As of Friday June 27, US 15 from the PA line to Corning/I-86 has been officially marked as I-99.
http://www.stargazette.com/article/20140627/NEWS01/306270011/Corning-now-has-2-interstates-U-S-15-designated-99-Pa-border (http://www.stargazette.com/article/20140627/NEWS01/306270011/Corning-now-has-2-interstates-U-S-15-designated-99-Pa-border)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv645%2Frickmastfan67%2Fworthless.gif&hash=eded06709f2baf5e4d4deba0c6d59460e08227fa) :bigass:
I've been waiting to break that out for awhile. haha.
It's the "Get Smart" interchange!!
Oh yeah, now I see it.
Anyway, I do not see celebrating just yet. There still is that section west of Williamsport to be completed. Plus many of us here detest the I-99 designation to start with. I would love to see an I-83 north extension to Rochester using this freeway, if it were up to me, but we cannot have it all.
Are there any plans in the near future to build that section west of Williamsport?
Has the Williamsport-to-NY line section of U.S. 15 become I-99? On my trip to Watkins Glen in October 2012, I saw "Future (I-99 shield)" signs along that stretch.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on June 28, 2014, 12:38:47 PM
Has the Williamsport-to-NY line section of U.S. 15 become I-99? On my trip to Watkins Glen in October 2012, I saw "Future (I-99 shield)" signs along that stretch.
ixnay
Not that I am aware of. The article was just talking about the stretch in NY. With this though, it might not be that far off.
Quote from: mvak36 on June 28, 2014, 12:05:48 PM
Are there any plans in the near future to build that section west of Williamsport?
I never saw anything on that Penndot "Decade of Investment" site, but I have no idea if it's still planned or its being deferred permenantly. Frankly, they should get the I-80 interchange done first.
Does anyone know anything about the I-180/US 15/US 220/Fut I-99 interchange in Williamsport? Would that need to be reconstructed, or is it be close enough to meet standards?
I saw a reference to an interchange project on US 220 a mile or so north of I-80. But noting more.
Well it should be to standards anyway to I-180 which would tie both ends into the rest of system.
I was last in Williamsport in May, and as of then, I can guarantee that the section from I-180 to the NY state line was posted US 15 only. The "Future I-99 Corridor" signs have been posted sporadically between Williamsport and Corning for more than a decade. I recall the one in Williamsport being posted around 2000.
Quote from: mvak36 on June 28, 2014, 12:05:48 PM
Are there any plans in the near future to build that section west of Williamsport?
To my knowledge, no–not in the foreseeable future.
The entire 180/220 corridor, from the US 220/I-80 interchange west of Lock Haven to the I-180/I-80 interchange near Milton, was planned to be a continuous freeway as early as the 1960s. It was being promoted as the Susquehanna Beltway, which is the reason people in the Williamsport area typically refer to I-180 as "The Beltway" . So the freeway gap between Williamsport and Jersey Shore is already a delay in a 50-year-old project.
There was a flurry of activity around 2002-2003 regarding completion of that missing section. PennDOT created a project website (still viewable on the Internet Archive here (https://web.archive.org/web/20040410103032/http://susquehannabeltway.com/)), but as of April 2004, the home page of the site reported that PennDOT Secretary Biehler ordered all work on the project halted, and it was dropped from PennDOTs Twelve-Year Plan.
The project is not mentioned on the recent "Decade of Investment" plan. Without a ruthless politician like Shuster willing to divert funds from more deserving projects just to realize the dream of a continuous 99, I have doubts the gap will ever be completed. And further, there isn't the overwhelming public outcry for a new freeway–contrast that with the CSVT link bypassing the congested Shamokin Dam strip. People have been begging for that to be completed for years, and four decades later, it's just now showing signs of being built by 2025.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on June 28, 2014, 02:32:02 PM
I saw a reference to an interchange project on US 220 a mile or so north of I-80. But noting more.
There is another much shorter gap in the freeway between the PA 477 interchange and I-80. But despite having a single at-grade intersection, this roughly three-mile section is more like a super-two in that it was built with PA '70s spec grading, bridges, and shoulders, and the right-of-way leaves room for a new carriageway with two northbound lanes to be built alongside the existing two lanes.
Construction is already underway for a diamond interchange to replace the at-grade intersection with Fairground Road, but I haven't yet seen any other work on grading or constructing the northbound lanes. If they're trying to complete the freeway, PennDOT will also need to completely reconstruct the current diamond interchange with I-80.
Quote from: CentralPAguy on June 28, 2014, 01:42:57 PM
Does anyone know anything about the I-180/US 15/US 220/Fut I-99 interchange in Williamsport? Would that need to be reconstructed, or is it be close enough to meet standards?
The current I-180/US 220/US 15 interchange is continuous, but in its current configuration, would require through I-99 traffic to exit via a one-lane ramp, make a 180° hairpin turn (which I believe is posted at 20 M.P.H.) and merge quickly onto itself from a ramp that almost immediately becomes an exit only lane for Third Street.
When I attended the unveiling ceremony of the "Future I-99 Corridor" sign, the PennDOT spokesperson in attendance said that the interchange "...would definitely be replaced with a high-speed design."
Quote from: briantroutman on June 28, 2014, 03:33:31 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on June 28, 2014, 02:32:02 PM
I saw a reference to an interchange project on US 220 a mile or so north of I-80. But noting more.
There is another much shorter gap in the freeway between the PA 477 interchange and I-80. But despite having a single at-grade intersection, this roughly three-mile section is more like a super-two in that it was built with PA '70s spec grading, bridges, and shoulders, and the right-of-way leaves room for a new carriageway with two northbound lanes to be built alongside the existing two lanes.
