............................................... 6.75
Pre-existing freeways, not apart of I-73. No new construction since the 1980s.
Looking to the south, they've constructed at least 60 miles of I-73 since the 90s, and incorporated older US-220 freeways seamlessly in the system - I wouldn't count those as I-73 construction.
Same goes with any future interstate highway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 15, 2019, 08:10:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2019, 07:54:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 15, 2019, 07:02:24 PM
If it's anything like I-73 in Virginia, I'd estimate another at least 30 years before anything breaks ground.
22 miles is already built, if the alignment is revised to US-220 west of Martinsville.
220 Martinsville Bypass US-220 segment, Henry County, freeway ....................... 11.61
220 Roy Webber Highway (Southwest Expressway), City of Roanoke, freeway .... 3.54
220 I-581 / US-220 City of Roanoke, freeway ............................................... 6.75
Pre-existing freeways, not apart of I-73.
But WILL be part of I-73 under that scenario. 22 miles.
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2019, 09:08:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 15, 2019, 08:10:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2019, 07:54:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 15, 2019, 07:02:24 PM
If it's anything like I-73 in Virginia, I'd estimate another at least 30 years before anything breaks ground.
22 miles is already built, if the alignment is revised to US-220 west of Martinsville.
220 Martinsville Bypass US-220 segment, Henry County, freeway ....................... 11.61
220 Roy Webber Highway (Southwest Expressway), City of Roanoke, freeway .... 3.54
220 I-581 / US-220 City of Roanoke, freeway ............................................... 6.75
Pre-existing freeways, not apart of I-73.
But WILL be part of I-73 under that scenario. 22 miles.
The Martinsville Bypass was constructed in the 70s, I-581 in the 60s, and the extension in the 80s as arterial bypasses of the US-220 corridor.
The concept for a long-distance freeway along US-220, I-73 wasn't proposed in Virginia until the early 90s, along with a feasibility study completed on the corridor, recommending ~70 miles to be built on new location.
How much of those 70 miles have been built to date? And how much of the existing freeways (non-interstate) have been improved to interstate standards to date?
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2019, 09:08:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 15, 2019, 08:10:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2019, 07:54:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 15, 2019, 07:02:24 PM
If it's anything like I-73 in Virginia, I'd estimate another at least 30 years before anything breaks ground.
22 miles is already built, if the alignment is revised to US-220 west of Martinsville.
220 Martinsville Bypass US-220 segment, Henry County, freeway ....................... 11.61
220 Roy Webber Highway (Southwest Expressway), City of Roanoke, freeway .... 3.54
220 I-581 / US-220 City of Roanoke, freeway ............................................... 6.75
Pre-existing freeways, not apart of I-73.
But WILL be part of I-73 under that scenario. 22 miles.
But nothing has broken ground since I-73 was designated.
^^^^^^^^^^
Since the only common grounds between I-73 in VA and I-99 between I-80 and Williamsport in PA are that (a) they aren't built yet despite a general corridor definition, and (b) there's considerable existing divided highway along much of the route. But that's common for many defined future Interstate corridors around the country (the various NC examples, for instance). A rehashing of the I-73 situation in this particular thread seems a bit gratuitous -- not to mention a bit of a stretch to find other than general commonalities. What happens with one is unlikely to inform action regarding the other; the detour down to VA isn't really warranted.
So -- getting back to I-99 -- IMO the best course of action is to do a "spot fix" at the single side-road instance, converting it into a standard on-off interchange (maybe 20-25mph ramps) with the NB side of US 15. At that point, an I-99 designation replete with signage could be applied to the facility north of the US 15/220 interchange. The presence of that completed section, along with the already-signed portion in NY, might provoke a measure of support for prioritization of the US 220-based segment -- support emanating from disparate groups such as local interest groups, possibly abetted by truckers and their regional customers. Always a chance such support could rekindle interest in a project in dormancy for way too long.
Quote from: Alps on November 17, 2019, 01:29:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2019, 09:08:03 PM
But WILL be part of I-73 under that scenario. 22 miles.
But nothing has broken ground since I-73 was designated.
Well yes but I was responding to the notion that nothing was built, when in fact 22 miles has.
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2019, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 17, 2019, 01:29:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2019, 09:08:03 PM
But WILL be part of I-73 under that scenario. 22 miles.
But nothing has broken ground since I-73 was designated.
Well yes but I was responding to the notion that nothing was built, when in fact 22 miles has.
Nothing has been built as a part of I-73.
Quote from: Alps on November 18, 2019, 12:12:28 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2019, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 17, 2019, 01:29:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2019, 09:08:03 PM
But WILL be part of I-73 under that scenario. 22 miles.
