I've always wondered if ODOT would ever consider converting Ohio SR 11 to an interstate between Youngstown & Ashtabula, or even replacing the entire SR 11 with an interstate designation by extending it south to East Liverpool?
PROS:
-- It would give Youngstown & East-Central Ohio a North-South Interstate.
-- It would emphasize a clearer bypass around Cleveland for those traveling between Buffalo and
Columbus/Canton on 71/77 respectively -- especially if the US 30 freeway is ever finished between East
Liverpool and Canton..
-- At least for the northern leg of SR 11, it could be an additional segment of the future I-376.. There would
only be a 15 mile multiplex of I-376 with I-80 between SR 11 and PA-60.
CONS:
-- It would not be a heavily traveled interstate.
-- There are no other sizeable towns between Youngstown/Warren/Cortland and Ashtabula that an interstate
would really benefit.
-- There would have to be some upgrades to SR-11, namely the shared at-grade Rest Area south of US 322,
and the I-90/SR 11 interchange (particularly the Southwest corner of the interchange).
If you were to designate just the northern half of SR 11, it could be designated as a continuation of I-376 (as mentioned above), I-590, I-790 or I-990 for the I-90 connection, or I-380/580/780/980 for the I-80 connection. If you were to include both halves of SR 11, then I-376 would be eliminated from the list of possible 3-di numbers.
You could also terminate I-xxx's North end at I-90, then the remaining part of SR 11 could be renamed SR 46, which currently ends a few miles south of I-90 at SR 11. This would mark a return of SR 46 in Ashtabula since it's truncation at SR-11 south of town decades ago. SR-46 would multiplex I-xxx for one exit to I-90.
Another option is if you were to "interstate" only the northern half of SR-11 section and forgo the I-376 designation, then I-xxx could replace the entire SR-711 designation and end at I-680 near downtown Youngstown.
Thoughts???
I lived in that area for a few years back in the mid-80s....
Ohio 11 sees mostly light truck traffic on its way to Ashtabula harbor (and occasionally, traffic takes it instead of I-79 which resides 20-30 miles further east). I dont think this road should get an Interstate designation (although if Guv'nor Jim (Rhodes) were still around, he would push for it! Rhodes means roads!) because it really isnt a logical extension of either I-76, I-80 or I-90...
For the Interstate grid as a whole, Ohio 11 is badly placed and doesnt serve any major area with enough traffic to warrant even a look...
now, of the multi-lane Ohio State Routes that might warrant an Interstate designation, maybe Ohio 2 from where it jumps off I-90 near Willoughby and heads northeast until it ends at US 20 in Perry Township could be recommissioned as I-x90 since it serves tourist areas and has no grade-level intersections that i recall...
OK so why was 11 converted to a (mostly) freeway if it sees such light volumes? Is it because the conversion largely happened before I-79 and then the Interstate siphoned off the traffic?
Well, I've grown up just a few miles from OH-11 most of my early life.
OH-11 really doesn't have much need. As mentioned, I-79 is not far to the east and already is lightly traveled. The other issue is that it is simply a small section of road (I-90 to I-80).
The issue I have is if you designate one stretch an interstate (2di or 3di), you still have the stub-end in Ashtabula, and the rest of OH-11 south to East Liverpool.
So, even if you discard OH-11 south of I-80 as a 'separate' road, you still have one road with two designations, which, generally, I'm against.
I've always wanted to see, if they do want to go all-out on OH-11, bypass East Liverpool and continue it along OH-7. Take out the intersection with the rest area, as well as the OH-213/US-22 intersection in Steubenville, find some way to rework the Dean Martin Blvd through Steubenville (block off stretchs, put an overpass where University Blvd ends at OH-7 to allow access to the Marina over the railroad tracks. Close off N 4th, all an exit ramp behind the high school for southbound only, along with an exit for Adams and Lincoln. In Martins Ferry, allow the crossroads to have overpasses that end just east of OH-7 with elevated on/off ramps from OH-7 to allow it to be a freeway. You don't need an interchange with I-70, but definitely a full-interchange needs to be built at I-470.
Tough to label it as a 2di, as 69 through 99 are now taken. I-67 is out of place. As would be something such as I-11 or such. A x90 (little used in Ohio) would work well. Or x70, maybe.
