I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[theroadwayone]

Did they finish the Pennsylvania Turnpike interchange? I'm pretty late to the conversation but last I heard they were still constructing it.

It's just about done, if you're talking about the NB-EB and WB-SB connector ramps. They're supposed to open later this month.

[Beltway]

I-81E's decommissioning predates the introduction of the Location Referencing System in 1987, which is what gives every state road a four-digit SR designation. Back then, the original legislative route numbers were still in use, which often had no rhyme or reason to them. All of Pennsylvania's suffixed routes were eliminated by 1987, so it's unknown how exactly they'd handle them today, though the one exception is US 6N in Erie County, which is internally designated SR 3006.

IIRC the I-476 Mid-County Expressway was L.R. 1010, and most of the Surekill was L.R. 769, and most of I-95 in the city was L.R. 1000.  I don't recall what the other segments were.

Not route specific in their coding.  I would surmise that I-81E and I-380 had the same legislative route number.

[ipeters61]

I-81E's decommissioning predates the introduction of the Location Referencing System in 1987, which is what gives every state road a four-digit SR designation. Back then, the original legislative route numbers were still in use, which often had no rhyme or reason to them. All of Pennsylvania's suffixed routes were eliminated by 1987, so it's unknown how exactly they'd handle them today, though the one exception is US 6N in Erie County, which is internally designated SR 3006.

IIRC the I-476 Mid-County Expressway was L.R. 1010, and most of the Surekill was L.R. 769, and most of I-95 in the city was L.R. 1000.  I don't recall what the other segments were.

Not route specific in their coding.  I would surmise that I-81E and I-380 had the same legislative route number.

That's kind of like DelDOT's maintenance road numbering (used in their AADT tables).  There, I know US-13 in parts of Kent County is maintenance road 5 and parts of DE-1 somewhere are road 156.  It's odd.

[Roadsguy]

I-81E's decommissioning predates the introduction of the Location Referencing System in 1987, which is what gives every state road a four-digit SR designation. Back then, the original legislative route numbers were still in use, which often had no rhyme or reason to them. All of Pennsylvania's suffixed routes were eliminated by 1987, so it's unknown how exactly they'd handle them today, though the one exception is US 6N in Erie County, which is internally designated SR 3006.

IIRC the I-476 Mid-County Expressway was L.R. 1010, and most of the Surekill was L.R. 769, and most of I-95 in the city was L.R. 1000.  I don't recall what the other segments were.

Not route specific in their coding.  I would surmise that I-81E and I-380 had the same legislative route number.

There were few if any changes to the legislative routes. This resulted in many situations where a legislative number will turn from a major road to a minor road and some new number will take over for the major road. This depends sometimes on construction times, but sometimes has no apparent reason.

[Alps]

There was a suggestion in a Facebook post that the currently scheduled date won't be hit. Does anyone have a news story to back this up?

[theroadwayone]

What is the currently scheduled date?

[jeffandnicole]

The latest news stories don't reference a date at all. I don't think there's anything on the PA Turnpike/95 site that references a date either. In the past I think there was a single, causal mention on the website of late August, which I don't believe is posted anymore.

And from a personal observation, it's no where close to being ready.

[PHLBOS]

For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.

That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.

I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end Act 44 toll revenue diversions did not exist.

FTFY.  If I didn't do such, CPZ would've. 

[ekt8750]

For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.

That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.

I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end Act 44 toll revenue diversions did not exist.

FTFY.  If I didn't do such, CPZ would've. 

Hell they could finally fix Breezwood if Act 44 didn't exist.

[cpzilliacus]

I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end Act 44 toll revenue diversions did not exist.

FTFY.  If I didn't do such, CPZ would've. 

True! 

[jeffandnicole]

For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.

That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.

I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end Act 44 toll revenue diversions did not exist.

FTFY.  If I didn't do such, CPZ would've. 

I don't know if Act 44 truly made a difference here.

It was around 1983 when it was decided to kill the Somerset Freeway and have PennDOT and the PTC build an interchange to connect 95 to the PA Turnpike.  Act 44 was first enacted in 2007.  So that's 24 YEARS where both agencies did nothing about the interchange other than play around with a few designs.

Additionally, Act 44 was to help PennDOT with Pennsylvania's transportation needs.  The interchange is a transportation need; one that not only completes the interchange, but will reduce the traffic on existing 95 north of the interchange.  There's nothing in Act 44 that prevented PennDOT from funding, even in part, the interchange project.

