I noticed partway thru a trip from Williamsport to NY, mileposts on the roadside and milepost-based exit numbers on the overhead signs. They advance into the 180s at the north end. Is this mileposting recent? Given the mileage numbers it looks like it is the south-to-north mileposting for I-99.
From post 885 in the Pennsylvania discussion thread:
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 10, 2017, 10:10:51 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on September 05, 2017, 02:11:42 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 27, 2017, 10:16:18 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on July 26, 2017, 07:01:31 PM
Sign Project Begins on Route 15 in Lycoming and Tioga Counties
QuoteThis work includes the installation of new mile marker and exit signs on the highway
Curious to see what route's mileage they are going to use: US 15 or I-99. I'm also curious to see if they are going to add exit numbers as they did with US 220 in Clinton County. And many of the signs on this stretch are fairly new, so with a total cost of $130K, there can't be too many BGSs being replaced.
I would assume I-99 exit numbers. It doesn't make much sense to use US 15 numbers now. There are already Future I-99 signs on the corridor and, as far as I know, they could extend I-99 to I-180 at Williamsport now.
SO...this sign contract DID involve assigning exit numbers from I-180 north. So far...the mile markers are generic ones (non-enhanced/no shields) and only whole miles, no tenths. Mile markers start at 136 and end at 196 and the NY border.
So far, all ground mounted signs (supplemental BGS and services signs) have greenout/blueout patches, including the signs with blank Exit tabs and including gore signs that had blank exit numbers. At this point, no new gore signs have been installed, and no new exit tabs.
The numbers, that I could see (I drove NB), are:
3rd St (NB only) - Exit 136
4th St (SB only) - couldn't tell (prob will be 136)
Foy Ave/Lycoming Creek Rd - nothing installed (prob will be 137)
Hepburnville - Exit 140
PA 973 Cogan Station/Perrryville (SB only) - Exit 143
PA 14 Trout Run / Canton - Exit 148
Cogan House - Exit 152
PA 184 Steam Valley - Exit 155
PA 284 English Center / Buttonwood - Exit 158
PA 414 Morris / Liberty - Exit 162
Sebring - no number yet (prob will be 163 or 164)
Blossburg - Exit 172
PA 660/Bus US 15 Canoe Camp / Covington - Exit 179
US 6 Mansfield / Wellsboro - Exit 182
Bus US 15 Main St (SB only) - Exit 183
PA 287 Tioga / Tioga Jct - Exit 191
PA 49 Lawrenceville / Elkland - Exit 196
I'm going to guess they are I-99 numbers. Exit 136 would be at about MP 132 for US 15. For I-99, it's about 86.5 miles from the beginning to I-80, 17.5 miles duplexed with I-80, then about 31 miles on US 220 from I-80 to the I-180/US 15 junction. Those numbers seem to add up to 136
Any bets as to when I-99 shields will go up along US 15 north of I-180?.....or whether US 15 will be truncated back to at least Williamsport after the Interstate signs go up?
I'm curious as to why there isn't a direct connection between I-99/I-80...
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 17, 2017, 10:39:50 AM
I'm curious as to why there isn't a direct connection between I-99/I-80...
$
PennDOT also found lots of pyritic rock in the area of the proposed interchange. With all the headaches pyritic rock caused them where I-99 crossed the Bald Eagle Ridge at Skytop in 2004, they're loathe to touch it. The pyrite added $50 million to the cost of the section from Bald Eagle to the State College Bypass, for a total of over $750 million.
And yes, PennDOT is short on funding. So significant engineering difficulty plus lack of money.
I would be content if they did nothing at this point and left I-99 a mess like that. I'm not really sure why it matters to bulldoze half of US 220 between the sections for a highway that doesn't get that severely backed up.
Easiest solution would be just to route it to I-180, and have I-99 take it over. Sure, a serious backtrack, but it completes the route since NY now has I-99 posted.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 17, 2017, 07:40:04 PM
Easiest solution would be just to route it to I-180, and have I-99 take it over. Sure, a serious backtrack, but it completes the route since NY now has I-99 posted.
