As most roadgeeks know, I-99 is the most egregious exception to the U.S. interstate numbering plan.
Now, it's not likely that the number will actually ever change as former U.S. Representative Bud Shuster had the I-99 designation written into law.
But, let's play what if...
What if you could renumber I-99 to something more sensible, what would you sign it as?
Here are some of the ideas that I've had:
1) A 2di is out of the question as the highway lies between I-79 and I-81 and all numbers from 69 to 97 are now taken. (and most would be as out of place as 99 is)
2a) The existing turnpike to I-80 could be renumbered as a 3di. Since it almost connects with the turnpike x70 and x76 would be appropriate with the first digit being an odd number. Numbers 170, 370, 570, 770, 776, and 976 are available. The state already has I-176 and I-376 and will soon have I-576 near Pittsburgh. It could also be numbered as I-580, 780 or 980. Or, it could have the same number as the US 15 section north of Williamsport.
Now, some of you say, I-99 does not directly connect to turnpike! True, but I-176 didn't have a direct connection to the turnpike until around 2000.
2b) This section could simply revert to the US-220 designation or have the I-99 designation hidden.
3a) As for the US 15 section, (Williamsport, PA to Painted Post, NY) has a few options as well. As a 3di, it could extend the x70, x76, or x80 designation on the existing and proposed US 220 co-signed section.
3b) Of course, this section could be another number entirely. I-180 could be turned from an east-west to a north-south interstate and extended over this section. This is a bit of a stretch but not as much of one as extending I-390 south to Williamsport. And, of course, an x86 number would be available as well.
3c) The status quo is also a viable option with the highway remaining US 220 and US 15.
My preference would be to simply have the existing I-99 revert to US 220 only and keep the proposed US 220/15 corridor with its current designations.
The whole point of this post is to see what the rest of you think. So, have at it everyone!
Designate the portion from State College to I-80 as an x80, assuming a freeway-to-freeway interchange at I-80 in the future.
The rest of the southern section can revert back to U.S. 220.
From Williamsport to I-86, designate as an x86.
Yeah, it's not even long enough to warrant it's own number...just make it a spur from 80.
US-220 is fine.
Maybe swamp I-97 and I-99. Still not within the numbering system, but better anway.
I-97 needs to be swamped, for sure. I-995 is a perfectly good number for that one.
Really, I-99 isn't that bad. Sure, it grinds our gears, but I'll bet the vast majority of the public don't know or care that it is out of place. That said, if they wanted to fix it, 76/70 to 80 should be I-570 IMO and the segment up to Painted Post could all be I-180.
I still say renumber it I-81, and make current I-81 from either I-70 or the PA Turnpike a spur route, and then move I-83 from it's current northern terminus up present day 81.
But I guess an I-76 spur could work too.
A perfect I-99 would be for the DE-1 and U.S. 13 corridor down to Norfolk, and perhaps along the U.S. 17 corridor into North and South Carolina.
From I-70/I-76 to I-80: I-580
From I-80 to US 15: extension of I-180
From I-180 to I-86: I-586
I greatly prefer interstates to US routes for some reason so I'm not particularly fond of reverting everything to US 220.
Keep I-99. Remove some lengthy overlapping designations:
When I-99 is completed between I-180 and I-86, US 15 becomes mostly redundant north of Camp Hill, so truncate it at PA 581 and extend PA 61 north to replace the part of solo-US 15 through Lewisburg.
When I-99 is completed between I-80 and I-180, US 220 becomes mostly redundant (more so than now), so truncate it at I-70/76 at Bedford and extend PA 61 north to replace US 220 past Athens to NY.
Or if the PA 61 extension seems sub-par because it makes a large V-shaped route, pick a new state route number for the US 220 replacement. PennDOT would probably pick PA 37 (lowest, two-digit, odd number that is available) for a lengthy north-south state route. (I hypothesize that the Mon-Fay Exp-way was given PA 43 for this exact reason, in combination with the fact that WV 37 was already in use, the highway was to have the same number in both PA and WV, and an Interstate number wasn't sought. The PA 33 expressway number also seems to have been selected in this manner. )
Even though its a pain in the a$$, at this point I wouldn't renumber I-99 either. The only things I would do is get the direct freeway to freeway connection between it and I-70/76 and once it reaches I-86, have it terminate there. Don't push it further north to overlap I-86 and take over all of I-390. That is seemingly becoming another trend in the US, exchanging 3 di's for 2 di's (like exterminating a perfectly sound I-181 for a pretty much out of place I-26). But that can be put onto another thread...
I'm used to the number, and where else would they use it now, considering they only extend existing numbers now rather than come up with new ones for corridors. For me, I'd be fine if they just sent U.S. 220 and U.S. 15 back onto their old alignments were they are still in tact and just keep Interstate 99 in place.
I say leave it alone, not just because changing it would cause more work for me, but it's been 14 years. At first, I thought it was ridiculous especially considering who got the number, but at this point it's just another designation.
I-876 or I-480. Or leave it and truncate US 220.
Quote from: aaroads on January 29, 2009, 04:50:37 PM
I'm used to the number, and where else would they use it now, considering they only extend existing numbers now rather than come up with new ones for corridors. For me, I'd be fine if they just sent U.S. 220 and U.S. 15 back onto their old alignments were they are still in tact and just keep Interstate 99 in place.
Good luck north of Mansfield. Half the road is underwater now!
Anyway, why can't it be called 81W (81 West) or 81A (81 Alternate)?
I had originally thought of extending I-390 to the NY/PA border, making it I-380 from the border until either State College or Altoona, and then I-376 from there until I-76
This would keep a 3XX designation along the entire route, which to me would seem to make a relationship. Also, it wouldn't violate Interstate numbering rules.
This original proposal does have problems though. One is that I-376 is already in use. Another is that some people would be confused by the route changing numbers
So, after thinking about it, I think 81W or 81A would be a better number.
EDIT: If other Interstates were renumbered, wouldn't it cost more money to install new signs than it would to "fix" I-99?
Quote from: Michael on January 30, 2009, 11:41:15 PM
Anyway, why can't it be called 81W (81 West) or 81A (81 Alternate)?
Because then you have the fun situation of telling someone to take "North I-81 West". Locals understand such things but I had to explain to a group of elderly Kansans to go south on I-35W in Fort Worth once and instantly got why AASHTO decided to quit doing that. An ALT I-81 is an idea, considering I-670 in Kansas City is also ALT I-70.
Personally, I'd renumber I-99 to I-¾.
I wouldn't have numbered it an interstate. Straight politics.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 31, 2009, 06:48:15 AM
Quote from: Michael on January 30, 2009, 11:41:15 PM
Anyway, why can't it be called 81W (81 West) or 81A (81 Alternate)?
Because then you have the fun situation of telling someone to take "North I-81 West". Locals understand such things but I had to explain to a group of elderly Kansans to go south on I-35W in Fort Worth once and instantly got why AASHTO decided to quit doing that. An ALT I-81 is an idea, considering I-670 in Kansas City is also ALT I-70.
