Work begins on Route 220/Auction Road project (http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/545952/Work-begins-on-Route-220-Auction-Road-project.html?nav=5009%5B/url)
The stretch of roadway in question is a 2 lane stretch south of Lock Haven, just a few miles north of I-80. This is the only at grade intersection on this stretch, and it appears that it will be bridged. Has anyone heard anything about this? Possibly related to the whole I-99 saga?
It would be interesting to see whether they plan for another set of lanes in a future expansion.
Based on the following from the article-
"Phase Two of the project will build the bridge and ramps on the western side of Route 220, adjacent to the Clinton County Fairgrounds. Phase Two is expected to begin in 2014. "
It soulds like this could be an early phase of I-99 upgradeing, I believe this part of 220 is built as a super 2 so it sounds as if they could be building the south bound carriage way. Been several years since I was in this part of PA.
This section of 220 is not what most roadgeeks consider a "super 2". I always took a super 2 to be two lanes (one carriageway) built on freeway right of way that leaves space for another carriageway to be built later. A perfect central PA example would be the old two-lane section of PA 147 from Milton to Montandon that was upgraded to four lanes about 10 years ago.
But in the grander scheme, adding an interchange at that at-grade intersection is one small link in a much larger and more expensive chain. To make a continuous freeway, the interchange with I-80 will need to be upgraded to at least a trumpet if not a full four-way semi-directional or directional, and they'll need to grade and construct another carriageway from I-80 to Mill Hall. But the bigger and more costly problem is the roughly six miles between Jersey Shore and Williamsport that need to be constructed–including probably a couple of interchanges.
Honestly if there were enough Central PA transportation dollars to do all of that, I'd much rather see them go to the CSVT.
QuoteThis section of 220 is not what most roadgeeks consider a "super 2". I always took a super 2 to be two lanes (one carriageway) built on freeway right of way that leaves space for another carriageway to be built later.
"Super-2" is not necessarily controlled-access. Limited-access roads built to high standards, with no private access but intersections at intersecting public roads instead of grade separation are also called "Super-2", and are specifically labeled as such by some state DOTs. A "super-2" also does not necessarily have a 4-lane right-of-way either.
QuoteTo make a continuous freeway, the interchange with I-80 will need to be upgraded to at least a trumpet if not a full four-way semi-directional or directional
Or just add a couple of flyovers. I don't recall the exact topography at the interchange site, but it doesn't necessarily need a full interchange rebuild. Desirable, perhaps, but not necessary.
If PennDOT wants to build the flyovers at exit 178, they will have to take out parts of two hills south of the interchange. I can see how it can be feasible.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 01, 2013, 12:51:02 AM
Honestly if there were enough Central PA transportation dollars to do all of that, I'd much rather see them go to the CSVT.
Seconded. Having been through Shamokin Dam several times, and seeing the amount of traffic, I very much agree that this should have a higher priority. Heck, I think US 11/15 should be upgraded to completely limited access down to US 22/322, but that's not going to happen. Apparently, the CSVT almost got funding this summer, but the failure to pass a transportation bill seems to have shelved the project again.
Back on topic...
As for this section of the I-99 corridor, I doubt the several miles just west of Williamsport will be redone. I have seen plans for it however, but I cannot remember where I found them.
At least along the section where they're working on this bridge/intersection, there appears to be a right of way almost down to I-80. The I-80 interchange is another matter though.
The second phase of the US 220/Auction rd project has started. The first part was building ramps on the east side of 220, the next part will be ramps on the west side and a bridge carrying 220 over Auction Rd.
http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/560193/Second-phase-of-Route-220-project-begins-this-week.html (http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/560193/Second-phase-of-Route-220-project-begins-this-week.html)
The previous portion was finished in April. Unless they were waiting for funding, I wonder why they waited till October to start this part.
While looking to see if this was done / completed pictures/ whatnot, I found this article from last October about it wrapping up:
http://wnep.com/2015/10/28/penndot-reveals-new-layout-at-dangerous-intersection (http://wnep.com/2015/10/28/penndot-reveals-new-layout-at-dangerous-intersection)
I assume the Interstate 80 interchange will remain a diamond for some time to come.
I do believe this is related to I-99. Long term plans call for it to go South to Cumberland, MD and north to I-86 in NY or even Rochester. Considering I-99 pretty much overlaps US 220, I think it's related.
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 04, 2016, 04:48:48 PM
I do believe this is related to I-99. Long term plans call for it to go South to Cumberland, MD and north to I-86 in NY or even Rochester. Considering I-99 pretty much overlaps US 220, I think it's related.
Plans to extend it south of Bedford, Pa., have been permanently scrapped. The APD money that was to be spent on that section has been diverted to another project in Pennsylvania.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 04, 2016, 10:10:38 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 04, 2016, 04:48:48 PM
I do believe this is related to I-99. Long term plans call for it to go South to Cumberland, MD and north to I-86 in NY or even Rochester. Considering I-99 pretty much overlaps US 220, I think it's related.
Plans to extend it south of Bedford, Pa., have been permanently scrapped. The APD money that was to be spent on that section has been diverted to another project in Pennsylvania.
I never heard that the plan was permanently scrapped. I heard that it wouldn't happen for a long time: until they connect the current I-99 with I-86, but I didn't think it was permanent.
It definitely looks like a preemptive move that would precede building another carriageway. However, they probably wouldn't consider that part until this project is over.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 04, 2016, 10:10:38 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 04, 2016, 04:48:48 PM
I do believe this is related to I-99. Long term plans call for it to go South to Cumberland, MD and north to I-86 in NY or even Rochester. Considering I-99 pretty much overlaps US 220, I think it's related.
Plans to extend it south of Bedford, Pa., have been permanently scrapped. The APD money that was to be spent on that section has been diverted to another project in Pennsylvania.
That project being...?
ixnay
P.S. What's the status of Maryland's portion of I-99?
IIRC the moneyu was sent to the US 11/15 freeway work/Susquehenna River Bridge up at Shamokin Dam
Actually, I thought it was diverted to a portion of US 322. I know there have been links posted here before, but I'm not motivated enough to find them.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 05, 2016, 10:40:39 PM
Actually, I thought it was diverted to a portion of US 322. I know there have been links posted here before, but I'm not motivated enough to find them.
