So for a while now, I have been confused with the road choices in the Corning-Elmira area of NY. First, you have NY 15 and US 15 which used to be the same route, but for some reason, past Corning, (The terminus of I-99) US 15 turns into NY 15 from Corning to it's northern terminus in Downtown Rochester. If anyone could answer why this is why it is, please message me. Also, why is I-390 still numbered as I-390 if its supposed to be numbered as I-99? If its up to Interstate standerd then why don't they just renumber it? If anyone can answer these questions, please let me know.
Probably should be in the overall NY thread, but I heard that NY was rather anti US highways at one time, hence why there's not so many.
I-390 is not supposed to be I-99.
Quote from: Rothman on July 06, 2022, 12:29:49 PM
I-390 is not supposed to be I-99.
But it still can be. However, I agree with the above statement because none of the roads on I-99's current alignment are supposed to carry that number. If anything, it should be I-83, so maybe the idea will be revisited when the Harrisburg-Williamsport link (including the CSVT) is completely filled in.
Quote from: Henry on July 06, 2022, 12:50:40 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 06, 2022, 12:29:49 PM
I-390 is not supposed to be I-99.
But it still can be. However, I agree with the above statement because none of the roads on I-99's current alignment are supposed to carry that number. If anything, it should be I-83, so maybe the idea will be revisited when the Harrisburg-Williamsport link (including the CSVT) is completely filled in.
You won't be seeing upgrades to US 22/US 322 in Duncannon or on US 11/US 15 north of there to the CSVT either.
Quote from: Rothman on July 06, 2022, 01:08:27 PM
Quote from: Henry on July 06, 2022, 12:50:40 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 06, 2022, 12:29:49 PM
I-390 is not supposed to be I-99.
But it still can be.
It won't be.
There's no reason why it shouldn't be, even if it's never been officially proposed.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 06, 2022, 01:20:58 PM
Quote from: Henry on July 06, 2022, 12:50:40 PM
However, I agree with the above statement because none of the roads on I-99's current alignment are supposed to carry that number. If anything, it should be I-83, so maybe the idea will be revisited when the Harrisburg-Williamsport link (including the CSVT) is completely filled in.
You won't be seeing upgrades to US 22/US 322 in Duncannon or on US 11/US 15 north of there to the CSVT either.
At least not for the foreseeable future. I'd like to see I-83 to Rochester as much as anyone, but acknowledge that it's fictional at this point. I'm just happy there will be a stoplight-free routing to Harrisburg (and Baltimore) once CSVT is complete. The non-freeway portion of US 11/15 is still a pretty nice road by most standards even if it's not full freeway.
Quote from: webny99 on July 06, 2022, 01:57:52 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 06, 2022, 01:08:27 PM
Quote from: Henry on July 06, 2022, 12:50:40 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 06, 2022, 12:29:49 PM
I-390 is not supposed to be I-99.
But it still can be.
It won't be.
There's no reason why it shouldn't be, even if it's never been officially proposed.
Apparently it was proposed back in 2002, but not officially. Personally I don't see the point of extending 99 past 86 anyway, as it would require a useless multiplex with 86 and 99 turns NE as it ends; seems better to just keep the end at 86.
Quote from: Declan127 on July 06, 2022, 03:36:21 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 06, 2022, 01:57:52 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 06, 2022, 01:08:27 PM
Quote from: Henry on July 06, 2022, 12:50:40 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 06, 2022, 12:29:49 PM
I-390 is not supposed to be I-99.
But it still can be.
It won't be.
There's no reason why it shouldn't be, even if it's never been officially proposed.
Apparently it was proposed back in 2002, but not officially. Personally I don't see the point of extending 99 past 86 anyway, as it would require a useless multiplex with 86 and 99 turns NE as it ends; seems better to just keep the end at 86.
Ah, the mighty weight of an unofficial proposal.
I-390 will not be I-99.
Quote from: Rothman on July 06, 2022, 04:02:43 PM
I-390 will not be I-99.
Who's to say it will never happen?
Or...we could, you know, actually answer the question asked...
Quote from: TMETSJETSYT on July 06, 2022, 11:09:47 AM
So for a while now, I have been confused with the road choices in the Corning-Elmira area of NY. First, you have NY 15 and US 15 which used to be the same route, but for some reason, past Corning, (The terminus of I-99) US 15 turns into NY 15 from Corning to it's northern terminus in Downtown Rochester. If anyone could answer why this is why it is, please message me. Also, why is I-390 still numbered as I-390 if its supposed to be numbered as I-99? If its up to Interstate standerd then why don't they just renumber it? If anyone can answer these questions, please let me know.
