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

[SEWIGuy]

Or you could keep it I-99, because there is nothing wrong with the number.

You risk being labeled an anti-gridder.

I would wear that label proudly!

[hbelkins]

Or you could keep it I-99, because there is nothing wrong with the number.

You risk being labeled an anti-gridder.

I'm going to revert back to my standard, long-held thoughts on the matter: The original corridor, from Cumberland to Corning, is definitely deserving of a two-digit number. Even though the portion from Cumberland to Bedford is no longer on the books, the rest (Bedford to Corning) is deserving of 2di status. The only number available that comes close to the grid is 99. In fact, I'm on record as being in favor of I-99 taking over I-390 from I-86 to at least the Thruway, if not all the way to I-490.

There are all sorts of other grid violations that are equally worthy of righteous anger if I-99 bothers someone.

[MultiMillionMiler]

What about I-67? Much closer to the grid. Even I-73 would serve that corridor much better than what it currently is.

[kphoger]

Can a highway whose number is legislatively defined even be renumbered?

[NWI_Irish96]

Can a highway whose number is legislatively defined even be renumbered?

Did the legislation specify that it had to remain I-99 for any period of time?

[MultiMillionMiler]

Or you could keep it I-99, because there is nothing wrong with the number.

You risk being labeled an anti-gridder.

I'm going to revert back to my standard, long-held thoughts on the matter: The original corridor, from Cumberland to Corning, is definitely deserving of a two-digit number. Even though the portion from Cumberland to Bedford is no longer on the books, the rest (Bedford to Corning) is deserving of 2di status. The only number available that comes close to the grid is 99. In fact, I'm on record as being in favor of I-99 taking over I-390 from I-86 to at least the Thruway, if not all the way to I-490.

There are all sorts of other grid violations that are equally worthy of righteous anger if I-99 bothers someone.

I-99 should either be designated an x80, x76, or have no interstate number altogether. There is absolutely no excuse for that atrocity. Besides, the tiny stretch in NYS would violate route duplication, as I have a better I-99 planned for Queens and NJ.

[SEWIGuy]

What about I-67? Much closer to the grid. Even I-73 would serve that corridor much better than what it currently is.

I-99 serves it fine.

Can a highway whose number is legislatively defined even be renumbered?

Did the legislation specify that it had to remain I-99 for any period of time?

No, but even if it did, they aren't going to change it.  Why would they?

[WillWeaverRVA]

Can a highway whose number is legislatively defined even be renumbered?

Did the legislation specify that it had to remain I-99 for any period of time?

The legislation expressly states the corridor is I-99, so the only way to change the number is through another act of Congress that repeals that provision, which is horribly unlikely to happen.

[kphoger]

Can a highway whose number is legislatively defined even be renumbered?

Did the legislation specify that it had to remain I-99 for any period of time?

The legislation expressly states the corridor is I-99, so the only way to change the number is through another act of Congress that repeals that provision, which is horribly unlikely to happen.

That's what I was getting at.  It isn't as simple as sending a request letter to AASHTO.

[Flint1979]

What about I-67? Much closer to the grid. Even I-73 would serve that corridor much better than what it currently is.

What does a route's number have to do with how well it serves an area?

[WillWeaverRVA]

What about I-67? Much closer to the grid. Even I-73 would serve that corridor much better than what it currently is.

What does a route's number have to do with how well it serves an area?

It doesn't, and based on his FritzOwl-esque "plan" for I-99, I don't think he really cares.

I-99 is here to stay whether we like the number or not, the only things I wish would happen would be for a freeway-to-freeway interchange with I-70/76 (which is not likely to happen because PTC) and for it to connect to the I-99 piece in NY (which is not likely to happen, period).

[Flint1979]

What about I-67? Much closer to the grid. Even I-73 would serve that corridor much better than what it currently is.

What does a route's number have to do with how well it serves an area?

It doesn't, and based on his FritzOwl-esque "plan" for I-99, I don't think he really cares.

I-99 is here to stay whether we like the number or not, the only things I wish would happen would be for a freeway-to-freeway interchange with I-70/76 (which is not likely to happen because PTC) and for it to connect to the I-99 piece in NY (which is not likely to happen, period).

I honestly don't mind I-99. I know where it is and that it's there so that's just the route number for it honestly I don't think that there's another route number that could have been used there and still fit the grid.

