AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northeast => Topic started by: Alex on March 07, 2009, 07:01:05 PM

Title: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alex on March 07, 2009, 07:01:05 PM
Has anyone seen a map that shows Interstate 178 in Allentown besides the New Jersey page of the Rand McNally atlases in the 1960s?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PAHighways on March 07, 2009, 11:16:14 PM
PennDOT/PennDOH maps never showed the alignment, even the mid-1960s editions where they showed all future alignments.  However, it did have an exit list in the margins, but of course it was blank.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PAHighways on May 08, 2009, 12:56:10 AM
My apologies for my responses to Alex's questions being too dull.

Since I didn't see them listed, I guess 95 and 99 would stay put.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alex on September 24, 2009, 12:02:57 AM
Express E-ZPass coming to I-80, I-78 bridges

Associated Press • September 23, 2009

PHILLIPSBURG, N.J. — Express E-ZPass lanes will be constructed on the I-80 and I-78 bridges over the Delaware River.

E-ZPass motorists can pay tolls at higher speeds on their way to Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains and Lehigh Valley.

The I-80 bridge carried an average of 53,900 vehicles per day last year. There were an average of 56,100 vehicles a day last year on the I-78 span.

Western New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania are among the fastest-growing areas in the region. Traffic at the toll plazas can come to a standstill in the summer.

The express lanes are expected to be in place by Memorial Day next year.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PAHighways on January 24, 2010, 05:59:50 PM
PennDOT Reduces Number of Deteriorating Bridges (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/westmoreland/s_663720.html)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on January 24, 2010, 09:05:35 PM
What's not mentioned is that it was done largely on the backs of Turnpike users, with some stimulus money thrown in...(the stimulus money was mentioned...PTC's "rent payments" weren't)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PAHighways on June 28, 2010, 05:43:41 PM
DRJTBC Awards Construction Contract for Delaware Water Gap Toll Bridge ORT Project (http://www.drjtbc.org/default.aspx?pageid=1884)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 29, 2010, 11:40:58 AM
DRJTBC Awards Construction Contract for Delaware Water Gap Toll Bridge ORT Project (http://www.drjtbc.org/default.aspx?pageid=1884)

Yay, more tolls with EZ Pass - Its nice to see the work the guy I am working with in action. For anyone who's curious, I am working on a dedicated plaque at the Portland-Columbia Pedestrian Bridge in honor of its 50+ year bridge tender (during the covered bridge era). Plans are in the works with the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission.
Title: 1963 article on the removal of U.S. 122
Post by: Alex on July 15, 2010, 04:57:55 PM
Found this on Google's Timeline, it indicates that signage for U.S. 122 was taken down on May 13, 1963:

"State Plans to Start Removal of Route 122 Signs (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=MhcrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6pwFAAAAIBAJ&dq=interstate%20180%20reading&pg=4789%2C5166038)"

Quote
Winkler listed several reasons for the changes. He said one reason is that traffic numbers can be assigned to the interchanges of Interstate 180 from Morgantown to Reading. Another is that the state desires to eliminate dual signing of nunbered routes and to consolidate traffic routes.

In addition, Winkler said, the state desires to eliminate any U.S. numbered routes that lie wholly within the state and are under 300 miles in length. This elimination is in line with federal policy, and the federal government granted the state permission to make the changes, he added.

Two sign crews consisting of 12 men will make the changes.


Title: Re: 1963 article on the removal of U.S. 122
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 15, 2010, 05:06:39 PM
alas, no picture.  but hey, cash when I need it!  :-D
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on September 14, 2010, 10:13:02 PM
US 15 / I-99 Steam Valley upgrade is complete...
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Michael in Philly on September 18, 2010, 10:53:23 PM
US 15 / I-99 Steam Valley upgrade is complete...

I don't know where Steam Valley is.  But does this mean that 99 is now signed north of Williamsport?  If so, must check it out some time....
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on September 18, 2010, 11:08:34 PM
Steam Valley is north of Williamsport.  I don't think it means I-99 is signed.  Just that one of the checklist items preventing PennDOT from signing it is done.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PAHighways on September 18, 2010, 11:22:28 PM
US 15 / I-99 Steam Valley upgrade is complete...

I don't know where Steam Valley is.  But does this mean that 99 is now signed north of Williamsport?  If so, must check it out some time....

It's basically where PA 184 and US 15 intersect (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Steam+Valley,+PA&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Steam+Valley,+Lycoming,+Pennsylvania&z=14) in Lycoming County and no, it is not signed as I-99.

I was just on a piece of US 15 in Tioga County a few weeks back, and the assemblies just have US 15 shields.  There are no spaces for an I-99 shield as there were on the US 220 and US 322 assemblies in Centre County before it was extended to Musser Lane.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: LeftyJR on September 19, 2010, 07:23:23 AM
US 15 / I-99 Steam Valley upgrade is complete...

I don't know where Steam Valley is.  But does this mean that 99 is now signed north of Williamsport?  If so, must check it out some time....

It's basically where PA 184 and US 15 intersect (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Steam+Valley,+PA&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Steam+Valley,+Lycoming,+Pennsylvania&z=14) in Lycoming County and no, it is not signed as I-99.

I was just on a piece of US 15 in Tioga County a few weeks back, and the assemblies just have US 15 shields.  There are no spaces for an I-99 shield as there were on the US 220 and US 322 assemblies in Centre County before it was extended to Musser Lane.

Are they still holding out hope of finishing the three short "missing links" first?  Who knows...

- Fixed quote. -- rmf67
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on January 23, 2012, 07:05:53 PM
From Jeff Kitsko:

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/warrior/mc-road-warrior-roundabouts-20120122,0,7159622.column
PennDOT turns to roundabouts on Route 222 in Berks

... This will make me all the more anxious to avoid ever following US 222. The road really needs to be four lanes divided continuously from Reading to Allentown, instead of in pieces with 2-lane road between. There's no way a roundabout will improve traffic because it's already so miserable, and with a high percentage of trucks. At least PA 73 wasn't chosen, but I fear this will lock down the other two intersections. When volumes are above a certain level, you're supposed to go to signals and not roundabouts.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on May 28, 2012, 05:29:56 PM
I am anxious to know if anyone ever clinched US 6 in Pennsylvania?  I have only been on it between the Delaware River and Clark's Summit before the freeway was constructed between Carbondale and Scranton, so it was the current Business US 6 I have been on there.  Anyway, always thought that someday I would clinch the rest of the route in PA.  My dad told me that in the pre I-80 days he drove it to get to Ohio and said it was a good road to use then.

He especially bragged about some straight sections of highway with long hills in where you see where you are going to be in five minuets and when you get there you see in the rear view where you just were type of thing.  I encountered that on GA 17 from Wrens to I-20 in Georgia where you have a long dip down and another returning upward lasting well over a couple of miles, so I know what he meant.

We do not have many threads where people talk too much about roads clinched lately except when someone here needs traveling advice and want to know if he is choosing the right road to take for convenience. I was just curious to know if anyone has ended up driving all of US 6 as whole or in sections that added up withing the Keystone State.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on May 29, 2012, 08:26:17 PM
I am anxious to know if anyone ever clinched US 6 in Pennsylvania?  I have only been on it between the Delaware River and Clark's Summit before the freeway was constructed between Carbondale and Scranton, so it was the current Business US 6 I have been on there.  Anyway, always thought that someday I would clinch the rest of the route in PA.  My dad told me that in the pre I-80 days he drove it to get to Ohio and said it was a good road to use then.

He especially bragged about some straight sections of highway with long hills in where you see where you are going to be in five minuets and when you get there you see in the rear view where you just were type of thing.  I encountered that on GA 17 from Wrens to I-20 in Georgia where you have a long dip down and another returning upward lasting well over a couple of miles, so I know what he meant.

We do not have many threads where people talk too much about roads clinched lately except when someone here needs traveling advice and want to know if he is choosing the right road to take for convenience. I was just curious to know if anyone has ended up driving all of US 6 as whole or in sections that added up withing the Keystone State.
I've been on all of US 6. It's fucking dreadful. Never again. I don't know that there's anywhere you can see 5 minutes forward/back. You can on US 30, the other dreadfully slow road in PA. I'm never heading west anywhere between I-80 and I-86 again.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on May 30, 2012, 08:13:56 AM
By contrast, I find US 6 delightful across PA, and I've done many sections of it, though not quite the whole thing, probably.

There used to be a website, Discovering the 6, about clinching the highway nationwide, but I think it's gone now.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: hbelkins on May 30, 2012, 09:25:42 AM
I've been on all of US 6. It's fucking dreadful. Never again. I don't know that there's anywhere you can see 5 minutes forward/back. You can on US 30, the other dreadfully slow road in PA. I'm never heading west anywhere between I-80 and I-86 again.

I've driven portions of US 6 in Pennsylvania. Towanda to Wellsboro is a lot like parts of central or northeastern Kentucky. From Wellsboro west to Coudersport is a neat drive with some long straight, flat stretches. I think this is the "Grand Canyon of the North" section. Port Allegany to Kane is like the portion from Towanda to Wellsboro, rolling to hilly.