Why? What purpose does I-99 serve that I-180 doesn't already? How about leaving the designations alone?
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 17, 2017, 08:51:05 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 17, 2017, 07:40:04 PM
Easiest solution would be just to route it to I-180, and have I-99 take it over. Sure, a serious backtrack, but it completes the route since NY now has I-99 posted.
Why? What purpose does I-99 serve that I-180 doesn't already? How about leaving the designations alone?
Because of people complaining about a gap. This is the easiest way to deal with it if the US-220 segment isn't going to be upgraded. With I-99 overtaking US-15 & I-180, and cosigned along I-80 to fill the gap, it would be a complete route finally. That way, if US-220 isn't ever upgraded, the route is 'connected'.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 17, 2017, 10:36:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 17, 2017, 08:51:05 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 17, 2017, 07:40:04 PM
Easiest solution would be just to route it to I-180, and have I-99 take it over. Sure, a serious backtrack, but it completes the route since NY now has I-99 posted.
Why? What purpose does I-99 serve that I-180 doesn't already? How about leaving the designations alone?
Because of people complaining about a gap. This is the easiest way to deal with it if the US-220 segment isn't going to be upgraded. With I-99 overtaking US-15 & I-180, and cosigned along I-80 to fill the gap, it would be a complete route finally. That way, if US-220 isn't ever upgraded, the route is 'connected'.
Why can't we go back to what we did in the 60s and 70s and sign gaps as "Temp I-99" or "To I-99?"
Quote from: hbelkins on September 18, 2017, 11:10:16 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 17, 2017, 10:36:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 17, 2017, 08:51:05 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 17, 2017, 07:40:04 PM
Easiest solution would be just to route it to I-180, and have I-99 take it over. Sure, a serious backtrack, but it completes the route since NY now has I-99 posted.
Why? What purpose does I-99 serve that I-180 doesn't already? How about leaving the designations alone?
Because of people complaining about a gap. This is the easiest way to deal with it if the US-220 segment isn't going to be upgraded. With I-99 overtaking US-15 & I-180, and cosigned along I-80 to fill the gap, it would be a complete route finally. That way, if US-220 isn't ever upgraded, the route is 'connected'.
Why can't we go back to what we did in the 60s and 70s and sign gaps as "Temp I-99" or "To I-99?"
That would be the most reasonable way to proceed; save the out-of-the-way detour via I-180. But doing so would likely incur something of a "double-edged sword"; while ameliorating -- rather than actually solving -- the gap problem, PennDOT buys itself some time to formulate plans to deal with the design and acquisition issues as well as the pyrite situation; on the other hand, it may provoke, over time, public reaction regarding "why isn't this done yet" or "why aren't they working on this". But the saving grace of that would be that the agency might at that point have some impetus/rationale to actually seek out funding and finally deal with the corridor gaps (the "squeaky wheel" concept manifested!). However, for that to happen there needs to be a wheel to squeak -- hence the "Temporary 99 signage" as an effective
agent provocateur! Also -- appropriating one aspect of the I-180 signage proposal -- co-sign it "TO I-99" north of I-80, with that signage extending to I-80 WB; if Corning, NY is mentioned as a control city adjunct to the "TO I-99" signage, that may drive the point home that the 180/99 combination is the optimal route northward from I-80 west.
FWIW...
AASHTO turned down North Carolina's request to sign US 52 through Winston-Salem as TEMP I-74 but suggested North Carolina sign it as TO I-74 if they wanted to. Since US 52 is a full freeway, it appears you cannot sign a TEMP interstate if the road is not to interstate standard...
TEMP I-99 would work on I-80 and I-180 though it might require some nebulous commitment that US 220 will someday be converted...
I guess, as I mentioned in the chatroom last night, my problem has a more qualitative answer. What does it matter to drivers if a place is on US 220 versus Interstate 99? What does it matter if it's on US 15 versus Interstate 99? What's the qualitative value in making such a change, and spending millions of dollars on a project that may never happen?