Pretty sure it was this. The US 15/PA 147 bypass project is funded with gas tax revenue from Act 89.
Edit: The US 322 project in question was probably either the Lewistown Narrows (c 2004-2006), or the Dauphin Bypass (c 1998-2000). Not 100% certain, but probably the former.
I thought it was diverted to a new road roughly paralleling US 322 from Woodland to Post Matilda, bypassing Philipsburg. Since 322 was moved to a new alignment through Philipsburg some time ago, I think the rest of the "Corridor O-1" plans have been shelved.
Quote from: dave19 on March 06, 2016, 01:58:14 PM
I thought it was diverted to a new road roughly paralleling US 322 from Woodland to Post Matilda, bypassing Philipsburg. Since 322 was moved to a new alignment through Philipsburg some time ago, I think the rest of the "Corridor O-1" plans have been shelved.
That was in 2007. The Lewistown Narrows was 2008. So either the money was diverted earlier or they changed their mind.
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 06, 2016, 02:04:25 PM
Quote from: dave19 on March 06, 2016, 01:58:14 PM
I thought it was diverted to a new road roughly paralleling US 322 from Woodland to Post Matilda, bypassing Philipsburg. Since 322 was moved to a new alignment through Philipsburg some time ago, I think the rest of the "Corridor O-1" plans have been shelved.
That was in 2007. The Lewistown Narrows was 2008. So either the money was diverted earlier or they changed their mind.
Which is a shame, because Cumberland is a pretty big town in Maryland in need of commerce, and I-99 would help it tremendously.
I think the money was moved first to O-1 (US 322 west of US 220), then in 2010 (http://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/2012_adhs_cost-to-complete/Pennsylvania2012CostToComplete.pdf) to P-1 (US 11-15). None of which means I-99 won't be extended south with other funding sources. I bet the two-lane US 220 works just fine though.
Quote from: NE2 on March 06, 2016, 03:49:32 PM
I think the money was moved first to O-1 (US 322 west of US 220), then in 2010 (http://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/2012_adhs_cost-to-complete/Pennsylvania2012CostToComplete.pdf) to P-1 (US 11-15). None of which means I-99 won't be extended south with other funding sources. I bet the two-lane US 220 works just fine though.
It probably does, but I still think a 4-lane highway would be better for the area. I do understand there are environmental costs.
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 03:18:17 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 06, 2016, 02:04:25 PM
Quote from: dave19 on March 06, 2016, 01:58:14 PM
I thought it was diverted to a new road roughly paralleling US 322 from Woodland to Post Matilda, bypassing Philipsburg. Since 322 was moved to a new alignment through Philipsburg some time ago, I think the rest of the "Corridor O-1" plans have been shelved.
That was in 2007. The Lewistown Narrows was 2008. So either the money was diverted earlier or they changed their mind.
Which is a shame, because Cumberland is a pretty big town in Maryland in need of commerce, and I-99 would help it tremendously.
If there's any evidence that interstate highways on their own do not generate economic activity, one needs to look no further than Binghamton, NY. Economically depressed despite what will be three interstates serving the "city."
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 06, 2016, 03:49:32 PM
I think the money was moved first to O-1 (US 322 west of US 220), then in 2010 (http://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/2012_adhs_cost-to-complete/Pennsylvania2012CostToComplete.pdf) to P-1 (US 11-15). None of which means I-99 won't be extended south with other funding sources. I bet the two-lane US 220 works just fine though.
It probably does, but I still think a 4-lane highway would be better for the area. I do understand there are environmental costs.
US 220 could benefit from some occasional passing lanes, but it's a high speed 2-lane alignment south of Bedford and traffic generally flows above the speed limit already. 4-lanes, especially for a freeway, wouldn't serve much purpose.
US 11/15 near Shamokin Dam will benefit greatly from a new road, but an upgraded Corridor O-1 (US 322 from I-80 to I-99) would have helped a lot, too.
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2016, 05:35:41 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 03:18:17 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 06, 2016, 02:04:25 PM
Quote from: dave19 on March 06, 2016, 01:58:14 PM
I thought it was diverted to a new road roughly paralleling US 322 from Woodland to Post Matilda, bypassing Philipsburg. Since 322 was moved to a new alignment through Philipsburg some time ago, I think the rest of the "Corridor O-1" plans have been shelved.
That was in 2007. The Lewistown Narrows was 2008. So either the money was diverted earlier or they changed their mind.
Which is a shame, because Cumberland is a pretty big town in Maryland in need of commerce, and I-99 would help it tremendously.
If there's any evidence that interstate highways on their own do not generate economic activity, one needs to look no further than Binghamton, NY. Economically depressed despite what will be three interstates serving the "city."
That's because a major company in Binghamton went bankrupt, just like Rochester.
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 08, 2016, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2016, 05:35:41 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 03:18:17 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 06, 2016, 02:04:25 PM
Quote from: dave19 on March 06, 2016, 01:58:14 PM
I thought it was diverted to a new road roughly paralleling US 322 from Woodland to Post Matilda, bypassing Philipsburg. Since 322 was moved to a new alignment through Philipsburg some time ago, I think the rest of the "Corridor O-1" plans have been shelved.
That was in 2007. The Lewistown Narrows was 2008. So either the money was diverted earlier or they changed their mind.
Which is a shame, because Cumberland is a pretty big town in Maryland in need of commerce, and I-99 would help it tremendously.
If there's any evidence that interstate highways on their own do not generate economic activity, one needs to look no further than Binghamton, NY. Economically depressed despite what will be three interstates serving the "city."
That's because a major company in Binghamton went bankrupt, just like Rochester.
I may have heard about that bankrupt Binghamton company, but refresh my memory.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on March 08, 2016, 09:37:32 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 08, 2016, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2016, 05:35:41 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 03:18:17 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 06, 2016, 02:04:25 PM
Quote from: dave19 on March 06, 2016, 01:58:14 PM
I thought it was diverted to a new road roughly paralleling US 322 from Woodland to Post Matilda, bypassing Philipsburg. Since 322 was moved to a new alignment through Philipsburg some time ago, I think the rest of the "Corridor O-1" plans have been shelved.
That was in 2007. The Lewistown Narrows was 2008. So either the money was diverted earlier or they changed their mind.