Construction is already underway for a diamond interchange to replace the at-grade intersection with Fairground Road, but I haven't yet seen any other work on grading or constructing the northbound lanes. If they're trying to complete the freeway, PennDOT will also need to completely reconstruct the current diamond interchange with I-80.
I believe that the construction at Auction Rd./Fairground Rd. will only involve the lanes already there, essentially further reinforcing it as a super-two. I haven't seen it, but from what I understand, the first phase of construction (2 ramps) is done, and the second phase (2 ramps on the west side, and the 220 bridge) will begin later this year
Quote from: briantroutman on June 28, 2014, 03:33:31 PM
Quote from: CentralPAguy on June 28, 2014, 01:42:57 PM
Does anyone know anything about the I-180/US 15/US 220/Fut I-99 interchange in Williamsport? Would that need to be reconstructed, or is it be close enough to meet standards?
The current I-180/US 220/US 15 interchange is continuous, but in its current configuration, would require through I-99 traffic to exit via a one-lane ramp, make a 180° hairpin turn (which I believe is posted at 20 M.P.H.) and merge quickly onto itself from a ramp that almost immediately becomes an exit only lane for Third Street.
When I attended the unveiling ceremony of the "Future I-99 Corridor" sign, the PennDOT spokesperson in attendance said that the interchange "...would definitely be replaced with a high-speed design."
I was thinking that it would have to be replaced, but I know that sometimes cloverleaf loops are acceptable for a mainline. The thing is though, that I had never heard any talk whatsoever of a new interchange there.
At least the part between 287 and Williamsport, I had seen concepts for. Here's maps of possible (though probably unlikely) for the upgrading of 220 (its some kind of PDF or whatever, maps on pg 146 onward):
http://www.lyco.org/Portals/1/PlanningCommunityDevelopment/Documents/EDPS_PDFs/mapbooks/i99/us220_i-99_5-5-05.pdf (http://www.lyco.org/Portals/1/PlanningCommunityDevelopment/Documents/EDPS_PDFs/mapbooks/i99/us220_i-99_5-5-05.pdf)
Also, as part of that decade of investment project, they're going to update the Third st (or Fourth st?) interchange on 220
This is interesting. The NY I-99 and the original Bud Schuster I-99 will not be connected in our lifetime, if what you say PennDOT is not doing in the near foreseeable future. Wow what a waste of money that campaign was.
All it managed to accomplish was now if congress wants an interstate bad enough and FHWA is not that keen on it is to sign it in to law next session. Hence it helped TexDOT get the suffixes back for I-69.
Reference markers on US 15 in NY said "99I" when I went through there a year or two back.
Quote from: Sam on June 29, 2014, 07:26:46 PM
Reference markers on US 15 in NY said "99I" when I went through there a year or two back.
They built the road as I-99 internally, to facilitate the transition later on, but that's just for reference. The way the system works, if they built it as 15U, it would always be 15U even after the transition.
Oh happy day! I've been waiting for years to hear this news!! :biggrin:
I'm just now waiting to hear the same thing from I-86 and its extension to I-87.
Quote from: mvak36 on June 28, 2014, 12:05:48 PM
Are there any plans in the near future to build that section west of Williamsport?
Yes. See the latest PennDOT District 3 press release on the project here (http://www.dot.state.pa.us/penndot/districts/district3.nsf/f99071963d03038c8525692f0041a9ac/0432ab292cf9613785257cae004bdd94?OpenDocument). It's called the Route 220 Access Management Study. I don't know what the result will be.
Prior to being forced to stand down by the previous governor (Rendell), the project had advanced to the selection of a preferred alternative: a 4-lane freeway on the hillside(s) above (to the north of) the current alignment of US 220. I don't know the status of that preferred alternative under the new project.
I heard some talks earlier about possibly changing I-390 to I-99 and having the route reach up to Rochester. What's the story with this?
Quote from: ElPanaChevere on July 01, 2014, 11:12:58 AM
I heard some talks earlier about possibly changing I-390 to I-99 and having the route reach up to Rochester. What's the story with this?
I think that's just a wish or preference of a bunch of people. I think it should be done.
Quote from: qguy on July 01, 2014, 10:07:50 AM
Quote from: mvak36 on June 28, 2014, 12:05:48 PM
Are there any plans in the near future to build that section west of Williamsport?
Yes. See the latest PennDOT District 3 press release on the project here (http://www.dot.state.pa.us/penndot/districts/district3.nsf/f99071963d03038c8525692f0041a9ac/0432ab292cf9613785257cae004bdd94?OpenDocument). It's called the Route 220 Access Management Study. I don't know what the result will be.
This Access Management Study doesn't bring the freeway's missing link any closer to construction. The PennDOT District 3-0 PR representative was quoted in the Williamsport Sun Gazette:
Quote from: Williamsport Sun Gazette - April 3, 2014"The study will be engineering additional safety features into the corridor - closing off some access points, making different ones, restricting certain types of movement out onto the road," he said.
If anything, I think the fact that PennDOT is spending the time and money to study closing off median openings and intersections and building other access points seems like an admission that any work on a freeway is far in the distant future.
Quote from: ElPanaChevere on July 01, 2014, 11:12:58 AM
I heard some talks earlier about possibly changing I-390 to I-99 and having the route reach up to Rochester. What's the story with this?
I've only ever seen this on roadgeek wish lists–never even the slightest indication from an official source.
Changing I-390 to I-99 is just a roadgeek fantasy as far as I know. It would require renumbering exits 12 and 13 (which just received/changed numbers last year) on I-99 anyways, so NYSDOT clearly has no plans for this.
Quote from: ElPanaChevere on June 30, 2014, 10:43:20 PM
Oh happy day! I've been waiting for years to hear this news!! :biggrin:
I'm just now waiting to hear the same thing from I-86 and its extension to I-87.
I-99 isn't done yet. The portion between State College and the NY state line still has a few segments that are yet to be built.
