US-15 / Future I-99 Mileposts

[Beltway]

I noticed partway thru a trip from Williamsport to NY, mileposts on the roadside and milepost-based exit numbers on the overhead signs.  They advance into the 180s at the north end.  Is this mileposting recent?  Given the mileage numbers it looks like it is the south-to-north mileposting for I-99. 

[jp the roadgeek]

From post 885 in the Pennsylvania discussion thread:

Sign Project Begins on Route 15 in Lycoming and Tioga Counties

This work includes the installation of new mile marker and exit signs on the highway

Curious to see what route's mileage they are going to use:  US 15 or I-99.  I'm also curious to see if they are going to add exit numbers as they did with US 220 in Clinton County. And many of the signs on this stretch are fairly new, so with a total cost of $130K, there can't be too many BGSs being replaced. 

I would assume I-99 exit numbers. It doesn't make much sense to use US 15 numbers now. There are already Future I-99 signs on the corridor and, as far as I know, they could extend I-99 to I-180 at Williamsport now.

SO...this sign contract DID involve assigning exit numbers from I-180 north.  So far...the mile markers are generic ones (non-enhanced/no shields) and only whole miles, no tenths.  Mile markers start at 136 and end at 196 and the NY border.

So far, all ground mounted signs (supplemental BGS and services signs) have greenout/blueout patches, including the signs with blank Exit tabs and including gore signs that had blank exit numbers.  At this point, no new gore signs have been installed, and no new exit tabs. 

The numbers, that I could see (I drove NB), are:

3rd St (NB only) - Exit 136
4th St (SB only) - couldn't tell (prob will be 136)
Foy Ave/Lycoming Creek Rd - nothing installed (prob will be 137)
Hepburnville - Exit 140
PA 973 Cogan Station/Perrryville (SB only) - Exit 143
PA 14 Trout Run / Canton - Exit 148
Cogan House - Exit 152
PA 184 Steam Valley - Exit 155
PA 284 English Center / Buttonwood - Exit 158
PA 414 Morris / Liberty - Exit 162
Sebring - no number yet (prob will be 163 or 164)
Blossburg - Exit 172
PA 660/Bus US 15 Canoe Camp / Covington - Exit 179
US 6 Mansfield / Wellsboro - Exit 182
Bus US 15 Main St (SB only) - Exit 183
PA 287 Tioga / Tioga Jct - Exit 191
PA 49 Lawrenceville / Elkland - Exit 196

I'm going to guess they are I-99 numbers.  Exit 136 would be at about MP 132 for US 15.  For I-99, it's about 86.5 miles from the beginning to I-80, 17.5 miles duplexed with I-80, then about 31 miles on US 220 from I-80 to the I-180/US 15 junction.  Those numbers seem to add up to 136

[sparker]

Any bets as to when I-99 shields will go up along US 15 north of I-180?.....or whether US 15 will be truncated back to at least Williamsport after the Interstate signs go up?

[Buffaboy]

I'm curious as to why there isn't a direct connection between I-99/I-80...

[Alps]

I'm curious as to why there isn't a direct connection between I-99/I-80...

$

[qguy]

PennDOT also found lots of pyritic rock in the area of the proposed interchange. With all the headaches pyritic rock caused them where I-99 crossed the Bald Eagle Ridge at Skytop in 2004, they're loathe to touch it. The pyrite added $50 million to the cost of the section from Bald Eagle to the State College Bypass, for a total of over $750 million.

And yes, PennDOT is short on funding. So significant engineering difficulty plus lack of money.

[Roadgeek Adam]

I would be content if they did nothing at this point and left I-99 a mess like that. I'm not really sure why it matters to bulldoze half of US 220 between the sections for a highway that doesn't get that severely backed up.

[rickmastfan67]

Easiest solution would be just to route it to I-180, and have I-99 take it over.  Sure, a serious backtrack, but it completes the route since NY now has I-99 posted.

[Roadgeek Adam]

Easiest solution would be just to route it to I-180, and have I-99 take it over.  Sure, a serious backtrack, but it completes the route since NY now has I-99 posted.

Why? What purpose does I-99 serve that I-180 doesn't already? How about leaving the designations alone?

[rickmastfan67]

Easiest solution would be just to route it to I-180, and have I-99 take it over.  Sure, a serious backtrack, but it completes the route since NY now has I-99 posted.