Which is a shame, because Cumberland is a pretty big town in Maryland in need of commerce, and I-99 would help it tremendously.
If there's any evidence that interstate highways on their own do not generate economic activity, one needs to look no further than Binghamton, NY. Economically depressed despite what will be three interstates serving the "city."
That's because a major company in Binghamton went bankrupt, just like Rochester.
I may have heard about that bankrupt Binghamton company, but refresh my memory.
ixnay
I believe it was Endicott-Johnson Shoe Company, which sold itself and then moved to Nelsonville, Ohio. Don't quote me on this.
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 08, 2016, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2016, 05:35:41 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 03:18:17 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 06, 2016, 02:04:25 PM
Quote from: dave19 on March 06, 2016, 01:58:14 PM
I thought it was diverted to a new road roughly paralleling US 322 from Woodland to Post Matilda, bypassing Philipsburg. Since 322 was moved to a new alignment through Philipsburg some time ago, I think the rest of the "Corridor O-1" plans have been shelved.
That was in 2007. The Lewistown Narrows was 2008. So either the money was diverted earlier or they changed their mind.
Which is a shame, because Cumberland is a pretty big town in Maryland in need of commerce, and I-99 would help it tremendously.
If there's any evidence that interstate highways on their own do not generate economic activity, one needs to look no further than Binghamton, NY. Economically depressed despite what will be three interstates serving the "city."
That's because a major company in Binghamton went bankrupt, just like Rochester.
...and yet, the interstates haven't attracted anything back there.
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 08, 2016, 10:09:26 PM
Quote from: ixnay on March 08, 2016, 09:37:32 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 08, 2016, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2016, 05:35:41 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 03:18:17 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 06, 2016, 02:04:25 PM
Quote from: dave19 on March 06, 2016, 01:58:14 PM
I thought it was diverted to a new road roughly paralleling US 322 from Woodland to Post Matilda, bypassing Philipsburg. Since 322 was moved to a new alignment through Philipsburg some time ago, I think the rest of the "Corridor O-1" plans have been shelved.
That was in 2007. The Lewistown Narrows was 2008. So either the money was diverted earlier or they changed their mind.
Which is a shame, because Cumberland is a pretty big town in Maryland in need of commerce, and I-99 would help it tremendously.
If there's any evidence that interstate highways on their own do not generate economic activity, one needs to look no further than Binghamton, NY. Economically depressed despite what will be three interstates serving the "city."
That's because a major company in Binghamton went bankrupt, just like Rochester.
I may have heard about that bankrupt Binghamton company, but refresh my memory.
ixnay
I believe it was Endicott-Johnson Shoe Company, which sold itself and then moved to Nelsonville, Ohio. Don't quote me on this.
They moved to Nelsonville via Tennessee. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endicott_Johnson_Corporation...
QuoteIn 1995, E-J was purchased by US Industries. Inc. and its name was changed to EJ Footwear Corp., and its base of operations changed to Franklin, Tennessee. In 2000, EJ Footwear was bought out by Citicorp Venture Capital Ltd., a subsidiary of Citigroup.
Finally, on December 6, 2004, EJ Footwear agreed to be acquired by Rocky Shoes & Boots, Inc. EJ had previously been the sole licensee for Rocky's "Dickies" line of work footwear. According to its 2005 annual report, Rocky's sales more than doubled over 2004, largely reflecting this acquisition.
And per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Brands...
QuoteRocky Brands, Inc., formerly known as Rocky Shoes & Boots, Inc., designs, develops, manufactures and markets outdoor, work, western and Military footwear as well as outdoor and work apparel and accessories.[2] The company was founded in 1932 in Nelsonville, Ohio and still maintains its corporate headquarters there.
The old E-J hq is now a church.
ixnay
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 08, 2016, 10:09:26 PM
Quote from: ixnay on March 08, 2016, 09:37:32 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 08, 2016, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2016, 05:35:41 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 03:18:17 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 06, 2016, 02:04:25 PM
Quote from: dave19 on March 06, 2016, 01:58:14 PM
I thought it was diverted to a new road roughly paralleling US 322 from Woodland to Post Matilda, bypassing Philipsburg. Since 322 was moved to a new alignment through Philipsburg some time ago, I think the rest of the "Corridor O-1" plans have been shelved.
That was in 2007. The Lewistown Narrows was 2008. So either the money was diverted earlier or they changed their mind.
Which is a shame, because Cumberland is a pretty big town in Maryland in need of commerce, and I-99 would help it tremendously.
If there's any evidence that interstate highways on their own do not generate economic activity, one needs to look no further than Binghamton, NY. Economically depressed despite what will be three interstates serving the "city."
That's because a major company in Binghamton went bankrupt, just like Rochester.
I may have heard about that bankrupt Binghamton company, but refresh my memory.
ixnay
I believe it was Endicott-Johnson Shoe Company, which sold itself and then moved to Nelsonville, Ohio. Don't quote me on this.
IBM was the region's major employer after E-J started to decline, and they left also. That was really the death knell.
Rothman mentioned Binghamton...I'd like to include Meridian, MS, which despite a major interstate junction, a rail junction, and a major north-south highway that the state has spent multi-millions to 4-lane, is still very much a stagnant area.
Far too many people (CobaltYoshi among them, apparently) think that Interstate highways are the panacea for economic development. They aren't. You also need a skilled workforce and/or educational opportunity, amongst other things.
Quote from: froggie on March 09, 2016, 07:53:19 AM
Far too many people (CobaltYoshi among them, apparently) think that Interstate highways are the panacea for economic development. They aren't. You also need a skilled workforce and/or educational opportunity, amongst other things.
I don't want to drag this far off topic, but I am of the belief that interstates are just glorified designations that do not improve the community. What does it matter if an NY 17 freeway expansion spurs development instead of an Interstate 86 designation? The linear nature of the numbers make it really pointless to claim economic development will be improved by an interstate highway. Case in point, has US 6 in PA (and to some degree, US 6N) been pulling in big business since they unveiled 800 milemarkers (2 directions of 400) denoting the Do 6 program? I care to disagree.