Personally, I'd renumber I-99 to I-¾.
I understand 35W and 35E as two different routes. I would think of it as a suffixed route, like NY 104 and NY 104A near where I live. I guess a suffixed A would work.
P.S.: How do you number a route ¾?!?!?!
first you draw a three, then a slash, then a four... print several hundred examples, punch mounting holes, affix to all relevant poles
Reality is, the highway system isn't going to fit perfectly into a grid. We already have several other instances of part of (even most of) a route existing with its number "out of place". Still, you try and to stick to the system as much as you can. Obviously the idea that north-south routes are odd while east-west routes are even needs to be adhered to strictly, but beyond that, the idea of number increasing from south to north and from west to east realistically works as just a general trend - as it has with the US highway system since the very beginning (US 46 is north of US 22, for instance...), and hasn't seemed to bother anyone. You're not going to be able to have a perfect orderly lineup every time with these things, the real world doesn't work out neat and tidy like that.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 02, 2009, 04:41:10 PM
first you draw a three, then a slash, then a four... print several hundred examples, punch mounting holes, affix to all relevant poles
Not literally! How would that work in the numbering system?
Quote from: Michael on February 03, 2009, 01:55:57 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 02, 2009, 04:41:10 PM
first you draw a three, then a slash, then a four... print several hundred examples, punch mounting holes, affix to all relevant poles
Not literally! How would that work in the numbering system?
The same way I-99 does, silly! :-P
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 05, 2009, 05:45:05 AM
Quote from: Michael on February 03, 2009, 01:55:57 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 02, 2009, 04:41:10 PM
first you draw a three, then a slash, then a four... print several hundred examples, punch mounting holes, affix to all relevant poles
Not literally! How would that work in the numbering system?
The same way I-99 does, silly! :-P
HAHAHAHAHA!
One costly idea would be to extend I-83 north from Harrisburg. It could follow along either the west or east bank of the Susquehanna. It would then take over PA 147, I-180, and US 15 to Painted Post. It could then be duplexed with I-86 and take over I-390's route to Rochester. I-83 would then be a continuous route from Rochester to Baltimore. I know I-83 would be west of I-81, but it is not as awful as having I-99 west of I-81.
I would make US 220 between I-80 and Williamsport as I-x80 or I-x83. Similarly, I-99 from Bedford and I-80 could be I-x70, I-x76, or I-x80. By the way, I would not truncate US 15, i would extend it to Rochester since I like US Highways.
Quote from: geoking111 on February 08, 2009, 10:05:38 PM
One costly idea would be to extend I-83 north from Harrisburg. It could follow along either the west or east bank of the Susquehanna. It would then take over PA 147, I-180, and US 15 to Painted Post. It could then be duplexed with I-86 and take over I-390's route to Rochester. I-83 would then be a continuous route from Rochester to Baltimore. I know I-83 would be west of I-81, but it is not as awful as having I-99 west of I-81.
I would make US 220 between I-80 and Williamsport as I-x80 or I-x83. Similarly, I-99 from Bedford and I-80 could be I-x70, I-x76, or I-x80. By the way, I would not truncate US 15, i would extend it to Rochester since I like US Highways.
I've thought about a similar idea myself though my idea had I-81 being rerouted onto the alignment you talk about and put I-83 on the current I-81 alignment. Now that is a bit of a purist, but on the other hand, most of I-71 (the Ohio part) is east of I-75.
Not long ago I came across an official proposal to link PA 147 with the orphaned US 11-15 expressway around Selinsgrove. (If I come across that page again, I'll post a link to it.)
Our proposed I-81/83 could follow this alignment as well as the US 22-322 expressway from Harrisburg to Duncannon.
The problem with putting a freeway in here is that the mountains pretty much go to the rivers edge on both sides of the river. PA 147 from Sunbury south is a roller coaster highway. US 11-15 on the west side of the Susquehanna is relatively flat and lies on a narrow plain near the river but again the mountains aren't far away. So, putting a freeway in from Duncannon to Selinsgrove would be a very expensive proposition because you'd have to go inland unless you destroy all the little villages along the west bank of the Susquehanna.
The need is there for upgrade US 11-15 to a freeway as trucks using the hypothetical I-81/83 routing use it as well as northbound traffic that wants a flatter, low-altitude route versus the real I-81 that goes over the tops of the mountains to Wilkes-Barre.
What Pennsylvania has done over the last 25-30 years is widen the road to four through lanes and has added jug handles, turning lanes and a concrete or guardrail median. Thus, you have a "poor man's freeway" as I call it, or maybe it could be termed an expressway.
But, ah well, we can dream can't we.
P. S. I am now a Tennessee resident, but I grew up in that part of PA and made many trips on US 11-15, US 22-322, and PA 147 especially when I was in graduate school at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.
Quote from: geoking111 on February 08, 2009, 10:05:38 PM
I would make US 220 between I-80 and Williamsport as I-x80 or I-x83. Similarly, I-99 from Bedford and I-80 could be I-x70, I-x76, or I-x80. By the way, I would not truncate US 15, i would extend it to Rochester since I like US Highways.
US 15 went to Rochester until 1974. It's now NY 15.
The page for the US 11/15 Selinsgrove extension is http://www.csvt.com (http://www.csvt.com)
Quote from: Michael on February 09, 2009, 08:23:48 AM
The page for the US 11/15 Selinsgrove extension is http://www.csvt.com (http://www.csvt.com)
Thanks, that is exactly the site that I had stumbled upon.
Quote from: mightyace on February 09, 2009, 06:17:31 PM
Quote from: Michael on February 09, 2009, 08:23:48 AM
The page for the US 11/15 Selinsgrove extension is http://www.csvt.com (http://www.csvt.com)
Thanks, that is exactly the site that I had stumbled upon.
I keep track of the US 15 corridor because I travel to Selinsgrove on US 15 (and I-180) from New York.
Who said it was out of place...?
Looks like there is a Interstate 101 is planned...
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Interstate_Highways#Interstate_101)
AARoads (Interstate Guide) (http://www.interstate-guide.com/future.html#101)
(https://www.aaroads.com/west/arizona095/thb/us-095_truck_shield_san_luis.jpg)
I sure hope not. I-101 should be a spur of I-1 (should one ever be built). Just because there is a US 101 doesn't mean that there should be an I-101. I would like to think that the interstate numbering system is more orderly than the US route numbers, which has spurs that are just as long as the parent route, "spurs" with no parent, and violations of the even-odd number practice (like US 62). I would hate to see the interstates go down the same path, but I fear it has already begun.
I'd call it, the I-BUD, aka the Big Useless Detour.
Sykotyk
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 10, 2009, 09:23:47 PM
I'd call it, the I-BUD, aka the Big Useless Detour.
Sykotyk
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
How about moving all the interstates over? So, I-99 would become I-81, I-83 would take I-81's place, and turn I-83 into a northern I-85 and keeping the number system with I-87.
