Talk:Interstate 99/Archive 1

Archive 1

See

For next editor, please see http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2008/11/13/i99_lanes_to_open_before_holid.aspx for information on I-99 now complete between I-80 and I-70/76 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.111.163.179 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Exit List

I added the new exits to the exit list, but I am still lacking the township information and the exact mile markers of the exits. Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.57.55 (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This text is in part from [1]. Do you have permission from that site to post (or do you own that site)?

-- Please clarify. dml

Rewrote section to avoid copyrights. -- Gregory Pietsch

-- Thanks for the rewrite. dml

Interstate Standards

I-80 exit 161 says "I-99 South" not "to I-99 South", so I would think that it does not end before the I-80 interchange even if the road is not up to interstate standards Chris_S 06:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we really say it ends at I - 80? I have picture proof that it ends before the I -80 interchange, about a quarter mile prior at Musser Lane. It really ends at PA 26, and PA 26 continues to the I - 80 interchange along with US 220 (which follows East I - 80). The West I - 80 junction is solely with PA 26. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.197.133 (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Will this freeway ever have interstate-standard interchanges with I-70/76 and I-80? Will it ever be extended down to I-68 and I-90 to rochester, NY? Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 16:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV??

What was wrong with my re-edit? I redited to remove the only part that was POV (stating which 'suitable' 3di's were available), and replaced it with statements based on facts about the Interstate Highway numbering system. I don't see what the issue was with the way I wrote it. Please advise. - EmiOfBrie 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It was even more POV than what it replaced. The fact that suitable 3-digit numbers were available is easily verifiable, but the unreferenced and unattributed statement about future plans is not. Dhaluza 01:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I was refferring to the future routings (south to MD and north to NY) that were previously stated in the article. A routing of that length would make a 3di unsuitable. - EmiOfBrie 07:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Then find a suitable reference that says that and cite it. Dhaluza 09:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the "unsuitability" of a 3DI for that length needs a cite too. --NE2 10:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've recast the whole thing, summarizing the arguments in a single sentence, and outlining the different proposals with extensive citations. This avoids the issue of OR and NPOV in the article, by only reporting what other people are saying, without making any judgments. If the reader wants to dig deeper to judge suitability or whatever, they can follow the links. Hopefully this covers the issue and puts this to bed. Dhaluza 01:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks!  :) -- EmiOfBrie 17:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources. We can't just report on what random roadgeeks say it should be called. --NE2 17:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Find some that FHWA, PennDOT, or some government or news source provide, but never roadgeek sites like AARoads or Pahighways. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 21:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)