Interesting argument, but I think you're comparing a tourism effort to an effort to maintain an industrial presence. If you don't advertise for tourism, chances are people won't think to go there if they haven't before.. For industrial or commercial, there's plenty of competition for sites with freeway/transit/rail freight access already. I can't really see that increasing the amount of potential sites (via a new freeway) does much but make existing brownfields that much harder to develop.. Regional or state planning would be nice in that regard for preferences.. Apologies for going further off topic.
I'm curious whether this full section of 220 gets updated before the darned last mile of I-99 south of I-80. That was a big surprise for me when I was through there last. (Another Breezewood in the making?)
Quote from: froggie on March 09, 2016, 07:53:19 AM
Rothman mentioned Binghamton...I'd like to include Meridian, MS, which despite a major interstate junction, a rail junction, and a major north-south highway that the state has spent multi-millions to 4-lane, is still very much a stagnant area.
Far too many people (CobaltYoshi among them, apparently) think that Interstate highways are the panacea for economic development. They aren't. You also need a skilled workforce and/or educational opportunity, amongst other things.
I never said they were the panacea for economic development. Sure, they help, but they alone won't do anything without businesses and workers.
Quote from: Chris19001 on March 09, 2016, 04:06:11 PM
I'm curious whether this full section of 220 gets updated before the darned last mile of I-99 south of I-80. That was a big surprise for me when I was through there last. (Another Breezewood in the making?)
IMO in some ways this is worse than Breezewood...the traffic backups have been pretty bad the few times I've been that way, and you're asking an interstate to make a left turn without a signal to get onto another interstate (and it's own future continuation)?
I know there were plans at one point to make this high-speed interchange, but NIMBY struck again, I believe. But this isn't even on the 12-year plan...
Quote from: froggie on March 09, 2016, 07:53:19 AM
Rothman mentioned Binghamton...I'd like to include Meridian, MS, which despite a major interstate junction, a rail junction, and a major north-south highway that the state has spent multi-millions to 4-lane, is still very much a stagnant area.
Perhaps best known (at least to civil rights students) as the site of the federal trial of the defendants in the 1964 murders on which
Mississippi Burning was loosely based.
Meridian NAS is still there, having survived BRAC.
ixnay
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 09, 2016, 05:41:39 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 09, 2016, 07:53:19 AM
Rothman mentioned Binghamton...I'd like to include Meridian, MS, which despite a major interstate junction, a rail junction, and a major north-south highway that the state has spent multi-millions to 4-lane, is still very much a stagnant area.
Far too many people (CobaltYoshi among them, apparently) think that Interstate highways are the panacea for economic development. They aren't. You also need a skilled workforce and/or educational opportunity, amongst other things.
I never said they were the panacea for economic development. Sure, they help, but they alone won't do anything without businesses and workers.
Yes, all roads lead to Rome (if not Rome, NY or Rome, GA), but you have to get the people to come to Rome.
ixnay
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 09, 2016, 05:41:39 PMI never said they were the panacea for economic development. Sure, they help, but they alone won't do anything without businesses and workers.
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 03:18:17 PMWhich is a shame, because Cumberland is a pretty big town in Maryland in need of commerce, and I-99 would help it tremendously.
You effectively said it here.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 09, 2016, 11:47:12 AM
Case in point, has US 6 in PA (and to some degree, US 6N) been pulling in big business since they unveiled 800 milemarkers (2 directions of 400) denoting the Do 6 program? I care to disagree.
I was under the distinct impression (especially after receiving comments on it from Jeff Kitsko when it came out) that
"Do 6" was put in for tourism reasons and not for "economic development". Nevermind that they're actual milemarkers which IMO should have been added anyway.
Quote from: froggie on March 10, 2016, 07:56:29 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 09, 2016, 11:47:12 AM
Case in point, has US 6 in PA (and to some degree, US 6N) been pulling in big business since they unveiled 800 milemarkers (2 directions of 400) denoting the Do 6 program? I care to disagree.
I was under the distinct impression (especially after receiving comments on it from Jeff Kitsko when it came out) that "Do 6" was put in for tourism reasons and not for "economic development". Nevermind that they're actual milemarkers which IMO should have been added anyway.
I am under the impression that tourism is supposed to be part of economic development.
While I-99 to Rochester would be nice, it would be even better going to Cumberland!
I have pictures of the new US 220 interchange in Mackeyville, PA. I'll post when I get a chance. The layout would make another bridge difficult. I don't see why the bridge that was built wouldn't have been about ten feet wider...it would have been wide enough for four lanes then.
Quote from: Henry on March 10, 2016, 11:07:50 AM
While I-99 to Rochester would be nice, it would be even better going to Cumberland!
Cumberland already has I-68. I don't think adding I-99 would help any. Traffic already uses US 220, and the several times I've used the route there has been plenty of truck traffic on it.
Quote from: froggie on March 10, 2016, 07:56:29 AM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 09, 2016, 05:41:39 PMI never said they were the panacea for economic development. Sure, they help, but they alone won't do anything without businesses and workers.
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 03:18:17 PMWhich is a shame, because Cumberland is a pretty big town in Maryland in need of commerce, and I-99 would help it tremendously.
No, I said it would HELP. Key word: HELP
Forget the Rochester pipedream. I'm more interested in when they might convert the two future Interstate 99 junctions with Interstate 80 to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on March 09, 2016, 07:53:12 PM
I know there were plans at one point to make this high-speed interchange, but NIMBY struck again, I believe. But this isn't even on the 12-year plan...
I don't know that there was any real NIMBY-ism for this... I think it's mostly just money. And the fact that samples revealed those really acidic mineral deposits that were a huge pain in the ass in some of the I-99 construction on the other side of State College. That can be dealt with, but it just adds a lot more to the cost.
Quote from: LeftyJR on March 10, 2016, 11:15:51 AM
I have pictures of the new US 220 interchange in Mackeyville, PA. I'll post when I get a chance. The layout would make another bridge difficult. I don't see why the bridge that was built wouldn't have been about ten feet wider...it would have been wide enough for four lanes then.
I'd hate to think PennDOT designed and built something that would go out of it's way to make future expansion more difficult. I thought it noticeable, though, that none of the articles I read about the opening of this mentioned at all "I-99 / Future I-99".