I live in the Williamsport area, and the idea of I-99 going 30 extra miles on I-80 and then backtracking another 10 miles makes no sense. No one will take the new route, as anyone with a GPS or map will know that they will be driving almost an extra hour just to stay on the road. Besides, 180 is part of a separate corridor - CSVT and signing it in a different way makes more sense.
Quote from: LeftyJR on September 18, 2017, 05:31:11 PM
I live in the Williamsport area, and the idea of I-99 going 30 extra miles on I-80 and then backtracking another 10 miles makes no sense. No one will take the new route, as anyone with a GPS or map will know that they will be driving almost an extra hour just to stay on the road. Besides, 180 is part of a separate corridor - CSVT and signing it in a different way makes more sense.
If by an hour you mean 25 minutes.
Well, the signs on US 15 north of Williamsport were going to be due for replacement at some point anyway. Since that section is "ready", might as well sign it as I-99, matching NY's little piece.
True, the freeway gaps along 220 are not in any urgent need of closing, but I see this no reason why I-99 cannot be simply allowed to exist in two discontinuous sections indefinitely. Hell, let it be three discontinuous segments and sign it from PA 447 to PA 44 south (already freeway) as well. And so what if it's 40 years before the gaps are closed. Gaps in freeway designations have been allowed to persist for longer, in the US and internationally. There is another infamous example of such a gap partly in PA!
Quote from: Duke87 on September 18, 2017, 08:51:18 PM
Well, the signs on US 15 north of Williamsport were going to be due for replacement at some point anyway. Since that section is "ready", might as well sign it as I-99, matching NY's little piece.
True, the freeway gaps along 220 are not in any urgent need of closing, but I see this no reason why I-99 cannot be simply allowed to exist in two discontinuous sections indefinitely. Hell, let it be three discontinuous segments and sign it from PA 447 to PA 44 south (already freeway) as well. And so what if it's 40 years before the gaps are closed. Gaps in freeway designations have been allowed to persist for longer, in the US and internationally. There is another infamous example of such a gap partly in PA!
Actually, the 3-section concept is quite a reasonable idea. However -- is US 220 between PA 477 and the east end of limited access near PA 287 fully Interstate-standard (or close enough to warrant waivers) -- or is it only partially so? (I haven't been on this route for 15 years, and the GSV view is inconclusive in that respect). If only a few miles of this stretch so qualify -- then it's probably not worth it to sign that section at all; just post "TO I-99" signage and let the route exist in 2 sections. Even if they don't find any geological issues with the east I-80/US 220 location such as with the west exit serving existing I-99 to the south, rebuilding I-80 Exit #178 to a full-freeway interchange (even a simple trumpet) isn't likely on anyone's near-term radar. It'll be quite a while before any work is underway between I-80 and Williamsport; may as well deal with that realistically.
Quote from: sparker on September 19, 2017, 02:13:28 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 18, 2017, 08:51:18 PM
Well, the signs on US 15 north of Williamsport were going to be due for replacement at some point anyway. Since that section is "ready", might as well sign it as I-99, matching NY's little piece.
True, the freeway gaps along 220 are not in any urgent need of closing, but I see this no reason why I-99 cannot be simply allowed to exist in two discontinuous sections indefinitely. Hell, let it be three discontinuous segments and sign it from PA 447 to PA 44 south (already freeway) as well. And so what if it's 40 years before the gaps are closed. Gaps in freeway designations have been allowed to persist for longer, in the US and internationally. There is another infamous example of such a gap partly in PA!
Actually, the 3-section concept is quite a reasonable idea. However -- is US 220 between PA 477 and the east end of limited access near PA 287 fully Interstate-standard (or close enough to warrant waivers) -- or is it only partially so? (I haven't been on this route for 15 years, and the GSV view is inconclusive in that respect). If only a few miles of this stretch so qualify -- then it's probably not worth it to sign that section at all; just post "TO I-99" signage and let the route exist in 2 sections. Even if they don't find any geological issues with the east I-80/US 220 location such as with the west exit serving existing I-99 to the south, rebuilding I-80 Exit #178 to a full-freeway interchange (even a simple trumpet) isn't likely on anyone's near-term radar. It'll be quite a while before any work is underway between I-80 and Williamsport; may as well deal with that realistically.