Why? What purpose does I-99 serve that I-180 doesn't already? How about leaving the designations alone?

Because of people complaining about a gap.  This is the easiest way to deal with it if the US-220 segment isn't going to be upgraded.  With I-99 overtaking US-15 & I-180, and cosigned along I-80 to fill the gap, it would be a complete route finally.  That way, if US-220 isn't ever upgraded, the route is 'connected'.

[hbelkins]

Easiest solution would be just to route it to I-180, and have I-99 take it over.  Sure, a serious backtrack, but it completes the route since NY now has I-99 posted.

Why? What purpose does I-99 serve that I-180 doesn't already? How about leaving the designations alone?

Because of people complaining about a gap.  This is the easiest way to deal with it if the US-220 segment isn't going to be upgraded.  With I-99 overtaking US-15 & I-180, and cosigned along I-80 to fill the gap, it would be a complete route finally.  That way, if US-220 isn't ever upgraded, the route is 'connected'.

Why can't we go back to what we did in the 60s and 70s and sign gaps as "Temp I-99" or "To I-99?"

[sparker]

Easiest solution would be just to route it to I-180, and have I-99 take it over.  Sure, a serious backtrack, but it completes the route since NY now has I-99 posted.

Why? What purpose does I-99 serve that I-180 doesn't already? How about leaving the designations alone?

Because of people complaining about a gap.  This is the easiest way to deal with it if the US-220 segment isn't going to be upgraded.  With I-99 overtaking US-15 & I-180, and cosigned along I-80 to fill the gap, it would be a complete route finally.  That way, if US-220 isn't ever upgraded, the route is 'connected'.

Why can't we go back to what we did in the 60s and 70s and sign gaps as "Temp I-99" or "To I-99?"

That would be the most reasonable way to proceed; save the out-of-the-way detour via I-180.  But doing so would likely incur something of a "double-edged sword"; while ameliorating -- rather than actually solving -- the gap problem, PennDOT buys itself some time to formulate plans to deal with the design and acquisition issues as well as the pyrite situation; on the other hand, it may provoke, over time, public reaction regarding "why isn't this done yet" or "why aren't they working on this".  But the saving grace of that would be that the agency might at that point have some impetus/rationale to actually seek out funding and finally deal with the corridor gaps (the "squeaky wheel" concept manifested!).  However, for that to happen there needs to be a wheel to squeak -- hence the "Temporary 99 signage" as an effective agent provocateur!  Also -- appropriating one aspect of the I-180 signage proposal -- co-sign it "TO I-99" north of I-80, with that signage extending to I-80 WB; if Corning, NY is mentioned as a control city adjunct to the "TO I-99" signage, that may drive the point home that the 180/99 combination is the optimal route northward from I-80 west. 

[Mapmikey]

FWIW...

AASHTO turned down North Carolina's request to sign US 52 through Winston-Salem as TEMP I-74 but suggested North Carolina sign it as TO I-74 if they wanted to.  Since US 52 is a full freeway, it appears you cannot sign a TEMP interstate if the road is not to interstate standard...

TEMP I-99 would work on I-80 and I-180 though it might require some nebulous commitment that US 220 will someday be converted...

[Roadgeek Adam]

I guess, as I mentioned in the chatroom last night, my problem has a more qualitative answer. What does it matter to drivers if a place is on US 220 versus Interstate 99? What does it matter if it's on US 15 versus Interstate 99? What's the qualitative value in making such a change, and spending millions of dollars on a project that may never happen?

[LeftyJR]

I live in the Williamsport area, and the idea of I-99 going 30 extra miles on I-80 and then backtracking another 10 miles makes no sense.  No one will take the new route, as anyone with a GPS or map will know that they will be driving almost an extra hour just to stay on the road.  Besides, 180 is part of a separate corridor - CSVT and signing it in a different way makes more sense.

[Alps]

I live in the Williamsport area, and the idea of I-99 going 30 extra miles on I-80 and then backtracking another 10 miles makes no sense.  No one will take the new route, as anyone with a GPS or map will know that they will be driving almost an extra hour just to stay on the road.  Besides, 180 is part of a separate corridor - CSVT and signing it in a different way makes more sense.

If by an hour you mean 25 minutes.