I think PA really only wanted the road between Bedford and State College and upgrades to US 15. As soon as that was accomplished, all interest in I-99 appeared to vanish.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on March 10, 2016, 05:44:43 PM
I'd hate to think PennDOT designed and built something that would go out of it's way to make future expansion more difficult. I thought it noticeable, though, that none of the articles I read about the opening of this mentioned at all "I-99 / Future I-99".
Sadly I've seen that all too often recently from PennDOT, the PTC, and SEPTA throughout the SE corner of that state (PA309, and the US202 Parkway projects come to mind). It doesn't happen every time, but I can think of a few large projects that simply needed a tiny amount of coordination with another planned project, and instead the 2nd project inherits a new obstacle in its path. I think it's just with tight purse strings a project gets streamlined and shoehorned if it reaches fruition at all.
This bridge/interchange width on 220 seems especially strange though. The PennDOT district office MUST know about the long term view of the corridor. I would also like to hope they have a plan to make future expansion cheaper with the recent work done.. (but I don't know)
The "spend (or lose) a dollar later to save five cents now" mentality is definitely common in many DOTs these days.
Personal opinion emphasized.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2016, 03:55:30 PM
Forget the Rochester pipedream. I'm more interested in when they might convert the two future Interstate 99 junctions with Interstate 80 to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.
We'll be lucky to see the first interchange finally get built in the next 15 years. Nothing's going to happen with the northern one for a long, long time (if ever).
Quote from: Henry on March 10, 2016, 11:07:50 AM
While I-83 to Rochester would be nice...
Ftfy
As for the rest of your comment, I'd rather see I-99 extended to Cumberland than to even Williamsport. I-68 to I-80 is fine, IMO
How is it hard to put in a second bridge next to the first one?
Quote from: CentralPAguy on March 11, 2016, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2016, 03:55:30 PM
Forget the Rochester pipedream. I'm more interested in when they might convert the two future Interstate 99 junctions with Interstate 80 to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.
We'll be lucky to see the first interchange finally get built in the next 15 years. Nothing's going to happen with the northern one for a long, long time (if ever).
Quote from: Henry on March 10, 2016, 11:07:50 AM
While I-83 to Rochester would be nice...
Ftfy
As for the rest of your comment, I'd rather see I-99 extended to Cumberland than to even Williamsport. I-68 to I-80 is fine, IMO
I think the North is being worked on first: New York has pretty much completed their segment of I-99.
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 11, 2016, 08:30:25 PM
Quote from: CentralPAguy on March 11, 2016, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2016, 03:55:30 PM
Forget the Rochester pipedream. I'm more interested in when they might convert the two future Interstate 99 junctions with Interstate 80 to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.
We'll be lucky to see the first interchange finally get built in the next 15 years. Nothing's going to happen with the northern one for a long, long time (if ever).
Quote from: Henry on March 10, 2016, 11:07:50 AM
While I-83 to Rochester would be nice...
Ftfy
As for the rest of your comment, I'd rather see I-99 extended to Cumberland than to even Williamsport. I-68 to I-80 is fine, IMO
I think the North is being worked on first: New York has pretty much completed their segment of I-99.
Why is I-99 not signed on the Pennsylvania side of the state line until limited access ends? Because as currently composed I-99 as a complete route is almost unfollowable and useless.
If they ever do finish I-99 is anyone ever going to travel it from end to end? The way I see it the road will have two sets of users. Ones going from Bedford to Williamsport (the US 220 users), and the US 15 users will use the other part. Is there that many traveling between US 220 north and US 15 north in Williamsport?
Quote from: AMLNet49 on March 11, 2016, 09:34:23 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 11, 2016, 08:30:25 PM
Quote from: CentralPAguy on March 11, 2016, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2016, 03:55:30 PM
Forget the Rochester pipedream. I'm more interested in when they might convert the two future Interstate 99 junctions with Interstate 80 to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.
We'll be lucky to see the first interchange finally get built in the next 15 years. Nothing's going to happen with the northern one for a long, long time (if ever).
Quote from: Henry on March 10, 2016, 11:07:50 AM
While I-83 to Rochester would be nice...
Ftfy
As for the rest of your comment, I'd rather see I-99 extended to Cumberland than to even Williamsport. I-68 to I-80 is fine, IMO
I think the North is being worked on first: New York has pretty much completed their segment of I-99.
Why is I-99 not signed on the Pennsylvania side of the state line until limited access ends? Because as currently composed I-99 as a complete route is almost unfollowable and useless.
I wouldn't say useless. It does give access to central PA, including Penn State University and the town of Altoona, and is a good substitute for I-81 or I-79 if you want to go from I-80 to I-76 or vice versa.
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 11, 2016, 10:06:22 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on March 11, 2016, 09:34:23 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 11, 2016, 08:30:25 PM
Quote from: CentralPAguy on March 11, 2016, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 10, 2016, 03:55:30 PM
Forget the Rochester pipedream. I'm more interested in when they might convert the two future Interstate 99 junctions with Interstate 80 to freeway-to-freeway interchanges.
We'll be lucky to see the first interchange finally get built in the next 15 years. Nothing's going to happen with the northern one for a long, long time (if ever).
Quote from: Henry on March 10, 2016, 11:07:50 AM
While I-83 to Rochester would be nice...
Ftfy
As for the rest of your comment, I'd rather see I-99 extended to Cumberland than to even Williamsport. I-68 to I-80 is fine, IMO
I think the North is being worked on first: New York has pretty much completed their segment of I-99.
Why is I-99 not signed on the Pennsylvania side of the state line until limited access ends? Because as currently composed I-99 as a complete route is almost unfollowable and useless.
I wouldn't say useless. It does give access to central PA, including Penn State University and the town of Altoona, and is a good substitute for I-81 or I-79 if you want to go from I-80 to I-76 or vice versa.
But I meant as a complete route (Turnpike to I-86). If the section north of Williamsport was signed, you would have a mostly complete route with one glaring incomplete section. The way it is signed now, it is basically a regional route through central PA plus what is essentially an unrelated stub in New York.
Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2016, 07:42:30 PM
I think PA really only wanted the road between Bedford and State College and upgrades to US 15. As soon as that was accomplished, all interest in I-99 appeared to vanish.
Sensibly so, because the upgrades to 220 which would be required to give it an interstate designation are not necessary. The only remaining upgrade in PA that really makes sense to build is a proper interchange between 99 and 80.