I think that I-99 should be renamed the BS 99 and the B is not for business either. Bud Schuster should know that his initials stand for a well known abbreviation and that some might use his initials someday.
No I-99 signs up yet, as of 4th of July. Even though there have been covered I-86 signs on sections of NY 17 between Binghamton and I-84, NYSDOT for whatever reason decided not to do that in this case. So we wait...
I-99 is a bad number for this route, but the extension into NY (despite the 10 mile gap in PA left) gives it a little bit more legitimacy now.
Will be number the missing links as I-99 anyway? Future I-99? I would imagine this could help travelers on the corridor move more easily. I don't see the road being completed in PA in the next 10 years anyway.
Quote from: LeftyJR on July 06, 2014, 11:53:24 AM
I-99 is a bad number for this route
Only other available number was I-67. It would be just as out-of-place.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 06, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
Quote from: LeftyJR on July 06, 2014, 11:53:24 AM
I-99 is a bad number for this route
Only other available number was I-67. It would be just as out-of-place.
True, but it wouldn't give the impression that Lex Luthor is attempting setting up a
new East Coast along that highway corridor (with a new East Otisburg being located next to Altoona). :sombrero:
Quote from: hbelkins on July 06, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
Quote from: LeftyJR on July 06, 2014, 11:53:24 AM
I-99 is a bad number for this route
Only other available number was I-67. It would be just as out-of-place.
The entire system east of I-55 was screwed to some extent back in 1956 with the original numbering. No real spaces for north-south interstates through Pennsylvania and the like.
That said, now the "Bud Shuster Memorial Porkway" has become a multi-state-intertstate.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 06, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
Quote from: LeftyJR on July 06, 2014, 11:53:24 AM
I-99 is a bad number for this route
Only other available number was I-67. It would be just as out-of-place.
How about I-170? Even I-580 or I-576? So many 3 digits of the four interstates the route touches. Even two different numbers for both sides of I-80.
It would be awfully long for a three-digit spur interstate. Even if it doesn't enter three states like originally planned, it's going to be long enough to deserve a two-digit number.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 06, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
Quote from: LeftyJR on July 06, 2014, 11:53:24 AM
I-99 is a bad number for this route
Only other available number was I-67. It would be just as out-of-place.
Why not I-83? Once the gap between Harrisburg and I-180 is closed, it could run right up I-390 to Rochester. You could argue it would be west of I-81, but it's really 81's fault for being so diagonal.
There's no reason to upgrade US 15 between US 22 and Selinsgrove though. It's a four lane divided highway that moves well.
Quote from: Sam on July 08, 2014, 10:11:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 06, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
Quote from: LeftyJR on July 06, 2014, 11:53:24 AM
I-99 is a bad number for this route
Only other available number was I-67. It would be just as out-of-place.
Why not I-83? Once the gap between Harrisburg and I-180 is closed, it could run right up I-390 to Rochester. You could argue it would be west of I-81, but it's really 81's fault for being so diagonal.
Because you're talking of fictional highways as if they're reality.
A northern I-85 would also work.
Quote from: okc1 on July 09, 2014, 10:44:44 AM
A northern I-85 would also work.
Yes, it would. So would rearranging the grid to make more numbers available for that area (something that should've been done in 1956, IMHO). They're all ideas better suited for the fictional area.
Quote from: Sam on July 08, 2014, 10:11:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 06, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
Quote from: LeftyJR on July 06, 2014, 11:53:24 AM
I-99 is a bad number for this route
Only other available number was I-67. It would be just as out-of-place.
Why not I-83? Once the gap between Harrisburg and I-180 is closed, it could run right up I-390 to Rochester. You could argue it would be west of I-81, but it's really 81's fault for being so diagonal.
That doesn't do any good for the existing I-99 between Bedford and the State College area.
Quote from: Sam on July 08, 2014, 10:11:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 06, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
Quote from: LeftyJR on July 06, 2014, 11:53:24 AM
I-99 is a bad number for this route
Only other available number was I-67. It would be just as out-of-place.
Why not I-83? Once the gap between Harrisburg and I-180 is closed, it could run right up I-390 to Rochester. You could argue it would be west of I-81, but it's really 81's fault for being so diagonal.
This, although that gap will never be finished, IMO As for the rest of it (referring to a hypothetically completed highway between I-180 and I-68 in MD), here's an idea: how about I-82? The route does travel sort of east-west, diagonally of course, but I-44 is diagonal too. Heck, I-82 in out west is also. Besides, the east coast needs an I-82, its the only I-8X that isn't signed in the east :P
Quote from: Brandon on July 09, 2014, 11:32:37 AMThey're all ideas better suited for the fictional area.
This. I will be moving any further messages about possible numbering to Fictional. There are threads on this already there.
I was just on this new stretch of I-99 for the first time a week ago when I was in PA\NJ\NY, I did not see any I-99 signs so I realy did not know this is officially I-99 besides already signed US 15, I am thinking the signs just plain have not been erected yet?
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 07, 2014, 01:25:15 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 06, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
Quote from: LeftyJR on July 06, 2014, 11:53:24 AM
I-99 is a bad number for this route
Only other available number was I-67. It would be just as out-of-place.
True, but it wouldn't give the impression that Lex Luthor is attempting setting up a new East Coast along that highway corridor (with a new East Otisburg being located next to Altoona). :sombrero:
Otisburg? OTISBURG?!?
It sure would free up a lot of numbers.
If completed, I-99 could alleviate some congestion from I-81, at least north of Virginia. It seems like money is being funneled to US 219 in Pennsylvania, Maryland and West Virginia though, where the road is insanely windy in many spots.