That section between 287 and 477 is built to interstate standards.
Quote from: LeftyJR on September 20, 2017, 05:32:27 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 19, 2017, 02:13:28 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 18, 2017, 08:51:18 PM
Well, the signs on US 15 north of Williamsport were going to be due for replacement at some point anyway. Since that section is "ready", might as well sign it as I-99, matching NY's little piece.
True, the freeway gaps along 220 are not in any urgent need of closing, but I see this no reason why I-99 cannot be simply allowed to exist in two discontinuous sections indefinitely. Hell, let it be three discontinuous segments and sign it from PA 447 to PA 44 south (already freeway) as well. And so what if it's 40 years before the gaps are closed. Gaps in freeway designations have been allowed to persist for longer, in the US and internationally. There is another infamous example of such a gap partly in PA!
Actually, the 3-section concept is quite a reasonable idea. However -- is US 220 between PA 477 and the east end of limited access near PA 287 fully Interstate-standard (or close enough to warrant waivers) -- or is it only partially so? (I haven't been on this route for 15 years, and the GSV view is inconclusive in that respect). If only a few miles of this stretch so qualify -- then it's probably not worth it to sign that section at all; just post "TO I-99" signage and let the route exist in 2 sections. Even if they don't find any geological issues with the east I-80/US 220 location such as with the west exit serving existing I-99 to the south, rebuilding I-80 Exit #178 to a full-freeway interchange (even a simple trumpet) isn't likely on anyone's near-term radar. It'll be quite a while before any work is underway between I-80 and Williamsport; may as well deal with that realistically.
That section between 287 and 477 is built to interstate standards.
If that is indeed the case, then 3 signed I-99 segments -- with "TO I-99" signage in the interim -- would be appropriate. Might even arouse local interest in actually completing the corridor (particularly if the I-80 junctions remain as they are, causing periodic back-ups). I suppose we'll just have to see what Penn DOT has in mind for this -- and go from there!
Quote from: LeftyJR on September 20, 2017, 05:32:27 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 19, 2017, 02:13:28 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 18, 2017, 08:51:18 PM
Well, the signs on US 15 north of Williamsport were going to be due for replacement at some point anyway. Since that section is "ready", might as well sign it as I-99, matching NY's little piece.
True, the freeway gaps along 220 are not in any urgent need of closing, but I see this no reason why I-99 cannot be simply allowed to exist in two discontinuous sections indefinitely. Hell, let it be three discontinuous segments and sign it from PA 447 to PA 44 south (already freeway) as well. And so what if it's 40 years before the gaps are closed. Gaps in freeway designations have been allowed to persist for longer, in the US and internationally. There is another infamous example of such a gap partly in PA!
Actually, the 3-section concept is quite a reasonable idea. However -- is US 220 between PA 477 and the east end of limited access near PA 287 fully Interstate-standard (or close enough to warrant waivers) -- or is it only partially so? (I haven't been on this route for 15 years, and the GSV view is inconclusive in that respect). If only a few miles of this stretch so qualify -- then it's probably not worth it to sign that section at all; just post "TO I-99" signage and let the route exist in 2 sections. Even if they don't find any geological issues with the east I-80/US 220 location such as with the west exit serving existing I-99 to the south, rebuilding I-80 Exit #178 to a full-freeway interchange (even a simple trumpet) isn't likely on anyone's near-term radar. It'll be quite a while before any work is underway between I-80 and Williamsport; may as well deal with that realistically.
That section between 287 and 477 is built to interstate standards.
I'd agree with you from 477 to exit 120. But east of exit 120 there are two bridges with what look like substandard shoulders over Pine Creek and the railroad crossing east of there. But I'd give them a waiver given how many substandard bridges there are on the system.
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 18, 2017, 02:36:27 PM
FWIW...