That said, Bob Shuster leaving congress may have also contributed to waning interest. Seeing as it was his pet project to begin with.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 11, 2016, 11:54:48 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2016, 07:42:30 PM
I think PA really only wanted the road between Bedford and State College and upgrades to US 15. As soon as that was accomplished, all interest in I-99 appeared to vanish.
Sensibly so, because the upgrades to 220 which would be required to give it an interstate designation are not necessary. The only remaining upgrade in PA that really makes sense to build is a proper interchange between 99 and 80.
That said, Bob Shuster leaving congress may have also contributed to waning interest. Seeing as it was his pet project to begin with.
Disagree. Getting rid of the at-grades between I-80 and Williamsport is a really good idea. Some of them are around curves and driveways on a high-speed multilane road are always preferable to avoid. The issue is finding the money for a proper freeway through there.
Quote from: froggie on March 10, 2016, 07:56:29 AM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 09, 2016, 05:41:39 PMI never said they were the panacea for economic development. Sure, they help, but they alone won't do anything without businesses and workers.
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 03:18:17 PMWhich is a shame, because Cumberland is a pretty big town in Maryland in need of commerce, and I-99 would help it tremendously.
You effectively said it here.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 09, 2016, 11:47:12 AM
Case in point, has US 6 in PA (and to some degree, US 6N) been pulling in big business since they unveiled 800 milemarkers (2 directions of 400) denoting the Do 6 program? I care to disagree.
I was under the distinct impression (especially after receiving comments on it from Jeff Kitsko when it came out) that "Do 6" was put in for tourism reasons and not for "economic development". Nevermind that they're actual milemarkers which IMO should have been added anyway.
PennDOT being creative, turning U.S. 6 into PA's version of the Overseas Highway or NC 12. I wish the "Do 6" corridor luck.
ixnay
Quote from: roadman65 on March 11, 2016, 09:58:44 PM
If they ever do finish I-99 is anyone ever going to travel it from end to end? The way I see it the road will have two sets of users. Ones going from Bedford to Williamsport (the US 220 users), and the US 15 users will use the other part. Is there that many traveling between US 220 north and US 15 north in Williamsport?
Not that myself and my family count as any useful data, but every couple of years we'll use the stretch between Altoona (@US-22) and Corning/Painted Post to get to that area of the New York Southern Tier region.
Quote from: ixnay on March 12, 2016, 08:15:39 AM
Quote from: froggie on March 10, 2016, 07:56:29 AM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 09, 2016, 05:41:39 PMI never said they were the panacea for economic development. Sure, they help, but they alone won't do anything without businesses and workers.
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on March 06, 2016, 03:18:17 PMWhich is a shame, because Cumberland is a pretty big town in Maryland in need of commerce, and I-99 would help it tremendously.
You effectively said it here.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on March 09, 2016, 11:47:12 AM
Case in point, has US 6 in PA (and to some degree, US 6N) been pulling in big business since they unveiled 800 milemarkers (2 directions of 400) denoting the Do 6 program? I care to disagree.
I was under the distinct impression (especially after receiving comments on it from Jeff Kitsko when it came out) that "Do 6" was put in for tourism reasons and not for "economic development". Nevermind that they're actual milemarkers which IMO should have been added anyway.
PennDOT being creative, turning U.S. 6 into PA's version of the Overseas Highway or NC 12. I wish the "Do 6" corridor luck.
ixnay
6 was a one night stand for me. After doing 6, I have no desire to even see it again.
Quote from: NE2 on March 11, 2016, 07:38:30 PM
How is it hard to put in a second bridge next to the first one?
From what I'm gathering, the layout of the interchange does not leave enough space for a parallel bridge without substantial changes.
Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2016, 03:01:45 AM
Disagree. Getting rid of the at-grades between I-80 and Williamsport is a really good idea. Some of them are around curves and driveways on a high-speed multilane road are always preferable to avoid. The issue is finding the money for a proper freeway through there.
Fair enough. I'm looking at this from a traffic volume perspective. From a safety perspective, you have a point.
Still, is an interstate-standard freeway really necessary to solve all of the safety issues? There are plenty of expressway grade roads out there that aren't problematic from a safety perspective.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 12, 2016, 04:53:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2016, 03:01:45 AM
Disagree. Getting rid of the at-grades between I-80 and Williamsport is a really good idea. Some of them are around curves and driveways on a high-speed multilane road are always preferable to avoid. The issue is finding the money for a proper freeway through there.
Fair enough. I'm looking at this from a traffic volume perspective. From a safety perspective, you have a point.
Still, is an interstate-standard freeway really necessary to solve all of the safety issues? There are plenty of expressway grade roads out there that aren't problematic from a safety perspective.
I see AADT of about 10K at Pine Run. That could be a WV style "freeway".
I've driven the entire I-99 corridor (Cumberland to Corning) at least twice. Would have done it at least a couple times more if not for taking alternate routes to clinch highways or collect counties.
To me, the US 220/I-99/I-80 corridor is preferable to the I-68/I-70/I-81 corridor if one is going from Cumberland ,to a point that requires passing through the I-80/I-81 interchange.
Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2016, 05:08:16 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 12, 2016, 04:53:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2016, 03:01:45 AM
Disagree. Getting rid of the at-grades between I-80 and Williamsport is a really good idea. Some of them are around curves and driveways on a high-speed multilane road are always preferable to avoid. The issue is finding the money for a proper freeway through there.
Fair enough. I'm looking at this from a traffic volume perspective. From a safety perspective, you have a point.
Still, is an interstate-standard freeway really necessary to solve all of the safety issues? There are plenty of expressway grade roads out there that aren't problematic from a safety perspective.
I see AADT of about 10K at Pine Run. That could be a WV style "freeway".
I'm not sure where you're getting that 10K number. PennDOT's most recent traffic volume map (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/County_Maps/Lycoming_TV.pdf) for Lycoming County shows the gap between Jersey Shore and Williamsport ranging from 24,000 at Pine Run Road to 29,000 at Quenshuckney Road. Those numbers are significantly higher than the AADTs for the 220 freeway from Jersey Shore to Mill Hall, which range from about 16-20K.
