I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[cl94]

One possible destination for I-80 in Pennsylvania might be State College. Although it's several miles off I-80 and it's not a large city, it is a very well known location and might fly as an I-80 destination.

What about Williamsport?  I mean, they do host the Little League World Series.

And these are why it should be signed Youngstown - Netcong. (Yes, I'm joking about Netcong, but hey, it's on there.)

Yeah. The only city of more than 10,000 that I-80 gets within spitting distance of is Hermitage, which is just across the border from Youngstown. Parsippany is the only town in Jersey I'd sign, mainly because that's where the interchanges with I-280 and I-287 are.

[roadman65]

I-80  across PA is just like I-90 in Minnesota.  They are built way off the beaten path, with one not replacing a US route.  Even though I-90 goes where US 16 once did, still no prominent cities along the way as Worthington or Albert Lea are not too noteworthy.  The only reason why the latter got signed is cause of I-35 junctioning there.

[Duke87]

Maybe PE isn't the correct specific qualification, my point is that the person in charge of building and maintaining roads needs to be someone highly qualified in that field - not some crackpot who can get elected by spouting off a bunch of totally impractical ideas that sound good to laypeople.

[SignBridge]

I think Duke87 pretty much nailed it.

[cl94]

Maybe PE isn't the correct specific qualification, my point is that the person in charge of building and maintaining roads needs to be someone highly qualified in that field - not some crackpot who can get elected by spouting off a bunch of totally impractical ideas that sound good to laypeople.

Yeah. I don't know about the top person, but Ohio has a PE in charge of almost every region. I don't know if this has anything to do with what I've seen, but the stuff I've seen built in Ohio in the past decade has been done quite well, to the most modern standards and state-maintained highways I've been on are quite well-maintained. It's as if ODOT's rise corresponded with NYSDOT's fall.

[yakra]

I-80  across PA is just like I-90 in Minnesota.  They are built way off the beaten path, with one not replacing a US route.  Even though I-90 goes where US 16 once did, still no prominent cities along the way as Worthington or Albert Lea are not too noteworthy.  The only reason why the latter got signed is cause of I-35 junctioning there.

Austin? Lousy Vikings!

[hbelkins]

Yeah. I don't know about the top person, but Ohio has a PE in charge of almost every region. I don't know if this has anything to do with what I've seen, but the stuff I've seen built in Ohio in the past decade has been done quite well, to the most modern standards and state-maintained highways I've been on are quite well-maintained. It's as if ODOT's rise corresponded with NYSDOT's fall.

The top official in each Kentucky highway district is known as the chief district engineer (sometimes called executive director) and it's a requirement that the CDE be a PE. Whether that requirement is by law or merely by internal KYTC policy, I do not know.

[jeffandnicole]

A story in the Bucks County Courier Times regarding the interchange.  Nothing really new to report compared to what we already know.  At the very end of the story the reporter mis-spoke, stating that the former I-95 will become I-395.  However, one of the images within the article shows the correct replacement route number of I-295.

[ixnay]

I don't have time to go back through 18 pages...

Did anyone else see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mqXeodFnak ?

ixnay

[jeffandnicole]

This plan ignores two major movements - I-95 North of the PA Turnpike and the PA Turnpike west of I-95 never connect into each other. 

The whole thing about the powerlines is generally overly simplified as well.  "Just move them underground" isn't as easy as it sounds.  They are high-voltage lines which generally are airborn lines.  We also don't know what's underground in this area.

He proposes using that empty strip of land between those houses.  While he makes it seem like it won't destroy any of those houses, even if that's true, these people now have a major highway in their backyards.  And he over-exaggerated the issue where the interchange is going by circling half of Pennsylvania claiming that all those houses will be destroyed...when in fact it's mostly an industrial area where few if any buildings need to be taken.

It's not a bad plan...but there's a few more flaws than what 'Google Earth' can show.

[PHLBOS]

I commented about the below on the NJ Turnpike thread (due to the BGS' location) and decided that it was worth sharing here:

There is now (at least as of last night) a Clearview BGS along the westbound NJ-PA Turnpike Connector (Future I-95 southbound).  It's a 3-mile advance notice for Exit 358 (US 13) interchange and was erected in anticipation of the upcoming AET conversion just west of the bridge.  Unfortunately, I was not able to get a photo of such.

All lettering and numerals (except the US 13) shield are in Clearview.   This BGS even looks odd by PTC standards because it seems to be smaller and uses narrower fonts compared to other PTC signage. 