In retrospect, I guess I've driven most of US 6 in Pennsylvania. I don't have anything west of Kane, and I lack the sections between Port Allegany and Coudersport, Towanda and Dickson City, and Honesdale to Milford. It's an OK road, not really a through route, but I wouldn't be as critical of it as Steve was. It's not dissimilar to a lot of roads in my neck of the woods.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: qguy on May 30, 2012, 02:23:51 PM
I grew up in Honesdale, so I'm a little biased (OK, a lot biased I guess), but I've always enjoyed the stretch from Carbondale to Honesdale to Hawley. Tons of history (the gravity railroad alignment criss-crossing the road between Carbondale and Honesdale and the D&H canal winding along parts of the road between Honesdale and Hawley, for example), rolling, twisting roadway (perhaps too twisting), many stretches of old alignment diverging and converging, great little mom-and-pop stores and cafés in town when you want to stretch the legs…
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on May 30, 2012, 06:19:31 PM

In retrospect, I guess I've driven most of US 6 in Pennsylvania. I don't have anything west of Kane, and I lack the sections between Port Allegany and Coudersport, Towanda and Dickson City, and Honesdale to Milford. It's an OK road, not really a through route, but I wouldn't be as critical of it as Steve was. It's not dissimilar to a lot of roads in my neck of the woods.
My main problem with it is that I was lucky to go 45 mph most of the time on open stretches thanks to the amount of slow cars and trucks that use the road, especially 18-wheelers who think they've discovered some wonderful secret to stay off of the relatively free-flowing I-80 and I-86. You say it's "not really a through route," I say "you will need an entire day to go 300 miles."
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on May 31, 2012, 02:11:37 PM

In retrospect, I guess I've driven most of US 6 in Pennsylvania. I don't have anything west of Kane, and I lack the sections between Port Allegany and Coudersport, Towanda and Dickson City, and Honesdale to Milford. It's an OK road, not really a through route, but I wouldn't be as critical of it as Steve was. It's not dissimilar to a lot of roads in my neck of the woods.
My main problem with it is that I was lucky to go 45 mph most of the time on open stretches thanks to the amount of slow cars and trucks that use the road, especially 18-wheelers who think they've discovered some wonderful secret to stay off of the relatively free-flowing I-80 and I-86. You say it's "not really a through route," I say "you will need an entire day to go 300 miles."

No, you definitely wouldn't use it to get across the state quickly. You'd use it to see that part of Pennsylvania. As for pre-Interstate days, I'm sure it was as good a way across as anything else, but that's relative to the fact that one didn't just cross entire states in a matter of hours then.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on May 31, 2012, 09:57:17 PM

In retrospect, I guess I've driven most of US 6 in Pennsylvania. I don't have anything west of Kane, and I lack the sections between Port Allegany and Coudersport, Towanda and Dickson City, and Honesdale to Milford. It's an OK road, not really a through route, but I wouldn't be as critical of it as Steve was. It's not dissimilar to a lot of roads in my neck of the woods.
My main problem with it is that I was lucky to go 45 mph most of the time on open stretches thanks to the amount of slow cars and trucks that use the road, especially 18-wheelers who think they've discovered some wonderful secret to stay off of the relatively free-flowing I-80 and I-86. You say it's "not really a through route," I say "you will need an entire day to go 300 miles."

No, you definitely wouldn't use it to get across the state quickly. You'd use it to see that part of Pennsylvania. As for pre-Interstate days, I'm sure it was as good a way across as anything else, but that's relative to the fact that one didn't just cross entire states in a matter of hours then.
I'd recommend any number of parallel state routes then - can't be much slower, definitely more scenic because YOU'RE IN FRONT.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on June 01, 2012, 03:10:45 PM
No, you definitely wouldn't use it to get across the state quickly. You'd use it to see that part of Pennsylvania. As for pre-Interstate days, I'm sure it was as good a way across as anything else, but that's relative to the fact that one didn't just cross entire states in a matter of hours then.
I'd recommend any number of parallel state routes then - can't be much slower, definitely more scenic because YOU'RE IN FRONT.

Not a whole lot of those to choose from, but I agree they're worth looking into for scenic purposes. In fact, I'm fond of quadrant routes because they interfere the least with the landscape, have little traffic, and are lots of fun to drive!

That said, I guess I've just had better luck with US 6...some slow traffic, sure, but at least as much of that is RV's and powder-blue Mercury Sables (geezermobiles) as big-rigs, and what truck traffic there is seems mostly of the local variety, hauling loads of gravel or milk from the crusher or dairy farm, so it eventually turns off. (Only to be replaced by a lumbering tractor...)

I'd put it this way: US 6 across PA is mostly an un-upgraded US highway (unlike most of US 22, for example), so while it doesn't move traffic as efficiently as an upgraded highway, it offers a more appealing experience of the landscape it traverses as a result. And while it's far enough from both I-80 and I-86 to attract its share of local traffic, it's close enough to them that it doesn't get much long-haul use. So given all that, I'd say conditions are about what you'd expect them to be.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PAHighways on June 01, 2012, 06:47:52 PM
As for pre-Interstate days, I'm sure it was as good a way across as anything else, but that's relative to the fact that one didn't just cross entire states in a matter of hours then.

In the pre-Turnpike days, some truckers would use it to cross the state because it didn't have the steep grades of US 22 and 30.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on June 01, 2012, 07:24:37 PM
I-80 was at one point considered to follow the US 6 corridor instead of its current combination of nothing and US 322. That would have a) resulted in NY 17's continued existence across all of NY, as opposed to the advent of I-86, and b) resulted in US 6 being a pleasant drive with only local traffic using it. Instead, US 6 is a through highway located just far enough between two Interstates that it's not adequately served by either one.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Beltway on June 01, 2012, 11:06:05 PM
I-80 was at one point considered to follow the US 6 corridor instead of its current combination of nothing and US 322. That would have a) resulted in NY 17's continued existence across all of NY, as opposed to the advent of I-86, and b) resulted in US 6 being a pleasant drive with only local traffic using it. Instead, US 6 is a through highway located just far enough between two Interstates that it's not adequately served by either one.

I-80 follows the "Keystone Shortway" route which cut about 100 miles off of the pre-existing all-turnpike route between New York City and Youngstown OH and west.

The US-6 route would have been at least 50 miles longer than the route chosen.

Segments of US-6 can be upgraded to 4-lane divided where needed.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: mightyace on June 01, 2012, 11:47:03 PM
Despite growing up in PA, I've never been on more than  about 50-60 miles of it in the state!

Of course, I-80 was complete by the time I could remember road trips and my parent's house is less than 2 miles from the I-80/US 11 interchange.

I did once, back in 2006, take the stretch from the end of freeway to a few miles east of Honesdale.  That part is typical rural, mountain 2 lane in PA.  Very scenic, not necessarily good for making time.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on June 02, 2012, 04:11:38 AM
Which segments of US 6 can be upgraded? Even where it bypasses towns, it remains a 2-lane with at-grade intersections. I don't trust PennDOT to do anything right. And I'm not complaining about I-80 where it is - I'm just stating history.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: qguy on June 02, 2012, 11:43:45 AM
…the stretch from the end of freeway to a few miles east of Honesdale.  That part is typical rural, mountain 2 lane in PA.  Very scenic, not necessarily good for making time.

That's where I grew up. From where I currently live in Philadelphia I often travel to Honesdale to visit friends. I love the stretch from Carbondale to Honesdale. Definitely scenic. Definitely not good for making time!
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on June 02, 2012, 02:42:11 PM
Here is something I ran across while surfing.  Something that many of us may find interesting.  Maybe someone else posted this someplace on this forum already, but I figure that I will do it just in case.  It refers to relief in the congestion along US 22 in Allentown.
http://www.22lv.com/
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Beltway on June 02, 2012, 08:32:10 PM
Which segments of US 6 can be upgraded? Even where it bypasses towns, it remains a 2-lane with at-grade intersections. I don't trust PennDOT to do anything right. And I'm not complaining about I-80 where it is - I'm just stating history.

Upgrade US-6 wherever may be needed.  No need to bewail the fact that I-80 did not follow that corridor.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on June 03, 2012, 12:05:55 PM
So basically, from everything said here is that it is more of a road than a highway.  Just like many roads in Vermont, where it takes a while just to drive a mile.  However, it sounds like a good scenic road, but much longer than even US 22 or US 30 is to cross the 300 plus miles.

It sounds like something I would try sometime, but only if I have an extra day.  When my dad traveled it back in his day, the PA Turnpike was the only cross state freeway then.  I-80 had no preceding US route in its path, so once you got to the end of US 46, you had to got north on the defunct US 611 to Scranton and go west on US 6 to reach Ohio. If not, you could pay the tolls on PA Turnpike (and before 1956 you had to go miles to the south to  pick it up) or use US 22.  In those days it was acceptable to reach Chicago from NYC in over two days.  Being from Florida where most two lane US routes can almost match the time of the nearby interstates compared to the North-East two lane roads.  Most FL rural roads are two 12 feet wide lanes, straight, and mostly flat surfaced, so using US 90 over I-10 across the northern part of the state would only result in a few hours more rather than a half a day longer.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on August 11, 2012, 12:29:48 PM
http://ruins.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/scranton_easton.jpg

Anyone know if this is still in Philly? Google still has it! Bristol WB at Broad

UPDATE: Yes, indeedy, very much still there, and with reflective cats'-eyes!
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on September 14, 2013, 05:28:39 AM
Another neat find: Going through my photos, a small hillside development off US 209 north of I-80, Green Mountain Rd., crosses what by all appearances is an old stone bridge.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=41.016489,-75.129833&spn=0.000847,0.001668&t=k&z=20

Thanks to Historic Aerials, I've figured out that this was actually the original US 209 Marshall's Creek crossing. Of course, early bridges crossed water at 90 degrees instead of on a slant. It curved here and then went around the back of the hotel property to the south before rejoining its current alignment. Because Green Mountain Rd. was aligned to curve onto the old bridge, this is the last trace of the original route.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: NE2 on September 14, 2013, 06:02:21 AM
Actually it was never US 209 - that was moved directly from US 209 Business to the current bypass in the 1960s. It was, however, part of PA 402 until the new bridge was built in 1930 (http://uglybridges.com/1470085).

Supposedly the stone bridge dates back only to 1910: http://bridgehunter.com/pa/monroe/457213053900020/

It appears that the original Seven Bridges Road went from Marshalls Creek (the community on US 209) to Paper Mill Road (original US 611) north of Delaware Water Gap. From south to north, the seven bridges are (all but the first over Marshall Creek):
*removed over Brodhead Creek
*1912 stone (http://uglybridges.com/1470292)
*1932 replacement (http://uglybridges.com/1470189) on Gap View Drive
*1910 stone (http://uglybridges.com/1470291) (bypassed 1930 (http://uglybridges.com/1470085))
*1990 replacement (http://uglybridges.com/1470289) on County Bridge Road
*possible old stone bridge on private driveway north from County Bridge Road
*probably removed, just north of the latter

The old alignment past the last two bridges can be seen on a 1943 topo (http://historical.mytopo.com/getImage.asp?fname=bshl43sw.jpg&state=PA) (but, strangely, neither the 1910 bridge you saw nor the one on County Bridge Road are shown).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on September 15, 2013, 01:41:00 AM
Actually it was never US 209 - that was moved directly from US 209 Business to the current bypass in the 1960s. It was, however, part of PA 402 until the new bridge was built in 1930 (http://uglybridges.com/1470085).