The challenge with upgrading the existing roadway is that there's nearly continuous low-density development–residential and commercial–along the entirety of the gap. In many cases, homes have been built on dead-end roads fanning out from 220 leaving them completely cut off except for that single access point. With Jersey Shore/Lock Haven on one end and Williamsport on the other, there's inherently a significant volume of local traffic pulling out across multiple lanes of high-speed traffic or making U-turns in both directions and conflicting with an also significant volume of through traffic.
Quote from: briantroutman on March 13, 2016, 12:04:55 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2016, 05:08:16 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 12, 2016, 04:53:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2016, 03:01:45 AM
Disagree. Getting rid of the at-grades between I-80 and Williamsport is a really good idea. Some of them are around curves and driveways on a high-speed multilane road are always preferable to avoid. The issue is finding the money for a proper freeway through there.
Fair enough. I'm looking at this from a traffic volume perspective. From a safety perspective, you have a point.
Still, is an interstate-standard freeway really necessary to solve all of the safety issues? There are plenty of expressway grade roads out there that aren't problematic from a safety perspective.
I see AADT of about 10K at Pine Run. That could be a WV style "freeway".
I'm not sure where you're getting that 10K number. PennDOT's most recent traffic volume map (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/County_Maps/Lycoming_TV.pdf) for Lycoming County shows the gap between Jersey Shore and Williamsport ranging from 24,000 at Pine Run Road to 29,000 at Quenshuckney Road. Those numbers are significantly higher than the AADTs for the 220 freeway from Jersey Shore to Mill Hall, which range from about 16-20K.
The challenge with upgrading the existing roadway is that there's nearly continuous low-density development–residential and commercial–along the entirety of the gap. In many cases, homes have been built on dead-end roads fanning out from 220 leaving them completely cut off except for that single access point. With Jersey Shore/Lock Haven on one end and Williamsport on the other, there's inherently a significant volume of local traffic pulling out across multiple lanes of high-speed traffic or making U-turns in both directions and conflicting with an also significant volume of through traffic.
I looked up AADT and got it from a random source. So I yield to better sources. At over 20K I would say a freeway can be justified. Dead ends will require frontage roads.
Quote from: Alps on March 13, 2016, 01:10:11 AM
I looked up AADT and got it from a random source. So I yield to better sources. At over 20K I would say a freeway can be justified. Dead ends will require frontage roads.
Look not at the dead ends but at all of the driveways leading directly out onto 220. Lots of buildings fairly close to the road. Then look at Larrys Creek where there is development IN the median.
I don't see PennDOT transforming that into a freeway along the existing alignment. It would cause much less community disruption to bypass it. Although, a northerly bypass would require cutting a lot of hills up, and a southerly bypass would require crossing the river at least twice, possibly four times, to achieve the "avoid community disruption" goal.
Hence why I argue an interstate-grade freeway through there would not be worth it. If there were an easy path of little resistance to build one along, I'd say sure, go for it. But there isn't, and the corridor is in close proximity to a river (part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed!). So, any freeway to close the gap there would be expensive both due to the technical challenges and due to the environmental mitigation measures that would be required. Seems like an awful waste for a road that is not known for suffering from any congestion issues in its current state.
This is a bit reminiscent of the discussion about widening the Mountain Parkway along the KY 114 extension. The two proposals are to widen along the existing route, with a few minor relocations. This would create a whole bunch of at-grade intersections along the four-lane route, but it wouldn't be up to interstate standards. The other option is to build a full freeway on a new alignment. The new alignment option is only marginally more expensive than using the existing alignment due to the number of right of way purchases and relocations that would have to be made. The terrain there is similar to that between Salyersville and Prestonsburg. It's entirely possible that the cost of a new-terrain alignment might be close to using the existing US 220.
As I recall, PennDOT was considering a few freeway alignment alternatives around 2002-2003, all of which paralleled the existing 220 either to the north or south. The Internet Archive shows that PennDOT's project website (https://web.archive.org/web/20030919044305/http://www.susquehannabeltway.com/) was active up until early 2004 when the incoming Biehler administration summarily canceled a number of projects in parts of the state unfriendly to Gov. Rendell (this project, CSVT, Capital Beltway improvements) while simultaneously launching a frantic effort to institute tolls on I-80.
In a Lycoming County regional planning report, I found some land use projection maps that all reference "Alignment 2a2" –which I have to assume was the preferred alternative before the project was idled. As you can see in the image below if you zoom in, Alignment 2a2 paralleled the existing 220 to the north with interchanges at PA 287 and Pine Run Road. The freeway right of way appears to merge with the old alignment at Quenshuckney Road, indicating that the freeway between Linden and Williamsport would be built on top of the old road, assumably with frontage roads for local traffic.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1716/25164951373_f9e32f5eb0_o.png)
Quote from: CentralPAguy on March 12, 2016, 03:47:49 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 11, 2016, 07:38:30 PM
How is it hard to put in a second bridge next to the first one?
From what I'm gathering, the layout of the interchange does not leave enough space for a parallel bridge without substantial changes.
Last weekend, I managed to visit the new US 220 interchange with Fairground/Auction Road just north of I-80 and took some pictures. The northbound ramps seem to swing out artificially wide as if to leave room for a second parallel overpass for a future parallel carriageway. That said, unlike some other super 2s that have since been upgraded to four-lane freeways, the vicinity of the interchange has not been pre-graded for the second set of lanes.
(looking northward from US 220)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1444/26453940985_5521658666_k.jpg)
I was surprised by the tight geometry of the southbound looping off-ramp, which from an unscientific glance appeared closer to what you might expect from one of Pennsylvania's '50s-'60s-era junior expressways. Combined with the somewhat awkward grading just south of the new overpass (see the dip just before the bridge in the upper photo) leads me to believe that PennDOT is unsure of the exact alignment of the freeway between here and I-80 and will do some pretty significant reconfiguration of the road south of here when and if a freeway-freeway connection is made at I-80
(looking southward from Fairground Road)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1449/25849320684_fee646a61d_k.jpg)
Quote from: briantroutman on March 14, 2016, 05:13:10 PM
As I recall, PennDOT was considering a few freeway alignment alternatives around 2002-2003, all of which paralleled the existing 220 either to the north or south. The Internet Archive shows that PennDOT's project website (https://web.archive.org/web/20030919044305/http://www.susquehannabeltway.com/) was active up until early 2004 when the incoming Biehler administration summarily canceled a number of projects in parts of the state unfriendly to Gov. Rendell (this project, CSVT, Capital Beltway improvements) while simultaneously launching a frantic effort to institute tolls on I-80.