As for OH-2 from I-90 east towards the freeway's end on US-20, I've driven it to OH-44 (the freeway going back south to I-90). It's a full-freeway at least until that point. It can't be a loop (with OH-44), because OH-44 doesn't have a full interchange when it touches I-90. But a spur from I-90 makes a lot of sense.
I'd always have liked OH-2 to be a freeway from I-280 to I-90 as well (I-92, for instance, an an x90).
But, as long as the Turnpike is trying to make money, there won't be another freeway. Just like US-30 in Indiana will never see an upgrades. At least Ohio is upgrading US-30 to be a freeway or expressway from I-75 to I-71.
Sykotyk
Quote from: AlpsROADS on June 18, 2009, 10:15:26 PM
OK so why was 11 converted to a (mostly) freeway if it sees such light volumes? Is it because the conversion largely happened before I-79 and then the Interstate siphoned off the traffic?
One word.....politics
I don't think there's enough traffic on OH-11 for it to warrant an interstate shield.
So far all of you are missing the historical context for Oh 11's creation.
Back in the 1950s & 60s Northeast Ohio was still a thriving industrial complex.
Ashtabula was still a major port along Lake Erie, Warren-Youngstown was producing steel, and even East Liverpool was a hub for clay pottery. That is why Ohio (not the feds) wanted to build an expressway(turned freeway) between those cities.
Couple of other notes here. Oh 2 was originally proposed to extend east from Cleveland to Ashtabula (and Oh 11). And the Oh 11 expressway was to continue south to I-70 as Oh 7 (which to some extent it has been completed).
The demise of the Midwest manufacturing base has left many a interstate proposal either as artwork in libraries or in some cases modern drivers wondering "why is this here."
I think it should be an interstate all the way , but a 3DI . I would include the Ohio 7 corridor from Wheeling to US 30. I would name the road I-570.
A lot of work would need to be done on the OH-7 stretch.
Bypass of East Liverpool. Remove the intersection at the rest area. Bypass Empire/Stratton at the power plant, The OH-7/US-22/OH-213 intersection north of Steubenville. Removing the light at the US-22/OH-7/University Blvd intersection. Redo OH-7 through the south side of Steubenville. Including an interchange for the southern terminus of OH-43 (which deadends into the county jail by the river). Removing some--essentially--right turns on OH-7 southbound into better ramps. Removing lights, railroad tracks, etc through Martins Ferry. Deciding how to tie into I-70, if at all. That neighborhood of Bridgeport would have to be decimated to have a direct interchange. Best would be to keep it a freeway to I-470 and only make that the the only tie-in to an interstate at its southern end.
As for Empire/Stratton, OH-7 goes UNDER a coal-fired power plant. There's several driveways directly into parts of the plants that would have to either be removed, or the highway bypassed up the hill around the power plant. You can't put it on stilts into the river as there's a lock and dam located right next to the plant across the Ohio River.
Steubenville & Martins Ferry would require quite a restructuring to removing intersections but still allow local access as OH-7 is a major north-south route in both towns near the river. Martins Ferry would be cleaved in half. Best suggestion would be to elevate OH-7 in that stretch and use short (maybe even substandard) slip-ramps to street level for the major cross roads. The space is way too tight with the hill and train tracks in Martins Ferry to allow the prototypical frontage roads.
There would be no direct tie-in to I-70, which is fine for me. Because, I feel I-70 should be routed along I-470. Without destroying Bridgeport. The only thing workable would be monstrous fly-over ramps SB-EB and and EB-NB.
I'd like to see it. But population level, etc just precludes it.
Considering in roughly 40 miles, there's three north-south freeway/expressway routes (OH 7/11, PA 60/Future I-376, I-79) between I-80 and US 22.
Sykotyk
Just for fun, I stopped in the northern rest area between US 322 and US 6 on the way back from Indy (via Detroit to Erie). Made a left from 11 NB into the rest area and another left back out. Easy as pie, and I picked up a new Ohio map. Mmmm, pie. So who knows how long people will be able to do that?
Until they really look into an interstate designation, and as long as the traffic flow in that stretch stays the same, I don't see a need to do anything with removing the crossover.
Last time I drove that stretch of OH-11 was back in 1998 or 1999, was that rest area even there? I drove it at night heading north, but swear I would've remembered a left turn to the rest area (unless the lack of traffic that I just assumed it was in the median.
Sykotyk
Quote from: Sykotyk on July 17, 2009, 11:37:21 PM
Until they really look into an interstate designation, and as long as the traffic flow in that stretch stays the same, I don't see a need to do anything with removing the crossover.