Honestly, I'd renumber I-99 as I-73. Reasons include that both utilize the US 220 corridor, and also the fact that Ohio and Michigan will likely never build their segments.
Quote from: Darkangel on February 12, 2009, 06:31:31 AM
Honestly, I'd renumber I-99 as I-73. Reasons include that both utilize the US 220 corridor, and also the fact that Ohio and Michigan will likely never build their segments.
Sounds as good as anything, I've heard. Plus, it's not as far "out of sequence" as I-99 is.
I'm for keeping it US 220. And I-101? Geez! No!
There is precedent for a "major" I-101, in that of US 101 in California. So though it'd look funky (at least there's a US 1 on the other side of the country), I wouldn't have a big problem with it.
Quote from: exit322 on February 13, 2009, 04:04:24 PM
There is precedent for a "major" I-101, in that of US 101 in California. So though it'd look funky (at least there's a US 1 on the other side of the country), I wouldn't have a big problem with it.
OK, if we renumbered it as I-101, what would a spur interstate be numbered? (I know that that's unlikely on the current/proposed/speculated I-99 alignment and that enough other I-xx's exist to use one of them.)
Quote from: mightyace on February 13, 2009, 04:39:38 PM
Quote from: exit322 on February 13, 2009, 04:04:24 PM
There is precedent for a "major" I-101, in that of US 101 in California. So though it'd look funky (at least there's a US 1 on the other side of the country), I wouldn't have a big problem with it.
OK, if we renumbered it as I-101, what would a spur interstate be numbered? (I know that that's unlikely on the current/proposed/speculated I-99 alignment and that enough other I-xx's exist to use one of them.)
I-1101 through I-9101?
Quote from: mightyace on February 12, 2009, 03:13:03 PM
Quote from: Darkangel on February 12, 2009, 06:31:31 AM
Honestly, I'd renumber I-99 as I-73. Reasons include that both utilize the US 220 corridor, and also the fact that Ohio and Michigan will likely never build their segments.
Sounds as good as anything, I've heard. Plus, it's not as far "out of sequence" as I-99 is.
It'd also free up I-99 for a coastal Interstate, eliminating the concern about what to call I-101 loops/spurs. :P
What should have happened in the first place was to have the current I-95 numbered I-99 since it rides mainly along the Atlantic coast. Then the current I-99 could have gotten the 95 designation.
Quotefrom AZDude: What should have happened in the first place was to have the current I-95 numbered I-99 since it rides mainly along the Atlantic coast. Then the current I-99 could have gotten the 95 designation.
Then we'd be debating on why I-95 isn't east of I-81 and we'd be back to square one :poke: :poke: I go for it just staying US 220 myself.
I-776 or I-580.
Or how 'bout US 220? What's soooooooo wrong with that? Oh, wait, right; Bud wanted an INTERSTATE to service Altoona. What he forgets is the US routes *ARE* Interstates.
US Highways are a completely different highway system which was made mostly obsolete when the Interstates were put in (though today some areas are served by US highways but not an interstate, or may have very little access to the interstate). Personally I think most should be made into state highways.
I would renumber the current I-99 to I-199 and move I-99 onto the US 219 corridor for a route to Buffalo. And I would extend I-99 southernly onto the US 522 corridor (via I-70 Breezewood stub) to terminate at I-81 in Winchester, VA.
Just a few observations:
* I think I-99 is the least bad Interstate numbering for the corridor in question. The other options all involve (1) disruptive renumberings of the existing network, (2) out-of-sequence numbering, (3) large discontinuities in signing which have to be "wished away" by theorizing hidden concurrencies, and (4) simply not installing I-99 signs.
* Option (4) in my view is legally supported and is the option least likely to offend numbering purists. It is, however, politically unpalatable. There is nothing in either ISTEA 1991 or NHSDA 1995 which requires that I-99 must be signed, or even that the HPC must be developed to full Interstate standard, but by applying the I-99 label to the corridor, Bud Shuster cemented an expectation among the communities along the route that it would be built as an Interstate and signed as an Interstate, and that they would get all the economic-development benefits associated with a blue line on the map. Anyone who steps out in front of that gravy train, whether road enthusiast or FHWA official, will get crushed.
Anything would be better than I-99 IMO. Makes me think, "I-99? So that must go to where...Bermuda?" lol
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 11, 2009, 03:16:56 PMAnyone who steps out in front of that gravy train, whether road enthusiast or FHWA official, will get crushed.
Honestly, I have no problems with the I-99 designation, although I wish Pennsylvania had not decided to cancel improving US 220 south to the Maryland state line so it would connect with I-68. It's not *that* out of sequence, and ideally once the improvements to US 220 and US 15 in PA and NY are done, it should replace I-390 at least to the Thruway if not all the way to I-490. It will be longer than I-68, and no one that I can recall argued for that route to stay US 48 instead of getting an interstate designation.
No one gets bent out of shape over I-24 or I-26 or I-85 being out of sequence, or I-69 once it is extended.
There was nothing wrong with US-220. If Grand Rapids, MI can have US-131 as a major freeway, Altoona, PA can have US-220 as a freeway.
Declare that an error of ±50 is acceptable to ease number shortages. I-99 can then become I-31, and northern California gets nine more numbers (the x30s) to use.
Quote from: deanej on February 09, 2009, 08:46:10 PM
I sure hope not. I-101 should be a spur of I-1 (should one ever be built). Just because there is a US 101 doesn't mean that there should be an I-101. I would like to think that the interstate numbering system is more orderly than the US route numbers, which has spurs that are just as long as the parent route, "spurs" with no parent, and violations of the even-odd number practice (like US 62). I would hate to see the interstates go down the same path, but I fear it has already begun.
I'm a bit anomalous among the roadfan community...I-99 doesn't really bother me as a number, and it's a road I've found useful a number of times. US 101 is a neat idea too; it gives a nice symmetry to the coasts, from 1 to 101. Too bad the E-W US highways don't have a similar symmetry. To me, the orderliness of the system is very attractive, but without the anomalies it has no real "soul", if you will.
I'm glad Breezewood's there, too. I'm sad to see Parksville go from NY 17 (and I'll be even sadder to see NY 17 go). They are places we get to know and love in our travels, and Breezewood in particular is noticeable enough even to the general populace that it strikes conversation.
Roads in the abstract have always been interesting to me, but the more I travel, the more intrigued I am by the interaction of that abstract with the real-life world it occupies. I-99, US 101 and Breezewood are all results of that.
I'd be a lot more enamored with I-99 if even a single state-named example turned up.
for similar reasons, I am leery of US-412, and even the latest two US-48 incarnations.
I'd renumber I-99 to I-980.
I-366 :-D
In all seriousness, I-99 doesn't bother me much. I'd rather just leave it alone, personally.
Quote from: Takumi on October 25, 2011, 06:37:31 PM
In all seriousness, I-99 doesn't bother me much. I'd rather just leave it alone, personally.
I agree with you 110%.
