Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[vdeane]

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

Looking at the AHDS map on Wikipedia, I-99 comprises 3-4 different corridors, so if anything, it only proves my point further that I-99 is some weird Frankenstein monster that glues together pieces that individually makes sense into something that overall doesn't.

[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.

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.

To become a member of Congress, one must:
(1) be at least twenty-five (25) years old;
(2) have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years; and
(3) be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent.

Notice how the list does not include (4) know anything at all about transportation or (5) not be a goddamn idiot. The lack of requirements (4) or (5) disqualifies any member of Congress from having anything to do with route numbering in my opinion.

[NWI_Irish96]

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.

To become a member of Congress, one must:
(1) be at least twenty-five (25) years old;
(2) have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years; and
(3) be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent.

Notice how the list does not include (4) know anything at all about transportation or (5) not be a goddamn idiot. The lack of requirements (4) or (5) disqualifies any member of Congress from having anything to do with route numbering in my opinion.

This is far from the only example of Congressional overreach. Just about every piece of legislation that contains money for a cabinet department also micromanages the department's use of that money in some way.

But I do think you've hit on the real reason people don't like I-99. I think if FHWA had decided that they wanted I-99 because there were no numbers available that fit into the grid, it would have been less disliked than a Congressman telling the FHWA to make it I-99 because that's what he wanted.

[skluth]

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.

To become a member of Congress, one must:
(1) be at least twenty-five (25) years old;
(2) have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years; and
(3) be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent.

Notice how the list does not include (4) know anything at all about transportation or (5) not be a goddamn idiot. The lack of requirements (4) or (5) disqualifies any member of Congress from having anything to do with route numbering in my opinion.

This is far from the only example of Congressional overreach. Just about every piece of legislation that contains money for a cabinet department also micromanages the department's use of that money in some way.

But I do think you've hit on the real reason people don't like I-99. I think if FHWA had decided that they wanted I-99 because there were no numbers available that fit into the grid, it would have been less disliked than a Congressman telling the FHWA to make it I-99 because that's what he wanted.

I don't think anyone but the most ardent environmentalists thinks the freeway itself shouldn't exist. I can completely see the need for a freeway along the corridor, even the Frankenstein's monster version up to Rochester. But the number sticks out like a giant pink elephant, far more than any other grid "violation."

[kphoger]

But the number sticks out like a giant pink elephant, far more than any other grid "violation."

I still want to know why nobody bitches about US-6.

[TheHighwayMan394]

But the number sticks out like a giant pink elephant, far more than any other grid "violation."

I still want to know why nobody bitches about US-6.

Probably because it was there decades before any of us were born, while I-99 is relatively a brand new designation.

[skluth]

But the number sticks out like a giant pink elephant, far more than any other grid "violation."

I still want to know why nobody bitches about US-6.

It's not a violation. It fits the grid in Cleveland if you look close enough. Plus, US highways have been around for 100 years and a lot of them have changed over that time. As we say on occasion where I used to work, "Close enough for government work."

[kphoger]

It's not a violation. It fits the grid in Cleveland if you look close enough.

Nice catch!

[SEWIGuy]

But the number sticks out like a giant pink elephant, far more than any other grid "violation."

I still want to know why nobody bitches about US-6.

Probably because it was there decades before any of us were born, while I-99 is relatively a brand new designation.

It was written into law over 30 years ago. It’s about time people get over it because IT ISN’T A BIG DEAL!

Nobody’s confused cause it doesn’t fit a grid. Very few that the designation was written into law. Hell I doubt AASHTO gives it any thought any longer. It’s done. Over. Never going to change.

[Scott5114]

But the number sticks out like a giant pink elephant, far more than any other grid "violation."

I still want to know why nobody bitches about US-6.

Probably because it was there decades before any of us were born, while I-99 is relatively a brand new designation.

It was written into law over 30 years ago. It’s about time people get over it because IT ISN’T A BIG DEAL!

Nobody’s confused cause it doesn’t fit a grid. Very few that the designation was written into law. Hell I doubt AASHTO gives it any thought any longer. It’s done. Over. Never going to change.

I think if I were a Congressman I'd sneak in an amendment to a must-pass armed services bill that just says "49 U.S.C. section (whatever) is amended to replace '99' with '76'" just to make a mockery of the whole idea of Congressional route designations. (I mean, it's not like anyone traces down those references before deciding whether to pass or reject an amendment, especially if they happen during a vote-a-rama.)

"Must not be the kind of jerk that would pull a stunt like that" also is not a Constitutional qualification for a Congressman, after all.

[MultiMillionMiler]

I-99 in PA is a good corridor, but how it will connect to I-99 in NYS is a bad corridor. The final completed route will be a zigzagged path. The issue is why it was given that number instead of any other 2 digit number, regardless of what authority signed it into law. Literally any other number between 61 and 99 would have been closer to fitting the grid. I have asked this question a good 10 times now, why did they think that number was the best choice vs any other 2di? One thing I like though is how New York State has the highest 2di and highest 3di due to this routing.

[skluth]

But the number sticks out like a giant pink elephant, far more than any other grid "violation."

I still want to know why nobody bitches about US-6.

Probably because it was there decades before any of us were born, while I-99 is relatively a brand new designation.