Last time I drove that stretch of OH-11 was back in 1998 or 1999, was that rest area even there? I drove it at night heading north, but swear I would've remembered a left turn to the rest area (unless the lack of traffic that I just assumed it was in the median.
Sykotyk
I last took that stretch of highway in 1992 or 1993 and remember using that rest area then and you had to cross the SB lanes then.
Yeah, OH 11 has no real need to be an interstate - especially with manufacturing down in this area and not looking to come back up, the Steubenville/East Liverpool - Youngstown - Ashtabula route probably isn't going to ever be too busy.
Quote from: Sykotyk on July 17, 2009, 11:37:21 PM
Until they really look into an interstate designation, and as long as the traffic flow in that stretch stays the same, I don't see a need to do anything with removing the crossover.
Sykotyk
That Rest Area & Crossover have been there ever since Oh 11 was completed in that area.
Another oddity of OH-11 is that at one of the exits next to the Youngstown Airport (King Graves Road), there is a CEMETERY within the diamond interchange!!!!
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Warren,+OH&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=41.271352,-80.703641&spn=0.000996,0.001642&t=h&z=19&iwloc=A (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Warren,+OH&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=41.271352,-80.703641&spn=0.000996,0.001642&t=h&z=19&iwloc=A)
Quote from: thenetwork on July 18, 2009, 07:22:22 PM
Another oddity of OH-11 is that at one of the exits next to the Youngstown Airport (King Graves Road), there is a CEMETERY within the diamond interchange!!!!
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Warren,+OH&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=41.271352,-80.703641&spn=0.000996,0.001642&t=h&z=19&iwloc=A (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Warren,+OH&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=41.271352,-80.703641&spn=0.000996,0.001642&t=h&z=19&iwloc=A)
It's not the only one. Exit 79 on I-65 in TN (TN SSR 441 - Moore's Lane) has a small one in the northwest corner.
I'll replace this line with a Google maps link later.
Quote from: thenetwork on July 18, 2009, 07:22:22 PM
Another oddity of OH-11 is that at one of the exits next to the Youngstown Airport (King Graves Road), there is a CEMETERY within the diamond interchange!!!!
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Warren,+OH&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=41.271352,-80.703641&spn=0.000996,0.001642&t=h&z=19&iwloc=A (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Warren,+OH&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.396866,53.789062&ie=UTF8&ll=41.271352,-80.703641&spn=0.000996,0.001642&t=h&z=19&iwloc=A)
That's great! Just wake the dead up with 4 semis rumbling through.
Funny, I drove by that hundreds of times, and even noted it, but never realized how odd it is. Also, there's a cemetery just off the road on US-30 in western Ohio (where they're slowly upgrading to freeway). Another oddball is US-59 in Texas, although not a freeway, there's a section where a house's driveway exits onto an onramp for US-59 NB.
Sykotyk
There's a cemetery in the middle of a shopping center parking lot in Sand Springs, OK. It is visible from the US 412 freeway.
There is also a driveway that connects to a ramp on US 54 in Mexico, MO.
somewhere here in California (I believe southern) there is a freeway with some gravestones in the right of way. I believe along the shoulder. A google search does not reveal anything, though... and alas I have heard this story too long ago to remember more details.
Quote from: thenetwork on June 17, 2009, 08:27:42 PM
If you were to designate just the northern half of SR 11, it could be designated as a continuation of I-376 (as mentioned above), I-590, I-790 or I-990 for the I-90 connection, or I-380/580/780/980 for the I-80 connection. If you were to include both halves of SR 11, then I-376 would be eliminated from the list of possible 3-di numbers.
I-376 has already been assigned to PA Route 60.
Quote from: Sykotyk on June 18, 2009, 10:16:24 PM
Tough to label it as a 2di, as 69 through 99 are now taken. I-67 is out of place. As would be something such as I-11 or such. A x90 (little used in Ohio) would work well. Or x70, maybe.
That would be a serious possibility of promoting SR 11 into an interstate. The only two issues to that is the stub after I-90 that ends at SR 531 and that rest area.
pared down a huge block quote to include only the relevant point being addressed
Quote from: The Premier on April 07, 2010, 05:03:15 PM
I-376 has already been assigned to PA Route 60.
it is permissible to have three-digit interstates of the same number in different states, including neighboring ones. See the quantity of I-495s, for instance, as close together as Wilmington, DE and the Washington, DC Capital Beltway. I believe the distance between Pittsburgh and Ashtabula is larger than that, so the two 376s would not get confused with each other.