Supposedly the stone bridge dates back only to 1910: http://bridgehunter.com/pa/monroe/457213053900020/

It appears that the original Seven Bridges Road went from Marshalls Creek (the community on US 209) to Paper Mill Road (original US 611) north of Delaware Water Gap. From south to north, the seven bridges are (all but the first over Marshall Creek):
*removed over Brodhead Creek
*1912 stone (http://uglybridges.com/1470292)
*1932 replacement (http://uglybridges.com/1470189) on Gap View Drive
*1910 stone (http://uglybridges.com/1470291) (bypassed 1930 (http://uglybridges.com/1470085))
*1990 replacement (http://uglybridges.com/1470289) on County Bridge Road
*possible old stone bridge on private driveway north from County Bridge Road
*probably removed, just north of the latter

The old alignment past the last two bridges can be seen on a 1943 topo (http://historical.mytopo.com/getImage.asp?fname=bshl43sw.jpg&state=PA) (but, strangely, neither the 1910 bridge you saw nor the one on County Bridge Road are shown).
Yeah, as I continued captioning I figured out what I was looking at better. So now that I know the date was 1930, adding it to the file.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2013, 12:01:39 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20131011_ap_884ec8b314e04a05b1b21a369b29fb01.html

Quote
A leading Pennsylvania state senator says it's time to increase the state's maximum allowable speed limit from 65 mph to 70 mph.
 
Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati said Friday he will introduce legislation soon to allow the higher maximum speeds on interstates.

Somewhat related - is there any northeast state at this point where someone hasn't at least mentioned the idea of going to 70 mph or above?  I can't recall hearing from Delaware, but in every other state, at least one pol has at least talked about raising the 65 mph limit to 70 or 75.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on October 11, 2013, 02:26:06 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20131011_ap_884ec8b314e04a05b1b21a369b29fb01.html

Quote
A leading Pennsylvania state senator says it's time to increase the state's maximum allowable speed limit from 65 mph to 70 mph.
 
Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati said Friday he will introduce legislation soon to allow the higher maximum speeds on interstates.

Somewhat related - is there any northeast state at this point where someone hasn't at least mentioned the idea of going to 70 mph or above?  I can't recall hearing from Delaware, but in every other state, at least one pol has at least talked about raising the 65 mph limit to 70 or 75.

Assuming that Gov. Corbett is supportive of the above and is up for re-election next year; this could be used as a campaign issue.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: vdeane on October 11, 2013, 08:00:29 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20131011_ap_884ec8b314e04a05b1b21a369b29fb01.html

Quote
A leading Pennsylvania state senator says it's time to increase the state's maximum allowable speed limit from 65 mph to 70 mph.
 
Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati said Friday he will introduce legislation soon to allow the higher maximum speeds on interstates.

Somewhat related - is there any northeast state at this point where someone hasn't at least mentioned the idea of going to 70 mph or above?  I can't recall hearing from Delaware, but in every other state, at least one pol has at least talked about raising the 65 mph limit to 70 or 75.
New York, to the best of my knowledge.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Snappyjack on November 19, 2013, 12:48:56 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20131011_ap_884ec8b314e04a05b1b21a369b29fb01.html

Quote
A leading Pennsylvania state senator says it's time to increase the state's maximum allowable speed limit from 65 mph to 70 mph.
 
Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati said Friday he will introduce legislation soon to allow the higher maximum speeds on interstates.

Somewhat related - is there any northeast state at this point where someone hasn't at least mentioned the idea of going to 70 mph or above?  I can't recall hearing from Delaware, but in every other state, at least one pol has at least talked about raising the 65 mph limit to 70 or 75.
New York, to the best of my knowledge.

Actually, a bill was recently announced to raise the speed limit to 75 in New York. Here's the details: http://www.autoblog.com/2013/11/01/new-york-may-raise-maximum-speed-limit-75-mph/

I doubt it has any chance in hell of passing.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 19, 2013, 12:50:08 PM
Philly.com: Roadblock: PA House votes down transportation spending measure (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/232451171.html)

Quote
HARRISBURG - After months of debate, the state House failed to pass legislation Monday night that would have provided $2.3 billion to complete long-overdue repairs to the state's aging transportation infrastructure.

Quote
In a stunning 103-98 vote that teetered between passage and defeat until the last moment of the roll call, lawmakers shot down an amendment to fix thousands of substandard bridges, repave hundreds of miles of crumbling roads, and pump hundreds of millions into modernizing mass transit systems across the state.

Quote
To pay for the improvements, the bill would have lifted the cap on the oil-franchise tax - which could increase prices at the gas pump by roughly 27 cents a gallon. The measure also would have increased driver's-license and vehicle-registration fees beginning in 2015, and put a surcharge on speeders and others who violate traffic laws.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: vdeane on November 19, 2013, 01:02:00 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20131011_ap_884ec8b314e04a05b1b21a369b29fb01.html

Quote
A leading Pennsylvania state senator says it's time to increase the state's maximum allowable speed limit from 65 mph to 70 mph.
 
Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati said Friday he will introduce legislation soon to allow the higher maximum speeds on interstates.

Somewhat related - is there any northeast state at this point where someone hasn't at least mentioned the idea of going to 70 mph or above?  I can't recall hearing from Delaware, but in every other state, at least one pol has at least talked about raising the 65 mph limit to 70 or 75.
New York, to the best of my knowledge.

Actually, a bill was recently announced to raise the speed limit to 75 in New York. Here's the details: http://www.autoblog.com/2013/11/01/new-york-may-raise-maximum-speed-limit-75-mph/

I doubt it has any chance in hell of passing.
Said bill was proposed after I made that post.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: oscar on November 19, 2013, 01:05:38 PM
Kelly Drive, in Philly; new signs are up warning speeders that a signal ahead will change. Will be interesting to see if there is any positive effect, or as some of the comments indicate; cars already speeding will speed-up to try to beat the cycle.

My home county in Virginia tried that, on a downhill section of Wilson Blvd. where people had trouble sticking to the 30mph limit.  For whatever reason, the county gave up on that silly idea.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Snappyjack on November 19, 2013, 01:11:21 PM
I need to learn to read dates. Sorry, vdeane!
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on November 20, 2013, 10:10:38 AM
Quote
Somewhat related - is there any northeast state at this point where someone hasn't at least mentioned the idea of going to 70 mph or above?  I can't recall hearing from Delaware, but in every other state, at least one pol has at least talked about raising the 65 mph limit to 70 or 75.

Vermont.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on November 21, 2013, 08:14:26 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Camp+Hill,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.273403,-77.011242&spn=0.01444,0.027595&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.407541,11.645508&oq=camp+h&t=h&hnear=Camp+Hill,+Cumberland,+Pennsylvania&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.273376,-77.011481&panoid=prl4OHwU9fJ3shXngD4_1g&cbp=12,87.49,,0,0

I was noticing this assembly along NB I-81 that struck me odd.  It has the pull through sign for I-81 Northbound for Harrisburg instead of considering PA 581 for it.  PA 581 is actually the best route into the city itself.  In addition the control city on US 11/15 in Enola is the same where Harrisburg is located several miles to the South-East of that particular interchange better served by the Walnut Street Bridge from Wormleysburg, yet the control city for this ramp to I-81 NB is also signed "Harrisburg."

I have noticed this in many places in PA where the directional controls are not the best or direct way to the place.  In Oxford Valley at the US 1/ I-95 interchange, you have "Trenton, NJ" or "Trenton" signed via I-95 instead of US 1 as well where US 1 is the route (all freeway as well) into New Jersey's capital.  I-95 does not come near the city center or even the city limits of Trenton.  Then at I-476's northern terminus at Clarks Summit you have guide signs to Scranton signed via US 11 and not I-81. I-81 is the direct route (and all freeway) into Scranton.  Instead it has  the next SB I-81 city already signed for Wilkes- Barre where the first Scranton exit has not been reached. The first exit is actually for US 11 after it becomes a freeway where the arterial section of US 11 would be bypassed as well as some traffic lights. In actuality this one here being  sort of the opposite of this depicted in the above photo.

Does anyone in PennDOT seem to be oriented into locations of places that they sign?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on November 21, 2013, 11:38:14 PM
I was noticing this assembly along NB I-81 that struck me odd.  It has the pull through sign for I-81 Northbound for Harrisburg instead of considering PA 581 for it.

Both routes do pass through the city limits, and either may be more appropriate depending on your specific destination—evena destination close to the center of the city. If PennDOT was being consistent, they would mirror the setup they have on southbound I-81 at I-83 (http://bit.ly/1aUOSWV). There, they list I-83 South as "South Harrisburg" and I-81 South as "North Harrisburg".

As to the others, I can think of reasons that the control cities might have been signed that way, even if the result is less than logical. In the case of US 1 and I-95 in Trenton, I would have to guess that signing "Trenton" on 95 results from the tendency to prefer the Interstate route for interstate city-to-city travel, even through I-95 doesn't really serve the "city" itself, but the metro. I don't know if any now-cancelled freeway plans in NJ would have made I-95 a better choice.

At Clarks Summit, I'd imagine that "Scranton" is signed on US 11 because the first and primary exit from I-81 is to US 11 anyway. And perhaps its a side effect of needing to sign a destination for US 11 (after all, what else would sign as a control for southbound US 11) and not being able to duplicate cities between the signs.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: NE2 on November 22, 2013, 12:08:02 AM
Trenton via I-95 (specifically signed on US 1 north) is probably due to the US 1 freeway not being finished east of Oxford Valley Road until the 1980s. NJ 29 is almost freeway all the way from I-95 to downtown, so it was probably a better route in those days.

Interestingly at the PA 332 interchange most signs say Princeton but one has Trenton (and from there I-95 north to NJ 29 is the shorter way to Trenton). I can't tell which are older on the Goog. On Taylorsville Road are Clearview and older Trenton signs (at that interchange I-95 north is the clear winner).