[Duke87]

Well, the signs on US 15 north of Williamsport were going to be due for replacement at some point anyway. Since that section is "ready", might as well sign it as I-99, matching NY's little piece.

True, the freeway gaps along 220 are not in any urgent need of closing, but I see this no reason why I-99 cannot be simply allowed to exist in two discontinuous sections indefinitely. Hell, let it be three discontinuous segments and sign it from PA 447 to PA 44 south (already freeway) as well. And so what if it's 40 years before the gaps are closed. Gaps in freeway designations have been allowed to persist for longer, in the US and internationally. There is another infamous example of such a gap partly in PA!

[sparker]

Well, the signs on US 15 north of Williamsport were going to be due for replacement at some point anyway. Since that section is "ready", might as well sign it as I-99, matching NY's little piece.

True, the freeway gaps along 220 are not in any urgent need of closing, but I see this no reason why I-99 cannot be simply allowed to exist in two discontinuous sections indefinitely. Hell, let it be three discontinuous segments and sign it from PA 447 to PA 44 south (already freeway) as well. And so what if it's 40 years before the gaps are closed. Gaps in freeway designations have been allowed to persist for longer, in the US and internationally. There is another infamous example of such a gap partly in PA!

Actually, the 3-section concept is quite a reasonable idea.  However -- is US 220 between PA 477 and the east end of limited access near PA 287 fully Interstate-standard (or close enough to warrant waivers) -- or is it only partially so?  (I haven't been on this route for 15 years, and the GSV view is inconclusive in that respect).  If only a few miles of this stretch so qualify -- then it's probably not worth it to sign that section at all; just post "TO I-99" signage and let the route exist in 2 sections.   Even if they don't find any geological issues with the east I-80/US 220 location such as with the west exit serving existing I-99 to the south, rebuilding I-80 Exit #178 to a full-freeway interchange (even a simple trumpet) isn't likely on anyone's near-term radar.  It'll be quite a while before any work is underway between I-80 and Williamsport; may as well deal with that realistically.     

[LeftyJR]

Well, the signs on US 15 north of Williamsport were going to be due for replacement at some point anyway. Since that section is "ready", might as well sign it as I-99, matching NY's little piece.

True, the freeway gaps along 220 are not in any urgent need of closing, but I see this no reason why I-99 cannot be simply allowed to exist in two discontinuous sections indefinitely. Hell, let it be three discontinuous segments and sign it from PA 447 to PA 44 south (already freeway) as well. And so what if it's 40 years before the gaps are closed. Gaps in freeway designations have been allowed to persist for longer, in the US and internationally. There is another infamous example of such a gap partly in PA!

Actually, the 3-section concept is quite a reasonable idea.  However -- is US 220 between PA 477 and the east end of limited access near PA 287 fully Interstate-standard (or close enough to warrant waivers) -- or is it only partially so?  (I haven't been on this route for 15 years, and the GSV view is inconclusive in that respect).  If only a few miles of this stretch so qualify -- then it's probably not worth it to sign that section at all; just post "TO I-99" signage and let the route exist in 2 sections.   Even if they don't find any geological issues with the east I-80/US 220 location such as with the west exit serving existing I-99 to the south, rebuilding I-80 Exit #178 to a full-freeway interchange (even a simple trumpet) isn't likely on anyone's near-term radar.  It'll be quite a while before any work is underway between I-80 and Williamsport; may as well deal with that realistically.     

That section between 287 and 477 is built to interstate standards.

[sparker]

Well, the signs on US 15 north of Williamsport were going to be due for replacement at some point anyway. Since that section is "ready", might as well sign it as I-99, matching NY's little piece.

True, the freeway gaps along 220 are not in any urgent need of closing, but I see this no reason why I-99 cannot be simply allowed to exist in two discontinuous sections indefinitely. Hell, let it be three discontinuous segments and sign it from PA 447 to PA 44 south (already freeway) as well. And so what if it's 40 years before the gaps are closed. Gaps in freeway designations have been allowed to persist for longer, in the US and internationally. There is another infamous example of such a gap partly in PA!