It'd be a lot closer than that, Jake, since I-376 is now extended along PA 60 up to I-80 near Sharon, PA. There'd only be 13 miles of separation between the two along I-80, which even beats out the 25 miles between I-291 CT and I-291 MA.
How about a US route number for OH 11 and OH 7? This way the at grade intersections could remain. It could extend along the entire route of OH 7 and be easily be extended into Kentucky or West Virginia to give it two states.
^^^
How about a new US 21?
Quote from: mightyace on April 07, 2010, 08:55:07 PM
^^^
How about a new US 21?
No, I would change Ohio Rts 7 & 11 to US 152. It makes more sense since the route starts at US 52.
I think OH-11 should remain signed as an Ohio state route. I kind of enjoy the multitude of expressway/freeway-quality state routes that we have in Ohio. 11 is definitely one of the longest (if not the longest) state roads that is a continuous freeway, but there are many routes that are also headed in the same direction. OH-7, OH-8, OH-21, OH-32/124, OH-104, OH-126, OH-161, OH-315, OH-562...these are all good examples of Ohio state routes with significant (if not entire) completed expressway/freeway segments.
ODOT also knows that they have more flexibility in the design/maintenance standards of these roads vs. the Eisenhower Interstate System without risk of the yanking of federal funds. I believe this is the main reason that ODOT has repeatedly said that they have no interest in expanding the Eisenhower Interstate System within Ohio.
Quote from: shoptb1 on April 08, 2010, 03:27:24 PM
ODOT also knows that they have more flexibility in the design/maintenance standards of these roads vs. the Eisenhower Interstate System without risk of the yanking of federal funds. I believe this is the main reason that ODOT has repeatedly said that they have no interest in expanding the Eisenhower Interstate System within Ohio.
Makes sense. So they can do things like the often mentioned Rest Area on OH 11. Or, a lot of US 30 out west of the state has exits for major highways but at grade intersections for minor ones.
Quote from: mightyace on April 08, 2010, 06:16:27 PM
Makes sense. So they can do things like the often mentioned Rest Area on OH 11. Or, a lot of US 30 out west of the state has exits for major highways but at grade intersections for minor ones.
I think the mindset in Ohio is also different from some other states, such as uhmmm, North Carolina (for example), which seems hell-bent on getting as many interstate shields placed within their jurisdiction as humanly possible. Ohio, by contrast, is not growing in population by leaps and bounds, and therefore, is faced with the almost-assured likelihood of decreasing tax revenues for maintaining the existing Interstate System mileage, much less maintaining additional road miles. Ohio, and other states of the "Rust Belt" have had to learn to swallow a difficult pill in the last 30 years (which was only made worse by the recent economic developments of the last 3 years), which is that the large population centers of yesterday (Cleveland, Toledo, Dayton, Cincinnati, Detroit, etc) are probably never going to be as large as they once were. The "build it and they will come" philosophy only works if you can realistically expect an increase in business (and therefore, tax) revenues because of the proposed system improvement.
Although I LOVE to see new roads as much as the next person, I also appreciate a measured approach at new construction which takes into account the overall necessity; weighing maintenance costs against potential new revenue and time savings. :)
Quote from: The Premier on April 07, 2010, 05:03:15 PM
That would be a serious possibility of promoting SR 11 into an interstate. The only two issues to that is the stub after I-90 that ends at SR 531 and that rest area.
Make that three issues: The southern edge of the SR-11 interchange at I-90 needs to be built to interstate standards as well:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.826695,-80.76517&spn=0.001963,0.004823&t=k&z=18
^^^
I forgot about the goofy south side of the cloverleaf. I'm surprised that it's still there.
And how many other places do you see an Exit sign pointing straight to the right?
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=41.82622,-80.767037&spn=0,0.003047&z=18&layer=c&cbll=41.826309,-80.765079&panoid=09rHp2V2m00FtKhbuqtmmA&cbp=12,35.16,,0,23.85
As for the section north of I-90, I'd simply end the interstate at I-90 and maybe make the stub a state route of the same number. (i.e. I-576 and OH 576 or I-190 and OH 190)
The straight-right exit chatter has been split into its own thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2656.0).