Quote from: jpi on July 09, 2014, 11:44:08 PM
I was just on this new stretch of I-99 for the first time a week ago when I was in PA\NJ\NY, I did not see any I-99 signs so I realy did not know this is officially I-99 besides already signed US 15, I am thinking the signs just plain have not been erected yet?
Per the state government ( https://www.governor.ny.gov/press/06272014-designation-route-15-interstate-99 ), what remains of US 15 in New York has been designated as I-99. I won't believe it until I see it in the
Official Description of Highway Touring Routes. I was over there pretty recently and saw nothing but empty spaces on I-86's BGSes. As previously mentioned, the
reference markers on recently-constructed/improved sections of US 15 do say "99I" because they did the re-designation for the books during construction. Again, don't expect any "15" RMs to disappear, as they are (almost) NEVER updated to reflect current routings.
On the Rochester extension stuff, there is one and only one reason to send I-99 up I-390 and replace the hundreds of I-390 shields (many of which are state name): They build the NY 63 bypass between Mount Morris and Buffalo that Region 4 has been talking about for years and put I-99 on the new road to get the federal funding. People in New York still refer to I-86 as "Route 17" almost exclusively. Extending I-99 further would only cause confusion.
I am not surprised by this at all! I knew that it would only be a matter of time before I-99 was signed in a state other than PA.
Quote from: cl94 on July 10, 2014, 02:58:59 PM
Quote from: jpi on July 09, 2014, 11:44:08 PM
I was just on this new stretch of I-99 for the first time a week ago when I was in PA\NJ\NY, I did not see any I-99 signs so I realy did not know this is officially I-99 besides already signed US 15, I am thinking the signs just plain have not been erected yet?
Per the state government ( https://www.governor.ny.gov/press/06272014-designation-route-15-interstate-99 ), what remains of US 15 in New York has been designated as I-99. I won't believe it until I see it in the Official Description of Highway Touring Routes.
Meaning https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2012%20tour-bk.pdf , I assume.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on July 10, 2014, 05:40:21 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 10, 2014, 02:58:59 PM
Quote from: jpi on July 09, 2014, 11:44:08 PM
I was just on this new stretch of I-99 for the first time a week ago when I was in PA\NJ\NY, I did not see any I-99 signs so I realy did not know this is officially I-99 besides already signed US 15, I am thinking the signs just plain have not been erected yet?
Per the state government ( https://www.governor.ny.gov/press/06272014-designation-route-15-interstate-99 ), what remains of US 15 in New York has been designated as I-99. I won't believe it until I see it in the Official Description of Highway Touring Routes.
Meaning https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2012%20tour-bk.pdf , I assume.
ixnay
Correct. That and the Highway Mileage Summary are the Bible of New York highways. While they may occasionally disagree, nothing is official unless it is in one of them.
I usually use the traffic data report. There's also the RIS highway inventory that has every public road in the state.
I am unsure of the present state of the NY 63 corridor project. I think I remember Wyoming County blocking it.
Reference markers aren't supposed to ever change (the first line is actually "route number at the time reference markers were first installed"), with REALLY good reason (nobody wants to change millions of spreadsheets and PDF files), but sometimes it happens anyways. I know the region 6 sign guy though, and he's a roadgeek with no intention of ever changing the markers, so they'll be 15 until the end of time.
Quote from: vdeane on July 10, 2014, 10:33:38 PM
I usually use the traffic data report. There's also the RIS highway inventory that has every public road in the state.
I am unsure of the present state of the NY 63 corridor project. I think I remember Wyoming County blocking it.
Reference markers aren't supposed to ever change (the first line is actually "route number at the time reference markers were first installed"), with REALLY good reason (nobody wants to change millions of spreadsheets and PDF files), but sometimes it happens anyways. I know the region 6 sign guy though, and he's a roadgeek with no intention of ever changing the markers, so they'll be 15 until the end of time.
Route 63 is in limbo. Per Region 4's site, Wyoming County wants it but Genesee County does not. As someone whose parents currently live on US 20 along the truck route in Erie County, a bypass would be the greatest thing to ever happen.
Region 5 seems to love redoing the reference markers. Two Rod Road (NY 954G) in Marilla was (mostly) formerly NY 358, but all of the reference markers have been updated to show 954G. The former routing of NY 93 in Lockport has RMs for the reference route that existed between the rerouting and downloading to county maintenance. NY 425, also once a reference route, has updated markers. Old NY 33B, however, is the only highway I know of in the region to maintain its old markers.
I just traveled this stretch of freeway about 3 hours ago, and it's my best guess that it will be awhile before they actually co-sign US 15 in NY as I-99.
Quote from: cl94 on July 10, 2014, 11:26:44 PM
Region 5 seems to love redoing the reference markers. Two Rod Road (NY 954G) in Marilla was (mostly) formerly NY 358, but all of the reference markers have been updated to show 954G. The former routing of NY 93 in Lockport has RMs for the reference route that existed between the rerouting and downloading to county maintenance. NY 425, also once a reference route, has updated markers. Old NY 33B, however, is the only highway I know of in the region to maintain its old markers.
Over in Region 1 we call them "The Kingdom". Regions 10 and 11 are also deserving of this title. 5 is far enough away to escape some influence from Main Office, and 10 and 11 have political clout that allow them to escape policies and do their own thing. Region 11 wouldn't even accept aid from anyone else during 9/11 and nobody really knows what that region does since they outsource maintenance to NYCDOT.
Quote from: vdeane on July 12, 2014, 12:05:46 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 10, 2014, 11:26:44 PM
Region 5 seems to love redoing the reference markers. Two Rod Road (NY 954G) in Marilla was (mostly) formerly NY 358, but all of the reference markers have been updated to show 954G. The former routing of NY 93 in Lockport has RMs for the reference route that existed between the rerouting and downloading to county maintenance. NY 425, also once a reference route, has updated markers. Old NY 33B, however, is the only highway I know of in the region to maintain its old markers.
