Will a 2 digit interstate ever be decomissioned? And can it be done?

[SEWIGuy]

My I-99 is far too long to be a 3di. Remember, I am connecting my I-99 to the proposed future I-99 corridor from DE to Charleston SC. It will run from the Throgsneck Expressway (I-695) in the Bronx to Charleston, that's many hundreds of miles. The PA I-99 is short enough to be a 3di compared to most other 2di in that state. The completed I-99 would bypass NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C, and if a long island sound crossing is built, I-395, I-290, and I-495 in MA could be connected to this long distance corridor and bypass Boston, Providence, and New Haven as well. There would never be a traffic jam on this route.

You should keep this in fictional please.

I know, I just brought it up because it is an argument of why the PA I-99 should be decommissioned. Avoidance of route duplication is an essential reason why certain 2di should lose their designation, not just because of the conditions of the road. That was my main point. This would still apply even if the number was just changed.

1. I-99 is not going to lose it's designation.

2. We have nearly thirty, two digit numbers available. We aren't running out of numbers.

[kphoger]

Avoidance of route duplication is an essential reason why certain 2di should lose their designation, not just because of the conditions of the road.

Whoa, stop the bus!

This almost slipped past me.  Are you saying that you think poor pavement conditions should be reason to decommission an Interstate?  Don't you think that–oh, I don't know–repaving might be a better option?

[kphoger]

I know, I just brought it up because it is an argument of why the PA I-99 should be decommissioned. Avoidance of route duplication is an essential reason why certain 2di should lose their designation, not just because of the conditions of the road. That was my main point. This would still apply even if the number was just changed.

So which is it?  You want I-99 to be a 3di instead, or you want its I- status removed entirely?

Either Or. I think it deserves an interstate designation as it is long enough and will pass through 2 states once completed. 3di would be slightly preferable in my opinion.

How would "avoidance of route duplication" still apply if "the number was just changed"?  If, say, I-99 became I-780 or I-980, are you saying route duplication would still be an issue?

[Flint1979]

I think I-80 should be decomissioned.

[kphoger]

Otherwise, it would have to lose its number altogether if no suitable 2di or 3di is available.

Your assertion is that, if there's no "suitable" number available (one that accords with the zeal of your grid fanaticism), then it's preferable for the highway to not be an Interstate at all?

Avoidance of route duplication is an essential reason why certain 2di should lose their designation, not just because of the conditions of the road.

Whoa, stop the bus!

This almost slipped past me.  Are you saying that you think poor pavement conditions should be reason to decommission an Interstate?  Don't you think that–oh, I don't know–repaving might be a better option?

Depends, if it's permanent damage, maybe. If it's just a few months of repaving it can stay as it is.

Permanent damage?  Like what, specifically?

[ethanhopkin14]

I read the title to this thread and wasn't disappointed because I knew four things would transpire:

1) People would confuse outright decommissioning for realignment or a 3di being absorbed into a longer route. 

2) Everyone would then talk about the numbers that they wish would go away, which is not what this thread is about, which leads to:

3) I-19 bashing

4) I-99 bashing

[Scott5114]

The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

Also, the only thing the law says is:

The portion of the route referred to in subsection (c)(9) is designated as Interstate Route I—99.

That doesn't mean that it has to be signed or publicly referred to as such. It could internally be designated I-99/I-780 and only signed as I-780. Or just US-220. Or whatever. Hell, that doesn't even preclude assigning another I-99 elsewhere–we have two of plenty of other routes.

(Also, given the way that's worded, doesn't that imply that it should be signed with an Interstate shield containing the string "I-99" if you wanted to be 100% compliant with the law?)

[kphoger]

The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

How does this compare to your feelings about the I-69xyz web in south Texas?

[Scott5114]

The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

How does this compare to your feelings about the I-69xyz web in south Texas?

I-69* is worse than I-99 because not only was the numbering system hijacked by elected officials there, it wasn't even done in a way that makes a whole lot of sense. At least you can say I-99 makes navigation easier by making the freeway route clearly labeled as such. I-69 is just baffling to anyone who doesn't intuitively "get" road numbering. ("Wait, get on I-69E? But I want to go south! Won't going east make me drive into the Gulf?")

I-2 is cool and can stay.

[kphoger]

Yes, if there's no suitable number then it should not join the interstate highway system.

Well, that's retarded.

[MultiMillionMiler]

Yes, if there's no suitable number then it should not join the interstate highway system.

Well, that's retarded.