Then once you get into NJ (and Trenton is signed off the NJ 29 exit) the control city is very inconsistent. I see signs for New York, Camden, TO US 1, and TO I-295 south. Once you get on I-95, New York doesn't appear, at least on the primary signs, at either of the two logical exits (US 1 is New Brunswick and I-195 has nothing).

Personally I'd use Princeton (with Trenton also signed at the PA 332 and Taylorsville Road interchanges), and then change signs on I-95 to have Princeton traffic get off at US 1 rather than US 206. I-95 around Trenton is a beltway and should be signed like one, with the control city of the next major radial.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 22, 2013, 01:16:44 AM
"New York" is from the days the Somerset Freeway was supposed to be completed. Before the last sign replacement a few years ago, the pull through at the beginning of I-295 South/Exit 67 used to say "SOUTH I-295 TO I-195-NORTH I-95/Bordentown/New York" with no NJTP shield.

As for PA, they were in an awkward position where I-95 wasn't finished and really couldn't use a control city north of Trenton. They likely weren't keen on using Princeton since an Interstate doesn't actually go there.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: NE2 on November 22, 2013, 01:25:15 AM
As for PA, they were in an awkward position where I-95 wasn't finished and really couldn't use a control city north of Trenton. They likely weren't keen on using Princeton since an Interstate doesn't actually go there.
But an Interstate goes to Trenton?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on November 22, 2013, 08:28:17 AM
Actually the signage at the US 1/ I-95 Interchange at Oxford Valley was erected sometime in late 90 or early 91.  They were going up prior to my move to Central Florida and the first time seeing them in place was May 90.  I had moved to Florida from New Jersey in August 1990 when just the supports were up, but no sign bridge truss.

The US 1 Freeway opened up in 1987 sometime around, and all the signs at that particular interchange read Yardley for I-95 NB and one sign in particular (it may still be there today) had New York for a control heading SB on US 1.  On I-95 itself, it did not even have a route number for US 1.  US 1 Business was actually signed as US 1 up until this project completed after I moved despite the freeway being completed to Morrisville.  Even near Neshaminy just north of the PA Turnpike on US 1, had US 1 exit at US 1 Business after the freeway completion as well.  It took them years before PennDOT corrected their mistake as well.

Anyway, the signs on I-95 for US 1 (now US 1 Business) used "Trenton" as control city as well as "Pendell" for PA 413.  The sign was actually made so that when the US 1 freeway was to eventually be completed, all they had to do was remove a panel from those exit guides.  Hence the "US 1 Trenton" was tacked on top of the sign that read "PA 413 Pendell" in the same manner "US 202 South" was tacked onto "PA 611 North Easton" on the Doyelstown Bypass before the Parkway was completed.  They actually thought ahead, but when the time came (in case of US 1 anyway) they forgot about the fact that signs needed to be updated.  VDOT does it in Virginia, especially in Fredericksburg when US 1 Alternate was decommissioned in 1972, as many signs still show US 1 Business (and US 17 Business) as US 1 (US 17) and mainline US 1 as "ALT. US 1" as far late as the 2000's.  Alps has a picture on his website of the gantry entering Fredericksburg from US 1 Southbound of the signs that were never changed.

I wrote PennDOT about it, and the representative who wrote me back (on paper back in 97) that he agreed with Trenton needed to be signed on US 1 and Princeton for I-95.  He even assured me that he submitted a work order to change the signs and was in the works at the time.  Now 16 years later the signs still have not been changed.  Obviously PennDOT is not organized as well as oriented.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on November 22, 2013, 09:20:10 AM
Interestingly at the PA 332 interchange most signs say Princeton but one has Trenton (and from there I-95 north to NJ 29 is the shorter way to Trenton). I can't tell which are older on the Goog. On Taylorsville Road are Clearview and older Trenton signs (at that interchange I-95 north is the clear winner).
Looking at that interchange signage more closely and having lived in PA for 24 years; I can tell you without a doubt that the overhead BGS' (that list Princeton & Philadelphia for I-95 North & South) are indeed newer than the smaller, post-mounted LGS' that list Trenton and Central Phila. for the two respective I-95 directions.  The taller first-letter for the cardinal directions (on the BGS') are the dead give-away.  The previous 80s-vintage BGS' (that had the Trenton/Central Phila. destinations) did not have the taller single letters.  The LGS dates back to the 80s but the accompanying shields are likely newer replacements.

The newer BGS' and gantries likely date back to either the late 90s or early 2000s when PA 332 & the overpass was completely redone/redecked.  Needless to say, those BGS' predate PennDOT's using of the Clearview font (thankfully IMHO).

"New York" is from the days the Somerset Freeway was supposed to be completed.
No doubt about that.

As for PA, they were in an awkward position where I-95 wasn't finished and really couldn't use a control city north of Trenton. They likely weren't keen on using Princeton since an Interstate doesn't actually go there.
One could argue that had the Somerset Freeway (I-95) been built; an Interstate would've indeed gone through or by there.  :)

Apparently, PennDOT had a recent change of heart and is now using Princeton for a control destination for I-95 (future I-195).  The reasoning for such is obvious; a destination near the northerly mid-section of I-95/295/future 195 loop was needed and out-of-towners are more familiar with Princeton than Ewing, the township that the highway actually goes through.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on November 22, 2013, 09:58:58 AM


Apparently, PennDOT had a recent change of heart and is now using Princeton for a control destination for I-95 (future I-195).  The reasoning for such is obvious; a destination near the northerly mid-section of I-95/295/future 195 loop was needed and out-of-towners are more familiar with Princeton than Ewing, the township that the highway actually goes through.
In New Jersey, many of the mileage signs along I-295 Northbound use "Ewing" as a final control point.

Trenton will still be used on I-95 from Philadelphia.  Most likely at the new I-95/PT Interchange it will direct motorists via I-195 even though you have three NJ exits for Trenton that will be on I-95.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: akotchi on November 22, 2013, 11:07:26 AM
Some thoughts from a current resident of this part of PA, employed in that part of NJ.

Princeton is also signed for I-295 NB on the other side of the loop from the three directions in the I-195/I-295/NJ 29 interchange.    Not sure about the LGSs on the side roads off I-295, though, as I don't go that way much.
 
The New York destination for I-95 NB also developed on the LGSs on the side roads between Route 31 and U.S. 1, presumably after the Somerset Freeway was cancelled.  I noticed this when I started working in the area in 1987.  Camden was also included, presumably for I-295 SB, which this section was until about 1993.  I think some are still around, even though the U.S. 1 interchange now says New Brunswick for NB.  I pass by them every work day, but my commute is mindless enough that I don't take note much any more.  My curiosity is now piqued for a ride at lunch . . .

The mileage signs in NJ tend to show at the bottom the municipality at the end of the route, no matter how small or well known.  Ewing was probably a remnant of when I-295 was proposed all the way around the loop (taking over I-95).

The New York destination sign Roadman was referring to is no longer there -- it now says Princeton.  They all might have been replaced when the SB weave lane was constructed between Oxford Valley Road and I-95.  Business 1 is now signed for Levittown (and Penndel), while U.S. 1 was signed for Morrisville when the I-95 signing was redone, I think in the mid-1990s.

The PA 332 interchange was reconfigured again when the EB-to-NB loop was introduced and the NB off-ramp was pushed outward.  I don't remember, though, if that was part of the bridge redecking project or not.  I thought the bridge redecking occurred first because of the left turn issues on either side of the structure.

Thanks for letting me ramble a bit.  The seemingly random nature of the guide signing in this area shows its history.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on November 22, 2013, 11:35:48 AM
The New York destination for I-95 NB also developed on the LGSs on the side roads between Route 31 and U.S. 1, presumably after the Somerset Freeway was cancelled.
Those were likely matching replacements for older LGS' that predated the cancellation of the Somerset Freeway. 

The mileage signs in NJ tend to show at the bottom the municipality at the end of the route, no matter how small or well known.  Ewing was probably a remnant of when I-295 was proposed all the way around the loop (taking over I-95).
I believe the mileage listing for Ewing may be in reference to where the I-95/Somerset Freeway interchange was originally planned to be; roughly mid-way of the loop between the Scudder Falls Bridge and just north of Bordentown (Exit 60).

Business 1 is now signed for Levittown (and Penndel), while U.S. 1 was signed for Morrisville when the I-95 signing was redone, I think in the mid-1990s.
I believe those US 1 interchange BGS' along I-95 date back to the 1980s.  As a matter of fact, most of the BGS' from Exit 40 (PA 413) to the NJ state-line that weren't recently replaced date back to the mid-to-late 80s and were erected as part of a PennDOT sign-replacement project.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on November 22, 2013, 11:40:12 AM
Glad to hear that the "New York" destination has been changed going SB on US 1 and the weave adjusted. 

NE 2 did point out that from NJ 29 to US 1 various control cities for the NB I-95 ramps, and like you said the various projects do change things a bit which is why the conflicts along this stretch.  Even Bordentown for US 1 to I-295 SB was only added later as it did use Camden earlier at that location just like "New York" was used at US 1 NB from I-295 & I-95 in Lawrence before it was changed to "New Brunswick" when "TO I-95" shields were erected to direct motorists to the other segment via I-195 instead of US 1 to I-287 as it was for decades.   One thing I will give NJDOT credit, though, as usually they do not use control cities for interstate ramps from non freeway roads, but on I-95 they do manage do have them no matter how consistent or inconsistent they may be.