In a Lycoming County regional planning report, I found some land use projection maps that all reference "Alignment 2a2" –which I have to assume was the preferred alternative before the project was idled. As you can see in the image below if you zoom in, Alignment 2a2 paralleled the existing 220 to the north with interchanges at PA 287 and Pine Run Road. The freeway right of way appears to merge with the old alignment at Quenshuckney Road, indicating that the freeway between Linden and Williamsport would be built on top of the old road, assumably with frontage roads for local traffic.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1716/25164951373_f9e32f5eb0_o.png)
Yes, PennDOT's selected alignment was that route to the north of the current alignment, definitely not on the current alignment. When that project was indefinitely deferred by Governor Ed Rendell, PennDOT District 3 officials really felt like they had their legs kicked out from under them. Quite a lot of intensive planning had already gone into that project. They were quite angry at the time.
Rendell did the same thing to the project to upgrade the last remaining non-freeway portion of US 322 between State College and Potter's Mills. PennDOT District 2 officials were literally within one week of selecting an alternative when that project was cancelled. They were extremely frustrated as well.
Interestingly, the Potter's Mills segment of that project has finally been advanced and is now under construction. A freeway is being constructed from a new interchange at Poe Valley to the Potter's Mills area, including through Potter's Mills Gap. Here's the project link: http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-2/ConstructionsProjectsAndRoadwork/Pages/Potters_Mills_Gap_Transportation_Project.aspx (http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-2/ConstructionsProjectsAndRoadwork/Pages/Potters_Mills_Gap_Transportation_Project.aspx)
Safety project planned on US 220 (http://wnep.com/2016/09/14/safety-project-planned-for-stretch-of-route-220/) on the non-freeway section just west of Williamsport to start around 2019. I am kinda surprised that if this portion is supposed to be part of future I-99 why the residents want traffic signals instead.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 15, 2016, 12:49:46 AM
Safety project planned on US 220 (http://wnep.com/2016/09/14/safety-project-planned-for-stretch-of-route-220/) on the non-freeway section just west of Williamsport to start around 2019. I am kinda surprised that if this portion is supposed to be part of future I-99 why the residents want traffic signals instead.
The residents want what they perceive to be safest.
I also would not assert that "this portion is supposed to be part of future I-99". PennDOT's proposed improvements to the road physically conflict with making it a full freeway. This would seem to indicate they have no current intention of completing I-99 through there.
As I mentioned in my previous post just up-thread, PennDOT's selected alignment for a freeway through this segment of the US 220 corridor is not on the current alignment of the roadway. So PennDOT can install all the signal lights it wants on the current roadway and it won't make it any more difficult to construct a freeway when the time comes.
Quote from: qguy on September 15, 2016, 06:01:10 AM
As I mentioned in my previous post just up-thread, PennDOT's selected alignment for a freeway through this segment of the US 220 corridor is not on the current alignment of the roadway. So PennDOT can install all the signal lights it wants on the current roadway and it won't make it any more difficult to construct a freeway when the time comes.
I think I just saw the part about Ed Rendell cancelling the project and making District 3 mad than actually reading the US 220 info. I really have not heard anything about that part of future I-99 since I moved to PA though. (I guess since the CSVT is the higher priority.)
I don't think there is anything in the 12-year plan on that section, or the section between PA 477 and I-80 even with the new 2-lane interchange, or upgrading the I-80/PA 26 interchange. BUT...I agree that the CSVT should be the higher priority.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 15, 2016, 01:47:13 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 15, 2016, 12:49:46 AM
I am kinda surprised that if this portion is supposed to be part of future I-99 why the residents want traffic signals instead.
The residents want what they perceive to be safest.
I know a family that lives on one of the dead-end side roads branching out from US 220 in Linden (just west of the existing freeway's end), and any mention of "I-99" in their household evokes eye rolls and frustrated sighs about this impending monstrosity that has discouraged them from doing any home redecoration, renovation, or reinvestment of any kind for well over a decade. If their attitudes are at all representative of others who live in the affected area, I'd expect there'd be no tears shed if I-99 plans were shelved permanently.
They do, however, complain regularly about having to make breakneck maneuvers to avoid traffic moving at freeway speeds–often considerably in excess of the posted 55–to make their circuitous connections back to Williamsport, which is the center of commercial and cultural activity for anyone living in this area. So residents along US 220 would likely be in favor of traffic signals, signalized jug handles, reduced speed limits, and other "traffic calming" measures that would make their day-to-day connections to US 220 more tolerable.
I haven't seen any detailed plans of a future I-99 freeway, but it's possible that the configuration of frontage roads would make access more inconvenient than it currently is. But completion of the freeway's missing link now seems as distant as the CSVT did 20 years ago, and the general sense in Williamsport is that the freeway project is deader than dead.
And as it stands, no one beyond roadgeeks and other Interstate completists seems interested in closing this or the other I-99 gaps. Without a power broker like Bud Shuster hell-bent on seeing 99 shields go up on the roadside, I doubt there's much motivation within PennDOT or any local or regional governments and chambers of commerce, etc. to complete the missing links either. Like the freeway gap in US 15 south of Selinsgrove, US 220 in Linden is a four-lane divided highway posted at 55 MPH which is almost perpetually free flowing. Even the existing traffic signal at PA 287 affects only southbound traffic–northbound is non-stop. Locals (other than the residents directly along the route) and long-distance travelers are largely satisfied with 220 as it is.
Maybe if the existing four-lane is bogged down with enough traffic signals, jug handles, and reduced speed zones to make through travel a miserable experience, you'll see a renewed push to complete the freeway.
I agree. It's on the back-est of back burners.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 15, 2016, 05:09:45 PM
I know a family that lives on one of the dead-end side roads branching out from US 220 in Linden
Linden... a village with the same name as a certain Northeast Jersey city, and, in keeping with the Garden State theme, 7.7 miles from Jersey Shore, PA per Google Maps directions.
ixnay
^ They're just huge Barney Miller fans there.