Well the solution is to simply not waste numbers on things like I-238. Actually, I-238 would be a much better number for route 15 because at least it would actually be a good distance with that fun number. They should wait until more highways are built before numbering them. It's hard to properly number a grid that's not fully developed yet.

[SEWIGuy]

Otherwise, it would have to lose its number altogether if no suitable 2di or 3di is available.

Your assertion is that, if there's no "suitable" number available (one that accords with the zeal of your grid fanaticism), then it's preferable for the highway to not be an Interstate at all?

Avoidance of route duplication is an essential reason why certain 2di should lose their designation, not just because of the conditions of the road.

Whoa, stop the bus!

This almost slipped past me.  Are you saying that you think poor pavement conditions should be reason to decommission an Interstate?  Don't you think that–oh, I don't know–repaving might be a better option?

Depends, if it's permanent damage, maybe. If it's just a few months of repaving it can stay as it is.

Permanent damage?  Like what, specifically?

Yes, if there's no suitable number then it should not join the interstate highway system.

Lol. Honestly that's just dumb.

[SectorZ]

There would never be a traffic jam on this route.

[citation needed]

[kurumi]

There's a solution here we're not seeing: relegation.

At the end of each year a few interstates are kicked out and some high-performing non-interstates are promoted.

The FHWA can do a press conference and announce something like "As of 12:01 am this morning, former interstates 12 and 41 have become Louisiana route 284 and US Route 41. And we are pleased to announce that US 20 in Iowa is an extension of western Interstate 88; and US 287 in Texas is now I-33. Good day."

In the Caesars sportsbook in Vegas, which is showing this on the big screen, whoops and cheering and swearing fills the room as hundreds of thousands of dollars change hands.

[kphoger]

Well the solution is to simply not waste numbers on things like I-238.

*groan*  You know darned well why the number 238 was chosen, and I think you also know why it needs to be an Interstate.  Give it a rest.

Besides which, the number wasn't "wasted", as there is no better use for it elsewhere–precisely because there isn't an I-38 for it to be a proper child of.

Actually, I-238 would be a much better number for route 15 because at least it would actually be a good distance with that fun number.

Which Route 15?  What state?  Surely you can't be talking about I-15...

They should wait until more highways are built before numbering them.

Who should wait?  And how much longer should they wait?

It's hard to properly number a grid that's not fully developed yet.

No highway network is ever "fully developed".  New highways are built all the time.  Get over it.

[wanderer2575]

Why is anybody still responding to anything this guy posts?  All you're doing is feeding the troll and helping him derail good conversations.

[vdeane]

My issue with I-99 is that the corridor makes zero sense.  How many people are driving between Altoona and Painted Post?  Not many, not even just general corridor rather than going to/from those specific destinations or that specific route.  The three pieces (Bedford-State College, western part of the route connecting I-80 to Williamsport on each side, and US 15) don't really fit together - they're more a Frankenstein conglomeration.  On the other hand, a lot of people drive between Rochester and Harrisburg (or at least that corridor); it would make sense as a northern extension of I-83, if only PennDOT had built the Harrisburg-Selinsgrove piece as a freeway.  I-99 as it aspires to be (to say less of what it actually exists as) makes zero sense even ignoring any grid concerns.

[Rothman]

My issue with I-99 is that the corridor makes zero sense.  How many people are driving between Altoona and Painted Post?  Not many, not even just general corridor rather than going to/from those specific destinations or that specific route.  The three pieces (Bedford-State College, western part of the route connecting I-80 to Williamsport on each side, and US 15) don't really fit together - they're more a Frankenstein conglomeration.  On the other hand, a lot of people drive between Rochester and Harrisburg (or at least that corridor); it would make sense as a northern extension of I-83, if only PennDOT had built the Harrisburg-Selinsgrove piece as a freeway.  I-99 as it aspires to be (to say less of what it actually exists as) makes zero sense even ignoring any grid concerns.

Heh.  I had a college friend when I lived in DC who was from Rochester.  He used US 15 to get back home.

So, there you go:  It's an important connection between Rochester and our nation's capital.

[GaryV]

"Cities with Sound Hotels"

I can't decide if this means they are financially stable, or if they do something related to noise.

[skluth]

"Cities with Sound Hotels"

I can't decide if this means they are financially stable, or if they do something related to noise.

That reminds me of a few years ago when I stayed at the Hilton in Heathrow Airport. Didn't even have to leave the airport. I don't know what they did with the walls, but it was the quietest hotel room I've ever had.

