I-376 Traffic Light?

[PAHighways]

Then why do the maps show Interstate Traffic Route 676 on the BFB?

To maintain a continuity, for drivers, between the two shores of the Delaware.

How is that not what a Traffic Route does?

I didn't say it isn't, just not the one PennDOT uses internally.

[NE2]

So there's an 'internal Traffic Route', which is different from that shown on signs and maps? What's the point?

[vdeane]

That's just the way things are done in the northeast.

[CanesFan27]

OK, I don't know why my son didn't just ask me to find out for him. (Apparently he must've thought I wasn't up to the task. Tsk-tsk. You have much to learn, my son. When the student is ready, the teacher will appear. And other clichés like that there.)

For many years, when driving from southbound I-279 to eastbound I-376 (crossing "the point," just before the Fort Pitt Bridge), one encountered a handfull of signal lights (I forget how many). IOW, there wasn't a direct, freeway-to-freeway connection between the two highways in that direction.

After only 42 years, PennDOT finally corrected this configuration with a project that wrapped up in Dec 02 (I think). A direct, single-lane ramp was constructed at that time. It was part of a larger reconstuction of some deteriorated and troublesome ramps, I believe.

Jumping in late...but:

http://www.gribblenation.com/swparoads/connector/

back when i used to update pages

[NE2]

That's just the way things are done in the northeast.

I doubt this. There's the state route, 0676, which goes to I-95, and the traffic route, I-676, which goes over the bridge. There's no reason or evidence for a third "internal traffic route".

[Alps]

That's just the way things are done in the northeast.

I doubt this. There's the state route, 0676, which goes to I-95, and the traffic route, I-676, which goes over the bridge. There's no reason or evidence for a third "internal traffic route".

Huh? SR 0676 is the state route and Interstate route. Those coincide. The signed route, which people here seem to call "touring route" in general, differs from the legislated route. That's hardly unique.

[NE2]

PennDOT calls it a traffic route.

[vdeane]

That's just the way things are done in the northeast.

I doubt this. There's the state route, 0676, which goes to I-95, and the traffic route, I-676, which goes over the bridge. There's no reason or evidence for a third "internal traffic route".

The "internal traffic route" is the "state route".  NY is the same way - we have the official definitions, and then we have the signed routes, which are often different.

[empirestate]

That's just the way things are done in the northeast.

I doubt this. There's the state route, 0676, which goes to I-95, and the traffic route, I-676, which goes over the bridge. There's no reason or evidence for a third "internal traffic route".

The "internal traffic route" is the "state route".  NY is the same way - we have the official definitions, and then we have the signed routes, which are often different.

The most notable example being how NY 15 overlapped I-390 and NY 17...but also it didn't.

[vdeane]

NY 17 itself is another interesting example; it's still listed as starting at the PA border in the official logs, but if you ask region 6, they'll tell you that NY 17 is gone over the portions that are I-86, and the NY 17 signage is being phased out.

The two that come to mind most readily are NY 324 and NY 12E, since I discovered them when browsing CHM.  NY 590 might do this now too; we'll have to see if it still being listed as going to Culver in the next traffic data report (signage ends at Titus).

[empirestate]

The two that come to mind most readily are NY 324 and NY 12E, since I discovered them when browsing CHM.  NY 590 might do this now too; we'll have to see if it still being listed as going to Culver in the next traffic data report (signage ends at Titus).

You mean, NY 324's unsigned extension over the GI bridges, and NY 12E supposedly stopping short of Watertown?

[PAHighways]

The evidence can be found in the Vidlog which uses the Straight Line Diagrams and identifies Segment 014 and 015, past the Ben Franklin interchange, as both SR 0676 and I-676.  If it was considered a ramp or connector, it would just be labeled with the SR.

[NE2]

The evidence can be found in the Vidlog [...]

Which shows the SR 0291 portion of Broad Street as PA 291, not PA 611. And SR 0003 as PA 3 all the way to Broad (rather than SR 3010, which has no traffic route number in the videolog).

[PAHighways]

The evidence can be found in the Vidlog [...]

Which shows the SR 0291 portion of Broad Street as PA 291, not PA 611. And SR 0003 as PA 3 all the way to Broad (rather than SR 3010, which has no traffic route number in the videolog).

That proves that what PennDOT catalogs roads as can differ from what is posted, in a few rare cases.

[PAHighways]

Anyway, back to the topic:

Jumping in late...but:

http://www.gribblenation.com/swparoads/connector/

back when i used to update pages

Good work!  I especially like the shields.

[NE2]

I just had a look at the SLD (didn't realize they were online) and don't see any traffic routes, only one field for state route number.

[PAHighways]

Well that was quick.

[vdeane]

The two that come to mind most readily are NY 324 and NY 12E, since I discovered them when browsing CHM.  NY 590 might do this now too; we'll have to see if it still being listed as going to Culver in the next traffic data report (signage ends at Titus).

You mean, NY 324's unsigned extension over the GI bridges, and NY 12E supposedly stopping short of Watertown?

Even more than that.  For NY 324, signage indicates it follows Grand Island Blvd until the bridge, but the route officially begins a multiplex with I-190 near NY 325.  Signage has NY 12E ending at NY 12F in Paddy Hill, but it officially follows a Jefferson CR to NY 12.