But nothing has broken ground since I-73 was designated.
Well yes but I was responding to the notion that nothing was built, when in fact 22 miles has.
Nothing has been built as a part of I-73.
I agree wholeheartedly!
But 22 miles is available for use as part of I-73.
Quote from: Beltway on November 18, 2019, 12:19:28 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 18, 2019, 12:12:28 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2019, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 17, 2019, 01:29:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2019, 09:08:03 PM
But WILL be part of I-73 under that scenario. 22 miles.
But nothing has broken ground since I-73 was designated.
Well yes but I was responding to the notion that nothing was built, when in fact 22 miles has.
Nothing has been built as a part of I-73.
I agree wholeheartedly!
But 22 miles is available for use as part of I-73.
I agree wholeheartedly! Here's the context:
QuoteIf it's anything like I-73 in Virginia, I'd estimate another at least 30 years before anything breaks ground.
Since I-73 was legislated, nothing has broken ground. So the point here is that I-99 would take another 30 years for the final section. Which, by the way, I think may be overly pessimistic, but one never knows with Act 44.
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2019, 07:54:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 15, 2019, 07:02:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 15, 2019, 04:54:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2019, 01:39:53 PM
If converting US 220 into a four-lane Interstate Standard freeway from Interstate 80 to Interstate 180 can't be done, maybe 99 would have to follow Interstate 80 to 180, and replace 180 in its entirety. I do realize that such a convoluted and backtracking proposal wouldn't make much sense, but I doubt a new freeway connecting Interstate 80 with US 15 in Williamsport would be built along any other alignment.
I would give it time.
Even if it takes 20 years, let be eventually built.
If it's anything like I-73 in Virginia, I'd estimate another at least 30 years before anything breaks ground.
22 miles is already built, if the alignment is revised to US-220 west of Martinsville.
220 Martinsville Bypass US-220 segment, Henry County, freeway ....................... 11.61
220 Roy Webber Highway (Southwest Expressway), City of Roanoke, freeway .... 3.54
220 I-581 / US-220 City of Roanoke, freeway ............................................... 6.75
And don't forget to add the wrong-way concurrency segment along I-81 to either of the extended Smart Corridor road, or just using US 460 (which then can be considered already built along its to-standards segments).
.
And someday, the Martinsville segment will get agreed to and extend north from NC a ways.
Quote from: sparker on November 17, 2019, 02:51:11 AM
So -- getting back to I-99 -- IMO the best course of action is to do a "spot fix" at the single side-road instance, converting it into a standard on-off interchange (maybe 20-25mph ramps) with the NB side of US 15. At that point, an I-99 designation replete with signage could be applied to the facility north of the US 15/220 interchange. The presence of that completed section, along with the already-signed portion in NY, might provoke a measure of support for prioritization of the US 220-based segment -- support emanating from disparate groups such as local interest groups, possibly abetted by truckers and their regional customers. Always a chance such support could rekindle interest in a project in dormancy for way too long.
I'm a little surprised there hasn't been any (that I've heard/read about) clamor from the local/county officials along the corridor to get the red/white/blue shields in the name of attracting development.
In my opinion, I-99 should just be signed down to the 220/180 junction by now. US 15 would be truncated to Harrisburg and the CSVT would be (for now) an extension of I-180 (or PA 83, to be upgraded to I-83). US 15 Bus. in Mansfield would become I-99 BL, and US 522 would take up the road that US 15 used to follow up to Williamsport.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on January 24, 2020, 02:59:32 PM
In my opinion, I-99 should just be signed down to the 220/180 junction by now.
Should have back to 2013 when NYS completed their segment.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on January 24, 2020, 02:59:32 PM
In my opinion, I-99 should just be signed down to the 220/180 junction by now. US 15 will be truncated to Harrisburg and the CSVT will be (for now) an extension of I-180. US 15 Bus. in Mansfield will become I-99 BL, and US 522 will take up the road that US 15 used to follow up to Williamsport.
Fictional Highways when you say "will". I think you mean "would". But to keep it on topic, where do we think US 15 will end? I think Williamsport, but it could end up being the state line or even its current ending.
Quote from: Alps on January 24, 2020, 05:10:55 PM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on January 24, 2020, 02:59:32 PM
In my opinion, I-99 should just be signed down to the 220/180 junction by now. US 15 will be truncated to Harrisburg and the CSVT will be (for now) an extension of I-180. US 15 Bus. in Mansfield will become I-99 BL, and US 522 will take up the road that US 15 used to follow up to Williamsport.
Fictional Highways when you say "will". I think you mean "would". But to keep it on topic, where do we think US 15 will end? I think Williamsport, but it could end up being the state line or even its current ending.
