I-99: What would you number it?

[empirestate]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[Quillz]

I'd renumber I-99 to I-980.

[Takumi]

I-366 

In all seriousness, I-99 doesn't bother me much. I'd rather just leave it alone, personally.

[Ian]

In all seriousness, I-99 doesn't bother me much. I'd rather just leave it alone, personally.

I agree with you 110%.

[Henry]

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...)

[Beltway]

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.

[empirestate]

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?

[Beltway]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[empirestate]

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.

[empirestate]

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!

[vdeane]

I don't think retaining NY 590 would prevent another I-590 from happening.  Look at NY 190 and NY 290.

[Beltway]

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.

[surferdude]

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!!!!!!!

[goobnav]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

[bluecountry]

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.

[PHLBOS]

First, why the heck was it give I-99 in to begin?

The answer in 2 words: Bud Shuster.

[roadman]

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."

[Molandfreak]

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.

[hotdogPi]

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.

[Molandfreak]

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.

[NE2]

holy crap I-476

[kkt]

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.