I actually don't mind having I-99 where it is now. Sure, it's in the wrong place on the grid, but at least it's not too big a deal as I-238 is. The next best thing, then, would be to route I-83 over I-97, and free the latter number up for a potential corridor along the coast, which may never happen in our lifetimes.
(I thought things like these should be posted in Fictional Highways...)
Quote from: Henry on November 11, 2011, 10:48:59 PM
I actually don't mind having I-99 where it is now. Sure, it's in the wrong place on the grid, but at least it's not too big a deal as I-238 is. The next best thing, then, would be to route I-83 over I-97, and free the latter number up for a potential corridor along the coast, which may never happen in our lifetimes.
I-99 will be completed in New York state within 2 years. At that point the entire route between I-180 at Williamsport and I-86 at Corning will be Interstate standards. They could sign it as I-99 and the route will exist in more than one state.
If it is extended to I-68 in Maryland according to long range plans, and completed from I-80 to I-180, it would be a continuous highway in 3 states. That would seem to meet the definition of a mainline Interstate highway.
Yes, there's no doubt it's a worthwhile corridor, even though we used to make fun of I-99 for "only going to Altoona". And it's already signed in NYS as a future Interstate.
What throws the wrench in is that the remaining US 15 corridor from Harrisburg to Williamsport is not an Interstate candidate at the moment. If it were, you'd have an easy option to bring I-83 up and settle the whole issue...well, except that that would leave I-99 as it currently is...why not I-83W?
Quote from: empirestate on November 14, 2011, 11:58:49 AM
Yes, there's no doubt it's a worthwhile corridor, even though we used to make fun of I-99 for "only going to Altoona". And it's already signed in NYS as a future Interstate.
What throws the wrench in is that the remaining US 15 corridor from Harrisburg to Williamsport is not an Interstate candidate at the moment. If it were, you'd have an easy option to bring I-83 up and settle the whole issue...well, except that that would leave I-99 as it currently is...why not I-83W?
That would be tremendously expensive, and besides other than the gap of the CSVT connection between US-15 and PA-147, the rest of the highway between I-81 and I-80 is fine as it is, and should be for 20 years or more.
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2011, 03:56:32 PM
I-99 will be completed in New York state within 2 years. At that point the entire route between I-180 at Williamsport and I-86 at Corning will be Interstate standards. They could sign it as I-99 and the route will exist in more than one state.
If it is extended to I-68 in Maryland according to long range plans, and completed from I-80 to I-180, it would be a continuous highway in 3 states. That would seem to meet the definition of a mainline Interstate highway.
I would be in favor of resigning I-390 as I-90, at least up to the Thruway if not all the way up to I-490. That would make it even more of a mainline.
Pennsylvania has scrapped its plans to extend I-99 south to Maryland. The ARC money originally designated for it was diverted to, I think, US 322 west of Port Matilda.
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2011, 12:22:51 PM
Quote from: empirestate on November 14, 2011, 11:58:49 AM
Yes, there's no doubt it's a worthwhile corridor, even though we used to make fun of I-99 for "only going to Altoona". And it's already signed in NYS as a future Interstate.
What throws the wrench in is that the remaining US 15 corridor from Harrisburg to Williamsport is not an Interstate candidate at the moment. If it were, you'd have an easy option to bring I-83 up and settle the whole issue...well, except that that would leave I-99 as it currently is...why not I-83W?
That would be tremendously expensive, and besides other than the gap of the CSVT connection between US-15 and PA-147, the rest of the highway between I-81 and I-80 is fine as it is, and should be for 20 years or more.
Right, that's why it's not a candidate. Over the last ten years major upgrades have already been made to the US 15 (and US 11) corridor, so it's not going to see Interstate-level improvements any time soon.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 14, 2011, 10:32:37 PM
I would be in favor of resigning I-390 as I-90, at least up to the Thruway if not all the way up to I-490. That would make it even more of a mainline.
I assume you mean I-99, not I-90. ;-) In which case, you could take the opportunity to correct I-390's already odd path. Remember it was supposed to continue due north into the city, with that cancelled, it was routed arond the SW quadrant of the Outer Loop. Now it ends on the west side of town rather awkwardly at I-490. That's OK for a 3di but would be weird for a 2di, even if it's I-99.
It would make sense for the Outer Loop to have one number (now it's I-590 and part of I-390), so you could change it all to I-390 and run I-99 as far as the current 390/590 split. You'd still have a 2di ending at a 3di, but that would probably be better than ending I-99 at the Thruway and continuing as a different route for all of 6 miles or so. Of course that plan would not address what to do with NY 590...
Or, you could run I-99 up to the split and then take over I-590 altogether, which is the suggested route for city-bound traffic anyway. I-390 would remain on the SW quadrant. As for NY 590, you could leave it alone and prevent I-590 from cropping up elsewhere in the state, or you could use the unclaimed NY 99 for it and have a new x90 to use up somewhere else!
I don't think retaining NY 590 would prevent another I-590 from happening. Look at NY 190 and NY 290.
Quote from: empirestate on November 15, 2011, 01:38:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 14, 2011, 12:22:51 PM
Quote from: empirestate on November 14, 2011, 11:58:49 AM
Yes, there's no doubt it's a worthwhile corridor, even though we used to make fun of I-99 for "only going to Altoona". And it's already signed in NYS as a future Interstate.
What throws the wrench in is that the remaining US 15 corridor from Harrisburg to Williamsport is not an Interstate candidate at the moment. If it were, you'd have an easy option to bring I-83 up and settle the whole issue...well, except that that would leave I-99 as it currently is...why not I-83W?
That would be tremendously expensive, and besides other than the gap of the CSVT connection between US-15 and PA-147, the rest of the highway between I-81 and I-80 is fine as it is, and should be for 20 years or more.
Right, that's why it's not a candidate. Over the last ten years major upgrades have already been made to the US 15 (and US 11) corridor, so it's not going to see Interstate-level improvements any time soon.
Given that US-11/US-15 (Amity Hall to Selinsgrove Bypass) runs along and just west of the river, there is very little traffic needing to access properties to the east of the highway. It functions almost like an at-grade expressway, there are no traffic signals needed on that segment, there are no Susquehanna River bridge crossings on that segment, and that functionality should be permanent (30 years or more). No need to make it an Interstate, ever, IMHO.
It has to stay a Interstate because it will not get the necessary funds, let us not forget he also made US 22 (east ad west) into a 4 lane highway. I-BS for Bud Schuster!!!!!!!
Recommend I-280 south of I-80 to the Pike. I-286 from NY to I-180 in Williamsport since it'll be forever before the section of 220 from Lock Haven to Williamsport will never be converted to Interstate standards until after the 30th century.
I mentioned similar in the Fictional Highways section, but I'll re-post here:
1. Designate the stretch between the Turnpike and I-80 as I-270 and re-establish US 220 to its original pre-highway corridor where possible.