Over in Region 1 we call them "The Kingdom". Regions 10 and 11 are also deserving of this title. 5 is far enough away to escape some influence from Main Office, and 10 and 11 have political clout that allow them to escape policies and do their own thing. Region 11 wouldn't even accept aid from anyone else during 9/11 and nobody really knows what that region does since they outsource maintenance to NYCDOT.
I spent the majority of my 20 years in Region 1 and seeing how Regiom 5 and Ohio do things was quite a shock. "End 40 mph limit" signs are still posted everywhere, even where a 55 sign would be fine, many routes lack reference markers, the lack of exit signs at gore points disturbs me, and the people in the main office aren't particularly pleasant. I know of 20 people from the local university's civil engineering department, myself included, who called to inquire about a summer coop position and had the main contacts are less than pleasant, so bad that my department actually advises people not to work for Region 5. I know a few people at Region 1, and if I was 200 miles closer, I'd probably be working there right now with several of my classmates.
Quote from: DanTheMan414 on July 11, 2014, 04:44:31 PM
I just traveled this stretch of freeway about 3 hours ago, and it's my best guess that it will be awhile before they actually co-sign US 15 in NY as I-99.
I just traveled it about 12 hours ago, on my way back home from Rochester. I-99 signs are up, in several places, on NY's part of US 15.
Details and photos to follow, once I get some sleep.
Quote from: vdeane on July 12, 2014, 12:05:46 PM
Region 11 wouldn't even accept aid from anyone else during 9/11 and nobody really knows what that region does since they outsource maintenance to NYCDOT.
Region 11 may not do maintenance but they
are actively involved with capital projects.
Here are several photos I took yesterday of I-99 signage on US 15 in New York between I-86 and the Pennsylvania border.
(//www.alaskaroads.com/I99-NB-N-of-exit8_DSC2550.jpg)
This lone I-99 route marker is on the northbound freeway north of exit 8 (NY 417).
(//www.alaskaroads.com/I99-marker-closeup_DSC2550.jpg)
A closeup of that route marker. None of the ones I saw had the state name.
(//www.alaskaroads.com/NY417-at-I99-exit6_DSC2541.jpg)
A sign assembly on eastbound NY 417, approaching the ramp to northbound I-99/US 15.
(//www.alaskaroads.com/I99-SB-south-of-exit11_DSC2561.jpg)
South of exit 11 (another junction with NY 417), the I-99 marker is paired with the old US 15 marker.
(//www.alaskaroads.com/I99-ref-marker-SB-south-of-exit6_DSC2588.jpg)
An I-99 reference marker, southbound on the newest segment of the freeway south of exit 6 (junction with a county route). I saw I-99 reference markers on the older segments (like under the sign shown above south of exit 11), but I don't know for sure that all the US 15 reference markers are gone, and vaguely recall seeing at least one of them.
(//www.alaskaroads.com/I99-end-marker-SB_DSC2598.jpg)
Here's one of the two End I-99 markers at the south end of I-99 in New York (the other marker is on the other side of the southbound lanes). The "Pennsylvania Welcomes You" sign in the background confirms the location. I didn't see any End I-99 markers at the north end of I-99 at the I-86 junction, but maybe they were on the ramp I didn't take.
I also didn't see any I-99 signage on I-86 eastbound. The BGSes approaching the I-99 junction still refer only to US 15.
That I-99 sign with the Series C numerals looks like it wanted to have NEW YORK above it. At least the numerals aren't the big bulky 18" series D ones.
They're not properly centered, though, which is just as bad.
Typical NYSDOT signage. :pan:
Quote from: cu2010 on July 21, 2014, 04:29:52 PM
They're not properly centered, though, which is just as bad.
Typical NYSDOT signage. :pan:
Agreed, those Series D numerals definitely need to be centered. PennDOT did a much better job w/their I-99 shields.
Quote from: Zeffy on July 21, 2014, 04:15:28 PM
That I-99 sign with the Series C numerals looks like it wanted to have NEW YORK above it. At least the numerals aren't the big bulky 18" series D ones.
I've seen similar Series C numbers on other interstate markers throughout upstate New York. At first I thought they were confined to Region 3, but they've shown up in R1 at the north end of Wolf Rd. leading the way to I-87 and I've seen them in R7 for I-81 in the Watertown area. Now they're in R6 with I-99. I wonder if they're made by CorCraft or some other contractor. I have a hunch that they're specific to one contractor, whomever they may be.
Quote from: okc1 on July 09, 2014, 10:44:44 AM
A northern I-85 would also work.
I seemed to have routed an I-85 up that way.
Darn, missed these by nearly 3 weeks :-/ Oh well, eventually that end tab will be replaced, if you think about it, PA can easly sign this as I-99 all the way to I-180\ US 220 in Williamsport, they would just have a missing link, like that is anything new for my home state :bigass:
Quote from: jpi on July 21, 2014, 09:49:04 PM
Darn, missed these by nearly 3 weeks :-/
Yeah, timing is everything. :)
I knew I needed to work the route into my return from Rochester, since I was missing the newest segment south of exit 6. Finding I-99 signage, just a few days after it went up, was a bonus.
For all the flak 99 gets for its numbering here, it's actually a really nice road. I just did the Altoona to I-80 section in PA and it's a really good scenic drive (being mostly new construction helps too, of course). I've also done Williamsport to 86/17 twice a few years ago before the northern PA and southern NY sections were done, and that was a good ride too. A couple of points are docked for the abrupt 'temporary' ending for the left onto I-80 east near Bellefonte, which almost got me squashed between trucks. Similar experience at 86/17 before the new interchange, with me almost barreling through the red light at the Painted Post end at highway speed.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 22, 2014, 08:53:36 PM
For all the flak 99 gets for its numbering here, it's actually a really nice road.