I wonder if Camp Hill (Jct US 11/Pa 581) will happen someday.
One could kill 2 birds with one stone and reroute US 15 to replace US 220 north of Williamsport, eliminating the need for the long US 220 overlay with I-99.
I think US 15 should replace US 220 north of Williamsport and IMO US 220 should go completely. South of Bedford is should be an extended US 311 from NC and with I-73 being mostly replacing it in the Tar Heel State, it has no purpose there at all.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 24, 2020, 10:41:43 PM
I think US 15 should replace US 220 north of Williamsport and IMO US 220 should go completely. South of Bedford is should be an extended US 311 from NC and with I-73 being mostly replacing it in the Tar Heel State, it has no purpose there at all.
Superb idea -- 311 is a much more appropriate number for a route that functionally parallels US 11. But as long as we're on the subject of I-99's northern reaches, has any NE poster heard any rumblings about when I-99 signage is expected for this corridor section?
Quote from: sparker on January 25, 2020, 12:41:04 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 24, 2020, 10:41:43 PM
I think US 15 should replace US 220 north of Williamsport and IMO US 220 should go completely. South of Bedford is should be an extended US 311 from NC and with I-73 being mostly replacing it in the Tar Heel State, it has no purpose there at all.
Superb idea -- 311 is a much more appropriate number for a route that functionally parallels US 11. But as long as we're on the subject of I-99's northern reaches, has any NE poster heard any rumblings about when I-99 signage is expected for this corridor section?
Three words: Zip, Zed, Zilch. Zero.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on January 25, 2020, 07:19:02 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 25, 2020, 12:41:04 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 24, 2020, 10:41:43 PM
I think US 15 should replace US 220 north of Williamsport and IMO US 220 should go completely. South of Bedford is should be an extended US 311 from NC and with I-73 being mostly replacing it in the Tar Heel State, it has no purpose there at all.
Superb idea -- 311 is a much more appropriate number for a route that functionally parallels US 11. But as long as we're on the subject of I-99's northern reaches, has any NE poster heard any rumblings about when I-99 signage is expected for this corridor section?
Three words: Zip, Zed, Zilch. Zero.
Okay then. Guess PA DOT has other fish to fry elsewhere in the state and hasn't made the change a priority. Good to know! :eyebrow:
Quote from: sparker on January 26, 2020, 04:51:45 AM
Okay then. Guess PA DOT has other fish to fry elsewhere in the state and hasn't made the change a priority. Good to know! :eyebrow:
Seems that way.
The best chance of signing it sooner (relatively speaking) rather than later is if local politicians catch the "Interstate shields for more potential business development" bug and start putting pressure on PennDOT.
As to where US 15 would end once its truncated to Williamsport, it would end at Interstate 180's Exit 27A. And I would retract US 220 to Interstate 99's present southern terminus, with existing 220 from 180's exit 15 onward would be downgraded to PA 220.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2020, 03:18:38 PM
As to where US 15 would end once its truncated to Williamsport, it would end at Interstate 180's Exit 27A. And I would retract US 220 to Interstate 99's present southern terminus, with existing 220 from 180's exit 15 onward would be downgraded to PA 220.
What would happen when 220 south of 99 is decommissioned? Would the segment of future 99 between 80 and 180 be designated as PA 220 as well? Or should it be designated as PA 99 for now?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2020, 03:18:38 PM
As to where US 15 would end once its truncated to Williamsport, it would end at Interstate 180's Exit 27A. And I would retract US 220 to Interstate 99's present southern terminus, with existing 220 from 180's exit 15 onward would be downgraded to PA 220.
I would extend PA 118 westward and PA 405 northward from Hughesville instead of creating a PA 220.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on January 27, 2020, 03:49:29 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2020, 03:18:38 PM
As to where US 15 would end once its truncated to Williamsport, it would end at Interstate 180's Exit 27A. And I would retract US 220 to Interstate 99's present southern terminus, with existing 220 from 180's exit 15 onward would be downgraded to PA 220.
I would extend PA 118 westward and PA 405 northward from Hughesville instead of creating a PA 220.
Revert US-220 back to its original routing.
Until I-99 can be built from I-80 to Williamsport, US 220 should stay on that route. But having driven US 220 from Williamsport north to its end at NY 17, I don't understand what purpose that route serves as part of the US highway system.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 27, 2020, 04:10:02 PM
Until I-99 can be built from I-80 to Williamsport, US 220 should stay on that route. But having driven US 220 from Williamsport north to its end at NY 17, I don't understand what purpose that route serves as part of the US highway system.
It would have made sense if NY ever cared to connect it to 20.