2a. Designate the stretch of I-99 between I-80 and US 15 and all of I-180 as I-280 and re-establish US 220 to its original pre-highway corridor where possible.
3a. Designate the I-99 stretch between Williamsport and I-86 as I-186 and re-establish US 15 to its original pre-highway corridor where possible.
OR
2b. Designate the stretch of I-99 between I-80 and US 15 as either I-280 or I-286 and re-establish US 220 to its original pre-highway corridor where possible. I-180 remains 'as-is'.
3b. Continue the I-280 or I-286 designation along the I-99 stretch between Williamsport and I-86 and re-establish US 15 to its original pre-highway corridor where possible.
First, why the heck was it give I-99 in to begin? Why not a 3di of 70/76 or 80?
Second, any 3di of those will be fine, just get rid of 99 it is so out of place.
Quote from: bluecountry on October 10, 2013, 04:07:47 PM
First, why the heck was it give I-99 in to begin?
The answer in 2 words:
Bud Shuster.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 10, 2013, 04:26:39 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 10, 2013, 04:07:47 PM
First, why the heck was it give I-99 in to begin?
The answer in 2 words: Bud Shuster.
Not to mention the fact that any legislator on the state or federal level can propose anything that directly contradicts standing laws or rules simply by starting their bill with the disclaimer "Notwithstanding any general or special law or rule to the contrary, ......", which roughly translates into "I'm too lazy to research the laws or rules I'm contradicting with this legislation, so people won't be able to figure out if what I'm proposing is actually necessary or (in the case of the I-99 designation) a good idea."
Quote from: bluecountry on October 10, 2013, 04:07:47 PM
Second, any 3di of those will be fine, just get rid of 99 it is so out of place.
You have to remember that it is supposedly going to be extended to Corning and possibly Cumberland. This is the reason why I like the numbering (not the roadway itself or pork) of I-99 a heck of a lot more than I-97. Having two or three 3dis along what is pretty much the same stretch of roadway is stupid. Having one 3di cross multiple 2dis on a 100+ mile routing is even stupider.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 10, 2013, 04:43:34 PM
Having one 3di cross multiple 2dis on a 100+ mile routing is even stupider.
So you're saying I-495 in Massachusetts is stupid? It crosses I-95, I-93, and I-90.
Quote from: 1 on October 10, 2013, 05:04:02 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 10, 2013, 04:43:34 PM
Having one 3di cross multiple 2dis on a 100+ mile routing is even stupider.
So you're saying I-495 in Massachusetts is stupid? It crosses I-95, I-93, and I-90.
That makes sense because it is a loop around Boston that meets I-95 twice. I-99, in it's extended form, doesn't make sense as a single 3di because it's utility is largely independent from any possible parent 2di due to it's length and general direction of travel.
holy crap I-476
I-99 is not such a bad number. True, it's not in the ideal place in the grid, but when it was set up there weren't any in-grid numbers available.
Why should it have to be a hidden interstate? Built with federal funds, to interstate standards, why shouldn't be signed?
What really gripes me is suffixed interstates, I-35. And making new ones with I-69. If I had been AASHTO, I would have denied them permission to use it in that way. The interstate shield is still AASHTO's trademark and Congress can't order them to permit it, unless Congress wants to go through a eminent domain process.
Quote from: NE2 on October 10, 2013, 05:13:53 PM
holy crap I-476
We all know that was a dumb move, too.
Quote from: kkt on October 10, 2013, 05:15:48 PM
I-99 is not such a bad number. True, it's not in the ideal place in the grid, but when it was set up there weren't any in-grid numbers available.
Why should it have to be a hidden interstate? Built with federal funds, to interstate standards, why shouldn't be signed?
What really gripes me is suffixed interstates, I-35. And making new ones with I-69. If I had been AASHTO, I would have denied them permission to use it in that way. The interstate shield is still AASHTO's trademark and Congress can't order them to permit it, unless Congress wants to go through a eminent domain process.
Agreed wholeheartedly.
I'm reading that I-92 was proposed in at least two areas, one of which would be a possible number for the East-West Highway through central and northern Maine. The other was for something which would've started in the Albany, NY area and roughly follow the US Route 4 corridor. Then there's the possible I-98 for the US Route 11 corridor in New York state.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 10, 2013, 06:43:58 PM
I'm reading that I-92 was proposed in at least two areas, one of which would be a possible number for the East-West Highway through central and northern Maine. The other was for something which would've started in the Albany, NY area and roughly follow the US Route 4 corridor. Then there's the possible I-98 for the US Route 11 corridor in New York state.
what
iPhone - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 10, 2013, 04:43:34 PM
You have to remember that it is supposedly going to be extended to Corning and possibly Cumberland.
Nope. The funding to improve US 220 between Bedford and Cumberland was diverted to some other ARC corridor in Pennsylvania. Someone will need to refresh my memory on that.
However, I do think I-99 should replace I-390 and run all the way to I-90/Thruway, if not all the way into Rochester.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 10, 2013, 10:06:31 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 10, 2013, 04:43:34 PM
You have to remember that it is supposedly going to be extended to Corning and possibly Cumberland.
Nope. The funding to improve US 220 between Bedford and Cumberland was diverted to some other ARC corridor in Pennsylvania. Someone will need to refresh my memory on that.
However, I do think I-99 should replace I-390 and run all the way to I-90/Thruway, if not all the way into Rochester.
Supposedly. And I do agree on replacing I-390.
iPhone - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
I agree with replacing I-390, too.
Though I do also like the idea of designating I-99 as an extension of I-83, then flip-flopping the I-81 and I-83 designations to keep them all in order (in addition to the I-390 replacement).
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 10, 2013, 07:20:07 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 10, 2013, 06:43:58 PM
I'm reading that I-92 was proposed in at least two areas, one of which would be a possible number for the East-West Highway through central and northern Maine. The other was for something which would've started in the Albany, NY area and roughly follow the US Route 4 corridor. Then there's the possible I-98 for the US Route 11 corridor in New York state.
what
yes
IIRC Cumberland-Bedford ARC funding was shifted first to US 322 west of I-99, then to the connection around Sunbury from US 11-15 to PA 147.
Doesn't mean the states can't built a Cumberland-Bedford freeway in the future.
QuoteThe interstate shield is still AASHTO's trademark and Congress can't order them to permit it, unless Congress wants to go through a eminent domain process.
The Interstate shield may be AASHTO's "trademark", but the Interstate SYSTEM is FHWA's realm (Congressional meddling notwithstanding).
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on October 11, 2013, 12:00:14 AM
I agree with replacing I-390, too.
Though I do also like the idea of designating I-99 as an extension of I-83, then flip-flopping the I-81 and I-83 designations to keep them all in order (in addition to the I-30 replacement).
They'd need to extend I-83 to I-99, I'd imagine. US 322 from Harrisburg to State College would need to be upgraded in spots in order to make that happen, since to me that would be the most logical way to achieve that extension.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 10, 2013, 10:06:31 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 10, 2013, 04:43:34 PM
You have to remember that it is supposedly going to be extended to Corning and possibly Cumberland.
