Interesting thought on I-99
Dan Maloney
at FSU for about 4 years). Since my parents were both from
Rochester, NY, every six months or so we would make a horrendous
9-hour trip through the Appalachians to visit my grandparents and assorted
other family members and friends. We would take then US 48 to Cumberland,
go north on US 220 to Williamsport, US 15 to Painted Post, and I-390 to
Rochester. I LOATHED the trip. Keep in mind I was a kid at the time, still
in the "Are we there yet?" stage. The completed portion of I-99 at the time
only went from Bedford to about 20 miles south of "Altoona-fish" as my dad
called
it. Thankfully we eventually moved to Albany, NY, right on the blessed
Thruway
(so what if you have to pay to drive on it?).
My question is: Had my family stayed in Western Maryland, is it possible
that we
would be the only people in the ENTIRE COUNTRY to benefit from a completed
I-99
(other than Bud Shuster, of course:)? Yes, this is a challenge!:)
Dan Maloney
Buffalo, NY
Ohio Roads Fan
>ADDED NOTE TO ALL 99 HATERS: If you don't like I-99, then do something
about
>it other than insult Bud. Anyone try writing to him yet?
I don't like I-99, but I also haven't insulted Mr. Shuster. However, I
don't see that any good would come of writing him. The only way I-99 could
vanish would be if the law specifying it is repealed. What else was in that
bill designating I-99?
Ohio Roads Fan
Dr. SPUI
--
Daniel Moraseski
in Orlando, FL
originally from Manalapan, NJ (near US 9 and NJ 33)
"We are Shuster of Borg. Numbering rules are irrelevant."
Dan Maloney wrote in message <6ra7f5$jm...@darius.pce.net>...
Mr Yamamoto
wrote:
>When I was younger, I lived in Frostburg, MD (my dad worked
>at FSU for about 4 years). Since my parents were both from
>Rochester, NY, every six months or so we would make a horrendous
>9-hour trip through the Appalachians to visit my grandparents and assorted
>other family members and friends. We would take then US 48 to Cumberland,
>go north on US 220 to Williamsport, US 15 to Painted Post, and I-390 to
>Rochester. I LOATHED the trip. Keep in mind I was a kid at the time, still
>in the "Are we there yet?" stage. The completed portion of I-99 at the time
>only went from Bedford to about 20 miles south of "Altoona-fish" as my dad
>called
>it. Thankfully we eventually moved to Albany, NY, right on the blessed
>Thruway
>(so what if you have to pay to drive on it?).
>
>My question is: Had my family stayed in Western Maryland, is it possible
>that we
>would be the only people in the ENTIRE COUNTRY to benefit from a completed
>I-99
>(other than Bud Shuster, of course:)? Yes, this is a challenge!:)
>
>Dan Maloney
>Buffalo, NY
>
>
>
No. I still live here. I could use a full "interstate 99"(w a
different number....). So could a lot of truckers currently using
US 220 from Tyrone Shoelaces to Bald Eagle.
Mr Yamamoto of Hollywood
Ben Holmberg
legitimate number like I-776? I agree the number is out of place and should be
used for a road along the Atlantic Ocean, but what else do you object to? Yes,
it has a low amount of traffic. So do many other freeways that are nonetheless
important. Examples: I-390 in NY, I-180 in PA, or what about some of the
interstates in Wyoming and Montana.
Besides, the US-220 freeway fills in a gap in the interstate highway system
(It becomes apparent if you look at a map of the East Coast). And it serves
Altoona, which--although it is not a huge city--was a very large city for not
being accessable via a divided road. Also, the former US-220--I have heard--was
rather busy for a two-lane road, it had a lot of traffic lights, and it forced
you to go through places like Altoona and Tyrone. Now, it is a high quality
freeway that can encourage traffic that would have gone through other two-lane
corridors.
NFARS
>system
>(It becomes apparent if you look at a map of the East Coast). And it serves
>Altoona, which--although it is not a huge city--was a very large city for not
>being accessable via a divided road.
It was four lane freeway in 1995-6, and it wasn't Interstate 99.
>Would you still hate "I-99" if it had a more
>legitimate number like I-776?
Probably not--I really don't object to long 3dis, personally.