[davewiecking]

I don't have time to go back through 18 pages...

ixnay

Use exit 40 off I-95 for its originally intended purpose? What a novel idea!

I have the forum display set for 50 messages per page, so it took me less time to go thru only 9 pages...and then I remembered this interchange being referenced in the "Overpowered Interchanges" thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10939.msg261267#msg261267 (see also several posts following that one).

[Alps]

This plan ignores two major movements - I-95 North of the PA Turnpike and the PA Turnpike west of I-95 never connect into each other. 

US 1 works.

[jeffandnicole]

This plan ignores two major movements - I-95 North of the PA Turnpike and the PA Turnpike west of I-95 never connect into each other. 

US 1 works.

Several options work...but the point is to have a direct interchange, not a Breezewood-style movement.

[yakra]

Several options work...but the point is to have a direct interchange, not a Breezewood-style movement.

It's a freeway, so it's about as Breezewood as making the ME I-95<->295 connection using the Route 703 connector.
It even leads to the very next interchange over on I-276, so the only ones who'd really lose out are those who'd want to enter I-95 at Exit 44; they'd still have to use US1 Bus or something.

[cpzilliacus]

This plan ignores two major movements - I-95 North of the PA Turnpike and the PA Turnpike west of I-95 never connect into each other.

Which they eventually will (maybe by the year 2100?) according to PTC plans. 

The whole thing about the powerlines is generally overly simplified as well.  "Just move them underground" isn't as easy as it sounds.  They are high-voltage lines which generally are airborn lines.  We also don't know what's underground in this area.

Power lines (even high-voltage transmission lines) can be undergrounded, but it is not cheap, and not especially easy - and utilities generally do not like them.

He proposes using that empty strip of land between those houses.  While he makes it seem like it won't destroy any of those houses, even if that's true, these people now have a major highway in their backyards.  And he over-exaggerated the issue where the interchange is going by circling half of Pennsylvania claiming that all those houses will be destroyed...when in fact it's mostly an industrial area where few if any buildings need to be taken.

It's not a bad plan...but there's a few more flaws than what 'Google Earth' can show.

He also forgets that Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 applies if any of that green space that he proposes to use is parkland.  If there is a "feasible and prudent alternative" to taking parkland (which there clearly is in this case), then that alternative is likely to be the one selected (as it was here).

And there's the matter of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a project that has any water quality impacts (I am certain that this project had to get a Section 404 permit).

[ixnay]

I don't have time to go back through 18 pages...

ixnay

I have the forum display set for 50 messages per page, so it took me less time to go thru only 9 pages....

The main reason I didn't have time to go through 18 pages was because I was coming up against my departure-for-work time.  And I don't have a job where I'm chained to a desk bion.

ixnay

[roadman65]

Will PennDOT widen I-95 from the 413 connector to this interchange if it ever gets built?  If I remember correctly it narrows to four lanes from there into NJ coming from Philly.  I would think with the extra traffic that the 95 designation would bring would warrant PennDOT to at least widen that part anyway.

[jeffandnicole]

Will PennDOT widen I-95 from the 413 connector to this interchange if it ever gets built?  If I remember correctly it narrows to four lanes from there into NJ coming from Philly.  I would think with the extra traffic that the 95 designation would bring would warrant PennDOT to at least widen that part anyway.

At first, the maps didn't show any widening...2 lanes per direction on the mainline, then a 1 lane ramp that expanded to 2 lanes.  More recently though, I thought I saw something that showed I-95 will be 3 lanes each direction from 413 to the PA Turnpike.  Hopefully that will occur.

[qguy]

In the video he says, "I've figured out a way to make this work without destroying a single home." A way that fifteen years of Community Advisory Committee meetings (that I participated in and can vouch for their thoroughness) somehow overlooked? But he (miracle!) has found it? Oh please...

His solution (including about ten variations on the that theme) actually were identified, studied in minute detail, analyzed from every angle, and eventually eliminated for various reasons.

He also forgets that Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 applies if any of that green space that he proposes to use is parkland.  If there is a "feasible and prudent alternative" to taking parkland (which there clearly is in this case), then that alternative is likely to be the one selected (as it was here).

The Section 4(f) issue turned out to be the biggest reason why his solution (and variations of it) were eventually dismissed from consideration. It also turns out that no matter how it was worked, it still required the taking of homes. The selected alternative in reality takes surprisingly few homes or businesses.