To my knowledge, nobody here has ever said anything negative regarding
the actual road itself.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 23, 2014, 08:41:10 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 22, 2014, 08:53:36 PM
For all the flak 99 gets for its numbering here, it's actually a really nice road.
To my knowledge, nobody here has ever said anything negative regarding the actual road itself.
The flak is usually reserved for
how it got the number, not the assignment of the number itself. It was the first of a trend of interstate numbers being written into law instead of being assigned by AASHTO. Had I-99 been assigned by AASHTO, I think no one would've taken any issue with it. Instead, Bud Shuster wrote the number into the law authorizing it.
Quote from: Brandon on July 23, 2014, 09:46:47 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 23, 2014, 08:41:10 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 22, 2014, 08:53:36 PM
For all the flak 99 gets for its numbering here, it's actually a really nice road.
To my knowledge, nobody here has ever said anything negative regarding the actual road itself.
The flak is usually reserved for how it got the number, not the assignment of the number itself. It was the first of a trend of interstate numbers being written into law instead of being assigned by AASHTO. Had I-99 been assigned by AASHTO, I think no one would've taken any issue with it. Instead, Bud Shuster wrote the number into the law authorizing it.
Agreed and understood on all the above. Just wanted to give the road some credit, since over the years the criticism of the number assignment has often overshadowed the road itself here and elsewhere. Looking forward to its completion through PA (and hopefully its numbering up to Rochester), even if I rarely get to drive it.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 23, 2014, 08:41:10 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 22, 2014, 08:53:36 PM
For all the flak 99 gets for its numbering here, it's actually a really nice road.
To my knowledge, nobody here has ever said anything negative regarding the actual road itself.
Some of the older discussion (including on misc.transport.road, where many of us started before migrating here) objected not only to the route number and the designation process, but also its lack of a direct connection to I-70/76, and its getting too high a priority over other highway construction needs.
I-99 is certainly busy enough nowadays to counter the latter criticism.
Quote from: cl94 on July 10, 2014, 02:58:59 PM
Quote from: jpi on July 09, 2014, 11:44:08 PM
I was just on this new stretch of I-99 for the first time a week ago when I was in PA\NJ\NY, I did not see any I-99 signs so I realy did not know this is officially I-99 besides already signed US 15, I am thinking the signs just plain have not been erected yet?
Per the state government ( https://www.governor.ny.gov/press/06272014-designation-route-15-interstate-99 ), what remains of US 15 in New York has been designated as I-99. I won't believe it until I see it in the Official Description of Highway Touring Routes. I was over there pretty recently and saw nothing but empty spaces on I-86's BGSes. As previously mentioned, the reference markers on recently-constructed/improved sections of US 15 do say "99I" because they did the re-designation for the books during construction. Again, don't expect any "15" RMs to disappear, as they are (almost) NEVER updated to reflect current routings.
On the Rochester extension stuff, there is one and only one reason to send I-99 up I-390 and replace the hundreds of I-390 shields (many of which are state name): They build the NY 63 bypass between Mount Morris and Buffalo that Region 4 has been talking about for years and put I-99 on the new road to get the federal funding. People in New York still refer to I-86 as "Route 17" almost exclusively. Extending I-99 further would only cause confusion.
It almost naturally seems as though if a Rochester bypass were to be built that it be an extension of NY400 to I-390.
Also, I haven't followed this thread, are plans underway to complete the non finished portions of I-99 in PA?
Quote from: Buffaboy on July 24, 2014, 12:29:46 AM
Quote from: cl94 on July 10, 2014, 02:58:59 PM
Quote from: jpi on July 09, 2014, 11:44:08 PM
I was just on this new stretch of I-99 for the first time a week ago when I was in PA\NJ\NY, I did not see any I-99 signs so I realy did not know this is officially I-99 besides already signed US 15, I am thinking the signs just plain have not been erected yet?
Per the state government ( https://www.governor.ny.gov/press/06272014-designation-route-15-interstate-99 ), what remains of US 15 in New York has been designated as I-99. I won't believe it until I see it in the Official Description of Highway Touring Routes. I was over there pretty recently and saw nothing but empty spaces on I-86's BGSes. As previously mentioned, the reference markers on recently-constructed/improved sections of US 15 do say "99I" because they did the re-designation for the books during construction. Again, don't expect any "15" RMs to disappear, as they are (almost) NEVER updated to reflect current routings.
On the Rochester extension stuff, there is one and only one reason to send I-99 up I-390 and replace the hundreds of I-390 shields (many of which are state name): They build the NY 63 bypass between Mount Morris and Buffalo that Region 4 has been talking about for years and put I-99 on the new road to get the federal funding. People in New York still refer to I-86 as "Route 17" almost exclusively. Extending I-99 further would only cause confusion.
It almost naturally seems as though if a Rochester bypass were to be built that it be an extension of NY400 to I-390.
Also, I haven't followed this thread, are plans underway to complete the non finished portions of I-99 in PA?
Yeah, there are. Go back a page or two or do a search for "I-99". You'll find more than you'd ever want.
This is going really off topic, but any project on the scale of a NY 63 bypass would have to be at least a US Route to obtain the large amount of federal funds required for construction. NY 400 is interstate quality (except for the northern terminus, which will be reconstructed beginning next year) and every limited-access highway constructed by NYSDOT within the last 30+ years is as well. Call it I-286 and all is well. US 219 is High Priority Corridor 21 and a possible Interstate designation has been tossed around for years.
Quote from: Buffaboy on July 24, 2014, 12:29:46 AM
It almost naturally seems as though if a Rochester bypass were to be built that it be an extension of NY400 to I-390.
Also, I haven't followed this thread, are plans underway to complete the non finished portions of I-99 in PA?