In November, 2013, Act 89 was approved which dedicated the annual payment to support transit and other non-highway projects.  In reality it should've been a paper-shifting exercise; existing monies going to mass transit could've been used for highway projects.   But regardless, that  means that since 1983, 30 YEARS went by and the interchange project was finally getting started, years behind schedule.

Clearly, neither PTC or PennDOT pushed to get this project done sooner.  To say Act 44 (or 89) delayed this project ignores a few decades of other delays that 44 & 89 can't account for.

[sparker]

There was a suggestion in a Facebook post that the currently scheduled date won't be hit. Does anyone have a news story to back this up?

Question:  does this project come close to setting a record for the most delayed, procrastinated, back-burnered, interjurisdictionally footballed, under-or-mis-funded, kick-it-down-the-road enterprise ever undertaken on or near the Interstate System?   

[jeffandnicole]

To continue on the above...per https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/project-overview.aspx

1982 was when the Feds told PA they needed to build the interchange.

In 1985 PA passed Act 61, which told the PTC to build the interchange. 

So ignore Act 44 & 89.  Why didn't Act 61 push the PTC to get working sooner?  I did find something that Act 61 was repealed, but didn't see anything on a quick search that mentioned when it was appealed.

There was a suggestion in a Facebook post that the currently scheduled date won't be hit. Does anyone have a news story to back this up?

Question:  does this project come close to setting a record for the most delayed, procrastinated, back-burnered, interjurisdictionally footballed, under-or-mis-funded, kick-it-down-the-road enterprise ever undertaken on or near the Interstate System?   

Well, some portions of the system were never built at all (ie: DC, Boston), so there's that.  New Jersey hasn't had anything to do with it for 35 years.

[PHLBOS]

For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.

That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.

I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end Act 44 toll revenue diversions did not exist.

FTFY.  If I didn't do such, CPZ would've. 

I don't know if Act 44 truly made a difference here.

It was around 1983 when it was decided to kill the Somerset Freeway and have PennDOT and the PTC build an interchange to connect 95 to the PA Turnpike.  Act 44 was first enacted in 2007.  So that's 24 YEARS where both agencies did nothing about the interchange other than play around with a few designs.

Additionally, Act 44 was to help PennDOT with Pennsylvania's transportation needs.  The interchange is a transportation need; one that not only completes the interchange, but will reduce the traffic on existing 95 north of the interchange.  There's nothing in Act 44 that prevented PennDOT from funding, even in part, the interchange project.

In November, 2013, Act 89 was approved which dedicated the annual payment to support transit and other non-highway projects.  In reality it should've been a paper-shifting exercise; existing monies going to mass transit could've been used for highway projects.   But regardless, that  means that since 1983, 30 YEARS went by and the interchange project was finally getting started, years behind schedule.

Clearly, neither PTC or PennDOT pushed to get this project done sooner.  To say Act 44 (or 89) delayed this project ignores a few decades of other delays that 44 & 89 can't account for.

Jeff, I am more than well aware that this issue long predated Act 44 (& 89).  I only injected such to countermand the earlier-mentioned notion (from Roadwarrior79) that if I-95 in PA was tolled; more money would've been available to build this interchange quicker/earlier than currently scheduled.  That notion, given the history, is complete 100% bunk.

With regards to your-earlier posted comment regarding Act 61 (that was supposedly later repealed?):  Did such actually specify/involved funding to build the interchange?

Playing devil's advocate for a few seconds here: PennDOT & PTC could've used the (very lame) excuse of insufficient funding as a reason for why both of them dragged their feet on building the interchange for so long (decades).  The 1982 Federal mandate to build the interchange apparently was more of an unfunded mandate measure. 

Given that the cancellation of the original I-95 was in NJ; one question that IMHO should be asked was; why wasn't the the needed portion of the Federal money that was originally set aside to build the Somerset Freeway version of I-95 not transferred over to build the PA Turnpike/Delaware Expressway interchange? 

Aside from a couple of toll increases (prior to Act 44) and then the subsequent Act-related increases (along with Act 89); there wasn't an infusion of funding to make such happen (sooner).

[theroadwayone]

The latest news stories don't reference a date at all. I don't think there's anything on the PA Turnpike/95 site that references a date either. In the past I think there was a single, causal mention on the website of late August, which I don't believe is posted anymore.