As far as replacement goes on I-95 in Buck's County, it was done after I moved to FL in 90 as I was hoping to see them before I made the move and did not.  It was in late 90 that it was changed as I had to wait for my first trip back to NJ in 91 to see it.  The poles went up for the Exit 40 gantries long before I moved in August 1990, and that was typical of even NJ where new sign supports for overhead signing would be put up and than several months later the rest of the gantry would be erected.  Just like traffic signals where you will see the poles go up and stand for several months as well before the wires or mast arms are erected to wait again for the next process of placing the signal heads.  Then many weeks go by before the electrician comes by to turn it on and only to flash mode for more weeks to get the motorists used to the new installation.  Signs seem to have the same pattern, although in Florida the signs do move faster, however signals take forever to install.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on November 22, 2013, 01:30:34 PM
As far as replacement goes on I-95 in Buck's County, it was done after I moved to FL in 90 as I was hoping to see them before I made the move and did not.  It was in late 90 that it was changed as I had to wait for my first trip back to NJ in 91 to see it.  The poles went up for the Exit 40 gantries long before I moved in August 1990, and that was typical of even NJ where new sign supports for overhead signing would be put up and than several months later the rest of the gantry would be erected.  Just like traffic signals where you will see the poles go up and stand for several months as well before the wires or mast arms are erected to wait again for the next process of placing the signal heads.  Then many weeks go by before the electrician comes by to turn it on and only to flash mode for more weeks to get the motorists used to the new installation.  Signs seem to have the same pattern, although in Florida the signs do move faster, however signals take forever to install.
I moved to PA in mid-July of 1990 and the now-replaced diagrametric BGS' along I-95 North to PA 413 (current Exit 40/then Exit 26) were indeed erected back then.  A week or two prior to my move (just after the 4th of July); I was in the area apartment hunting and came back that way (heading north) and saw those first-hand those BGS' already erected.

If those BGS' were erected in 1990 (as opposed to earlier); it had to have been before July.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 22, 2013, 09:48:14 PM
Philly.com: Roadblock: PA House votes down transportation spending measure (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/232451171.html)

Quote
HARRISBURG - After months of debate, the state House failed to pass legislation Monday night that would have provided $2.3 billion to complete long-overdue repairs to the state's aging transportation infrastructure.

Quote
In a stunning 103-98 vote that teetered between passage and defeat until the last moment of the roll call, lawmakers shot down an amendment to fix thousands of substandard bridges, repave hundreds of miles of crumbling roads, and pump hundreds of millions into modernizing mass transit systems across the state.

Quote
To pay for the improvements, the bill would have lifted the cap on the oil-franchise tax - which could increase prices at the gas pump by roughly 27 cents a gallon. The measure also would have increased driver's-license and vehicle-registration fees beginning in 2015, and put a surcharge on speeders and others who violate traffic laws.

I am still looking for all the details, but apparently there was a "poison pill" provision in that it would have eliminated prevailing wage aspects for projects that were funded entirely with state money. 
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on November 22, 2013, 10:42:59 PM
As far as replacement goes on I-95 in Buck's County, it was done after I moved to FL in 90 as I was hoping to see them before I made the move and did not.  It was in late 90 that it was changed as I had to wait for my first trip back to NJ in 91 to see it.  The poles went up for the Exit 40 gantries long before I moved in August 1990, and that was typical of even NJ where new sign supports for overhead signing would be put up and than several months later the rest of the gantry would be erected.  Just like traffic signals where you will see the poles go up and stand for several months as well before the wires or mast arms are erected to wait again for the next process of placing the signal heads.  Then many weeks go by before the electrician comes by to turn it on and only to flash mode for more weeks to get the motorists used to the new installation.  Signs seem to have the same pattern, although in Florida the signs do move faster, however signals take forever to install.
I moved to PA in mid-July of 1990 and the now-replaced diagrametric BGS' along I-95 North to PA 413 (current Exit 40/then Exit 26) were indeed erected back then.  A week or two prior to my move (just after the 4th of July); I was in the area apartment hunting and came back that way (heading north) and saw those first-hand those BGS' already erected.

If those BGS' were erected in 1990 (as opposed to earlier); it had to have been before July.
Yes those diagramical signs for PA 413 were erected earlier, but the ones in Langhorne were added later.

In fact the overhead assemblies for PA 132 and the three exit mileage signs south of PA 413 were added at the same time as the diagramical signs were as well.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 23, 2013, 04:17:44 AM
Spoke to an old high school friend this evening, states that he just got a job with a firm increasing staff as to provide construction management and inspection services for the 22 to 79 section of the PTC Southern Beltway in Pittsburgh and that work is to start in June.  Interesting.

It was previously reported that the work would commence with the long bridge over 22 next year, but that plan was stopped due to funding issues.  His interview was 3 weeks ago so I cannot be certain how much was due to the new funding bill.

We shall see.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: MASTERNC on November 23, 2013, 07:57:22 PM
Spoke to an old high school friend this evening, states that he just got a job with a firm increasing staff as to provide construction management and inspection services for the 22 to 79 section of the PTC Southern Beltway in Pittsburgh and that work is to start in June.  Interesting.

It was previously reported that the work would commence with the long bridge over 22 next year, but that plan was stopped due to funding issues.  His interview was 3 weeks ago so I cannot be certain how much was due to the new funding bill.

We shall see.

From what I read, the Turnpike was allotted $86 million for the Southern Beltway.

http://www.delcotimes.com/general-news/20131122/delco-bridge-repairs-expansion-of-septa-stations-on-tap
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 23, 2013, 10:17:51 PM
According to the articles I have read thus far, the PTC is getting $86 Million PER YEAR, and i have read in a few articles now that the 22 to 79 link is supposedly now going out to bid in April, with construction starting in July.

I have not seen definite confirmation, but it looks like to $86 mil to the PTC is to return money taken via act 44.

Should I start a whole separate thread on projects that have been reported as a go sonce PA is really such a mess?

From what I have read:

Freewayization of US 322 from Milroy to Boalsburg

Reconstruction/Upgrade of Interchange Road and Kearsarge exit in Erie
Access road from I-90 to a new mutil-modal rail terminal in Erie, and connecting rail to a new east side Erie port facility

Central Susquehanna Valley Thruway, now I am confused on this one, I thought this was now to be covered 100% by ARC?

I-81 widen to 6 laned, Carlisle to PA 114

Several 6 lane widenings on I-83

Liberty and Birmingham Bridges in Pitts

Widening US 22 through Allentown

A PA 424 southern bypass expressway of Hazelton

The list should be somewhat lengthy considering the $$ involved.

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on November 24, 2013, 03:20:54 AM
I-81 widen to 6 laned, Carlisle to PA 114

Actually, its between 581 and 114. A continuous southbound lane will be added, but northbound will only be linking the 114 ramp with the 581 exit, not through the interchange.
http://cumberlink.com/news/local/penndot-plans-to-widen-portion-of-i--to-three/article_2dd279ac-daa7-11e2-8fb4-001a4bcf887a.html (http://cumberlink.com/news/local/penndot-plans-to-widen-portion-of-i--to-three/article_2dd279ac-daa7-11e2-8fb4-001a4bcf887a.html)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on November 24, 2013, 08:49:54 AM
Quote
Central Susquehanna Valley Thruway, now I am confused on this one, I thought this was now to be covered 100% by ARC?

It might be, but ARC no longer has its own dedicated stream of funding....it got rolled into each state's Surface Transportation Program (STP) allocation.

Quote
A PA 424 southern bypass expressway of Hazelton

424 already serves as a limited-access bypass of Hazelton (I was on it Tuesday).  I presume you're referring to a proposed 4-laning of it...it's currently 2 lanes.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on November 24, 2013, 11:26:57 AM

Central Susquehanna Valley Thruway, now I am confused on this one, I thought this was now to be covered 100% by ARC?

Supposedly, about $150 million of the cost will be covered by ARC money, which is somewhere between 25 and 30% of the project cost.
http://newsitem.com/news/csvt-will-produce-region-s-largest-span-1.1479675 (http://newsitem.com/news/csvt-will-produce-region-s-largest-span-1.1479675)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 24, 2013, 01:07:44 PM
Quote
Central Susquehanna Valley Thruway, now I am confused on this one, I thought this was now to be covered 100% by ARC?

It might be, but ARC no longer has its own dedicated stream of funding....it got rolled into each state's Surface Transportation Program (STP) allocation.

Quote
A PA 424 southern bypass expressway of Hazelton

424 already serves as a limited-access bypass of Hazelton (I was on it Tuesday).  I presume you're referring to a proposed 4-laning of it...it's currently 2 lanes.


The article I real stated that the money would go for an extension of 424 to I-81 and the requisite interchange.  Of course, newspapers are often incorrect.

I have finally seen a comprehensive project list, and I am surprised that:

The massive number of small bridges being rebuilt
The large quantity of what should have been routine maintinance
How expensive the 322 project is for the length and traffic volume (supposedly most expensive item on list at 3/4 of a Billion)

How much goes to Harrisburg, though that is a function of just how bad 83 is.  Conversely, hoe relatively little 70 west gets, it get a decent amount, but I would have expected more.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on November 25, 2013, 08:47:06 AM
Yes those diagramical signs for PA 413 were erected earlier, but the ones in Langhorne were added later.
Fair enough, but the Langhorne exits are Exits 44 & 46A-B (old Exits 28 & 29A-B); not Exit 40, per your earlier reference.  That's why I chimed in with the correction in my previous post.

In fact the overhead assemblies for PA 132 and the three exit mileage signs south of PA 413 were added at the same time as the diagramical signs were as well.
For the longest time, that BGS and the BGS' for PA 132 (Exit 37/old Exit 25); were the only newer style BGS' one would see along I-95 south from PA 413 (Bristol) to Center City.

For a very short period in the early 2000s (?); some newer BGS were erected along northbound I-95 for Exit 35/PA 63 (Woodhaven Road) that read EXIT 35 63 WEST TO 13 Bristol Pike Woodhaven Rd.  These BGS weren't even up for a year when they were replaced with the current diagramatic BGS' with the peeling green paint.  The BGS replacement coincided with the new Park-n-Ride facility at the adjacent SEPTA Cornwell Heights Station (for the (R7) Trenton line).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on December 31, 2013, 10:05:08 PM
I was noticing that the Google Car has not yet made it on the new US 202 Parkway as of yet.  The road has been open several months, if not more than a year, already and only one cross road in Bucks County has the road shown open with a working traffic signal.

I also noticed that at New Britan Road near Doylestown, that there is a grade separation even though it is the northern terminus of the Parkway Recreation Trail.  The GSV shows the new underpass with a freeway style "US 202" sign attached to it and it looks like days of the road's (and trail's) opening as the Trail parking area is fresh asphalt with barricades blocking its entry like it was going to be opened for business real soon.

The PA 309 interchange, is shown on PA 309's view of also just ready to open with a Jersey Barrier across the connector ramp along with the Trail parking facility ready to open in addition.