AASHTO turned down North Carolina's request to sign US 52 through Winston-Salem as TEMP I-74 but suggested North Carolina sign it as TO I-74 if they wanted to. Since US 52 is a full freeway, it appears you cannot sign a TEMP interstate if the road is not to interstate standard...
When the fuck did that happen? TEMP I-69 was signed along the very non-interstate standard US-27 and M-78 for years north and south of Lansing, Michigan until 1992. There were at-grade intersections along those stretches.
Quote from: Brandon on September 21, 2017, 11:29:34 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 18, 2017, 02:36:27 PM
FWIW...
AASHTO turned down North Carolina's request to sign US 52 through Winston-Salem as TEMP I-74 but suggested North Carolina sign it as TO I-74 if they wanted to. Since US 52 is a full freeway, it appears you cannot sign a TEMP interstate if the road is not to interstate standard...
When the fuck did that happen? TEMP I-69 was signed along the very non-interstate standard US-27 and M-78 for years north and south of Lansing, Michigan until 1992. There were at-grade intersections along those stretches.
This was back in 1996 when the I-73 and I-74 routes were first approved. Apparently, the guidelines for signing temp routes had gotten stricter by this time.
My understanding was that temp routes are now basically banned because FHWA considers the interstate system to be "complete" (well, minus one interchange in PA). In any case, I wouldn't sign the middle segment on US 220 as I-99 because it doesn't connect to the rest of the interstate system (still a requirement for routes not I-69 or I-11, which have a congressional exemption).
US 15 between Williamsport and the PA/NY border will likely be signed as Interstate 99 eventually. We may have to live with the fact that Interstate 99 will likely always remain discontinuous.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2017, 04:20:59 PM
US 15 between Williamsport and the PA/NY border will likely be signed as Interstate 99 eventually. We may have to live with the fact that Interstate 99 will likely always remain discontinuous.
As this section connects at
both ends to Interstates (180, 86), it's probably a lock for I-99 signage within the next few years. Just put "TO I-99" signage (enough to signal continuity) on US 220 SW of Williamsport and along I-80 between the two (future) I-99 interchanges, and be done with it until funds to actually effect an Interstate-grade connection are identified & apportioned.
And -- I still think Rochester-area interests, once the PA segment is signed, will put pressure on NYDOT (and/or their local congressfolks) to renumber I-390 as I-99 (for the same reasons cities in other regions want a 2di serving their region).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2017, 04:20:59 PM
US 15 between Williamsport and the PA/NY border will likely be signed as Interstate 99 eventually. We may have to live with the fact that Interstate 99 will likely always remain discontinuous.
That's fine. There is no reason to do anything else. The better solution is to abandon I-99 in NY.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 21, 2017, 05:09:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2017, 04:20:59 PM
US 15 between Williamsport and the PA/NY border will likely be signed as Interstate 99 eventually. We may have to live with the fact that Interstate 99 will likely always remain discontinuous.
That's fine. There is no reason to do anything else. The better solution is to abandon I-99 in NY.
No reason why they can't sign what they have now (Bedford to I-80 and I-180 to NY state) and then build the middle section when they can in the future.
Why? Why can't it just be 220? Why do we need to build a freeway over this section?
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 21, 2017, 06:11:37 PM
Why? Why can't it just be 220? Why do we need to build a freeway over this section?
You know, regardless of traffic counts, it does have a reputation as a dangerous stretch of roadway.
Quote from: Alps on September 21, 2017, 07:59:08 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 21, 2017, 06:11:37 PM
Why? Why can't it just be 220? Why do we need to build a freeway over this section?
You know, regardless of traffic counts, it does have a reputation as a dangerous stretch of roadway.
About 70% of it (between I-80 Exit 178 and I-180) is already built to freeway standards. The rest of it should be built eventually, even if it takes 10 to 20 years to allocate the funding.
It took forever (over 40 years each) to build the other two segments of I-99, but they finally did it, and it is very good, and those are very long-lived improvements, probably be adequate for several decades into the future.