And from a personal observation, it's no where close to being ready.

I've looked around the internet, and there's nothing concrete (pun not intended) I've been able to come up with. I've heard late 2018; don't know how that is going to work. Hope it's open before the weather turns sour.

[ekt8750]

The latest news stories don't reference a date at all. I don't think there's anything on the PA Turnpike/95 site that references a date either. In the past I think there was a single, causal mention on the website of late August, which I don't believe is posted anymore.

And from a personal observation, it's no where close to being ready.

I've looked around the internet, and there's nothing concrete (pun not intended) I've been able to come up with. I've heard late 2018; don't know how that is going to work. Hope it's open before the weather turns sour.

I actually heard a radio commercial from PennDOT today about the route number changes stating the interchange would open in September.

[TXtoNJ]

For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.

That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.

I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end Act 44 toll revenue diversions did not exist.

FTFY.  If I didn't do such, CPZ would've. 

I don't know if Act 44 truly made a difference here.

It was around 1983 when it was decided to kill the Somerset Freeway and have PennDOT and the PTC build an interchange to connect 95 to the PA Turnpike.  Act 44 was first enacted in 2007.  So that's 24 YEARS where both agencies did nothing about the interchange other than play around with a few designs.

Additionally, Act 44 was to help PennDOT with Pennsylvania's transportation needs.  The interchange is a transportation need; one that not only completes the interchange, but will reduce the traffic on existing 95 north of the interchange.  There's nothing in Act 44 that prevented PennDOT from funding, even in part, the interchange project.

In November, 2013, Act 89 was approved which dedicated the annual payment to support transit and other non-highway projects.  In reality it should've been a paper-shifting exercise; existing monies going to mass transit could've been used for highway projects.   But regardless, that  means that since 1983, 30 YEARS went by and the interchange project was finally getting started, years behind schedule.

Clearly, neither PTC or PennDOT pushed to get this project done sooner.  To say Act 44 (or 89) delayed this project ignores a few decades of other delays that 44 & 89 can't account for.

Jeff, I am more than well aware that this issue long predated Act 44 (& 89).  I only injected such to countermand the earlier-mentioned notion (from Roadwarrior79) that if I-95 in PA was tolled; more money would've been available to build this interchange quicker/earlier than currently scheduled.  That notion, given the history, is complete 100% bunk.

With regards to your-earlier posted comment regarding Act 61 (that was supposedly later repealed?):  Did such actually specify/involved funding to build the interchange?

Playing devil's advocate for a few seconds here: PennDOT & PTC could've used the (very lame) excuse of insufficient funding as a reason for why both of them dragged their feet on building the interchange for so long (decades).  The 1982 Federal mandate to build the interchange apparently was more of an unfunded mandate measure. 

Given that the cancellation of the original I-95 was in NJ; one question that IMHO should be asked was; why wasn't the the needed portion of the Federal money that was originally set aside to build the Somerset Freeway version of I-95 not transferred over to build the PA Turnpike/Delaware Expressway interchange? 

Aside from a couple of toll increases (prior to Act 44) and then the subsequent Act-related increases (along with Act 89); there wasn't an infusion of funding to make such happen (sooner).

The more pertinent question is why PA should get specific money that NJ is giving up, instead of it going to the general transportation fund? There are 48 other states that wouldn't like that idea one bit.

[jeffandnicole]

For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.

That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.

I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end Act 44 toll revenue diversions did not exist.

FTFY.  If I didn't do such, CPZ would've. 

I don't know if Act 44 truly made a difference here.

It was around 1983 when it was decided to kill the Somerset Freeway and have PennDOT and the PTC build an interchange to connect 95 to the PA Turnpike.  Act 44 was first enacted in 2007.  So that's 24 YEARS where both agencies did nothing about the interchange other than play around with a few designs.

Additionally, Act 44 was to help PennDOT with Pennsylvania's transportation needs.  The interchange is a transportation need; one that not only completes the interchange, but will reduce the traffic on existing 95 north of the interchange.  There's nothing in Act 44 that prevented PennDOT from funding, even in part, the interchange project.

In November, 2013, Act 89 was approved which dedicated the annual payment to support transit and other non-highway projects.  In reality it should've been a paper-shifting exercise; existing monies going to mass transit could've been used for highway projects.   But regardless, that  means that since 1983, 30 YEARS went by and the interchange project was finally getting started, years behind schedule.