Other intersections do not even show construction of the new road.  You would figure by now Google would be there already.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on January 02, 2014, 09:36:58 AM
I was noticing that the Google Car has not yet made it on the new US 202 Parkway as of yet.  The road has been open several months, if not more than a year, already and only one cross road in Bucks County has the road shown open with a working traffic signal.
The US 202 Parkway opened just over a year ago.  The primary attraction of last year's Doylestown meet was indeed riding along the new parkway.

I know Mapquest recognizes it when one seeks directions; the latest PennDOT, AAA & Rand McNally roadmaps and atlases now show the new parkway as well.

I'm not sure whether all GPS data and/or On-Star systems recognize the parkway as of yet.  A friend of mine recently purchased a left-over 2013 Chevy Equinox equipped w/the On-Star system.  When he seeked driving directions from West Chester to Plumstead Twp. (near Doylestown) via the system; it completely ignored the parkway even though using it would've been more direct route (the difference in travel time is in single-digit minutes at least according to Mapquest).

On-Star routed him to exit the PA Turnpike at Willow Grove (PA 611) where he would remain on for many miles where he could've exited off at Fort Washington (PA 309) and follow to US 202 North and pick up PA 611 North closer to Doylestown and saved some toll money.  Pre-202 parkway, picking up 611 at Willow Grove would've been my first choice as well; but this is one case where the new road is somewhat of a game-changer.  Had the parkway been a full-blown freeway as originally planned; the other way (309/202/611) would have a full advantage in both travel time & toll money.



Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on January 02, 2014, 06:11:28 PM
What is amazing about this Parkway is the third time NIMBYism has let a worthless compromise take place.

Need I remind you this:
 
US 30 between Lancaster and Coatsville (the Amish stopped a much needed US 30 upgrade)

I-476 between SR 3 and I-95 where traffic counts warrant 6 lanes, and PennDOT had to settle  for the 4 lanes that someday will be overcapcitated.

Both cases where community opposition stopped needed roadways.  Here you have a two lane road (not even super two) with at grade intersections bypassing a similar roadway with the same conditions.  True it is direct and you do not have to zig zag along PA 611 any more, but at least four lanes they could have done it.  Freeway or arterial is better than this!
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on January 02, 2014, 06:24:53 PM
Need I remind you this:
FYI, if you're referring to me personally in your last post; this is old news to me.  You're preaching to the choir.

US 30 between Lancaster and Coatsville (the Amish stopped a much needed US 30 upgrade)
I wasn't aware of that one.

I-476 between SR 3 and I-95 where traffic counts warrant 6 lanes, and PennDOT had to settle for the 4 lanes that someday will be overcapcitated.
Someday?  The 20-year projected traffic counts for I-476 was already achieved/surpassed before the highway opening was even a year old.

Here you have a two lane road (not even super two) with at grade intersections bypassing a similar roadway with the same conditions.  True it is direct and you do not have to zig zag along PA 611 any more, but at least four lanes they could have done it.  Freeway or arterial is better than this!
I agree; however, in all fairness, the parkway will at least not have any residences nor businesses lined up along it thereby making the case for more traffic lights to be added (& increased delays).  The old US 202 corridor had tons of residential & business driveways and more traffic lights.

The least PennDOT could've done was make the parkway 4-lanes all the way through.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Duke87 on January 02, 2014, 10:04:58 PM
Even without driveways, the 202 parkway is still woefully unfit to handle the traffic volumes on it. Thanks, Rendell!
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on January 02, 2014, 10:57:29 PM
Even without driveways, the 202 parkway is still woefully unfit to handle the traffic volumes on it. Thanks, Rendell!
Is it getting backed up? I haven't heard of issues.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on January 03, 2014, 09:47:26 AM
I used it last Saturday to attend in New Year's Eve party in Plumstead Twp.  While the road wasn't fully gridlocked like I-476 is during rush hour; it does bunch up at the traffic lights and was congested due to a slow-poke driver going under the posted 40-mph speed limit for no visual reason.

Thankfully, for the way home, I had the road all to myself.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Duke87 on January 03, 2014, 05:11:53 PM
Is it getting backed up? I haven't heard of issues.

On the couple occasions I've been on it since the Doylestown meet, it has been rather pokey. Not "backed up", but still LOS D-E.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on January 03, 2014, 05:41:14 PM
I've been on this 3 times since it's opening.  Twice, it was a pleasant experience.  The third, I was stuck behind a horse truck who didn't want to go above 30...that was annoying.  That said, it is DEFINITELY an upgrade over following the old 202 through Montgomeryville, Chalfont, and New Britain.  Because there are very few access points, I think it's an OK compromise.  I get the point of some of the curves built in, as a way of reducing speeds, but I think some of the curves are a little overdone.

It seems like southbound right after the 611 ramps, the change from 4 lanes to 2 is quite abrupt and forced.  They could have extended the 4 lane at least another 1/2 mile or so IMO.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on January 05, 2014, 09:17:10 AM
PennDOT has 2012 traffic maps up for Montgomery and Bucks that show the new 202.  Looks like a range between 13K and 19K.  High-end for a 2-lane road, but not insurmountable, and as others have noted the limited-access helps.  Still not at the level of the 25K ADT slog on 222 between Reading and PA 853...
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Duke87 on January 05, 2014, 12:39:14 PM
Hmm... y'know, my perception of the road is probably more about speed than about capacity. I find it aggravating to drive because I feel like I should be doing 60 but the road is posted at 40, the locals all obey that, and there is no opportunity to pass anyone.

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on January 06, 2014, 09:13:25 PM
Hmm... y'know, my perception of the road is probably more about speed than about capacity. I find it aggravating to drive because I feel like I should be doing 60 but the road is posted at 40, the locals all obey that, and there is no opportunity to pass anyone.

Sounds like the reverse of the Bronx River Parkway...the locals all zoom down the road, while there's that one guy (often me) who actually wants to go the posted 40.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on January 13, 2014, 06:13:11 PM
Recent (as of 1/12/14) Article regarding the 202 Parkway.

Central Bucks' 202 Parkway remains controversial (http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-pa-central-bucks-202-parkway-20140112,0,2243924.story)

Excerpts:

The decades-long controversy that marked the Route 202 Parkway's design hasn't abated much in the year since the road from Montgomeryville to Doylestown opened.

From critics who find the $200 million road too narrow and choked with trucks, to supporters who hail it as a scenic traffic solution with a great trail system, the winding parkway continues to spur debate as it moves vehicles between Routes 611 and 309.

In November, Warrington officials called on the state's secretary of transportation to prohibit truck traffic on the 8½-mile parkway and eliminate the bike lane. Not likely, said PennDOT, reminding the municipality it was involved in the road's design.

"It was determined early on that the Parkway speed limit would be 40 mph, that it would be open to commercial vehicles and that five-foot wide paved shoulders on each side (of the road) would function as bicycle lanes," wrote Lester Toaso, PennDOT's District 6 executive.
...

"The Route 202 Parkway provides excellent access to and from Route 309 — except when 18-wheelers dominate travel, do not maintain the speed limit ... nor safely navigate curves," Allen McQuarrie of Doylestown Township wrote The Intelligencer newspaper in Doylestown.

"It's our favorite road to hate," quipped Mike Concordia, a Doylestown man who said he drives the road every day to work. While the road provides a quicker trip between Montgomeryville and Doylestown, Concordia criticized the speed limit, calling it "a recipe for disaster."

If you're not speeding, you'll be tailgated, said many drivers.
...

Should it have been the original four-lane expressway, envisioned for decades, or is a bucolic, mostly two-lane parkway with an 11-foot-wide multiuse trail more efficient?

John W. Jones of Solebury sees it this way: "As to the 202 Parkway, as it has been constructed, I can barely think of a road that cost more money and benefited fewer people," he wrote to The Intelligencer.

Others have called the road beautiful and applauded the broad trail where families can walk and ride bikes.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: rickmastfan67 on March 02, 2014, 05:51:01 PM
I-83 Southbound has been closed near the Maryland State Line because of a failure of deteriorating drainage pipe undermining the pavement that has caused a dip in the pavement because of a major void under both lanes.

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Penndot/Districts/D8news.nsf/a2a8ee9f2c47a24b8525783a004f753a/86f284b27cd1428b85257c8e00215dde?OpenDocument
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on March 03, 2014, 04:57:42 AM
I-83 Southbound has been closed near the Maryland State Line because of a failure of deteriorating drainage pipe undermining the pavement that has caused a dip in the pavement because of a major void under both lanes.

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Penndot/Districts/D8news.nsf/a2a8ee9f2c47a24b8525783a004f753a/86f284b27cd1428b85257c8e00215dde?OpenDocument

That entire highway from I-81 to the Maryland state line just needs to be rebuilt.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: qguy on March 03, 2014, 08:11:41 PM
The contrast of I-83 between PA and MD is so stark that it's a complete disgrace to the state of PA. The only bright spot on the entire length of the highway within PA is the relatively new interchange with Business 83.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 04, 2014, 08:06:51 AM
The contrast of I-83 between PA and MD is so stark that it's a complete disgrace to the state of PA. The only bright spot on the entire length of the highway within PA is the relatively new interchange with Business 83.

Agreed.

A former colleague (who once worked for the Pennsylvania Department of Highways) told me that I-83 is so bad between Harrisburg and the Maryland border because it is old U.S. 111, and was in effect "upgraded in place" to the highway that's there today. 

But I find it inexcusable that PennDOT spent a lot of money reconstructing the freeway between York and I-76 (Turnpike) in the 1990's, yet after the reconstruction was done, the same substandard interchange designs remained, effectively unchanged!
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on March 04, 2014, 11:21:09 AM
The contrast of I-83 between PA and MD is so stark that it's a complete disgrace to the state of PA. The only bright spot on the entire length of the highway within PA is the relatively new interchange with Business 83.

Agreed.

A former colleague (who once worked for the Pennsylvania Department of Highways) told me that I-83 is so bad between Harrisburg and the Maryland border because it is old U.S. 111, and was in effect "upgraded in place" to the highway that's there today. 

But I find it inexcusable that PennDOT spent a lot of money reconstructing the freeway between York and I-76 (Turnpike) in the 1990's, yet after the reconstruction was done, the same substandard interchange designs remained, effectively unchanged!