My name is Chris Sampang, but please, call me Calvin.
CrapNews: http://crapnews.cjb.net
The Yitbox: http://geosucks.cjb.net
"Is there a God?"
"I don't know."
"Well, someone's out there to get me..."
Bill Cohen
a more
>legitimate number like I-776? I agree the number is out of place and
should be
>used for a road along the Atlantic Ocean, but what else do you object to?
Yes,
>it has a low amount of traffic. So do many other freeways that are
nonetheless
>important. Examples: I-390 in NY, I-180 in PA, or what about some of
the
>interstates in Wyoming and Montana.
I tend to agree with you. Keep in mind if finished as planned, it will
no less deserving of a 2-di than others which no one complains of.
IMHO it is as worthy or moreso than 4,12,17,19,27,37, 39,43,49, 66,68,
76(Colo), 86, either of the 88's or 97.
As for the number "99" sure its out of place as its squeezed between 79
and 81, it would have to be unless you want to change each freeway number.
I would rather he used 67, but that really belongs in Indiana or maybe
Alabama.
As more and more interstates get built, there are going to be more
"violations" it is inevitable, where is the outcry about putting I-43 in
Wisconsin or I-39 in Illinois, I mean I -45 is in Texas. What about 75
and 85, after they met in
Atlanta, shouldnt 85 continue to Tampa (and later Miami) while 75 peeled
off into Montgomery.??????
Where was the complaing when I-44 was extended to Wichita Falls and
dropped below I=40,????
What about duplicating 76, 84, and 88??? and the mockery of wasting a
number on 86????
Why are 395 and 290 two seperate roads?? and why is one a spur and the
other a loop,???/
I wont even mention any of the 3 digits in the SF area.
My point, there are violations everywhere, so what???? The numbers are
there to designate the road, not the road to the number, consider it a
quirk, drive on it when you go to Altoona, and treat it like the others,
no one is demanding I-19 be renumbered I-110 nor are they demanding I-
97 be I-995 but aside from Bud, these violations are just as bad.
It is time to lighten up and move on to more important issues.
Like I-238
-
Bill in California
Overlooking the San Bernardino Freeway
NFARS
>I tend to agree with you. Keep in mind if finished as planned, it will
>no less deserving of a 2-di than others which no one complains of.
>IMHO it is as worthy or moreso than 4,12,17,19,27,37, 39,43,49, 66,68,
>76(Colo), 86, either of the 88's or 97.
Let me detail here.
I-4 is important, and it is over 100 moles long. Serves Florida.
I-12, should be I-410.
I-17 and I-19 can be consiered a single interstate of sorts, although I'd like
I-19 to become US 93 instead.
I-27 is going to be extended to Denver and maybe south to Midland.
I-37 serves Corpus Christi.
I-39, well, that's a wierd case...
I-43, serves Green Bay, Milwaukee, other major WI cities on the lakeshore.
I-66, will be extended to KY and most likely to DE.
I-68, shortcut to the PA Tpk and may be extended to Washington, but unlikely.
I-76 CO? I see your point here.
I-86? Sure, make the one in ID as I-584 or something,
I-88 in IL may not be TOO important, but it provides a direct route into
Chicago from I-80.
I-88 in NY along with I-86 (NY 17) provides a great shortcut to Albany and
Boston, while bypassing NYC.
>As for the number "99" sure its out of place as its squeezed between 79
>and 81, it would have to be unless you want to change each freeway number.
> I would rather he used 67, but that really belongs in Indiana or maybe
>Alabama.
Why do we have to have Interstates everywhere?
>As more and more interstates get built, there are going to be more
>"violations" it is inevitable, where is the outcry about putting I-43 in
>Wisconsin or I-39 in Illinois, I mean I -45 is in Texas. What about 75
>and 85, after they met in
>Atlanta, shouldnt 85 continue to Tampa (and later Miami) while 75 peeled
>off into Montgomery.??????
I-43 and I-39 are not violations.
I-45 should be extended, obviously...
I-75/85? Would create a case of the annoying "route bumping" that is
inconvienient, worsened by a bad interchange (I-74/80).
>Where was the complaing when I-44 was extended to Wichita Falls and
>dropped below I=40,????