[vdeane]

My issue with I-99 is that the corridor makes zero sense.  How many people are driving between Altoona and Painted Post?  Not many, not even just general corridor rather than going to/from those specific destinations or that specific route.  The three pieces (Bedford-State College, western part of the route connecting I-80 to Williamsport on each side, and US 15) don't really fit together - they're more a Frankenstein conglomeration.  On the other hand, a lot of people drive between Rochester and Harrisburg (or at least that corridor); it would make sense as a northern extension of I-83, if only PennDOT had built the Harrisburg-Selinsgrove piece as a freeway.  I-99 as it aspires to be (to say less of what it actually exists as) makes zero sense even ignoring any grid concerns.

Heh.  I had a college friend when I lived in DC who was from Rochester.  He used US 15 to get back home.

So, there you go:  It's an important connection between Rochester and our nation's capital.

The US 15 part is, but I highly doubt your friend went via Altoona.  That's why I think it would make more sense for that part to be an extension of I-83, were the missing freeway link ever to be built.  I would guess there's a lot more traffic taking that route than there is heading to/from Rochester or Binghamton to/from Altoona or even State College.

[kphoger]

"Cities with Sound Hotels"

I can't decide if this means they are financially stable, or if they do something related to noise.

Excuse me, sir, are you lost?

[hbelkins]

The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

I have a fundamental disagreement with this argument, not just with highway numbering, but government in general. The purpose of the executive branch is to carry out the will of the legislative branch. I've mentioned this before. I think the elected officials from a community have a better idea of what needs to be done than a career bureaucrat in Frankfort or DC.

There's something brewing here that's related. Currently, executive branch state agencies can hire lobbyists to advocate before the legislature for their budgets and other requests. There's probably going to be legislation filed to prohibit that practice. The thought is that the legislature -- elected from across the state -- should set the priorities and the funding, and the executive agencies should carry those out. The executive shouldn't say what it wants done and then ask the legislature to approve. The legislature should tell the executive what to do and provide the funding for it.

I hear it in my own agency. Snide comments about "armchair engineers." I've had some discussions with people who seem genuinely surprised that I'd side with the community members who prefer a traffic signal over a J-turn/RCUT at an intersection. I don't want the government to wield the power. I want the people to prevail and the public servants to actually serve the public instead of dictating what the public gets.

I know I've told the story before about the decision to put a traffic light at an intersection on the AA Highway in Lewis County several years ago. Community members kept pushing for a signal because of a large number of wrecks, yet the engineers kept saying the intersection didn't meet warrants. The KYTC secretary at the time overruled the engineers and ordered the installation of a signal.

My issue with I-99 is that the corridor makes zero sense.

Tell that to the ARC. They designated the ADHS corridors.

[SEWIGuy]

The real thing that bothers me about I-99 isn't the number being out of grid–that sucks, but I see it as the same "ah, what else can you do?" situation that I-11 is in–it's how it got the number to begin with. What is or isn't an interstate, and especially what number is assigned, should be the decision of the career officials at the DOT, not some two-bit elected official trying to make a name for himself.

I have a fundamental disagreement with this argument, not just with highway numbering, but government in general. The purpose of the executive branch is to carry out the will of the legislative branch. I've mentioned this before. I think the elected officials from a community have a better idea of what needs to be done than a career bureaucrat in Frankfort or DC.

There's something brewing here that's related. Currently, executive branch state agencies can hire lobbyists to advocate before the legislature for their budgets and other requests. There's probably going to be legislation filed to prohibit that practice. The thought is that the legislature -- elected from across the state -- should set the priorities and the funding, and the executive agencies should carry those out. The executive shouldn't say what it wants done and then ask the legislature to approve. The legislature should tell the executive what to do and provide the funding for it.

I hear it in my own agency. Snide comments about "armchair engineers." I've had some discussions with people who seem genuinely surprised that I'd side with the community members who prefer a traffic signal over a J-turn/RCUT at an intersection. I don't want the government to wield the power. I want the people to prevail and the public servants to actually serve the public instead of dictating what the public gets.

I know I've told the story before about the decision to put a traffic light at an intersection on the AA Highway in Lewis County several years ago. Community members kept pushing for a signal because of a large number of wrecks, yet the engineers kept saying the intersection didn't meet warrants. The KYTC secretary at the time overruled the engineers and ordered the installation of a signal.

It's a balancing act. The government, with legislative approval, also hires experts in their fields. (ie, traffic engineers) At some point, their professional opinion needs to be respected above those of the local officials, who may have any number of reasons to oppose something suggested by the DOT. But of course, your last paragraph is a good example of when local opinion matters.

But as I said, it's a balancing act.

[Rothman]

The problem with listening to the public is that you only her the squeaky wheels.

Engineering expertise helps bust through bias.