[Flint1979]

What about I-67? Much closer to the grid. Even I-73 would serve that corridor much better than what it currently is.

What does a route's number have to do with how well it serves an area?

The number doesn't serve the interstate well. It should be east of I-95.

So what? Is the highway going to be any different if it has a different route number? Changing route numbers just for the sake of changing route numbers doesn't make any sense.

[MultiMillionMiler]

It's not even a continuous interstate, and the stretch in NY makes it harder to build a new I-99 bypass of NYC that's actually needed (I have these posted in my MMM thread) because of route duplication. It's not like they had no other choice of numbers. Literally any x80 would have sufficed. And there are numbers much closer to fitting the grid, such as 67, 73..etc, so why did they go out of their way to give it such a bizarre number.

[hotdogPi]

and the stretch in NY makes it harder to build a new I-99 bypass of NYC that's actually needed (I have these posted in my MMM thread) because of route duplication

Numbering doesn't make a physical road impossible to build.

[MultiMillionMiler]

Yeah but what would the new one become then? Decommissioning the PA one is a small price to pay for the actual east coast corridor that's needed. The new one, especially with the Breezy Point-Sandy Hook Bay Bridge, will need much more federal funding. Route 15 is good enough for Pennsylvania. I-99 is a good example of a 2di that should be Decommissioned for the purpose of building better, much more needed interstate highways. The same thing should happen to I-97 in Maryland, and use that to build a new I-97 between I-95 and I-99 in Delaware.

[MATraveler128]

It's not even a continous interstate, and the stretch in NY makes it harder to build a new I-99 bypass of NYC that's actually needed (I have these posted in my MMM thread) because of route duplication. It's not like they had no other choice of numbers. Literally any x80 would have sufficed. And there are numbers much closer to fitting the grid, such as 67, 73..etc, so why did they go out of their way to give it such a bizarre number.

It could have been a 3di of either I-70, 76, or 80, but Bud Shuster gave it the 99 number because of a streetcar in his hometown of Altoona, PA. The extension into New York came later and it was originally supposed to extend down to I-68 in Cumberland, MD.

[Evan_Th]

I'll defend how MultiMillionMiler is speaking here.  The number "serves the corridor" better because it applies better by the grid; and it "makes it harder to build a new I-99 bypass" as a figure of speech in that it makes it harder to assign I-99 to that bypass.

I don't support his actual plans for that I-99 bypass, but that's another question.

[kphoger]

The number doesn't serve the interstate well.

It serves it just fine.  They're all just numbers anyway.  The number 703 would serve it just as well.  The only purpose of a route number is so people know what road to turn on.

It should be east of I-95.

In a perfect world, I suppose.  Oh, well.

It's not even a continuous interstate

That's the real problem.

I'll defend how MultiMillionMiler is speaking here ... and it "makes it harder to build a new I-99 bypass" as a figure of speech in that it makes it harder to assign I-99 to that bypass.

If it's really a bypass, then shouldn't it be a 3di anyway?

[kphoger]

I am connecting my I-99 to blah blah blah blah

Then it isn't just a bypass of NYC.

[SEWIGuy]

I'll defend how MultiMillionMiler is speaking here.  The number "serves the corridor" better because it applies better by the grid; and it "makes it harder to build a new I-99 bypass" as a figure of speech in that it makes it harder to assign I-99 to that bypass.

I don't support his actual plans for that I-99 bypass, but that's another question.

The grid is an anachronism.  You could put I-7 on a New York bypass and it would be fine.

[MultiMillionMiler]

No, it bypasses almost every major city on the east coast, with the exception of Norfolk Virginia, if that counts. At one point I considered extending my I-99 across long island and up 395 (sound crossing) so this entire route could have one designation, but it would make an unnecessary concurrency with I-495 (which becomes I-80 in my plans). But it would likely benefit NYC the most, since not only would there be a shortcut from Long Island to Jersey, but it would avoid all the city  traffic on the belt parkway, lower manhattan, staten island, GWB, I-278, Newark, Jersey City...etc. You fly through the rockaways, over the bay, and end up at the Garden State parkway south of all the traffic. Definitely worth the decommissioning of the silly I-99 in PA.

[kphoger]

Your dream highway could be numbered I-67 with no ill effect.

Please move this conversation to your own fiction thread.

[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?

[MultiMillionMiler]

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.