Nope. The funding to improve US 220 between Bedford and Cumberland was diverted to some other ARC corridor in Pennsylvania. Someone will need to refresh my memory on that.
However, I do think I-99 should replace I-390 and run all the way to I-90/Thruway, if not all the way into Rochester.
Good, I am glad they are not going to foolishly extend I-99 into Cumberland.
I might even ask, do we really need that interstate at all? I can see the need to get to state college but beyond that does I-99 really help traffic or just induce development?
We already had north south routes in PA.
Quote from: NE2 on October 11, 2013, 12:06:39 AM
IIRC Cumberland-Bedford ARC funding was shifted first to US 322 west of I-99, then to the connection around Sunbury from US 11-15 to PA 147.
Doesn't mean the states can't built a Cumberland-Bedford freeway in the future.
That would be an absolutely terrible use of funds.
MD and PA should focus on heavily congested corridors instead of building a new road destroying countryside in area that is perfectly well served.
Who the heck is going to use a Cumberland-Bedford freeway? We don't need it.
Quote from: bluecountry on October 11, 2013, 12:05:24 PM
Who the heck is going to use a Cumberland-Bedford freeway?
I would. I've driven US 220 several times and there's usually enough traffic on the road that if I get behind a truck, I can't safely pass it until I get to the four-lane south of the PA Turnpike.
Quote from: bluecountry on October 11, 2013, 12:05:24 PM
I might even ask, do we really need that interstate at all? I can see the need to get to state college but beyond that does I-99 really help traffic or just induce development?
We already had north south routes in PA.
You might want to research the history of the Appalachian Regional Commission and the development highway corridors. The whole system is designed to spur economic development in the Appalachian Mountains. One might argue the need for a full interstate vs. a four-lane surface route like West Virginia is building for US 48 and built for US 50 and US 119, but this system has been on the books for nearly 50 years and isn't completed yet.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 11, 2013, 12:31:03 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 11, 2013, 12:05:24 PM
Who the heck is going to use a Cumberland-Bedford freeway?
I would. I've driven US 220 several times and there's usually enough traffic on the road that if I get behind a truck, I can't safely pass it until I get to the four-lane south of the PA Turnpike.
It seems like it would be a logical extension, though not for a very long time (if ever). Not enough $$$ and too many other projects ahead of it.
Quote from: bluecountry on October 11, 2013, 12:05:24 PM
I might even ask, do we really need that interstate at all? I can see the need to get to state college but beyond that does I-99 really help traffic or just induce development?
We already had north south routes in PA.
Pre-I-99 US-220 was notoriously dangerous. Some might debate whether it needed the I-#, but the road itself was pretty justified. I think the same can probably be said of the the US-15 corridor north of Williamsport.
PA is a pretty "wide" state... it needs some N/S routes. And a little redundancy never hurts either.
US 220 from I-80 to Williamsport was planned as a freeway long before I-99 was thought of, and I think US 15 was as well. US 15 is the only access from much of NY to points south, and US 220 west of Williamsport is the way to get to I-80 west.
The obvious solution here is to reinvent our entire number system from base-ten to base-twelve and renumber all highways accordingly...
Or we could just leave it as-is, which is perfectly acceptable. Either-or works.
Maybe I-99 could be numbered I-876.
One thing I've thought about doing is having I-85 designated up into Pennsylvania and New York. Here's how it could be done:
1. Multiplex I-85 with I-95 between Richmond, VA and Washington DC.
2. Designate the west side of the Capital Beltway as I-85.
3. Designate I-270 between the Capital Beltway and Frederick, MD as I-85.
4. Upgrade U.S. 15 between Frederick, MD and Harrisburg, and designate it as I-85.
5. Designate PA 581 east to I-83 as I-85.
6. Multiplex I-85 with I-83 through Harrisburg.
7. Have I-85 and I-83 split at the current I-83 terminus, and redesignate I-81 from Harrisburg to Watertown, NY as I-85.
8. Truncate I-81 to its new intersection with I-83 in Harrisburg (the current U.S. 22/U.S. 322 interchange).
Quote from: DBR96A on October 11, 2013, 10:45:35 PM
One thing I've thought about doing is having I-85 designated up into Pennsylvania and New York.
To me, I-85 has no business being that far east in the first place. It should head north and serve Cleveland, maybe, via I-77, or else Pittsburgh and Erie via I-79. The latter could then overlap I-90 to Buffalo, and take over I-190 to Canada.
But of course, that doesn't solve anything about I-99...
Quote from: empirestate on October 11, 2013, 11:56:51 PM
Quote from: DBR96A on October 11, 2013, 10:45:35 PM
One thing I've thought about doing is having I-85 designated up into Pennsylvania and New York.
To me, I-85 has no business being that far east in the first place. It should head north and serve Cleveland, maybe, via I-77, or else Pittsburgh and Erie via I-79. The latter could then overlap I-90 to Buffalo, and take over I-190 to Canada.
But of course, that doesn't solve anything about I-99...
Speaking of both I-99 and Canada, I did at one point come up with a way to extend I-99 to the US/Canada border:
- Multiplex I-99 with I-86 between Corning and Avoca.
- Designate current I-390 as I-99 between Avoca (current I-390 southern terminus) and Henrietta (Exit 12).
- Multiplex I-99 with I-90/Thruway between Henrietta (Exit 46) and Williamsville (Exit 50).
- Designate the entirety of current I-290 as I-99.
- Designate current I-190 from Tonawanda (Exit 16) northward as I-99.
I-190 and I-390 would both be truncated to where I-99 would enter/leave their respective current alignments. I-290 would be made available for use elsewhere, and I-990 (due to not being connected to I-90 or any of its' other spurs) would be redesignated as I-x99, with I-990 also being made available for use elsewhere.
There's nothing truly wrong about I-99 except the numbering, so I would just extend it north to Rochester via I-86 and I-390.
Just looking at a map, Ithica must be one of the largest cities without an interstate (certainly the largest in the NE) - I-99 extension along NY13 to Syracuse?
Sure, Rochester is easy to do, but it can be I-83 when the Harrisburg - I-80 freeway that no one is planning is built. Also, the Cumberland-Syracuse path follows the curve of the mountains nicely, rather than I-99 doing the curve, hitting NY and then course-correcting...
Quote from: english si on October 12, 2013, 08:45:15 AM
Just looking at a map, Ithica must be one of the largest cities without an interstate (certainly the largest in the NE) - I-99 extension along NY13 to Syracuse?
The Poughkeepsie metro area is actually bigger by quite a bit... it's closer to the interstates but technically doesn't have one.
I would have all of 99 become just 220 from I-68 to Williamsport. From there up to I-86, 15 (which would be truncated to the 15/581 interchange in Harrisburg) would become an extension of I-83 via the CSVT and an upgraded US 11/15 from there to Harrisburg.