Also, how about if NY ever cared about US routes in general? Even US 20 is concurrent or closely parallel to NY 5 for most of its length.
Or US 106 ending at the Delaware River coming from PA. Then US 46 is another one that ends in the middle of the Hudson River.
Or the fact that no US route exists on Long Island with New York City, the largest city in the US, has only two US routes within its city limits.
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2020, 10:37:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 27, 2020, 04:10:02 PM
Until I-99 can be built from I-80 to Williamsport, US 220 should stay on that route. But having driven US 220 from Williamsport north to its end at NY 17, I don't understand what purpose that route serves as part of the US highway system.
It would have made sense if NY ever cared to connect it to 20.
Which would be easily done, as they would need only redesignate NY 34 south of Auburn.
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on January 27, 2020, 11:58:47 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2020, 10:37:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 27, 2020, 04:10:02 PM
Until I-99 can be built from I-80 to Williamsport, US 220 should stay on that route. But having driven US 220 from Williamsport north to its end at NY 17, I don't understand what purpose that route serves as part of the US highway system.
It would have made sense if NY ever cared to connect it to 20.
Which would be easily done, as they would need only redesignate NY 34 south of Auburn.
Funny thing is there was never a plan for it, even though that seems obvious. Back on topic, I find it interesting that US 15 made it all the way to Rochester, considering US 220, US 111, and US 309 all never did.
Quote from: Alps on January 28, 2020, 12:47:33 AM
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on January 27, 2020, 11:58:47 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2020, 10:37:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 27, 2020, 04:10:02 PM
Until I-99 can be built from I-80 to Williamsport, US 220 should stay on that route. But having driven US 220 from Williamsport north to its end at NY 17, I don't understand what purpose that route serves as part of the US highway system.
It would have made sense if NY ever cared to connect it to 20.
Which would be easily done, as they would need only redesignate NY 34 south of Auburn.
Funny thing is there was never a plan for it, even though that seems obvious. Back on topic, I find it interesting that US 15 made it all the way to Rochester, considering US 220, US 111, and US 309 all never did.
I read an article (can't find now) that said that New Yorkers would support a US 220 extension to Auburn along NY 34. Maybe PA 199 would become US 220 Bus.?
I doubt US 220 will ever be extended further north to Auburn or anywhere else beyond Interstate 86/NY 17's Exit 60. The state of New York has had 94 years to extend US 220 to meet US 20 at some point within the state. If it hasn't happened by now, it isn't going to happen. As for existing 220 between Interstate 80 and Interstate 180, I'd sign it future Interstate 99.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on November 19, 2019, 03:24:09 PM
I'm a little surprised that there hasn't been any (that I've heard/read about) clamor from the local/county officials along the corridor to get the red/white/blue shields in the name of attracting development.
If you've been through there and seen the terrain through which this corridor travels, the lack of developmental pressure won't be surprising at all; it would likely be largely limited to roadside service facilities. I-99, when it comes down to it, is -- at least from Williamsport to I-86 -- simply a N-S connector between the Southern Tier and the West Susqehanna valley, as US 15 always has been. While in the past certain industries (aside from coal extraction)
have been located in remote central PA locations (e.g. the old Sylvania light bulb/vacuum tube plant in Emporium, several miles west along old US 120, closed down in 1984), the de-industrialization of this neck of the woods has rendered re-establishment of that sort of operation unlikely at best. Now -- the
endpoints of the corridor stretch in question might themselves be more conducive to development, such as warehousing/distribution -- simply because (a) of multiple Interstate access points and (b) rail access as well. It's the segment through the hills that is unlikely to be on anyone's radar as suitable for development.
At some point, it comes down to economics. The two sections causing the problems between I-80 and Williamsport are the commercial stretch for a few miles east of Lock Haven, and the super two between Lock Haven and I-80 (which ceases to be super two right at I-80). I've driven both - the commercial stretch is an annoyance but not really a problem, and the only problem with the super two is that the speed limit is 55 - it would be appropriate at 65 and the problem would be solved. (Yes, I know PennDOT doesn't post two-lane roads over 55... but come on.) Expanding that to freeway would also mean building a full interchange at I-80's Exit 178, which is 1. very expensive and 2. totally needless given traffic volumes. If I'm being honest, it doesn't make any difference whether 15 is signed as 99, or even if 99 is ever completed. What matters more is making improvements to roadways that need it, like the 80/99 interchange, the 322 "missing link," US-15 freeway bypasses of Shamokin and the other towns in the area, or bypassing Clark's Ferry. What sign is on the side of the road makes very little difference.