The actual reason can be found in the AASHO database (for those unfamiliar, you must go here first (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) before using the links below:
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=3fc21256-50e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true (1971 attempt)
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=36c21256-50e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true (1974 attempt)
Of note is that the 1971 request would've truncated US 15 first to the NY 17/401 (now I-86/390) interchange then later to Painted Post.
Of interest in the 1974 request is the explicit intention to have the Southern Tier Expwy become I-92! I don't know if this is news to everyone but first I'd seen of this...
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 06, 2022, 04:40:44 PM
Or...we could, you know, actually answer the question asked...
You're right. I'm sorry for getting in my feelings.
And thanks for the insight. I had also never heard of I-92 being proposed for the Southern Tier. However, the links don't seem to be working for me. Is anyone else getting a 404 error message?
You have to access the main aasho database page first - in my post it is the "˜here first' web link.
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 06, 2022, 06:32:44 PM
You have to access the main aasho database page first - in my post it is the "˜here first' web link.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant there but I found it now. Thanks!
Quote from: Henry on July 06, 2022, 12:50:40 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 06, 2022, 12:29:49 PM
I-390 is not supposed to be I-99.
But it still can be. However, I agree with the above statement because none of the roads on I-99's current alignment are supposed to carry that number. If anything, it should be I-83, so maybe the idea will be revisited when the Harrisburg-Williamsport link (including the CSVT) is completely filled in.
They would have to go back to Congress and have the stretch of I-99 north of Williamsport, PA designated as I-83. This was because I-99's designation was codified into law about 30 years ago, when Bud Shuster of Pennsylvania was Chairman of the House Transportation Committee. He wanted to make sure his district got an interstate route, and that's how I-99 came into being.
I believe Interstate 390 will keep its existing designation permanently. Interstate 83 will always terminate in Harrisburg, PA and Interstate 99 will likely always teminate in Painted Post, NY. Also, shouldn't NY 390 also be Interstate 390? I understand other 3dis continuing as state highways because they have non-freeway portions (NY 481, NY 787, NY 590) or they don't terminate at another Interstate (NY 690 and NY 890). Is NY 390 signed as a non-Interstate because it does not meet Interstate Standards?
Also, if there are any remaining NY 15 signs on I-86/NY 17 between Corning and Wayland, they're not correct. NY 15 signs were supposed to be removed in 2009, although I do remember some signs lingering.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 06, 2022, 07:41:11 PM
Also, shouldn't NY 390 also be Interstate 390? I understand other 3dis continuing as state highways because they have non-freeway portions (NY 481, NY 787, NY 590) or they don't terminate at another Interstate (NY 690 and NY 890). Is NY 390 signed as a non-Interstate because it does not meet Interstate Standards?
There's nothing that visibly doesn't meet interstate standards, but it terminates at the Parkway, which is not open to commercial vehicles. I stand to be corrected but I believe commercial vehicles cannot be banned from interstates, so the interstate designation could not extend past NY 18. Given that, I-490 is the most logical endpoint. It also mirrors I-590/NY 590 on the other side of the city.
Quote from: webny99 on July 06, 2022, 08:17:50 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 06, 2022, 07:41:11 PM
Also, shouldn't NY 390 also be Interstate 390? I understand other 3dis continuing as state highways because they have non-freeway portions (NY 481, NY 787, NY 590) or they don't terminate at another Interstate (NY 690 and NY 890). Is NY 390 signed as a non-Interstate because it does not meet Interstate Standards?
There's nothing that visibly doesn't meet interstate standards, but it terminates at the Parkway, which is not open to commercial vehicles. I stand to be corrected but I believe commercial vehicles cannot be banned from interstates, so the interstate designation could not extend past NY 18. Given that, I-490 is the most logical endpoint. It also mirrors I-590/NY 590 on the other side of the city.
23 CFR 658.11(f) allows for banning of trucks/commercial traffic on interstate highways.
I-66 inside the DC Beltway has this prohibition per that regulation.
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 06, 2022, 09:09:41 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 06, 2022, 08:17:50 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 06, 2022, 07:41:11 PM
Also, shouldn't NY 390 also be Interstate 390? I understand other 3dis continuing as state highways because they have non-freeway portions (NY 481, NY 787, NY 590) or they don't terminate at another Interstate (NY 690 and NY 890). Is NY 390 signed as a non-Interstate because it does not meet Interstate Standards?
There's nothing that visibly doesn't meet interstate standards, but it terminates at the Parkway, which is not open to commercial vehicles. I stand to be corrected but I believe commercial vehicles cannot be banned from interstates, so the interstate designation could not extend past NY 18. Given that, I-490 is the most logical endpoint. It also mirrors I-590/NY 590 on the other side of the city.