Quote from: Alps on September 21, 2017, 07:59:08 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 21, 2017, 06:11:37 PM
Why? Why can't it just be 220? Why do we need to build a freeway over this section?
You know, regardless of traffic counts, it does have a reputation as a dangerous stretch of roadway.
When I was through there late in 2001, I seem to recall a lot of "blind" side-road entrances on the full-access divided segment between PA 287 and Williamsport; a cursory look on today's GE seems to bear that out. There was a substantial level of traffic even back then; with the completion of the freeway segment north of Williamsport and the extension of I-99 north to I-80 as "feeders", the situation is probably worse than before (if anyone more local than myself wants to chime in here with better info, please do so!).
^ Williamsport's my hometown and I'm very familiar with all of the roads in that area–including that stretch of US 220. Yes, there are numerous driveways and side roads in the non-freeway section that, in many cases, connect only to 220 and have no other outlet. And traffic volume is already higher in this area than in several other sections of the Susquehanna Beltway that were constructed as a full freeway 30-40 years ago.
I'll quote here from something I posted in another US 220-related thread last year:
Quote from: briantroutman on March 13, 2016, 12:04:55 AM
PennDOT's most recent traffic volume map (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/County_Maps/Lycoming_TV.pdf) for Lycoming County shows the gap between Jersey Shore and Williamsport ranging from 24,000 at Pine Run Road to 29,000 at Quenshuckney Road. Those numbers are significantly higher than the AADTs for the 220 freeway from Jersey Shore to Mill Hall, which range from about 16-20K.
The challenge with upgrading the existing roadway is that there's nearly continuous low-density development–residential and commercial–along the entirety of the gap. In many cases, homes have been built on dead-end roads fanning out from 220 leaving them completely cut off except for that single access point. With Jersey Shore/Lock Haven on one end and Williamsport on the other, there's inherently a significant volume of local traffic pulling out across multiple lanes of high-speed traffic or making U-turns in both directions and conflicting with an also significant volume of through traffic.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 21, 2017, 11:38:14 PM
^ Williamsport's my hometown and I'm very familiar with all of the roads in that area–including that stretch of US 220. Yes, there are numerous driveways and side roads in the non-freeway section that, in many cases, connect only to 220 and have no other outlet. And traffic volume is already higher in this area than in several other sections of the Susquehanna Beltway that were constructed as a full freeway 30-40 years ago.
The main reason may be that the freeway segments are a bypass of the original US-220 and PA-147, and the original highway remains and still handles a considerable portion of the traffic.
Whereas this 4-lane nonlimited-access segment between Jersey Shore and Williamsport handles all the local and thru traffic on US-220.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 21, 2017, 11:38:14 PM
^ Williamsport's my hometown and I'm very familiar with all of the roads in that area–including that stretch of US 220. Yes, there are numerous driveways and side roads in the non-freeway section that, in many cases, connect only to 220 and have no other outlet. And traffic volume is already higher in this area than in several other sections of the Susquehanna Beltway that were constructed as a full freeway 30-40 years ago.
I'll quote here from something I posted in another US 220-related thread last year:
Quote from: briantroutman on March 13, 2016, 12:04:55 AM
PennDOT's most recent traffic volume map (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/County_Maps/Lycoming_TV.pdf) for Lycoming County shows the gap between Jersey Shore and Williamsport ranging from 24,000 at Pine Run Road to 29,000 at Quenshuckney Road. Those numbers are significantly higher than the AADTs for the 220 freeway from Jersey Shore to Mill Hall, which range from about 16-20K.
The challenge with upgrading the existing roadway is that there's nearly continuous low-density development–residential and commercial–along the entirety of the gap. In many cases, homes have been built on dead-end roads fanning out from 220 leaving them completely cut off except for that single access point. With Jersey Shore/Lock Haven on one end and Williamsport on the other, there's inherently a significant volume of local traffic pulling out across multiple lanes of high-speed traffic or making U-turns in both directions and conflicting with an also significant volume of through traffic.