Then extend I-83 up to Rochester via 390. :)
If they ever got I-73 done north to Roanoke, I would route it North from Greensboro to Roanoke and have it take over 81's designation the rest of the way to Watertown/Canada
I'm particularly fond of Kurumi's solution...
Quote from: yakra on October 12, 2013, 05:37:04 PM
I'm particularly fond of Kurumi's solution...
What is it? He never posted in this thread.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 12, 2013, 06:16:19 PM
Quote from: yakra on October 12, 2013, 05:37:04 PM
I'm particularly fond of Kurumi's solution...
What is it? He never posted in this thread.
"I like towns that are named after roadgeeks." :bigass:
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2013, 08:03:10 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 12, 2013, 06:16:19 PM
Quote from: yakra on October 12, 2013, 05:37:04 PM
I'm particularly fond of Kurumi's solution...
What is it? He never posted in this thread.
"I like towns that are named after roadgeeks." :bigass:
Wait what the hell?
Kurumi has a virtual I-99 extension on his site. It goes through Elkins, WV.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2013, 09:36:22 PM
Kurumi has a virtual I-99 extension on his site. It goes through Elkins, WV.
Where?
https://www.google.com/search?q=interstate+99&sitesearch=www.kurumi.com
Wasn't that a Trippy Drive feature? If I remember right, it made a big sidways S across the country, crossing I-40 two or three times.
I-99.
Bell Systems Princess using Pootalk
Quote from: bugo on October 13, 2013, 01:36:20 AM
I-99.
Bell Systems Princess using Pootalk
Don't you mean western electric princess using pootalk? or are you using an inferior knock off
Quote from: vtk on October 13, 2013, 12:43:31 AM
Wasn't that a Trippy Drive feature? If I remember right, it made a big sidways S across the country, crossing I-40 two or three times.
Yep.
Quote from: vtk on October 13, 2013, 12:43:31 AM
Wasn't that a Trippy Drive feature? If I remember right, it made a big sidways S across the country, crossing I-40 two or three times.
Yep - transcontinental north-south (intersecting the much-hated I-73/74 in North Carolina) before becoming transcontinental east-west and then transcontinental north-south again in California.
Quote from: english si on October 12, 2013, 08:45:15 AM
Just looking at a map, Ithica must be one of the largest cities without an interstate (certainly the largest in the NE) - I-99 extension along NY13 to Syracuse?
Sure, Rochester is easy to do, but it can be I-83 when the Harrisburg - I-80 freeway that no one is planning is built. Also, the Cumberland-Syracuse path follows the curve of the mountains nicely, rather than I-99 doing the curve, hitting NY and then course-correcting...
NY 13 has been upgraded between Horseheads and Ithaca to serve just this purpose, and Ithacans would riot and burn NYSDOT's offices down if you proposed tarnishing their town with an Interstate. The other question is, where would you put it?
There's nowhere around the Ithaca area you could push through a four lane divided highway without people burning whoever proposed it in effigy. The natural (read: only) place to run it through would be a southern-eastern bypass, which would have the Town of Dryden up in arms. NY 13, furthermore, from east of Ithaca to I-81 via NY 281 is also a fairly quick drive. Unlike most states, NYS cares about its highway network, and that's why you don't see NYS peppered with poorly-maintained 4-lane divided bypasses like you do in PA. (Not that I don't love 'em.)
Given that the Elmira-Ithaca-Cortland axis is good enough, the only improvement I can think of would be connecting it better with the Binghamton area, and even that wouldn't necessitate anything more than a NYS-standard 2-lane spur off NY 79 or NY 38.
The way I would do this would be to resurrect NY 330 and extend 76 Road east from Speedsville over the mountains separating Tioga CR 33 (West Creek Rd) from NY 38 between Berkshire and Richford. This could also be an extension of NY 38B. From there, perhaps plow a road through the mountains to East Maine to link up with Broome CR 69 / Airport Rd, which will service the Greater Binghamton Airport and provide a ready-to-go southern/western end, no modification necessary.
I prepared a .kmz of several possible routes, all of them frivolously fanciful and, to be blunt, stupid.
EDIT: https://db.tt/VPZv2gwl (https://db.tt/VPZv2gwl) Note that I do not, at all, advocate the construction of any of this.
I-412.
Really out of the box idea: Have I-83 and I-70 swap designations between Baltimore and PA. I-83 starts by taking over I-97 from Annapolis to Baltimore. Multiplex it on I-695 to the current I-70, then have I-83 take over the I-70 portion to Breezewood. Triplex it with 70-76 to the current I-99, then have it take over I-99, and I-390 to Rochester. I-70 would stay on the turnpike to Harrisburg to take over the current I-83, then have it end in it's glory in downtown Baltimore. The remaining I-83 north of Harrisburg becomes an extended PA 581, and the remaining piece of I-83 becomes an x-81
I don't see what the big deal is. I-970. It's a spur from the turnpike to Williamsport. It's also definitely going to be the last I-x70 going east. Makes sense to me.
People don't complain about the length of 3-digit routes. This is an increasingly frivolous matter as the years go on and numbers become settled.
US 220 north of I-80? Easy. I-180. If it bothers you, I-280.
Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.
Quote from: vdeane on October 13, 2013, 11:32:19 AM
Quote from: vtk on October 13, 2013, 12:43:31 AM
Wasn't that a Trippy Drive feature? If I remember right, it made a big sidways S across the country, crossing I-40 two or three times.
Yep - transcontinental north-south (intersecting the much-hated I-73/74 in North Carolina) before becoming transcontinental east-west and then transcontinental north-south again in California.
My favorite sign on that I-99 feature was the US 6 Exit in CA that used Willimantic as a control city :D
Dylan: I haven't been on NY 13 in several years, but I traveled it extensively back when my better half was working in Syracuse. I'd agree that locals would be up in arms over an Interstate along the corridor, but there's enough traffic on 13 to warrant looking into a 4-lane roadway. At an absolute minimum, it needs a few sets of passing lanes.
Quote from: froggie on November 01, 2013, 06:27:10 AM
Dylan: I haven't been on NY 13 in several years, but I traveled it extensively back when my better half was working in Syracuse. I'd agree that locals would be up in arms over an Interstate along the corridor, but there's enough traffic on 13 to warrant looking into a 4-lane roadway. At an absolute minimum, it needs a few sets of passing lanes.
A few sets of passing lanes, absolutely. Even that will get people uppity. Are you speaking of NY 13 north of Dryden? A four-lane or compromise upgrade from Exit 12 on I-81 down NY 281 and NY 13 would be good.
Nonetheless, we're taking about an insular place that doesn't want to be connected to the IHS.
Dylan T. Lainhart / Binghamton, N.Y.
I'd have Interstate 83 follow either US 322 to the current I-99 in State College or follow US 15 to take over I-180 through Williamsport to end in Rochester by way of I-390.
The remaining I-99 would become I-483.
Side Note: If I-83 were extended north from Harrisburg, it would create a second wrong-way concurrency with I-81 (3 if you count I-73 fully-built).