It was written into law over 30 years ago. It’s about time people get over it because IT ISN’T A BIG DEAL!

Nobody’s confused cause it doesn’t fit a grid. Very few that the designation was written into law. Hell I doubt AASHTO gives it any thought any longer. It’s done. Over. Never going to change.

I think if I were a Congressman I'd sneak in an amendment to a must-pass armed services bill that just says "49 U.S.C. section (whatever) is amended to replace '99' with '76'" just to make a mockery of the whole idea of Congressional route designations. (I mean, it's not like anyone traces down those references before deciding whether to pass or reject an amendment, especially if they happen during a vote-a-rama.)

"Must not be the kind of jerk that would pull a stunt like that" also is not a Constitutional qualification for a Congressman, after all.

Right now the only Pennsylvanian on the House Ways and Means Committee is from Philly. There are none in the Senate's committee. The makeup of the next Congress will change the members some as the GOP will have control of the House starting next month. So sneaking it through committee may not be too difficult.

[froggie]

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.

To a point.  But this viewpoint, especially at the local level, can create the NIMBY attitude that blocks projects and improvements.

And just because it's something the local public wants doesn't mean it's a good idea to actually do.

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.

The engineers may not have been wholly wrong here.  Traffic signals, especially on higher-speed arterials like the AA Highway, are not a panacea for crashes.  In fact, there are numerous examples where traffic signal installation INCREASED the crash rate.

[Dirt Roads]

I think if I were a Congressman I'd sneak in an amendment to a must-pass armed services bill that just says "49 U.S.C. section (whatever) is amended to replace '99' with '76'" just to make a mockery of the whole idea of Congressional route designations. (I mean, it's not like anyone traces down those references before deciding whether to pass or reject an amendment, especially if they happen during a vote-a-rama.)

"Must not be the kind of jerk that would pull a stunt like that" also is not a Constitutional qualification for a Congressman, after all.

This reminds me of missed opportunity here.  Our local congressman, David Price (D-NC 4th) is retiring after 17 terms in Congress (not all consecutive).  But he finishes as Chair of the House Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.  He has always had an open door for his constituents, and being in the transportation industry, I've always wanted a chance to talk to him about many of the topics discussed here on AARoads and elsewhere.  I doubt that the more humble David Price will have any roads named after him during his lifetime, unlike the fellow that Scott5114 is referring to. 

[roadman65]

You mean Bud Schuster?

If so, I saw the signs along his beloved I-99 referring the road is “The Bud Schuster Byway.”

[geek11111]

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.

I-69E, the E is in the shield and thus part of the route number.
It's totally different from EAST I-69.

Also, when I-69E appears, there must be another ramp towards I-69C and I-69W.
Drivers will know that the route is being split.

[HighwayStar]

Can it be done? Yes, of course it can.
Should it be done? No, unless it is purely a result of renumbering to fix the broken renumbering system and the road is given another interstate designation.

[Roadgeekteen]

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.

I-69E, the E is in the shield and thus part of the route number.
It's totally different from EAST I-69.

Also, when I-69E appears, there must be another ramp towards I-69C and I-69W.
Drivers will know that the route is being split.

And the award for most useless bump of 2023 goes to...

[kphoger]

Aw heck, this guy's back?  I may need to go on another sabbatical.

[pderocco]

When the Big One hits, and California drops into the ocean, they'll have to decommission a few...

[Roadgeekteen]

When the Big One hits, and California drops into the ocean, they'll have to decommission a few...

If only California drops into the ocean none would have to be decommissioned.

[Bickendan]

When the Big One hits, and California drops into the ocean, they'll have to decommission a few...

If only California drops into the ocean none would have to be decommissioned.

Not true. We'll have a pre-commissioning decommissioning of I-7 or I-9

[triplemultiplex]

When the Big One hits, and California drops into the ocean, they'll have to decommission a few...

It's a transform plate boundary out there. Ain't shit gonna sink below the ocean.  If anything, earthquakes wrinkle land higher along the San Andreas system of faults.  That's what's going on with all those hills in the West Bay.

If any calamity is going to decom a mainline interstate, it'll be sea level rise drowning something.

[SeriesE]

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.

Totally agree. I am baffled why they didn't pick one to be I-69 and make the rest 3dis of I-69

[CharlesBahne]

Does the portion of the former I-95 in the Boston area that follows the Tobin Bridge and the US 1 expressway/Jersey freeway count?

The Tobin and the Northeast Expressway (as far north as Cutler Circle/Route 60) were designated I-95 for a while; but they were never linked to any other part of the Interstate system. At the south, I-95 would have followed the unbuilt Southwest Expressway and part of the Inner Belt. To the north, the Northeast Expressway was supposed to be extended through Lynn and Saugus to meet Route 128. The decision not to build any of those roads was made by Governor Sargent in 1970. It took a few years after that to reroute the I-95 designation around the city of Boston, using Route 128.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that any signs were posted along the Northeast Expressway to indicate that it was I-95. Certainly none of the big green signs had any I-95 designation. At most there might have been a few I-95 shields posted next to the breakdown lane.

Some maps did show that part of the route as I-95.

At that time, US 1 was still routed via nearby local streets, Broadway in Everett and Malden.