Sounds like the completion of the freeway will require deployment of numerous frontage roads as well; of course, this will only add to the expense of the project. I wouldn't be surprised to see some new-terrain mileage contained in upgrade plans, along with a
lot of relatively narrow ROW (with close to absolute minimum inner shoulders, a K-rail, and the usual 10-ft outers) where the facility overlays the current alignment. This won't be an easy build -- and it'll certainly be locally disruptive! This is likely a long-term project at best.
Plans have been published for this stretch, and the leading contender was a bypass close to the west.
There had been a project website at susquehannabeltway.com, and though the site was indexed by archive.org (http://web.archive.org/web/20031216131430/http://susquehannabeltway.com:80/), all of the map images are missing. I must have looked at them when they were current (about 13 years ago), but I don't recall any details now.
I did, however, come across a Lycoming County Planning Commission report on land use that included a map of that area with a strip of land shaded to show Alignment 2a2 of the missing Susquehanna Beltway link. I have to think that this was the "preferred alternative" .
According to the map, the freeway would have veered to the north of the existing alignment at the site of the current at-grade intersection with PA 287. PA 287 would have been realigned to the east to intersect with the freeway at an interchange just east of Larrys Creek. East of there, the new freeway would then generally parallel the existing road to the north, but the new alignment would gradually converge with the old alignment as it approached Quenshuckney Road. Then at that point, the freeway would be built essentially on top of the old road with additional right of way being taken from the south side, leaving the homes on the north side mostly untouched.
The plans also appeared to include an interchange about halfway between PA 287 and Fourth Street. The map's title refers to a "Pine Run Interchange" , and though there's a Pine Run Road in the vicinity, the shaded area seems to suggest that the interchange would be a diamond connecting to a new perpendicular access road linking the old and new alignments just east of the Harvest Moon Restaurant and Port Drive-In theater.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1716/25164951373_f9e32f5eb0_o.png)
Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2017, 12:57:56 AM
There had been a project website at susquehannabeltway.com, and though the site was indexed by archive.org (http://web.archive.org/web/20031216131430/http://susquehannabeltway.com:80/), all of the map images are missing. I must have looked at them when they were current (about 13 years ago), but I don't recall any details now.
I did, however, come across a Lycoming County Planning Commission report on land use that included a map of that area with a strip of land shaded to show Alignment 2a2 of the missing Susquehanna Beltway link. I have to think that this was the "preferred alternative" .
According to the map, the freeway would have veered to the north of the existing alignment at the site of the current at-grade intersection with PA 287. PA 287 would have been realigned to the east to intersect with the freeway at an interchange just east of Larrys Creek. East of there, the new freeway would then generally parallel the existing road to the north, but the new alignment would gradually converge with the old alignment as it approached Quenshuckney Road. Then at that point, the freeway would be built essentially on top of the old road with additional right of way being taken from the south side, leaving the homes on the north side mostly untouched.
The plans also appeared to include an interchange about halfway between PA 287 and Fourth Street. The map's title refers to a "Pine Run Interchange" , and though there's a Pine Run Road in the vicinity, the shaded area seems to suggest that the interchange would be a diamond connecting to a new perpendicular access road linking the old and new alignments just east of the Harvest Moon Restaurant and Port Drive-In theater.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1716/25164951373_f9e32f5eb0_o.png)
Are the plans themselves tentative -- or even shelved for the time being? -- or are they in an "active but awaiting funding ID" mode -- i.e., has a definitive corridor alignment been selected since these maps were published circa 2004 or so? If the "target year" is 2025 for a 2004 document -- and nothing has progressed since then, it seems like everything would be delayed by the time passage of 13 years -- making the new "target" 2038! If that is indeed the case, then once I-99 is signed north of Williamsport, if I were PennDOT, I'd simply do the rational (and cheapest) thing and put a bunch of "TO I-99" signs along both I-80 and US 220, along with corresponding signage of all 3 interchanges involved. (the 2 along I-80 and the I-180 interchange in Williamsport). That should take care of I-99 "virtual" continuity for the next 21 years.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2017, 12:57:56 AMI have to think that this was the "preferred alternative" .