I agree with you here. It should be part of an I-33, but "no, renumbering is
bad for this newsgroups, trucks should be discussed here".
>What about duplicating 76, 84, and 88??? and the mockery of wasting a
>number on 86????
Duplication isn't terrible, as long as there is a long enough seperation
between the two routes. I-86 in ID is a waste.
>Why are 395 and 290 two seperate roads?? and why is one a spur and the
>other a loop,???/
I-395 is more recent that I-290, mind you, and MA decided not to change the
number.
I-395 IS A SPUR off I-95, I-290 is a loop off I-90.
>
>I wont even mention any of the 3 digits in the SF area.
What is wrong with:
I-280 (Incomplete, like I-495)
I-780 (Spur off I-680)
I-580 (techincally a rule follower)
I-380 (spur off I-280)
I-680 (part of a proposed I-280/680 beltway)
I-980 (spur off I-580)
I-880 (starts and ends at an interstate)
>
>My point, there are violations everywhere, so what????
But the entire route shouldn't be a violation.
>no one is demanding I-19 be renumbered I-110 nor are they demanding I-
>97 be I-995
We'd like I-97 to be I-995, and I-19 to be an I-17 extension.
> but aside from Bud, these violations are just as bad.
I-99 ENTIRELY violates the system, whereas I-97 and I-19 do not (sans length).
>Like I-238
So you complain about this one, yet we can't complain about I-99, I-82, I-86 in
ID, I-97, I-19, etc. Selective thinking.
Christopher R. Cuomo
>
> It is time to lighten up and move on to more important issues.
>
> Like I-238
>
Amen. I'm almost at the point where I'm willing to donate $99 to
Shuster's re-election campaign fund on behalf of "everyone at m.t.r."
even though I don't live in his district. :) The signs are up, the
number is staying. If it had been I-67, people would still be
complaining.
Bill Cohen
>I-4 is important, and it is over 100 moles long. Serves Florida.
>
797 would also work, My point is they should be both held to the same
standard.
>I-12, should be I-410
agreed.
>
>I-17 and I-19 can be consiered a single interstate of sorts, although
I'd like
>I-19 to become US 93 instead.
>
agreed
>I-27 is going to be extended to Denver and maybe south to Midland.
It may or it may not if it doenst it is in the same category as 99
>I-37 serves Corpus Christi.
again same category
>I-39, well, that's a wierd case...
>I-43, serves Green Bay, Milwaukee, other major WI cities on the
lakeshore.
Many 3 dis serve major cities, IMHO the fact Milwaukee is larger than
Altoona or State College shouldnt change the numbering
>I-66, will be extended to KY and most likely to DE.
See my comments on 27
>I-68, shortcut to the PA Tpk and may be extended to Washington, but
unlikely.
It is a local road and served as a US for years, again I am not saying it
doesnt deserve to be an interstate, but it is no more or less deserving
than 99
>I-76 CO? I see your point here.
>
>I-86? Sure, make the one in ID as I-584 or something,
>I-88 in IL may not be TOO important, but it provides a direct route
into
>Chicago from I-80.
this is the road that shouldve been 86 if they hadnt wasted the number in
Idaho
>I-88 in NY along with I-86 (NY 17) provides a great shortcut to Albany
and
>Boston, while bypassing NYC.
>
Sure it provides a shortcut, so does 99 if you are traveling from NY to
WV
I dont suggest we pull any of the signs down, all I was doing was
commenting on their are plenty of other less than perfect interstates.
As for the bay Area, that is a specific I-238 comment, not a general
comment on the x80's
Robert V. Droz
NFARS wrote:
> I-4 is important, and it is over 100 moles long. Serves Florida.
>
aka Walt Disney World, with a lot of traffic to Daytona International Speedway and
Busch Gardens in Tampa.
> I-19 to become US 93 instead.
Demote to a US route?
> I-66, will be extended to KY and most likely to DE.
Should extend to Kansas so we could kill off US 400.
> I-86? Sure, make the one in ID as I-584 or something,
Idaho was first.
> Why do we have to have Interstates everywhere?
People like the pretty signs? States can build limited access highways without
calling them interstates, even upgrade the US highways as it takes their fancy, and
if traffic warrants it.