In terms of bypassing Rochester, the I-390/I-90 route already does. While there is commuter traffic north of Rush, I-390 remains rural up to a mile north of the Thruway interchange, and I-90 has 16 miles until the next exit. The trucks all take NY 63, not to avoid a city, but to clip the corner of the interstate and shunpike.
Quote from: cl94 on July 24, 2014, 01:42:30 PM
Yeah, there are. Go back a page or two or do a search for "I-99". You'll find more than you'd ever want.
In this case, "planned" and "will likely happen in the next 50 years" seem to be two entirely different things.
Quote from: vdeane on July 24, 2014, 07:15:36 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on July 24, 2014, 12:29:46 AM
It almost naturally seems as though if a Rochester bypass were to be built that it be an extension of NY400 to I-390.
Also, I haven't followed this thread, are plans underway to complete the non finished portions of I-99 in PA?
In terms of bypassing Rochester, the I-390/I-90 route already does. While there is commuter traffic north of Rush, I-390 remains rural up to a mile north of the Thruway interchange, and I-90 has 16 miles until the next exit. The trucks all take NY 63, not to avoid a city, but to clip the corner of the interstate and shunpike.
Quote from: cl94 on July 24, 2014, 01:42:30 PM
Yeah, there are. Go back a page or two or do a search for "I-99". You'll find more than you'd ever want.
In this case, "planned" and "will likely happen in the next 50 years" seem to be two entirely different things.
I completely misspoke about the bypass, as I really meant bypass the 30 or so miles between west of Batavia and the I-390 junction. I've been on the 63 and 20A a few times and while it's useful it isn't the safest.
And yes, this is a little off topic...
There is a "Begin" sign at the PA/NY border, which isn't really the beginning is it?
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 22, 2014, 08:53:36 PM...it's actually a really nice road.
I-99/US 220/US 15 is one of my favorite freeway drives anywhere. It's terraced a lot along its entire length, often highly so, hugging the sides of mountain ridges and often dashing from one side of a valley to the other in great swoops. In some places it winds through a gorge and tops out through a high pass before diving down into another valley. In many places you can also see the highway snaking off in the far distance. All very dramatic. It's great fun to drive and is really quite beautiful, more so in the autumn.
This is true for the entire highway, but especially for the segment from Williamsburg to Corning.
Another drive very much like this is US 322 between Harrisburg and State College.
I love the three-dimensional nature of roads like these. Great fun to drive! If you ever have the opportunity to drive these two highways (I-99 and US 322) don't pass it up.
I wonder how this will affect traffic in Williamsport....
Quote from: LeftyJR on July 25, 2014, 09:46:34 AM
There is a "Begin" sign at the PA/NY border, which isn't really the beginning is it?
It's NY's long overdue response to the Casey-era "America Starts Here" welcome to PA signs.
It's also only Future I-99 on the PA side at that point.
Quote from: LeftyJR on July 25, 2014, 09:46:34 AM
There is a "Begin" sign at the PA/NY border, which isn't really the beginning is it?
I didn't notice it there when I drove through on Sunday. Maybe I overlooked it while searching for a good place to stop to photograph the "end" signs from the northbound lanes (no luck, so I backtracked and photographed one of them from the southbound right shoulder), or maybe the "begin" sign was added in the last few days.
Driving through the I-86/I-99 interchange, I noticed that the BGSs now have I-99 shields, as greenout patches over the old US 15 shields. I did not see any mention of, or any auxiliary signage for, US 15, though US 15 reassurance signs still exist. I was not able to grab any photos.
All I can say that it is about time that my Interstate has earned some respect and appreciation from the world. I-99 is useful.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on September 19, 2014, 08:09:11 PM
Driving through the I-86/I-99 interchange, I noticed that the BGSs now have I-99 shields, as greenout patches over the old US 15 shields. I did not see any mention of, or any auxiliary signage for, US 15, though US 15 reassurance signs still exist. I was not able to grab any photos.
Any chance of some pics .....?
Quote from: jemacedo9 on September 19, 2014, 08:09:11 PM
Driving through the I-86/I-99 interchange, I noticed that the BGSs now have I-99 shields, as greenout patches over the old US 15 shields. I did not see any mention of, or any auxiliary signage for, US 15, though US 15 reassurance signs still exist. I was not able to grab any photos.
That seems to be a bit premature since I-99 is not yet signed south of the PA/NY state line. Some travelers not familiar could get confused if they are looking for US 15 rather than I-99 .....?
New York really doesn't like US highways and never has. US 15 was already dropped internally several years ago, the new signs as far as NYSDOT is concerned show the correct number.
NY 17 is facing a similar issue. Newer installs in Regions 5 and 6 tend to be for I-86 alone.
Quote from: vdeane on October 23, 2014, 01:23:41 PM
NY 17 is facing a similar issue. Newer installs in Regions 5 and 6 tend to be for I-86 alone.
By "newer installs", basically anything put up in the current decade. If an NY 17 sign goes down, it doesn't get replaced. No reason to sign it west of Waverly.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 23, 2014, 12:34:10 AM
New York really doesn't like US highways and never has. US 15 was already dropped internally several years ago, the new signs as far as NYSDOT is concerned show the correct number.
I guess you have a point. I was born in western NY and after reading on the history of some of the numbers, I would tend to agree that NY is not US route friendly .....
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on October 24, 2014, 03:28:59 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 23, 2014, 12:34:10 AM
New York really doesn't like US highways and never has. US 15 was already dropped internally several years ago, the new signs as far as NYSDOT is concerned show the correct number.
I guess you have a point. I was born in western NY and after reading on the history of some of the numbers, I would tend to agree that NY is not US route friendly .....
