PA - US 15 Southbound Lanes Open Near Trout Run

[PAHighways]

Conversion of US 15 to Interstate 99 took another step yesterday when PennDOT opened the rebuilt southbound lanes on Steam Valley Mountain in Lycoming County.  Work will not be complete on that entire section of US 15 until Fall 2010.

PennDOT District 3-0
WNEP-TV Scranton

[mightyace]

While some parts of that section were quaintly beautiful, it definitely was not the safest road.  Even in a car, I was very careful driving that stretch.  The improvements are much needed.

I-99 may stink as a designation but if this is what it took to rebuild that section of highway, I'm all for it!

[treichard]

I'd love to see some pics of this new construction. The signing/roadway plans are on PennDOT's ECMS web site, so you can see the two interchanges for PA 184 and Cogan Station, but that's nothing like seeing some color photos.

Are the two interchanges completed aside from one of the two mainline roadways?

[Alps]

Finally, no more at-grades!  Given that US 15 does connect to I-180 currently, couldn't it be signed as I-99, or does that require connection to I-86 as well?  (At that point, there's really nothing stopping the signing of two pieces with a break in the middle.)

[vdeane]

I think the northbound lanes would have to get done first...

Though the existing portion just south of there could have been signed I-99 for years now.

[froggie]

FHWA generally requires "logical termini" for signing Interstates.  In this case, you'd probably need completion through Trout Run since the next logical termini to the north would be US 6 at Mansfield....that being the next road on the NHS that US 15 intersects.

[hbelkins]

I'd love to see some pics of this new construction. The signing/roadway plans are on PennDOT's ECMS web site, so you can see the two interchanges for PA 184 and Cogan Station, but that's nothing like seeing some color photos.

Are the two interchanges completed aside from one of the two mainline roadways?

I have some photos from the area, taken back in the spring, at http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2009_State_College_Day_2/index.html but there are scant few construction photos on that page.

[vdeane]

FHWA generally requires "logical termini" for signing Interstates.  In this case, you'd probably need completion through Trout Run since the next logical termini to the north would be US 6 at Mansfield....that being the next road on the NHS that US 15 intersects.

I-86 has ended at wherever the first non-standard section begins since it was first signed.  Currently this means that the portion east on Binghamton ends at NY 79 (apparently something must be wrong with the road after that, but I can't think of anything other than the at-grade intersections past exit 84).

[mightyace]

Since the I-99 designation is legislatively defined, the law has to be amended for adding more miles as I think it did for the extension to I-80.

IMHO I think the designation will work its way north as non-freeway and other substandard sections of US 220 get upgraded as well as the high-speed I-80/I-99 interchange.

<sarcasm>
Anything else would result in two or more I-99 segments.  Do we really need that?    
</sarcasm>

[treichard]

Logical termini are likely to factor in, but I-99 already doesn't follow that rule near Bellefonte.  Perhaps it should?

There are many precedents  having multiple pieces of an under-construction Interstate highway (I-69, I-74, I-86 to name a few).   In a couple years, there will be completed sections of I-99 that are 85 and 74 miles in length, each with a substandard connection at one end.  If only one section is signed as I-99, should it be the southern section just because it was finished first, or should it be moved up to the northern section? Both choices seem suboptimal, but signing both has sense.

Will the Fry Brothers turkey ranch/restaurant in Steam Valley appear on  blue FOOD signs for the PA 184 exit?

[Mr_Northside]

Anything else would result in two or more I-99 segments.  Do we really need that?

I suspect that that's what we're going to get.  (I don't really have a problem with it)
I suppose once (if) that happens, there will be a more noticeable "missing link" that might help with getting the funding to upgrade the remaining sections to complete the gap.

[vdeane]

Yeah, I don't expect the US 220 upgrades to happen anytime soon otherwise.

Is the US 15/I-180/US 220 interchange really substandard?  It's not up to the task of handling US 220 to US 15 as the through route, but I can't think of anything else wrong with it.  It's actually very similar to the I-86/I-390 interchange.

[mightyace]

Anything else would result in two or more I-99 segments.  Do we really need that?

I suspect that that's what we're going to get.  (I don't really have a problem with it)

I was trying to be sarcastic.  (I'll add the sarcasm tag back on the original post!)

I suppose once (if) that happens, there will be a more noticeable "missing link" that might help with getting the funding to upgrade the remaining sections to complete the gap.

Of course, "back in the day" when the interstate system was being built, gaps were common.

IIRC During construction, I-80 had as many as four or five separate pieces.

[rickmastfan67]

Is the US 15/I-180/US 220 interchange really substandard?

They were doing some reconstruction on that interchange when I was there back on 08/01/09.  They had all of the US-220 traffic in one lane both directions on the SB lanes of US-220 right after US-15 left.  But that must have been to replace the NB US-220 bridge over the river there.

Now, they do need to re-build the interchange's flyover from NB US-220 to NB US-15 so it can support high speed movements.  Once they do that, then that interchange should be as close to standards as possible. [Sat View]

I suppose once (if) that happens, there will be a more noticeable "missing link" that might help with getting the funding to upgrade the remaining sections to complete the gap.

Of course, "back in the day" when the interstate system was being built, gaps were common.

IIRC During construction, I-80 had as many as four or five separate pieces.

Look @ I-74 in NC right now.  It has 3 seperate segments.  And I-73 has 2 seperate segments.  However, you could make I-73 all one segment if NCDOT would be allowed to sign it a full Interstate between the two segments of I-73.

[vdeane]

While hardly ideal for through traffic, I don't see anything substandard about it, unless this is also substandard: http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=42.388758,-77.382975&spn=0.009652,0.022638&z=16 or the fact that it's a through route makes it substandard.

[rickmastfan67]

Well, I-99 would become the through route in Williamsport.  And that makes it need the high-speed ramp.

[vdeane]

I guess the standards must have changed since this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&hq=&hnear=Rochester,+Monroe,+New+York&ll=42.701708,-73.851256&spn=0.019207,0.045276&t=h&z=15

[Duke87]

I guess the standards must have changed since this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&hq=&hnear=Rochester,+Monroe,+New+York&ll=42.701708,-73.851256&spn=0.019207,0.045276&t=h&z=15

Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or, hell, this.


All problems that need fixing, not justification for permitting another one!

[LeftyJR]

While hardly ideal for through traffic, I don't see anything substandard about it, unless this is also substandard: http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=42.388758,-77.382975&spn=0.009652,0.022638&z=16 or the fact that it's a through route makes it substandard.

SB220 to NB15 is up to standards, I believe...

NB to NB is the problem, as it is one lane with a 30 MPH speed limit.

[Mr_Northside]

I can't imagine rebuilding it to reflect I-99 as the "Thru Route" will be cheap given the geography of where it's at...

[hbelkins]

I can't imagine rebuilding it to reflect I-99 as the "Thru Route" will be cheap given the geography of where it's at...

Leaving it as is would be similar to the movement one must take to stay on I-76 eastbound at the I-277 interchange in Ohio.