Quote from: mightyace on April 08, 2010, 10:51:43 PM
^^^
As for the section north of I-90, I'd simply end the interstate at I-90 and maybe make the stub a state route of the same number. (i.e. I-576 and OH 576 or I-190 and OH 190)
That will not be possible. In Ohio, you cannot sign a state route if its the same as an Interstate. :no:
You'll get away with that in California and New York, but not in Ohio. Once a route number is an Interstate or a U.S. Route, that previous number will have to be replaced.
Quote from: The Premier on April 19, 2010, 07:23:28 PM
Quote from: mightyace on April 08, 2010, 10:51:43 PM
^^^
As for the section north of I-90, I'd simply end the interstate at I-90 and maybe make the stub a state route of the same number. (i.e. I-576 and OH 576 or I-190 and OH 190)
That will not be possible. In Ohio, you cannot sign a state route if its the same as an Interstate. :no:
You'll get away with that in California and New York, but not in Ohio. Once a route number is an Interstate or a U.S. Route, that previous number will have to be replaced.
My main thing was just not designating the part north of I-90 as an interstate. If the highway has to be something other than the state route equivalent of the I-number, fine.
Quote from: The Premier on April 19, 2010, 07:23:28 PM
Quote from: mightyace on April 08, 2010, 10:51:43 PM
^^^
As for the section north of I-90, I'd simply end the interstate at I-90 and maybe make the stub a state route of the same number. (i.e. I-576 and OH 576 or I-190 and OH 190)
That will not be possible. In Ohio, you cannot sign a state route if its the same as an Interstate. :no:
You'll get away with that in California and New York, but not in Ohio. Once a route number is an Interstate or a U.S. Route, that previous number will have to be replaced.
Then Ohio needs to change their silly rules.
Quote from: mightyace on April 19, 2010, 07:39:12 PM
Quote from: The Premier on April 19, 2010, 07:23:28 PM
Quote from: mightyace on April 08, 2010, 10:51:43 PM
^^^
As for the section north of I-90, I'd simply end the interstate at I-90 and maybe make the stub a state route of the same number. (i.e. I-576 and OH 576 or I-190 and OH 190)
That will not be possible. In Ohio, you cannot sign a state route if its the same as an Interstate. :no:
You'll get away with that in California and New York, but not in Ohio. Once a route number is an Interstate or a U.S. Route, that previous number will have to be replaced.
My main thing was just not designating the part north of I-90 as an interstate. If the highway has to be something other than the state route equivalent of the I-number, fine.
That would just make things confusing, to sign a single corridor with two numbers when now it's a single number.
that is quite silly. having totally unrelated routes share the same number (like US-17 and FL-17) is not a good idea, but to have the continuation of an interstate route keep the number is a well-known solution.
Quote from: mightyace on April 19, 2010, 07:39:12 PM
My main thing was just not designating the part north of I-90 as an interstate. If the highway has to be something other than the state route equivalent of the I-number, fine.
If something like this were to ever happen, why not designate north of I-90?
Just over the state line in PA around Erie, I-79 continues north of I-90 towards the lake to end at a state route.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 19, 2010, 11:49:29 PM
that is quite silly. having totally unrelated routes share the same number (like US-17 and FL-17) is not a good idea, but to have the continuation of an interstate route keep the number is a well-known solution.
Considering that this thread started out with giving interstate shields to Ohio freeways that never been considered for interstate status, arguing that Ohio needs to change it's highway numbering protocal is about as practical as telling Demo/Repubs to switch political affiliations.
The main issue at hand, however, is can SR 11 be designated as an Interstate? Keep in mind that I-376 is already taken. Also, there are three issues that are causing the route not to meet Interstate standards; the rest area is a big example. You also have to look at the fact that Ohio may or may not be willing to add another Interstate.
So why not make it something like 976 that isn't used?
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2010, 07:56:42 PM
So why not make it something like 976 that isn't used?
Shouldn't that be the real number for the Bud Shuster Thruway....errr, I-99? :P
Quote from: DanTheMan414 on April 23, 2010, 09:11:46 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 23, 2010, 07:56:42 PM
So why not make it something like 976 that isn't used?
Shouldn't that be the real number for the Bud Shuster Thruway....errr, I-99? :P
I thought it was I-580! :P
Quote from: DanTheMan414 on April 23, 2010, 09:11:46 PM
Shouldn't that be the real number for the Bud Shuster Thruway....errr, I-99? :P
When it's complete it's going to be a little big for a 3di.