Actually, the 3-section concept is quite a reasonable idea.  However -- is US 220 between PA 477 and the east end of limited access near PA 287 fully Interstate-standard (or close enough to warrant waivers) -- or is it only partially so?  (I haven't been on this route for 15 years, and the GSV view is inconclusive in that respect).  If only a few miles of this stretch so qualify -- then it's probably not worth it to sign that section at all; just post "TO I-99" signage and let the route exist in 2 sections.   Even if they don't find any geological issues with the east I-80/US 220 location such as with the west exit serving existing I-99 to the south, rebuilding I-80 Exit #178 to a full-freeway interchange (even a simple trumpet) isn't likely on anyone's near-term radar.  It'll be quite a while before any work is underway between I-80 and Williamsport; may as well deal with that realistically.     

That section between 287 and 477 is built to interstate standards.

If that is indeed the case, then 3 signed I-99 segments -- with "TO I-99" signage in the interim -- would be appropriate.  Might even arouse local interest in actually completing the corridor (particularly if the I-80 junctions remain as they are, causing periodic back-ups).  I suppose we'll just have to see what Penn DOT has in mind for this -- and go from there!

[BrianP]

Well, the signs on US 15 north of Williamsport were going to be due for replacement at some point anyway. Since that section is "ready", might as well sign it as I-99, matching NY's little piece.

True, the freeway gaps along 220 are not in any urgent need of closing, but I see this no reason why I-99 cannot be simply allowed to exist in two discontinuous sections indefinitely. Hell, let it be three discontinuous segments and sign it from PA 447 to PA 44 south (already freeway) as well. And so what if it's 40 years before the gaps are closed. Gaps in freeway designations have been allowed to persist for longer, in the US and internationally. There is another infamous example of such a gap partly in PA!

Actually, the 3-section concept is quite a reasonable idea.  However -- is US 220 between PA 477 and the east end of limited access near PA 287 fully Interstate-standard (or close enough to warrant waivers) -- or is it only partially so?  (I haven't been on this route for 15 years, and the GSV view is inconclusive in that respect).  If only a few miles of this stretch so qualify -- then it's probably not worth it to sign that section at all; just post "TO I-99" signage and let the route exist in 2 sections.   Even if they don't find any geological issues with the east I-80/US 220 location such as with the west exit serving existing I-99 to the south, rebuilding I-80 Exit #178 to a full-freeway interchange (even a simple trumpet) isn't likely on anyone's near-term radar.  It'll be quite a while before any work is underway between I-80 and Williamsport; may as well deal with that realistically.     

That section between 287 and 477 is built to interstate standards.

I'd agree with you from 477 to exit 120.  But east of exit 120 there are two bridges with what look like substandard shoulders over Pine Creek and the railroad crossing east of there.  But I'd give them a waiver given how many substandard bridges there are on the system. 

[Brandon]

FWIW...

AASHTO turned down North Carolina's request to sign US 52 through Winston-Salem as TEMP I-74 but suggested North Carolina sign it as TO I-74 if they wanted to.  Since US 52 is a full freeway, it appears you cannot sign a TEMP interstate if the road is not to interstate standard...

When the fuck did that happen?  TEMP I-69 was signed along the very non-interstate standard US-27 and M-78 for years north and south of Lansing, Michigan until 1992.  There were at-grade intersections along those stretches.

[bob7374]

FWIW...

AASHTO turned down North Carolina's request to sign US 52 through Winston-Salem as TEMP I-74 but suggested North Carolina sign it as TO I-74 if they wanted to.  Since US 52 is a full freeway, it appears you cannot sign a TEMP interstate if the road is not to interstate standard...

When the fuck did that happen?  TEMP I-69 was signed along the very non-interstate standard US-27 and M-78 for years north and south of Lansing, Michigan until 1992.  There were at-grade intersections along those stretches.

This was back in 1996 when the I-73 and I-74 routes were first approved. Apparently, the guidelines for signing temp routes had gotten stricter by this time.

[vdeane]

My understanding was that temp routes are now basically banned because FHWA considers the interstate system to be "complete" (well, minus one interchange in PA).  In any case, I wouldn't sign the middle segment on US 220 as I-99 because it doesn't connect to the rest of the interstate system (still a requirement for routes not I-69 or I-11, which have a congressional exemption).

[The Ghostbuster]

US 15 between Williamsport and the PA/NY border will likely be signed as Interstate 99 eventually. We may have to live with the fact that Interstate 99 will likely always remain discontinuous.