I would guess based on CE for this project (https://www.dotdom2.state.pa.us/ceea/ceeamain03.nsf/18c042d1dacb327c85256c010051898b/85257fc4007728ec852587ec0069f277?OpenDocument) that I-99 will be signed north of Williamsport eventually.
QuoteThis project is part of the effort to allow US 15 to be designated as I-99.
If upgrading all of US 220 from Interstate 80 to Interstate 180 to freeway standards is too expensive and unnecessary (not that I think it is), the only alternative would be to continue the Interstate 99 designation along Interstate 80 all the way to Exit 212, and then make Interstate 180 part of Interstate 99. I don't see the Pennsylvania and New York segments of Interstate 99 remaining permanently discontinuous, I'm sure they will be connected someday.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 22, 2022, 01:27:09 PM
If upgrading all of US 220 from Interstate 80 to Interstate 180 to freeway standards is too expensive and unnecessary (not that I think it is), the only alternative would be to continue the Interstate 99 designation along Interstate 80 all the way to Exit 212, and then make Interstate 180 part of Interstate 99. I don't see the Pennsylvania and New York segments of Interstate 99 remaining permanently discontinuous, I'm sure they will be connected someday.
I don't think PA thinks it is either, they just need time to do it.
What is preventing Pennsylvania from signing I-99 between I-180 and the New York state line?
The freeway appears to meet interstate standards, is signed as I-99 on the New York side, and connects to I-180 on the southern end.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2022, 05:33:31 PM
What is preventing Pennsylvania from signing I-99 between I-180 and the New York state line?
The freeway appears to meet interstate standards, is signed as I-99 on the New York side, and connects to I-180 on the southern end.
I don't know. Even the bridge height looks to meet standards. I'm not sure Pennsylvania even cares about I-99 anymore.
The NB side does have an at-grade meeting with a dirt road in the Trout Run area. Based on Google Maps, it does look like they could cut that off and it could still get accessed via PA-14.... though whomever might use that connection to US-15 (and I can't imagine it's many) would probably find it very inconvenient.
https://goo.gl/maps/ErkWohKNbfxzaxYM6
I do wonder how much PA cares about I-99 though. At least the PennDOT district(s) that covers the areas that need upgrade (or re-aligned). They just spent a bunch of money on "safety improvements" on US-220 between PA-287 and Williamsport, and I haven't seen anything indicating they're doing anything to build any of the missing links (though I don't live in that part of the state)
Quote from: Mr_Northside on February 22, 2022, 05:56:30 PM
I do wonder how much PA cares about I-99 though. At least the PennDOT district(s) that covers the areas that need upgrade (or re-aligned). They just spent a bunch of money on "safety improvements" on US-220 between PA-287 and Williamsport, and I haven't seen anything indicating they're doing anything to build any of the missing links (though I don't live in that part of the state)
I think it will happen eventually, but it doesn't seem like a very high priority. PA may just not want discontinuous segments of I-99 for an unspecified length of time, which I can't argue with. There's really not a ton of point in signing it north of I-180 until the I-180/US 15/US 220 junction and both I-80/I-99 junctions are reconstructed.
^ The reason to sign north of I-180 would be due to the fact as soon as you enter New York, it becomes I-99 all the way to I-86.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2022, 09:54:22 PM
^ The reason to sign north of I-180 would be due to the fact as soon as you enter New York, it becomes I-99 all the way to I-86.
Yes, but as far as PA is concerned, PA would still have two discontinuous segments. The I-180/US 15/US 220 interchange is confusing enough without having a temporary I-99 terminus there, at least until that interchange is upgraded.
His point is it's already discontinuous. Why not make the one segment longer?
If NY didn't sign their part, I would agree.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 22, 2022, 11:13:44 AM
I would guess based on CE for this project (https://www.dotdom2.state.pa.us/ceea/ceeamain03.nsf/18c042d1dacb327c85256c010051898b/85257fc4007728ec852587ec0069f277?OpenDocument) that I-99 will be signed north of Williamsport eventually.
QuoteThis project is part of the effort to allow US 15 to be designated as I-99.
This specific document anticipates an I-99 designation in 2025... (https://www.dotdom2.state.pa.us/ceea/ceeamain03.nsf/LookUpUnid/85257FC4007728EC852587EC0069F27F/$File/2021-08-23%20SR%2015-143%20Virtual%20SFV%20-%20Minutes.pdf?openElement)
Well.... there you have it. We'll see if this happens. I *was* going to post a few minutes before that post that I was a little surprised local leaders weren't pushing for signing I-99 for the usual political notions of the red/white/blue I-shield/designation being good for business that gets touted sometimes.
Once the "gap" in I-99 gets shortened, maybe it will get more attention to fill in those gaps (of course, even that doesn't mean they'll find the money in a timely fashion.