Quote from: deanej on April 24, 2010, 12:00:44 PM
Quote from: DanTheMan414 on April 23, 2010, 09:11:46 PM
Shouldn't that be the real number for the Bud Shuster Thruway....errr, I-99? :P
When it's complete it's going to be a little big for a 3di.
Well, PA's got I's 376 and 476, so what's another...
Anyway, you could make the part between the Turnpike and 80 and x70, x76 or an x80.
The part between I-80 and I-86 and be an x80 or x86 and keep the rest just I-86 and I-390.
Simple, huh?
Technically, that goes against being simple, since you're using multiple route numbers for a route that could otherwise just have one.
Splitting it up would allow for the US 15 portions to get an interstate designation sooner. That way we wouldn't have to wait on the US 220 upgrades, which could just become an extension of I-180 if they're ever done.
Quote from: froggie on April 25, 2010, 06:23:50 AM
Technically, that goes against being simple, since you're using multiple route numbers for a route that could otherwise just have one.
Well it doesn't have one today. To follow what we think will be I-99 you take the following north of I-80:
US 220 North to Williamsport
US 15 North to Painted Post, NY
I-86/NY 17 West to I-390 Junction
and I-390 North to Rochester
I don't believe the I-390 portion is anything other than a roadgeek rumor.
Quote from: deanej on April 26, 2010, 11:58:23 AM
I don't believe the I-390 portion is anything other than a roadgeek rumor.
I have no problem with that.
If Bud Schuster had never gotten I-99 designated, I'm fairly certain the highways would be simply US 220 and US 15 between Bedford, PA and Painted Post, NY.
Quote from: mightyace on April 25, 2010, 12:08:31 AM
Well, PA's got I's 376 and 476, so what's another...
Anyway, you could make the part between the Turnpike and 80 and x70, x76 or an x80.
The part between I-80 and I-86 and be an x80 or x86 and keep the rest just I-86 and I-390.
Simple, huh?
I'm afraid that may not be that simple. There is no direct access from I-76 (Turnpike) to SR 11, so making any section an I-x76 is out of the question unless there is an interchange built, which is probably not going to happen. :no:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.033091,-80.73992&spn=0.0073,0.013797&t=h&z=16 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.033091,-80.73992&spn=0.0073,0.013797&t=h&z=16)
But an I-x80 would make sense between I-80 to the northern terminus or an I-x90 spur between I-90 to SR 531. But an I-x70 would be much better despite not having access to I-70, terminating at I-470 instead. Upgrading it to a U.S. Route is also a possibility, since newly designated U.S. routes must be routed through two states.
One more thing: Can we please keep the I-99 rants out of this thread? :pan: This thread is reserved for the discussion on (Ohio) SR 11 and the possibility of it being an interstate.
Quote from: The Premier on April 27, 2010, 07:51:18 PMThere is no direct access from I-76 (Turnpike) to SR 11, so making any section an I-x76 is out of the question unless there is an interchange built, which is probably not going to happen.
I'm surprised the OTC didn't construct an interchange at 11 during their Capital Campaign when they were rebuilding the road and adding missing interchanges such as at I-75, I-71, etc.
Quote from: The Premier on April 27, 2010, 07:51:18 PMOne more thing: Can we please keep the I-99 rants out of this thread? :pan:
I move all rants about I-99 are stricken from any part of the board considering it's been 15 years since it was signed.
Quote from: The Premier on April 27, 2010, 07:51:18 PMThere is no direct access from I-76 (Turnpike) to SR 11, so making any section an I-x76 is out of the question unless there is an interchange built, which is probably not going to happen.
That didn't stop I-176 from existing for 30+ years until a direct connection was finally built.
The stub of the old I-176 to PA 10/23 (still in service AFAIK) and the ghost ramps of the old PA 10 interchange are still clearly visible in this picture.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Morgantown,+PA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.51141,54.580078&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Morgantown&ll=40.161427,-75.890551&spn=0.024008,0.02665&t=h&z=15
EDIT:
Quote from: PAHighways on April 27, 2010, 08:55:33 PM
I move all rants about I-99 are stricken from any part of the board considering it's been 15 years since it was signed.
If we do that, then we
must remove all reference to I-238 as that is even older.
QuoteI move all rants about I-99 are stricken from any part of the board considering it's been 15 years since it was signed.
Seconded!!!