It looks like Vermont had their own idea with the I-99 shield...sort of! :)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4FbQI6G.jpg&hash=79a951c3f23294dfec4e6ae9f37526e102e4f586)
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 10, 2013, 05:17:38 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 10, 2013, 05:13:53 PM
holy crap I-476
We all know that was a dumb move, too.
Quote from: kkt on October 10, 2013, 05:15:48 PM
I-99 is not such a bad number. True, it's not in the ideal place in the grid, but when it was set up there weren't any in-grid numbers available.
Why should it have to be a hidden interstate? Built with federal funds, to interstate standards, why shouldn't be signed?
What really gripes me is suffixed interstates, I-35. And making new ones with I-69.
Amen to that! I hate suffixed routes. Alex and I talked about them when we met last month and the idea of making one of them I-33 and the other I-35 was considered.
If I had been AASHTO, I would have denied them permission to use it in that way. The interstate shield is still AASHTO's trademark and Congress can't order them to permit it, unless Congress wants to go through a eminent domain process.
Agreed wholeheartedly.
Quote from: froggie on October 11, 2013, 02:37:59 AM
QuoteThe interstate shield is still AASHTO's trademark and Congress can't order them to permit it, unless Congress wants to go through a eminent domain process.
The Interstate shield may be AASHTO's "trademark", but the Interstate SYSTEM is FHWA's realm (Congressional meddling notwithstanding).
This is an interesting point you bring up. I had my doubts, because this is a public highway system, but there it is:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:yxy1zh.5.132
and, oddly:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:yxy1zh.5.131
What amuses me is how many others have trademarked the symbol for other uses, such as:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=4803:yxy1zh.3.156
and
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:yxy1zh.2.36
There are, of course, hundreds of knock-offs, but most of them are easily identifiable as such.
Quote from: english si on October 12, 2013, 08:45:15 AM
Just looking at a map, Ithica must be one of the largest cities without an interstate (certainly the largest in the NE) - I-99 extension along NY13 to Syracuse?
Sure, Rochester is easy to do, but it can be I-83 when the Harrisburg - I-80 freeway that no one is planning is built. Also, the Cumberland-Syracuse path follows the curve of the mountains nicely, rather than I-99 doing the curve, hitting NY and then course-correcting...
A major freeway was once planned through the Ithaca area. Evidence of this plan is the NY 13 expressway at the north end of downtown Ithaca and also the NY 281 spur in Cortland. I would assume that NY 13A was where the freeway would have been routed before the plan got killed. This was a proposed extension of the Appalachian thruway
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 18, 2013, 09:28:03 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 11, 2013, 02:37:59 AM
QuoteThe interstate shield is still AASHTO's trademark and Congress can't order them to permit it, unless Congress wants to go through a eminent domain process.
The Interstate shield may be AASHTO's "trademark", but the Interstate SYSTEM is FHWA's realm (Congressional meddling notwithstanding).
This is an interesting point you bring up. I had my doubts, because this is a public highway system, but there it is:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:yxy1zh.5.132
and, oddly:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:yxy1zh.5.131
What amuses me is how many others have trademarked the symbol for other uses, such as:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=4803:yxy1zh.3.156
and
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:yxy1zh.2.36
There are, of course, hundreds of knock-offs, but most of them are easily identifiable as such.
Those links are session temporary and therefore won't work again. Can you summarize what they said or are there permanent links available?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 18, 2013, 09:28:03 PM
What amuses me is how many others have trademarked the symbol for other uses, such as...
None of your links are accessible after the fact, but in any event, I can kind of guess what you're looking at.
Intellectual property law is a complicated area. Trademarks cover a particular usage, and there's lots of gray area as to whether someone else's similar trademark infringes on yours. One factor is how unique the trademarked word or symbol is, another is where and how you do business, and yet another is how vigilantly you defend your trademark.
in the case of the Interstate shield, it's not incredibly unique, it's applied to a very specific usage (marking highways), and AASHTO hasn't historically defended the Interstate shield vigorously. So that opens the door for countless trucking companies using it in their logos, banks ripping off the shield design on billboards ("Rates as low as (Interstate) 5%..."), and so on. About the only thing you likely would get in trouble doing would be building your own freeway and using the Interstate shield to mark it.
Quote from: briantroutman on November 18, 2013, 10:25:52 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 18, 2013, 09:28:03 PM
What amuses me is how many others have trademarked the symbol for other uses, such as...
None of your links are accessible after the fact, but in any event, I can kind of guess what you're looking at.
Oh, that's too bad. The trademark database is very query-intensive. I guess you can't link straight to it.
The two AASHTO trademarks are one for the Interstate shield design (poor image, hard to tell what it is), and one, oddly, featuring a New York Interstate 75 shield.
The ones that were commercial but close to the real deal were one for Interstate 80 (a brand of something or other) using a near-spot-on shield (though the image was in black-and-white so who knows), and one for a brand called "Interstate 136" that was a perfect shield except with the wrong colors.
A search of "Interstate" or "Association of American State Highway Officials" (the name the original trademark happened under) at www.trademark.gov (http://www.trademark.gov) will surely provide as many as several minutes of bemusement.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 18, 2013, 11:04:58 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on November 18, 2013, 10:25:52 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 18, 2013, 09:28:03 PM
What amuses me is how many others have trademarked the symbol for other uses, such as...
None of your links are accessible after the fact, but in any event, I can kind of guess what you're looking at.
Oh, that's too bad. The trademark database is very query-intensive. I guess you can't link straight to it.
Trademarkia allows direct links, though. (http://bit.ly/1cEpQy3)
Pete's directions took way too long to follow.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4809:6eiae1.1.1
"American Association of State Highway Officials"
field: all
Quote from: briantroutman on November 18, 2013, 10:25:52 PM
About the only thing you likely would get in trouble doing would be building your own freeway and using the Interstate shield to mark it.
Of course, this is exactly what a state DOT would be doing if they circumvent AASHTO/FHWA in signing an Interstate.
That's exactly what Maryland did when they signed the east part of I-695.
Quote from: NE2 on November 19, 2013, 01:33:10 AM
That's exactly what Maryland did when they signed the east part of I-695.
Shhhhhh, no one was supposed to know!
Quote from: NE2 on November 18, 2013, 11:34:59 PM
Pete's directions took way too long to follow.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4809:6eiae1.1.1
"American Association of State Highway Officials"
field: all
Error
Quote from: kj3400 on November 19, 2013, 04:20:53 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 19, 2013, 01:33:10 AM
That's exactly what Maryland did when they signed the east part of I-695.
Shhhhhh, no one was supposed to know!
NY also did it with I-695 and I-86 east of Binghamton before both became official.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 19, 2013, 07:55:06 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 18, 2013, 11:34:59 PM
Pete's directions took way too long to follow.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4809:6eiae1.1.1
"American Association of State Highway Officials"
field: all
Error
Hey, you linked to a nonexistent website. http://tess2.uspto.gov/ basic search.