Let's see...7, 15, 104, and 309 are gone entirely, 219 will likely be biting the dust (at least partially) if it ever is 100% limited access north of I-86...yep. Ever notice how often signs downgrade the remaining 16 (signed) routes to NY routes?
Quote from: cl94 on October 24, 2014, 10:29:05 AM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on October 24, 2014, 03:28:59 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 23, 2014, 12:34:10 AM
New York really doesn't like US highways and never has. US 15 was already dropped internally several years ago, the new signs as far as NYSDOT is concerned show the correct number.
I guess you have a point. I was born in western NY and after reading on the history of some of the numbers, I would tend to agree that NY is not US route friendly .....
Let's see...7, 15, 104, and 309 are gone entirely, 219 will likely be biting the dust (at least partially) if it ever is 100% limited access north of I-86...yep. Ever notice how often signs downgrade the remaining 16 (signed) routes to NY routes?
When was US 7 in New York?
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2014, 10:58:47 AM
When was US 7 in New York?
This is what Wiki has to say about it:
QuoteIn the original plan for the U.S. Highway System, as approved by the Bureau of Public Roads in November 1926,[28] US 7 was defined as beginning in New York City and designated on the alignment of NY 22 to Amenia, where it shifted northeast into Sharon, Connecticut to use old New England Route 4 through Massachusetts and Vermont all the way to the Canadian border. Apparently New York State did not approve this plan, and by mid-1927 the official route log published by AASHO (now known as AASHTO) had been amended so that the southern end of US 7 began in Norwalk, Connecticut instead.[29]
New York didn't like that idea though, for who knows what reason.
Interesting on that one. I always new that New York did not want them despite not many of them being there. Then of course the lack of any US routes on Long Island where you would think that US 22 and US 46 would have gone beyond their eastern terminuses. Also the fact that US 106 never entered New York despite NY 52 connected it back to its parent, and the mere fact NY 17 never was part of the US system as it always was a major artery long before I-86 and the freeway upgrades its whole length from Harriman to the PA Line.
Sorry, it's a bit off topic from the main thrust of the thread, but following along with what roadman65 said above...
I've always found it a bit ironic that Long Island, which by itself has a population greater than that of 37 states, does not have a single 2di interstate or US route. I think that instead of ending in Ridgefield Park, I-80 should continue over the GWB and through the Bronx along with I-95 and then replace I-295 over the Throgs Neck Bridge and into Queens, ultimately taking over the LIE from I-495 (and then the section of LIE west of the Clearview being renumbered as I-180 or some such). I guess it would never matter to most people, of course, but it seems to me that there is something ennobling (heh, we roadgeeks...) about being served by a 2di interstate.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2014, 01:09:36 PM
Interesting on that one. I always new that New York did not want them despite not many of them being there. Then of course the lack of any US routes on Long Island where you would think that US 22 and US 46 would have gone beyond their eastern terminuses.
I'm quite shocked that US 46 hasn't been targeted for a decommissioning yet. No one would notice if it quietly became NJ 46, because the number wouldn't have changed and that's all New Jerseyans seem to care about anyway.
Quote from: motorway on October 24, 2014, 01:32:45 PM
Sorry, it's a bit off topic from the main thrust of the thread, but following along with what roadman65 said above...
I've always found it a bit ironic that Long Island, which by itself has a population greater than that of 37 states, does not have a single 2di interstate or US route. I think that instead of ending in Ridgefield Park, I-80 should continue over the GWB and through the Bronx along with I-95 and then replace I-295 over the Throgs Neck Bridge and into Queens, ultimately taking over the LIE from I-495 (and then the section of LIE west of the Clearview being renumbered as I-180 or some such). I guess it would never matter to most people, of course, but it seems to me that there is something ennobling (heh, we roadgeeks...) about being served by a 2di interstate.
It was supposed to. I-78 would have gone to the Clearview (on the geographical island), I-91 would have used the William Floyd Parkway
Quote from: cl94 on October 24, 2014, 10:29:05 AM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on October 24, 2014, 03:28:59 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 23, 2014, 12:34:10 AM
New York really doesn't like US highways and never has. US 15 was already dropped internally several years ago, the new signs as far as NYSDOT is concerned show the correct number.
I guess you have a point. I was born in western NY and after reading on the history of some of the numbers, I would tend to agree that NY is not US route friendly .....
Let's see...7, 15, 104, and 309 are gone entirely, 219 will likely be biting the dust (at least partially) if it ever is 100% limited access north of I-86...yep. Ever notice how often signs downgrade the remaining 16 (signed) routes to NY routes?
Not true on US 219 unless NYDOT turns it into a state highway. The interchange between I-86 and the US 219 freeway is not going to be constructed as a freeway to freeway interchange but rather a diamond interchange.
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on October 24, 2014, 05:51:47 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 24, 2014, 10:29:05 AM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on October 24, 2014, 03:28:59 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on October 23, 2014, 12:34:10 AM
New York really doesn't like US highways and never has. US 15 was already dropped internally several years ago, the new signs as far as NYSDOT is concerned show the correct number.
I guess you have a point. I was born in western NY and after reading on the history of some of the numbers, I would tend to agree that NY is not US route friendly .....
Let's see...7, 15, 104, and 309 are gone entirely, 219 will likely be biting the dust (at least partially) if it ever is 100% limited access north of I-86...yep. Ever notice how often signs downgrade the remaining 16 (signed) routes to NY routes?
Not true on US 219 unless NYDOT turns it into a state highway. The interchange between I-86 and the US 219 freeway is not going to be constructed as a freeway to freeway interchange but rather a diamond interchange.
How old are those plans? By the time it gets completed (if ever), I could picture them doing anything possible to get an Interstate designation (and thus more money).
Recent. The proposed diamond is what the Seneca tribe and NYDOT agreed on in order to get the highway built. I started a thread on this back in April: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12112.0