I wonder if it's more of a "District 8" problem than a PennDOT problem, because I remember I-79 being reconstructed between I-70 and I-376 (nee I-279) back in the 1990's, and there are nice, long acceleration and deceleration lanes at all the interchanges along the way. The same is true of I-79 between the West Virginia state line and I-70 as well.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on March 04, 2014, 04:25:10 PM
I-83 Southbound has been closed near the Maryland State Line because of a failure of deteriorating drainage pipe undermining the pavement that has caused a dip in the pavement because of a major void under both lanes.

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Penndot/Districts/D8news.nsf/a2a8ee9f2c47a24b8525783a004f753a/86f284b27cd1428b85257c8e00215dde?OpenDocument

That entire highway from I-81 to the Maryland state line just needs to be rebuilt.

And six-laned all the way down to Baltimore, and eight-laned near the end where it's already six lanes. (Extra width in the median at bridges suggests MDOT's plans to do that.)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on March 04, 2014, 06:36:49 PM
I-83 Southbound has been closed near the Maryland State Line because of a failure of deteriorating drainage pipe undermining the pavement that has caused a dip in the pavement because of a major void under both lanes.

http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Penndot/Districts/D8news.nsf/a2a8ee9f2c47a24b8525783a004f753a/86f284b27cd1428b85257c8e00215dde?OpenDocument

That entire highway from I-81 to the Maryland state line just needs to be rebuilt.

And six-laned all the way down to Baltimore, and eight-laned near the end where it's already six lanes. (Extra width in the median at bridges suggests MDOT's plans to do that.)
I think the eight-lane near the end is overkill. The extra width would make sense if I-83 continued to I-95, in which case you'd need the extra capacity for through traffic. (How you know I'm in the middle of updating: I tried to add <a> tags to I-83 and I-95...)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on March 04, 2014, 09:53:47 PM
Honestly, I'd like to see a full-scale Interstate renumbering in the Mid-Atlantic. It'd go like this...

I-85 would be extended north to Canada, multiplexing with I-95 between Richmond and the Capital Beltway around Washington DC. It'd then follow the western portion of the beltway, opposite of I-95, before multiplexing with I-95 again up to Baltimore. From there, it'd replace I-695 around the northwestern portion of Baltimore, the entirety of I-83 between Baltimore and Harrisburg, and I-81 from Harrisburg to the Canadian border via Syracuse. I-81 would be truncated to Harrisburg. I-83 would be realigned along I-270 and U.S. 15 between Washington DC and Harrisburg, and eventually extended north to Rochester via Williamsport. I-495 would be decommissioned around Washington DC in favor of I-95 along the eastern arc and I-85 along the western arc. This would give both Pennsylvania and New York another Interstate ending in '5' that doesn't just clip the southeastern corners of each.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on March 05, 2014, 01:31:54 AM
Honestly, I'd like to see a full-scale Interstate renumbering in the Mid-Atlantic. It'd go like this...

I-85 would be extended north to Canada, multiplexing with I-95 between Richmond and the Capital Beltway around Washington DC. It'd then follow the western portion of the beltway, opposite of I-95, before multiplexing with I-95 again up to Baltimore. From there, it'd replace I-695 around the northwestern portion of Baltimore, the entirety of I-83 between Baltimore and Harrisburg, and I-81 from Harrisburg to the Canadian border via Syracuse. I-81 would be truncated to Harrisburg. I-83 would be realigned along I-270 and U.S. 15 between Washington DC and Harrisburg, and eventually extended north to Rochester via Williamsport. I-495 would be decommissioned around Washington DC in favor of I-95 along the eastern arc and I-85 along the western arc. This would give both Pennsylvania and New York another Interstate ending in '5' that doesn't just clip the southeastern corners of each.

My plan for I-85 does that as well, but by bringing it up from Charleston SC and Charleston, WV (I-77) via Pittsburgh and Erie (I-79), then via Buffalo (I-90) to Niagara Falls (I-190) and Canada.

(I would also consider an I-85W from Charleston, WV to Cleveland, giving that city an I-x5, but that's beside the point.)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on March 05, 2014, 09:40:06 AM
Personally, I'm against using suffixes for Interstate numbers except in special occasions like in Dallas/Fort Worth and Minneapolis/St. Paul.

As for routing I-85 through Pittsburgh and Buffalo, it'd make sense since they're halfway between I-75 and I-95, but practically speaking, it's unrealistic. What I'd do instead is lengthen I-79 into a long-haul Interstate. I also have plans for I-77 in this regard.

I'd keep I-79 where it is in Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia, but then I'd route it down U.S. 19 to Beckley, and then route it down I-77 via Charlotte to its terminus in Columbia, SC.

As for I-77, I'd keep it where it is in Ohio and part of West Virginia, but south of Charleston I'd route it down U.S. 119 and U.S. 23 through Pikeville, KY and Big Stone Gap, VA. After that I'd route it down I-26 from the "Tri-Cities" area of Tennessee through Asheville to its new terminus at an extended I-24 near Clinton, SC.

On that note, I'd extend I-24 east from Chattanooga into western North Carolina, and then figure out a way to route it down to Greenville, SC where it would then take the place of I-385 and I-26 to Charleston, SC.

Doing all this would make I-79 the primary "Canada to Carolinas" route, I-24 the primary "Heartland to Carolinas" route, and I-77 the primary "Heart of Appalachia" route.

I have other ideas too, like truncating I-94 to Milwaukee, renumbering the portion in Michigan and Indiana as I-92, renumbering I-43 to Green Bay as an extension of I-55, renumbering I-39 as I-53, renumbering I-45 and I-29 as I-39, renumbering U.S. 77, U.S. 59 and I-49 between Brownsville, TX and Kansas City, and I-35 from Kansas City north as I-45, and building a new I-35 alignment from Wichita up to the Canadian border via Minot, ND.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on March 05, 2014, 10:08:36 AM
If you haven't done so (or seen it), you might want to check out and/or post your fore-mentioned fictional/fantasy schemes in the Fictional Highways section of the forum (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=20.0)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: rickmastfan67 on March 05, 2014, 11:29:59 PM
If you haven't done so (or seen it), you might want to check out and/or post your fore-mentioned fictional/fantasy schemes in the Fictional Highways section of the forum (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=20.0)

Yep.  We try to keep the threads in this area 'fictional free'.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on March 08, 2014, 12:44:45 AM
Personally, I'm against using suffixes for Interstate numbers except in special occasions like in Dallas/Fort Worth and Minneapolis/St. Paul.

This would be such a special occasion: Cleveland/Pittsburgh. :-D

Quote
As for routing I-85 through Pittsburgh and Buffalo, it'd make sense since they're halfway between I-75 and I-95, but practically speaking, it's unrealistic.

That's OK; the purpose of my scheme isn't to be realistic. Its purpose is to conform the numbering grid as nearly as possible given the roads that exist now and the cities that ought to be served.

But yes, it belongs in Fictional Highways; one day hopefully I'll post my I-85 ideas over there.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 20, 2014, 12:11:57 AM
So, do we have any tangible results from the gas tax hie yet, other the the SoBeltway work?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on March 20, 2014, 03:30:20 AM
So, do we have any tangible results from the gas tax hie yet, other the the SoBeltway work?

I think they're going to announce new projects in April, when construction season begins.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on March 29, 2014, 01:35:22 AM
One thing I've noticed in Pennsylvania is that there seem to be two different builders of signs. One does an excellent job, and they build those ribbed signs that can break away in small segments. The other does kind of a lousy job, and they build more plated signs that don't break away as cleanly. The good sign makers seem to be found mostly across the southern part of the state, and the lousy sign makers are found more across the northern parts of the state. I wonder if it's done by district (http://www.dot.state.pa.us/)? If it is, then Districts 1 and 4 seem to have a lot of lousy signs, and Districts 5 and 10 have a few, while the rest of the districts are mostly good signs.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 03, 2014, 11:51:03 PM
A York County road improvement list has been revealed.

http://www.ydr.com/local/ci_25488712/i-83-resurfacing-is-one-six-projects-added
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jpi on April 04, 2014, 01:05:25 AM
Wow! I knew this was coming but still hits you when you used to work at said Denny's and very familiar with the interchange (I am refering to the sub link on the I-83 Mt Rose AVE exit) Looks like possibly some time late 2015 will be another road meet for me to host ;-)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on April 08, 2014, 09:13:11 PM
So, do we have any tangible results from the gas tax hie yet, other the the SoBeltway work?

Some of the projects that are now proceeding include, but are not limited to:


- Reconstruction and widening of a four-mile segment of U.S. 22 near Allentown.

- Upgrading 10 miles of U.S. 222 in Berks County on both sides of the Kutztown Bypass.

- Reconstruction of a seven-mile segment of the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422) near Reading.

- Reconstruction and widening of a four-mile segment of I-80 near Stroudsburg.


And that's just in a small section of eastern Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on April 08, 2014, 11:07:37 PM
So, do we have any tangible results from the gas tax hie yet, other the the SoBeltway work?

Some of the projects that are now proceeding include, but are not limited to:


- Reconstruction and widening of a four-mile segment of U.S. 22 near Allentown.

- Upgrading 10 miles of U.S. 222 in Berks County on both sides of the Kutztown Bypass.

- Reconstruction of a seven-mile segment of the West Shore Bypass (U.S. 422) near Reading.

- Reconstruction and widening of a four-mile segment of I-80 near Stroudsburg.


And that's just in a small section of eastern Pennsylvania.
222 is still going to have roundabouts, so it's stupid.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on April 09, 2014, 09:37:04 AM
Quote
222 is still going to have roundabouts, so it's stupid.

As long as it has 4 lanes, I'll take the roundabouts…
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 09, 2014, 12:08:55 PM
They are also putting a roundabout at US 19 and PA 97 south of Waterford
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on April 09, 2014, 03:54:43 PM
Using roundabouts for a corridor with heavy truck traffic like 222 seems ludicrous.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mr_Northside on April 09, 2014, 04:22:46 PM
So, do we have any tangible results from the gas tax hie yet, other the the SoBeltway work?