23 CFR 658.11(f) allows for banning of trucks/commercial traffic on interstate highways.
I-66 inside the DC Beltway has this prohibition per that regulation.
Thanks for the correction. I can't explain NY 390 then, although I wouldn't be surprised if it's related to the Parkway terminus in some way. Are there any examples of an interstate ending at a parkway (or specifically any road with no commercial vehicles allowed)?
And another thought: how is the truck ban signed/enforced on I-66, and from what point? At a quick glance I didn't see any signage, unlike NY 390 at NY 18, where the ban on commercial vehicles
is signed (https://goo.gl/maps/7tSaRsj8Ha7rAdSQ8) (and note the supplementary sign in the background too).
Quote from: webny99 on July 06, 2022, 09:53:40 PM
And another thought: how is the truck ban signed/enforced on I-66, and from what point? At a quick glance I didn't see any signage, unlike NY 390 at NY 18, where the ban on commercial vehicles is signed (https://goo.gl/maps/7tSaRsj8Ha7rAdSQ8) (and note the supplementary sign in the background too).
From I-495 NB -
https://goo.gl/maps/5EW4pYwUjeFUKEQu9
https://goo.gl/maps/sBANPo4BzRP5Wq2U9
https://goo.gl/maps/etAQAih4f44Ex1fA9
From I-495 SB -
https://goo.gl/maps/NFR7vUqFKTHkm1zR9
https://goo.gl/maps/spSXnDZ8mGbWH7cN9
(this also covers VA 267's approach) - https://goo.gl/maps/zrRzdMQPsfGnQGNU6
From I-66 EB -
https://goo.gl/maps/2bjz896A3mARNab98
can't seem to find any others on 66 EB but huge construction might be the reason why. This sole sign seems insufficient to me.
It is actually legal for trucks to use I-66 between VA 110 and US 29 immediately adjacent. The ramp from VA 110 north has this sign: https://goo.gl/maps/nmkJKNwU2ZmMcUL3A
^^^^
There used to an overhead sign on I-66 eastbound west of Cedar Lane noting the truck ban, but as you note the construction caused its removal (see below). The overhead signs on the Beltway used to say "NO TRUCKS" as well on the changeable portion, but those got removed when the HO/T system took effect inside the Beltway. VDOT has always seemed far more interested in signing the HOV restrictions than the truck restriction. The exit signs when you reach the Beltway really ought to have an "ALL TRUCKS" message on them (or at least, the second right-side ramp leading to the Inner Loop should have such a banner, as that's the last point at which large trucks are allowed).
https://goo.gl/maps/TM215i1VigrbC6q79
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 07, 2022, 10:32:09 AM
From I-66 EB -
https://goo.gl/maps/2bjz896A3mARNab98
can't seem to find any others on 66 EB but huge construction might be the reason why. This sole sign seems insufficient to me.
Certainly agreed, that is not very well signed! I wouldn't be surprised if some trucks end up on that section especially if they're not familiar with the restriction or the area.
I-55 once banned trucks on the final segment between MLK and Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. I’m guessing the city didn’t want trucks on US 41 at the time.
Now it’s been changed where trucks are allowed SB on US 41. So trucks can ride all of I-55 in IL.
https://goo.gl/maps/7rBRmE3WYsZGStFa9
Quote from: webny99 on July 07, 2022, 03:28:47 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 07, 2022, 10:32:09 AM
From I-66 EB -
https://goo.gl/maps/2bjz896A3mARNab98
can't seem to find any others on 66 EB but huge construction might be the reason why. This sole sign seems insufficient to me.
Certainly agreed, that is not very well signed! I wouldn't be surprised if some trucks end up on that section especially if they're not familiar with the restriction or the area.
Perhaps surprisingly, in my observation over almost 40 years (I-66 inside the Beltway opened in December 1982 just before Christmas), it is extremely rare to see big trucks on that section. Not unprecedented, but rare enough that they're instantly noticeable and surprising to see when you do see one.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 08, 2022, 12:17:42 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 07, 2022, 03:28:47 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 07, 2022, 10:32:09 AM
From I-66 EB -
https://goo.gl/maps/2bjz896A3mARNab98
can't seem to find any others on 66 EB but huge construction might be the reason why. This sole sign seems insufficient to me.
Certainly agreed, that is not very well signed! I wouldn't be surprised if some trucks end up on that section especially if they're not familiar with the restriction or the area.
Perhaps surprisingly, in my observation over almost 40 years (I-66 inside the Beltway opened in December 1982 just before Christmas), it is extremely rare to see big trucks on that section. Not unprecedented, but rare enough that they're instantly noticeable and surprising to see when you do see one.
Are there any practical reasons why trucks can't use that section (such as low-height bridges etc.)?
Looks like we need a thread split.