Quote from: webny99 on February 22, 2022, 11:19:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2022, 09:54:22 PM
^ The reason to sign north of I-180 would be due to the fact as soon as you enter New York, it becomes I-99 all the way to I-86.
Yes, but as far as PA is concerned, PA would still have two discontinuous segments. The I-180/US 15/US 220 interchange is confusing enough without having a temporary I-99 terminus there, at least until that interchange is upgraded.
The rest of 220 can be signed "TO I-99"
Per this post from PennDot via vdeane in the CSVT thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5665.msg2712645#msg2712645
"As a brief update on existing US 15 between Williamsport and the New York border, we have completed the engineering study necessary to redesignate the corridor as I-99. To address the components of the highway identified as not meeting current Interstate standards, we are now developing plans for improvements and, where appropriate, preparing design exception requests. We currently anticipate obtaining FHWA approval of this redesignation and starting to install I-99 signing by 2026, shortly after the completion of the I-80/I-99 interchange near State College."
I am assuming I-99 will be signed only from I-180 north to the New York border. What exemptions will need to be made? Just the southernmost interchange?
Quote from: seicer on March 01, 2022, 10:18:33 PM
Per this post from PennDot via vdeane in the CSVT thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5665.msg2712645#msg2712645
"As a brief update on existing US 15 between Williamsport and the New York border, we have completed the engineering study necessary to redesignate the corridor as I-99. To address the components of the highway identified as not meeting current Interstate standards, we are now developing plans for improvements and, where appropriate, preparing design exception requests. We currently anticipate obtaining FHWA approval of this redesignation and starting to install I-99 signing by 2026, shortly after the completion of the I-80/I-99 interchange near State College."
I am assuming I-99 will be signed only from I-180 north to the New York border. What exemptions will need to be made? Just the southernmost interchange?
My read is that they are years and years away from actual construction.
Perhaps 3-4 more years. There's not much construction to be done besides closing off the one intersection.
Interestingly enough, regardless of that one at-grade intersection, Pennsylvania still considers that stretch a freeway given it holds all the way to a 70 mph speed limit, which they are hesitant to post in a lot of areas on actual interstates.
Ah - I would assume since that one right-in, right-out intersection goes to a forest road, it could be granted an exception similar to I-40 down in North Carolina. At the very least, they could just build long turn lanes and a "ramp."
Quote from: Rothman on March 02, 2022, 12:03:10 AM
Quote from: seicer on March 01, 2022, 10:18:33 PM
Per this post from PennDot via vdeane in the CSVT thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5665.msg2712645#msg2712645
"As a brief update on existing US 15 between Williamsport and the New York border, we have completed the engineering study necessary to redesignate the corridor as I-99. To address the components of the highway identified as not meeting current Interstate standards, we are now developing plans for improvements and, where appropriate, preparing design exception requests. We currently anticipate obtaining FHWA approval of this redesignation and starting to install I-99 signing by 2026, shortly after the completion of the I-80/I-99 interchange near State College."
I am assuming I-99 will be signed only from I-180 north to the New York border. What exemptions will need to be made? Just the southernmost interchange?
My read is that they are years and years away from actual construction.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2022, 01:48:36 AM
Perhaps 3-4 more years. There's not much construction to be done besides closing off the one intersection.
Interestingly enough, regardless of that one at-grade intersection, Pennsylvania still considers that stretch a freeway given it holds all the way to a 70 mph speed limit, which they are hesitant to post in a lot of areas on actual interstates.
Quote from: seicer on March 02, 2022, 08:50:01 AM
Ah - I would assume since that one right-in, right-out intersection goes to a forest road, it could be granted an exception similar to I-40 down in North Carolina. At the very least, they could just build long turn lanes and a "ramp."
There is a project slated to go to construction next year for intersection improvement at US 15 and 4 Mile Road. At least, the dates currently listed are for next year. Always subject to change.
https://gis.penndot.gov/paprojects/TipVisMap.aspx
https://gis.penndot.gov/paprojects/Reports/ProjectReport.aspx?ProjectID=93024&ReportType=Project
On a lighter note...there's a project on US 15 (Future I-99) northbound..."Wavy Section between SRs 184 and 284".
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2022, 01:48:36 AM
Perhaps 3-4 more years. There's not much construction to be done besides closing off the one intersection.
Not much on the stretch north of Williamsport, but quite a bit to be done on the US 220 section between I-80 and Williamsport.
Quote from: webny99 on March 02, 2022, 09:53:10 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2022, 01:48:36 AM
Perhaps 3-4 more years. There's not much construction to be done besides closing off the one intersection.