> shouldnt 85 continue to Tampa (and later Miami) while 75 peeled
> >off into Montgomery.??????
>
But I wanted to use another I-85 on a free Florida's turnpike!
> I agree with you here. It should be part of an I-33, but "no, renumbering is
> bad for this newsgroups, trucks should be discussed here".
>
Hmm, would it be renumbering to take down all the I-99 signs and hang up US 220's?
> Duplication isn't terrible, as long as there is a long enough seperation
> between the two routes. I-86 in ID is a waste.
I like french fries.
> >I wont even mention any of the 3 digits in the SF area.
Not even US 101? :)
> >My point, there are violations everywhere, so what????
>
> But the entire route shouldn't be a violation.
Complaining is fun, and free.
> I-99 ENTIRELY violates the system, whereas I-97 and I-19 do not (sans length).
>
> >Like I-238
>
> So you complain about this one, yet we can't complain about I-99, I-82, I-86 in
> ID, I-97, I-19, etc. Selective thinking.
Everyone gets to complain, as long as there are soapboxes. Next?--
_______________________________________________________________________
Happy Motoring! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Robert V. Droz (chec...@gte.net) _____________________________________
U.S. Highways : From US 1 to (US 830) and beyond
http://home1.gte.net/checksix/UShwy.htm
Bartron
Weren't both of these previously numbers with a suffix? Like 80S and 80N? That
might explain.
I-76 in Colorado is about 180 miles long; I think that it's adequate distance
for a 2di.
I would almost suggest a second I-85 for I-99 but it won't happen. Imagine if
the western I-76 had been called I-92 or something.
>I-88 in IL may not be TOO important
I-88 is important enough I think....I've driven this road enough times; it is a
much faster way for us Wisconsinites to get to Iowa then to go 60 miles south
to I-80 and then west. For a number of years it was among the worst conditioned
road I've ever seen (and they charge 95 cents!) but I think the Interstate
designation may have helped get it fixed, as well as increase the speed limit
:D
>I-12, should be I-410.
Probably, but I-12 won't be used anywhere else so I really don't care. Same
with I-19. I-97 however is a travesty. If the atlantic coast interstate could
have used I-97, I wouldn't have complained about I-99 as much. I-97 is one that
really needs to go.
>I-37 serves Corpus Christi.
It does, and I think this number should be given to the interstate that goes to
Brownsville.
>I-39, well, that's a wierd case...
Yep. I live on the segment of I-90 between the two I-39's. No evidence yet of a
multiplex around here, but I think it will happen. Both are east of Texas' I-45
but it's far enough away that it shouldn't matter too much. It was initially
thought that I-43 would be I-57 remember. I think it would make more sense if
the numbers would have been slightly higher, say I-49 and I-47. I-49 in
Louisiana could have been something else. I-39-41-43 could then be have used
for the Avenue of the Saints if that becomes reality. All moot now.
My thoughts on I-99: Yes, it's long enough for a 2di. What other number could
they use though? I wonder what AAHSTO would have done.
NFARS
>
>It may or it may not if it doenst it is in the same category as 99
>
>
But see Andy Field's page, it most likely will.
>Many 3 dis serve major cities, IMHO the fact Milwaukee is larger than
>Altoona or State College shouldnt change the numbering
I still don't see why I-39 and 43 are called violators, as they have
signifigant length...
>this is the road that shouldve been 86 if they hadnt wasted the number in
>Idaho
Personally, I'd move I-80 to I-88 and make I-80 I-80S...
Dr. SPUI
corrupt toll authority over a shorter better free road.
--
Daniel Moraseski
in Orlando, FL
originally from Manalapan, NJ (near US 9 and NJ 33)
"We are Shuster of Borg. Numbering rules are irrelevant."
NFARS wrote in message <199808202350...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
NFARS
>corrupt toll authority over a shorter better free road.
>
>
Then make I-88 I-80N and sign that for Chicago, wheras I-80 signage would be
for...
Christopher R. Cuomo
>
> >I-76 CO? I see your point here.
> >I-86? Sure, make the one in ID as I-584 or something,
>
>
> Weren't both of these previously numbers with a suffix? Like 80S and 80N? That
> might explain.