This guy should really talk to someone who participated in the design process (most of them not engineers, as it turns out) before he trumpets his supposed better solution. As one who was there (before I worked for PennDOT), I'm completely satisfied that the selected alternative is the best that could be achieved, given the constraints present (cost, regulatory issues like Section 4(f), minimizing residential and commercial displacements, etc.). Or at least the "least bad."

[ixnay]

Go to YT and type "I-95 : I-276 Interchange" in the search engine to bring up this vid.  Then tell Webeo what you think, folks.

ixnay

[jeffandnicole]

In the video he says, "I've figured out a way to make this work without destroying a single home." A way that fifteen years of Community Advisory Committee meetings (that I participated in and can vouch for their thoroughness) somehow overlooked? But he (miracle!) has found it? Oh please...

His solution (including about ten variations on the that theme) actually were identified, studied in minute detail, analyzed from every angle, and eventually eliminated for various reasons.

He also forgets that Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 applies if any of that green space that he proposes to use is parkland.  If there is a "feasible and prudent alternative" to taking parkland (which there clearly is in this case), then that alternative is likely to be the one selected (as it was here).

The Section 4(f) issue turned out to be the biggest reason why his solution (and variations of it) were eventually dismissed from consideration. It also turns out that no matter how it was worked, it still required the taking of homes. The selected alternative in reality takes surprisingly few homes or businesses.

This guy should really talk to someone who participated in the design process (most of them not engineers, as it turns out) before he trumpets his supposed better solution. As one who was there (before I worked for PennDOT), I'm completely satisfied that the selected alternative is the best that could be achieved, given the constraints present (cost, regulatory issues like Section 4(f), minimizing residential and commercial displacements, etc.). Or at least the "least bad."

People like him typically look at something for about 10 minutes, draws up the 'preferred' route, and uses an extremely jittery computer display to explain why his route is the best.

At least he managed to draw ramps with realistic curvatures, rather than extremely tight ramps that could barely support 5 mph in real life. 

For most projects, there are numerous - even dozens - of possibilities that are eliminated for one reason or another...many that someone without any information about what's in or near the property area wouldn't have a clue why they are eliminated.

Rarely is the preferred alternative the absolute best alternative.  In most cases, property will still have to be taken.  But sometimes that's for the best.  A few people may have their house bought out, but that may be better than 15 homeowners having a 4 lane highway in their backyards. 

To use the 295/76/42 interchange near me as an example: The best alternative, a 70 mph design speed highway, would have knocked out well over 100 homes and businesses.  Clearly the goals of a new interchange could be accomplished without such destruction.  Another design - decking 295 South over 295 North, would eliminate fewer homes than the final alternative that was chosen, but the visual and sound impacts would have impacted many more people.  295 being tunneled under Rt. 42 would have been the best in terms of sight and sound issues, but the wetlands and environment issues in the area would've pushed the project's costs up tremendously.  In the end, even the preferred alternative has undergone some minor changes.

[cpzilliacus]

Cash toll collection on the Pennsylvania Turnpike just west of the Delaware River ended last night.  Here are some photographs from 1 January and 2 January of the old toll barrier, the new ones, and the interchange construction project on Facebook.  You do not need a Facebook account to view them.

[jeffandnicole]

Cash toll collection on the Pennsylvania Turnpike just west of the Delaware River ended last night.  Here are some photographs from 1 January and 2 January of the old toll barrier, the new ones, and the interchange construction project on Facebook.  You do not need a Facebook account to view them.

You mentioned the Billboards...I didn't like them for their "unclarity". If I didn't know this one toll plaza would be cashless already, the billboard wouldn't help in the least to tell me what's going on. 

Tollplazas...EZ Pass to the right, Cash to the left.  Never cared for it.  Faster traffic (thus, EZ Pass Traffic) should be on the left.  Not always feasible, but in the case of the mainline plaza shown, it should absolutely have been done that way.

Bridge Painting - As you mentioned, PA (both PennDOT and the PA Turnpike) are well known for their lack of bridge painting.  Most other states and agencies will tell you that's the cheapest, easiest way to maintain a life of an overpass, by simply removing the rust and repainting them when needed, which is about every 25 years or so.  And it looks more attractive as well.

[vdeane]

Tollplazas...EZ Pass to the right, Cash to the left.  Never cared for it.  Faster traffic (thus, EZ Pass Traffic) should be on the left.  Not always feasible, but in the case of the mainline plaza shown, it should absolutely have been done that way.

When there are no ORT lanes, people working in the booths have to cross up to the full length of the plaza, so they need the E-ZPass traffic to slow down so people don't get run over.  They probably want to keep consistency between all the plazas so people know where to expect the E-ZPass lanes.