Not much on the stretch north of Williamsport, but quite a bit to be done on the US 220 section between I-80 and Williamsport.
Indeed, that will involve twinning a portion of 2 lane and acquiring full control of access west of Williamsport and converting that section into a freeway.
I was referring to the section north of I-180, which is basically interstate compatible today with that one exception that will be fixed in the next few years.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2022, 12:00:20 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 02, 2022, 09:53:10 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2022, 01:48:36 AM
Perhaps 3-4 more years. There's not much construction to be done besides closing off the one intersection.
Not much on the stretch north of Williamsport, but quite a bit to be done on the US 220 section between I-80 and Williamsport.
Indeed, that will involve twinning a portion of 2 lane and acquiring full control of access west of Williamsport and converting that section into a freeway.
I was referring to the section north of I-180, which is basically interstate compatible today with that one exception that will be fixed in the next few years.
The existing four-lane section of US 220 is actually planned to be bypassed on an entirely new alignment. PennDOT even had a specific alignment selected before the whole project was shelved.
I had been wondering about that section? Any specific maps / diagrams available?
The southernmost part of the US 220 section, from I-80 north to PA 64, seems to have been built with the future in mind and could probably be twinned pretty easily, so I wonder if that is part of the "new" alignment. I'm not sure where it would go from there, though, as following the existing US 220 seems to make the most sense between there and Jersey Shore.
Unless the potential new alignment is a much shorter connection between I-80 and Williamsport, perhaps somewhere in the area of the PA 880/PA 654 corridor(s)? Although that would no doubt run into some expensive terrain and environmental issues.
The existing US-220 between I-80 and Jersey Shore is a full freeway - mostly 4 lane, 65 mph, though the southern segment closer to I-80 still needs to be twinned.
That would most likely be incorporated into I-99. The new location segment would be between Jersey Shore and Williamsport.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2022, 11:08:05 PM
I had been wondering about that section? Any specific maps / diagrams available?
I've seen it myself, it's been several years but I bet it was posted here back in 2014 give or take.
Quote from: Alps on March 03, 2022, 12:08:39 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2022, 11:08:05 PM
I had been wondering about that section? Any specific maps / diagrams available?
I've seen it myself, it's been several years but I bet it was posted here back in 2014 give or take.
The website used to be www.susquehannabeltway.com, but its dead. Jeff Kitsko doesn't have the map either (I asked).
So many of the dates archived have errors but here is one capture: https://web.archive.org/web/20040326112548/http://www.susquehannabeltway.com/
"In conjunction with the biennial update of the Commonwealth's Twelve Year Transportation Program, PennDOT has reassessed the status of all of its active projects. This reassessment takes into account each project's consistency with statewide priorities, as well as funding availability and project development status.
As a result of this reevaluation, the Secretary of Transportation has directed PennDOT District 3-0 to stop all work on the Susquehanna Beltway project indefinitely. No further design and environmental studies will be completed and no further meetings will be held for the Susquehanna Beltway project. Additionally, the Public Information Office has been closed and the project website will be discontinued in April.
This project, along with 25 others in the state, has been reevaluated due to the large investment of money necessary to bring each to completion. The funding needed for these projects far exceeds the available federal and state transportation financial resources for the foreseeable future.
This action does not mean that the project will not be considered in future updates of PennDOT's Twelve Year Program. If you have any questions in the future, please call Michele Fullmer at (570) 368-4258."
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2022, 11:36:40 PM
The existing US-220 between I-80 and Jersey Shore is a full freeway - mostly 4 lane, 65 mph, though the southern segment closer to I-80 still needs to be twinned.
I admittedly suck at judging this stuff just by looking (either satellite or GSV) - but when they - relatively recently - built the interchange with 2-lane US-220 & Auction Rd, it seems they could have done a better job ($$$ not withstanding) of future-proofing it for widening. It looks like it will be really tight to get 2 more lanes & shoulders in thru there.
It's also really close to I-80 when it comes to possible weaving and close interchange proximity.
I emailed them about this during design and they said, "That's a future problem" (paraphrasing of course).
How on earth in 2022 is it that difficult to block off access to a dirt road off to the side of a limited access highway? Just do it and be done with it. I wager it can be done in less than one day.
Quote from: astralentity on April 04, 2022, 05:16:20 PM
How on earth in 2022 is it that difficult to block off access to a dirt road off to the side of a limited access highway? Just do it and be done with it. I wager it can be done in less than one day.
I believe that dirt segment connects at least one private driveway, so access has to be re-routed.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 04, 2022, 05:26:26 PM
Quote from: astralentity on April 04, 2022, 05:16:20 PM
How on earth in 2022 is it that difficult to block off access to a dirt road off to the side of a limited access highway? Just do it and be done with it. I wager it can be done in less than one day.