>
the two times I-35 branches through twin cities. People are kidding
themselves if they think that a system that has already been scrapped
will come back so that the quirks of the Interstate system won't offend
them. I-12, I-86 in Idaho, I-88 (both of them), I-97, and yes I-99 are
all staying.
Alan Hamilton
>I-17 and I-19 can be consiered a single interstate of sorts, although I'd like
>I-19 to become US 93 instead.
I've yet to see a proposal that doesn't require a long multiplex from
Phoenix to Tucson (aside from making I-17 and I-19 into I-x10 routes).
Arizona got *rid* of AZ 93 from Nogales to Wickenburg to eliminate a
multiplex.
Realistically, the only road even remotely a candidate for a change is
AZ 85 between Buckeye and Gila Bend. ADOT is already promoting it as
a Phoenix bypass, but AZ 85 is only two lanes. Making it I-410 would
help.
US 60/93 will likely become 4 lanes limited access, but not an
interstate or controlled access, from Phoenix to Las Vegas.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@primenet.com
Jon Enslin
> I-39, well, that's a wierd case...
But at least I-39 is the connection of two interstates to preserve
numbers for the future unlike I-17 & 19 and I-44 and 64. It does serve
a legitimate purpose
>
> I-43, serves Green Bay, Milwaukee, other major WI cities on the lakeshore.
And it connects Janesville and Beloit more directly to Milwaukee as
well. I-43 is a highly travelled interstate...moreso that I-99 I would
guess.
Jon
--
Jon Enslin
ens...@uwwvax.uww.edu
NFARS
>numbers for the future unlike I-17 & 19 and I-44 and 64. It does serve
>a legitimate purpose
More importantly, it serves the same US highway on its corridor.
Has US 51 been decomissioned yet north of the I-39/55 interchange?
Or does the "long multiplex" (includes the original US route violation of US 51
being on the NW tollway without a TOLL qualifier and a free alternate) still
exist?
>And it connects Janesville and Beloit more directly to Milwaukee as
>well. I-43 is a highly travelled interstate...moreso that I-99 I would
>guess.
Agreed.
Jon Enslin
>
> >But at least I-39 is the connection of two interstates to preserve
> >numbers for the future unlike I-17 & 19 and I-44 and 64. It does serve
> >a legitimate purpose
>
> More importantly, it serves the same US highway on its corridor.
>
> Has US 51 been decomissioned yet north of the I-39/55 interchange?
>
> Or does the "long multiplex" (includes the original US route violation of US 51
> being on the NW tollway without a TOLL qualifier and a free alternate) still
> exist?
US-51 is multiplexed the entire length of the southern I-39. In
Rockford it heads into the city, crosses the state line, goes through
Beloit and Janesville and catches I-90 around Albion. It multiplexes
with the I-90 to just east of Stoughton where it heads north (actually
west) into the city then north to Madison. North of Madison it
intersects with I-90/94/(39). It then heads north toward Portage.
North of Portage it multiplexes with I-39 all the way to I-39's end at
Wausau.
If I were a betting man, my guess would be that US-51 is decommisioned
after I-39 gets to and through Wausau. The stretch from Beloit to
Portage becomes WI-51 and the stretch from Wausau north becomes WI-251.
Robert V. Droz
Bill Cohen wrote:
> >I-4 is important, and it is over 100 moles long. Serves Florida.
> >
> It is about the same distance as State College to Cumberland 775 or
> 797 would also work, My point is they should be both held to the same
> standard.
>
The standard convention holds, I-4 is under I-10, and I-99 is east of I-95,
if you go far enough east, like past China.
Bartron
>> >numbers for the future
Not for long. I-39 is now marked in Madison on WI-30, I-94, and US 12/18
(Beltline). Methinks the multiplex is imminent.
>If I were a betting man, my guess would be that US-51 is decommisioned
>after I-39 gets to and through Wausau. The stretch from Beloit to
>Portage becomes WI-51 and the stretch from Wausau north becomes WI-251.
I don't know if US 51 will be decommissioned; it exists for quite a long
stretch in it's own right north of Tomahawk. I think I would move it back to
it's own alignment. It's surprising how many people in Janesville use US 51
north and south of here. I think it was silly to move the US 51 designation off
of it's old alignment to begin with.