Clearly, neither PTC or PennDOT pushed to get this project done sooner.  To say Act 44 (or 89) delayed this project ignores a few decades of other delays that 44 & 89 can't account for.

Jeff, I am more than well aware that this issue long predated Act 44 (& 89).  I only injected such to countermand the earlier-mentioned notion (from Roadwarrior79) that if I-95 in PA was tolled; more money would've been available to build this interchange quicker/earlier than currently scheduled.  That notion, given the history, is complete 100% bunk.

With regards to your-earlier posted comment regarding Act 61 (that was supposedly later repealed?):  Did such actually specify/involved funding to build the interchange?

Playing devil's advocate for a few seconds here: PennDOT & PTC could've used the (very lame) excuse of insufficient funding as a reason for why both of them dragged their feet on building the interchange for so long (decades).  The 1982 Federal mandate to build the interchange apparently was more of an unfunded mandate measure. 

Given that the cancellation of the original I-95 was in NJ; one question that IMHO should be asked was; why wasn't the the needed portion of the Federal money that was originally set aside to build the Somerset Freeway version of I-95 not transferred over to build the PA Turnpike/Delaware Expressway interchange? 

Aside from a couple of toll increases (prior to Act 44) and then the subsequent Act-related increases (along with Act 89); there wasn't an infusion of funding to make such happen (sooner).

The more pertinent question is why PA should get specific money that NJ is giving up, instead of it going to the general transportation fund? There are 48 other states that wouldn't like that idea one bit.

There was never specific money for this anyway.  The feds said they would fund the original interstate plan 90/10.  The states came up with the designs, submitted them to the feds for approval; got cost estimates, and the feds provided for 90% of that.  NJ probably got federal funding for the design and planning work they had already done, but that was it.  It's not like NJ got tens of millions of dollars for the project and used that money elsewhere.

[cpzilliacus]

To continue on the above...per https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/project-overview.aspx

1982 was when the Feds told PA they needed to build the interchange.

In 1985 PA passed Act 61, which told the PTC to build the interchange. 

So ignore Act 44 & 89.  Why didn't Act 61 push the PTC to get working sooner?  I did find something that Act 61 was repealed, but didn't see anything on a quick search that mentioned when it was appealed.

I did not and do not agree with New Jersey caving to NIMBYs in Somerset County and not building the Somerset Freeway (though IMO it should  have been the Southwest Extension of the New Jersey Turnpike).

But regardless, PTC and PennDOT still are to blame, for they should not have been able  to build the Delaware Expressway without a connection between that road (I-95) and the East-West Mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike (I-276).

[bzakharin]

I did not and do not agree with New Jersey caving to NIMBYs in Somerset County and not building the Somerset Freeway (though IMO it should  have been the Southwest Extension of the New Jersey Turnpike).

I'm sure the NJTA would have loved that idea, and maybe it would have been built, but wasn't there some requirement that newly built Interstates could not be tolled?

[cpzilliacus]

I'm sure the NJTA would have loved that idea, and maybe it would have been built, but wasn't there some requirement that newly built Interstates could not be tolled?

I think NJTA could have easily funded construction of the Somerset Freeway as a toll road, with no federal dollars needed.  And effectively, that is what NJTA did with the widening of the Turnpike between Exit 8A and just south of Exit 6, though the Delaware River Turnpike Bridge also needs to be twinned (and is presumably not happening now because PTC is so starved for cash thanks to the Act 44/Act 89 requirement to provide transit subsidy dollars to  PennDOT).

Maryland and Delaware built the JFK Highway section of I-95 with no federal dollars,  even though it was planned and built several years after the 1956 Interstate Act was signed into law by President Eisenhower.  I cannot speak for Delaware, but Maryland has never used  one cent of federal tax money to maintain or improve their part of the original Northeast Expressway/JFK Highway (Exit 67 in White Marsh to the Delaware border beyond Exit 109). 

[PHLBOS]

There was never specific money for this anyway.  The feds said they would fund the original interstate plan 90/10.  The states came up with the designs, submitted them to the feds for approval; got cost estimates, and the feds provided for 90% of that.  NJ probably got federal funding for the design and planning work they had already done, but that was it.  It's not like NJ got tens of millions of dollars for the project and used that money elsewhere.