I believe that dirt segment connects at least one private driveway, so access has to be re-routed.
Sounds like that should've been taken into consideration before they upgraded US 15 to a freeway. However, I have heard once upon a time ago in rural Texas that farmers' fields had right of way access off freeways.
How hard would it be to either cul-du-sac 4 Mile Rd. or connect it with Narrow Mountain Rd.? What is the terrain like in that area?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2022, 05:50:19 PM
How hard would it be to either cul-du-sac 4 Mile Rd. or connect it with Narrow Mountain Rd.? What is the terrain like in that area?
Looking at the satellite image, and just from my going through there in recent memory, doesn't look like it would be that hard to cap it off. There's access on the other end of the road from what I see.
^ Not a hard process, but not an overnight job either.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2022, 05:50:19 PM
How hard would it be to either cul-du-sac 4 Mile Rd. or connect it with Narrow Mountain Rd.? What is the terrain like in that area?
PennDOT's documentation says they are acquiring ROW for another access for the affected property owner.
This is pretty rough terrain. Trout Run along 4 Mile Road sits in a valley that is 1000 feet deep. If it was easy to have closed access previously, I imagine PennDOT would have done it then.
Why would a right-in, right-out not suffice here? Just build deceleration and acceleration lanes next to the shoulder. It's no different than what's done with similar ramp designs I've seen elsewhere.
Quote from: seicer on April 04, 2022, 09:18:43 PM
Why would a right-in, right-out not suffice here? Just build deceleration and acceleration lanes next to the shoulder. It's no different than what's done with similar ramp designs I've seen elsewhere.
Dirt road maintained by a township? I don't know how that would be handled in PA.
I don't think a right-in, right-out intersection will suffice, since this portion of US 15 is planned to become part of Interstate 99. I wouldn't be surprised if the US 15 designation is eventually truncated to Interstate 180 in Williamsport.
Quote from: seicer on April 04, 2022, 09:18:43 PM
Why would a right-in, right-out not suffice here? Just build deceleration and acceleration lanes next to the shoulder. It's no different than what's done with similar ramp designs I've seen elsewhere.
I-40 in western NC says hi.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 04, 2022, 10:54:06 PM
I don't think a right-in, right-out intersection will suffice, since this portion of US 15 is planned to become part of Interstate 99. I wouldn't be surprised if the US 15 designation is eventually truncated to Interstate 180 in Williamsport.
I-70 between Breezewood and Hancock has a series of essentially RIRO ramps, like this one: https://goo.gl/maps/6gtRsaZeDof4nyscA
* I-78 enters the chat * https://goo.gl/maps/MLfnWmPGftjDv1oTA
Future I-86 will have some right-in, right-out interchanges too: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0622391,-76.1434006,148m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: seicer on April 04, 2022, 09:18:43 PM
Why would a right-in, right-out not suffice here? Just build deceleration and acceleration lanes next to the shoulder. It's no different than what's done with similar ramp designs I've seen elsewhere.
IMO, if a RIRO is built with long enough acceleration/deceleration lanes for a sufficient design speed (70mph I guess in this case), then it should be OK for FHWA, but I'm not sure how they would feel about that.
They will need to fix the RIRO interchanges for the I-99 designation to be applied. In the case of I-70 in Pennsylvania, it was built at a time when Interstate standards were different. The same goes for NY 17.
Quote from: Bitmapped on April 04, 2022, 07:51:42 PM
PennDOT's documentation says they are acquiring ROW for another access for the affected property owner.
IIRC...there is a private camp/hunting ground at the end of the 4 Mile Road...and although Google Maps seems to indicate access from the other direction, in reality that doesn't exist or maybe there are issues with it. So there has been a big dispute between PennDOT and the landowners about what to do with that intersection. I read an article about it several years ago but couldn't find it via a Google Search.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on April 05, 2022, 09:54:34 PM
They will need to fix the RIRO interchanges for the I-99 designation to be applied. In the case of I-70 in Pennsylvania, it was built at a time when Interstate standards were different. The same goes for NY 17.
The ones in that area of NY 17 actually received some upgrades about a decade ago in preparation for the I-86 upgrade. I believe it was mainly longer acceleration/deceleration lanes.
Quote from: Alps on April 04, 2022, 11:41:25 PM
Quote from: seicer on April 04, 2022, 09:18:43 PM
Why would a right-in, right-out not suffice here? Just build deceleration and acceleration lanes next to the shoulder. It's no different than what's done with similar ramp designs I've seen elsewhere.
I-40 in western NC says hi.
And so does I-25 Exit 106 in Colorado.