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1716/25164951373_f9e32f5eb0_o.png)
This was indeed the preferred alignment. I was working at PennDOT District 6 at the time and remember it quite well. District 3 had just identified the preferred alignment and was preparing to forge ahead with the remainder of the process of constructing that missing segment of the freeway when Governor Rendell halted the entire project.
Incidentally, this was at the same time that he halted all work on the project to construct the missing freeway segment of US 322 between State College and Potter's Mills–mere weeks prior to that district identifying it's preferred alignment there. It was part of a larger shut-down of projects across the state by the governor.
PennDOT officials in both districts were furious. They were eager to fix the huge safety issues that both roadways represented in their respective districts, but were told to stand down.
Since the preferred alignment for this segment of US 220 was identified, the plans are, as you say, sitting on the shelf and waiting to be dusted off. Of course, that's doing no favors for property values along the north side of the project area.
Quote from: qguy on September 22, 2017, 06:25:28 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2017, 12:57:56 AMI have to think that this was the "preferred alternative" .
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1716/25164951373_f9e32f5eb0_o.png)
This was indeed the preferred alignment. I was working at PennDOT District 6 at the time and remember it quite well. District 3 had just identified the preferred alignment and was preparing to forge ahead with the remainder of the process of constructing that missing segment of the freeway when Governor Rendell halted the entire project.
Incidentally, this was at the same time that he halted all work on the project to construct the missing freeway segment of US 322 between State College and Potter's Mills–mere weeks prior to that district identifying it's preferred alignment there. It was part of a larger shut-down of projects across the state by the governor.
PennDOT officials in both districts were furious. They were eager to fix the huge safety issues that both roadways represented in their respective districts, but were told to stand down.
Since the preferred alignment for this segment of US 220 was identified, the plans are, as you say, sitting on the shelf and waiting to be dusted off. Of course, that's doing no favors for property values along the north side of the project area.
Sounds like Rendell stole the idea from the Brown/Gianturco regime in CA 1975-83 -- just don't fund any projects not already underway. But in CA, at least the successor administrations attempted to step up the highway program to, if not make up for the 8 lost years, at least set a tone for the future -- although Brown's successor, Deukmejian, was a notorious tightwad, electing to "carry over" some the B/G "economies" regarding project scale and/or capacity. Also, that was, of course, a period of higher-than-normal inflation; the 8-year delay meant that some projects were relegated to the back burner because they simply cost too much after 1983.
IIRC, Rendell's "schtick" was simply to shift highway funds over to urban transit (primarily in SE PA), regardless of the origin or stated purpose of any specific funding arrangements. (note to PA locals: this is the impression I've gotten from gleaning several accounts of the Rendell years.....if I'm either overstating
or understating the situation, feel free to correct me). In any case, the CA approach was a bit more subtle than that -- cancel selected projects, sell off any properties accumulated in the preliminary stages of said projects, and back-burner most of the rest (except for Interstate projects -- primarily in the San Diego/Inland Empire areas and mostly related to the 1968 I-15 extension; even Brown & Gianturco weren't about to jeopardize the 90% chargeable federal portion!).
The 2017 Pennsylvania Tourism and Transportation Map, published by PENNDOT, identifies the portion of I-99 in New York as only being US 15.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 04, 2017, 01:28:43 PM
The 2017 Pennsylvania Tourism and Transportation Map, published by PENNDOT, identifies the portion of I-99 in New York as only being US 15.
The Future I-99 signs are still posted on the highway.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2017, 12:57:56 AM
There had been a project website at susquehannabeltway.com, and though the site was indexed by archive.org (http://web.archive.org/web/20031216131430/http://susquehannabeltway.com:80/), all of the map images are missing.
The images were probably all on Photobucket. :(
Note to self to discuss US 15 from I-180 to the NY Line becoming I-99 here moving forward. Any I see some space on an overhead for an I-99 shield.
(https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10220548682787560&set=a.10220548702628056)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53847443887_e05e1cb82c_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53848689899_f200eb783d_c.jpg)