That contradicts with what happened when other segments of I-95 were cancelled in both Boston & DC.  In MA's case; the federal money that was originally set aside to build the Southwest Expressway (I-95) and the Inner Belt (I-695) went to the MBTA instead (likely for the Orange Line relocation and the extensions of the Red Line to Alewife & Braintree that were constructed in the 1980s).  Such was the first case where federal Interstate highway dollars was diverted to mass transit projects.

The federal money originally set aside to build I-95 from College Park, MD to DC was likely diverted to WMATA (Metro) projects (CPZ and/or any other Capitol/Potomac area AARoads brethren can confirm).

Maryland and Delaware built the JFK Highway section of I-95 with no federal dollars,  even though it was planned and built several years after the 1956 Interstate Act was signed into law by President Eisenhower.  I cannot speak for Delaware, but Maryland has never used  one cent of federal tax money to maintain or improve their part of the original Northeast Expressway/JFK Highway (Exit 67 in White Marsh to the Delaware border beyond Exit 109).

IIRC, the reason why that stretch of I-95 was built as a toll road, despite it being designated as an Interstate from the get-go, was due to the need to expedite building it.  A free I-95 in DE & MD would've likely taken longer to build due to limited funding.

[sparker]

There was never specific money for this anyway.  The feds said they would fund the original interstate plan 90/10.  The states came up with the designs, submitted them to the feds for approval; got cost estimates, and the feds provided for 90% of that.  NJ probably got federal funding for the design and planning work they had already done, but that was it.  It's not like NJ got tens of millions of dollars for the project and used that money elsewhere.

That contradicts with what happened when other segments of I-95 were cancelled in both Boston & DC.  In MA's case; the federal money that was originally set aside to build the Southwest Expressway (I-95) and the Inner Belt (I-695) went to the MBTA instead (likely for the Orange Line relocation and the extensions of the Red Line to Alewife & Braintree that were constructed in the 1980s).  Such was the first case where federal Interstate highway dollars was diverted to mass transit projects.

The federal money originally set aside to build I-95 from College Park, MD to DC was likely diverted to WMATA (Metro) projects (CPZ and/or any other Capitol/Potomac area AARoads brethren can confirm).

Maryland and Delaware built the JFK Highway section of I-95 with no federal dollars,  even though it was planned and built several years after the 1956 Interstate Act was signed into law by President Eisenhower.  I cannot speak for Delaware, but Maryland has never used  one cent of federal tax money to maintain or improve their part of the original Northeast Expressway/JFK Highway (Exit 67 in White Marsh to the Delaware border beyond Exit 109).

IIRC, the reason why that stretch of I-95 was built as a toll road, despite it being designated as an Interstate from the get-go, was due to the need to expedite building it.  A free I-95 in DE & MD would've likely taken longer to build due to limited funding.

The original tolling plan for I-95 in DE and the JFK Highway portion in MD was likely considered acceptable as it was essentially a southern extension of the coastal toll continuum (much of which was signed as I-95) of the CT Tpk, the New England section of the NYT, and the NJT.  The traveling public was accustomed to toll facilities along the "Northeast Corridor"; deploying new ones even in the Interstate era was, at least in that region, simply a continuation of an already internalized practice; the fact that it enabled the corridor to be completed earlier was just icing on the cake!

[roadman]

There was a suggestion in a Facebook post that the currently scheduled date won't be hit. Does anyone have a news story to back this up?

Question:  does this project come close to setting a record for the most delayed, procrastinated, back-burnered, interjurisdictionally footballed, under-or-mis-funded, kick-it-down-the-road enterprise ever undertaken on or near the Interstate System?   

My nominee for that title is the widening of I-95 and I-93 between Wellesley (MA) and Randolph (MA) at 44 years and counting.  Initial design for that project began in 1974 (the work was a condition of the Feds allowing I-95 through Downtown Boston to be discontinued), and they're only just wrapping up construction on the final section.

[MASTERNC]

The latest news stories don't reference a date at all. I don't think there's anything on the PA Turnpike/95 site that references a date either. In the past I think there was a single, causal mention on the website of late August, which I don't believe is posted anymore.

And from a personal observation, it's no where close to being ready.

I've looked around the internet, and there's nothing concrete (pun not intended) I've been able to come up with. I've heard late 2018; don't know how that is going to work. Hope it's open before the weather turns sour.

I actually heard a radio commercial from PennDOT today about the route number changes stating the interchange would open in September.

Heard the tail end of that ad as well.