While there may be some flashier "big-ticket" projects going on state-wide, the increases are mostly to try and keep up with the maintenance of what's already there.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on May 01, 2014, 06:50:10 PM
Work has started to repave and widen (to 6 lanes) the full length of I-283 near Harrisburg.

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/i--roadwork-around-harrisburg-beginning-sunday/article_0378cff0-cb09-11e3-b6f8-0017a43b2370.html (http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/i--roadwork-around-harrisburg-beginning-sunday/article_0378cff0-cb09-11e3-b6f8-0017a43b2370.html)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on May 01, 2014, 07:29:36 PM
I-283 is not getting widened...just repaved...  I-83 (not I-283) is eventually going to be widened to 6 lanes between the Susquehanna River and I-81 over the next 10 years.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on May 02, 2014, 12:52:54 PM
Work has started to repave and widen (to 6 lanes) the full length of I-283 near Harrisburg.

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/i--roadwork-around-harrisburg-beginning-sunday/article_0378cff0-cb09-11e3-b6f8-0017a43b2370.html (http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/i--roadwork-around-harrisburg-beginning-sunday/article_0378cff0-cb09-11e3-b6f8-0017a43b2370.html)

Good to see at least one urban Interstate in Pennsylvania getting ready to be upgraded to modern standards (I-83).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 21, 2014, 11:14:33 PM
A lame, poorly written article about upcoming I-70 improvements.
http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/5870537-74/washington-walkush-highway#axzz32ATtK5iE
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jpi on May 21, 2014, 11:35:30 PM
And with construction on I-83 in the York-Harrisburg area to be ramping up in the next few years I am considering hosting a central PA road meet to start in York and go from there. :-)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 25, 2014, 10:58:27 AM
And with construction on I-83 in the York-Harrisburg area to be ramping up in the next few years I am considering hosting a central PA road meet to start in York and go from there. :-)

But knowing PennDOT, after the construction is complete, the condition of I-83 will be just as substandard, just as unsafe as it is now. 
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on May 25, 2014, 10:09:03 PM
Work has started to repave and widen (to 6 lanes) the full length of I-283 near Harrisburg.

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/i--roadwork-around-harrisburg-beginning-sunday/article_0378cff0-cb09-11e3-b6f8-0017a43b2370.html (http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/i--roadwork-around-harrisburg-beginning-sunday/article_0378cff0-cb09-11e3-b6f8-0017a43b2370.html)

The article mentions a coming "Redesigning and reconstructing (of) the (I-83/I-283/U.S. 322) Eisenhower interchange" in the next decade.  I assume that will mean new ramp patterns when the project is completed, not unlike, say, the I-95/DE 1 and 7 interchange recently reconfigured in Delaware.

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jpi on May 25, 2014, 11:49:02 PM
Yes, it is a MUCH needed projected, the interchange is still in it's original  early 70's configuration and when it goes full swing I would like to plan a road meet around this though it is at least a decade out and I am still planning a York based road meet when the Mt Rose AVE interchange reconstruction ramps up in the enxt 2 years. :-)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on May 26, 2014, 03:22:45 PM
One thing PennDOT has been doing that I like is making Interstates the primary alignments through elaborate interchanges despite changing direction. They did it with the I-81/I-84 interchange (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.4216113&lon=-75.6090506&z=15&l=0&m=s) in Scranton, and the I-99/U.S. 322 East interchange (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=40.825846&lon=-77.8453075&z=15&l=0&m=s) in State College, and they appear to have designed it into the new I-83/I-283 interchange (http://www.i-83beltway.com/mp/master_plan/mp_60.html) in Harrisburg, with the northbound and southbound lanes staying next to each other even as they change direction through the interchange. This actually gives PennDOT a leg up on other states in the Northeast and Midwest that have lots (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.4402211&lon=-90.3298961&z=15&l=0&m=s) of (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=39.8017568&lon=-89.5951827&z=15&l=0&m=s) highways (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=40.5358958&lon=-89.0266832&z=15&l=0&m=s) that (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=39.9502674&lon=-83.0164348&z=15&l=0&m=s) exit (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.0353733&lon=-81.5657701&z=15&l=0&m=s) themselves (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.0617829&lon=-81.5048089&z=15&l=0&m=s).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on July 12, 2014, 09:14:53 PM
Why is I-70's speed limit only 55 mph between the MD line and Breezewood?  Breezewood isn't *that* close, and it's not as dense with interchanges as is 70 between "Little Washington" and New Stanton.

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on July 13, 2014, 08:15:57 AM
One thing PennDOT has been doing that I like is making Interstates the primary alignments through elaborate interchanges despite changing direction. They did it with the I-81/I-84 interchange (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.4216113&lon=-75.6090506&z=15&l=0&m=s) in Scranton, and the I-99/U.S. 322 East interchange (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=40.825846&lon=-77.8453075&z=15&l=0&m=s) in State College, and they appear to have designed it into the new I-83/I-283 interchange (http://www.i-83beltway.com/mp/master_plan/mp_60.html) in Harrisburg, with the northbound and southbound lanes staying next to each other even as they change direction through the interchange. This actually gives PennDOT a leg up on other states in the Northeast and Midwest that have lots (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.4402211&lon=-90.3298961&z=15&l=0&m=s) of (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=39.8017568&lon=-89.5951827&z=15&l=0&m=s) highways (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=40.5358958&lon=-89.0266832&z=15&l=0&m=s) that (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=39.9502674&lon=-83.0164348&z=15&l=0&m=s) exit (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.0353733&lon=-81.5657701&z=15&l=0&m=s) themselves (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.0617829&lon=-81.5048089&z=15&l=0&m=s).

I had to think when guessing, but after zooming back, that looks like I-55 barely avoiding Bloomington/Normal, IL, particularly on the SW side where 55 veers left to multiplex with I-74 for a few miles.

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on July 13, 2014, 09:46:22 PM
One thing PennDOT has been doing that I like is making Interstates the primary alignments through elaborate interchanges despite changing direction. They did it with the I-81/I-84 interchange (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.4216113&lon=-75.6090506&z=15&l=0&m=s) in Scranton, and the I-99/U.S. 322 East interchange (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=40.825846&lon=-77.8453075&z=15&l=0&m=s) in State College, and they appear to have designed it into the new I-83/I-283 interchange (http://www.i-83beltway.com/mp/master_plan/mp_60.html) in Harrisburg, with the northbound and southbound lanes staying next to each other even as they change direction through the interchange. This actually gives PennDOT a leg up on other states in the Northeast and Midwest that have lots (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.4402211&lon=-90.3298961&z=15&l=0&m=s) of (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=39.8017568&lon=-89.5951827&z=15&l=0&m=s) highways (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=40.5358958&lon=-89.0266832&z=15&l=0&m=s) that (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=39.9502674&lon=-83.0164348&z=15&l=0&m=s) exit (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.0353733&lon=-81.5657701&z=15&l=0&m=s) themselves (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.0617829&lon=-81.5048089&z=15&l=0&m=s).

I had to think when guessing, but after zooming back, that looks like I-55 barely avoiding Bloomington/Normal, IL, particularly on the SW side where 55 veers left to multiplex with I-74 for a few miles.

ixnay

At this point though, I believe it still remains to be seen if that will be the final design for the project. And it'll be 10 years before anything happens, so there's a lot of time for things to change. The 581 project looks nothing like the initial concept (due to cost)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on July 13, 2014, 10:43:14 PM
Quote
Why is I-70's speed limit only 55 mph between the MD line and Breezewood?  Breezewood isn't *that* close, and it's not as dense with interchanges as is 70 between "Little Washington" and New Stanton.

Substandard design, especially on the ridge climb and a couple of the interchanges.  That plus the PennDOT tendency to undersign speed limits period.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Duke87 on July 14, 2014, 12:59:21 AM
Why is I-70's speed limit only 55 mph between the MD line and Breezewood?

So it can be conveniently used for revenue enhancement.

Something which PA usually doesn't do a lot of compared to some other states, but that stretch of road is bad.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on July 17, 2014, 09:27:04 AM
Why is I-70's speed limit only 55 mph between the MD line and Breezewood?


So it can be conveniently used for revenue enhancement.

Something which PA usually doesn't do a lot of compared to some other states, but that stretch of road is bad.
Georgia also does with US 19 only being 55 mph from Florida to Thomasville.  Where the 65 mph maximum is on all other 4 lane stretches of US 19, including Florida nearby south of the state line, this section remains at 55 for some unknown reason.

I believe it is to get speeding fines as  at 65 mph I am sure it caused many areas in that state to lose money.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 19, 2014, 03:04:10 PM
Anybody know if this classic is still there?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.020606,-75.153683,3a,75y,263.95h,84.2t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHUYrDzFv1GyGRuVnLT2Z0g!2e0

or the PA-320 signs on the ramp from US-1 SB?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on July 20, 2014, 02:39:51 AM
Anybody know if this classic is still there?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.020606,-75.153683,3a,75y,263.95h,84.2t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHUYrDzFv1GyGRuVnLT2Z0g!2e0

or the PA-320 signs on the ramp from US-1 SB?
Pretty sure it lives.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on July 20, 2014, 06:47:58 AM
Anybody know if this classic is still there?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.020606,-75.153683,3a,75y,263.95h,84.2t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHUYrDzFv1GyGRuVnLT2Z0g!2e0

or the PA-320 signs on the ramp from US-1 SB?
Pretty sure it lives.

PA 320 does have an interchange with U.S. 1 similar to what doofy linked, but it's in Delaware County.  The street view doofy linked is in North Philadelphia (notice the California-style U.S. shield on the overhead sign).

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: DeaconG on July 20, 2014, 03:03:18 PM
Anybody know if this classic is still there?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.020606,-75.153683,3a,75y,263.95h,84.2t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHUYrDzFv1GyGRuVnLT2Z0g!2e0

or the PA-320 signs on the ramp from US-1 SB?
Pretty sure it lives.

PA 320 does have an interchange similar to what doofy linked, but it's in Delaware County.  The street view doofy linked is in North Philadelphia (notice the California-style U.S. shield on the overhead sign).

ixnay

That sign at the Roosevelt Expressway must be 50 years old, I remember seeing it as a little boy in the 60s...
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on July 24, 2014, 05:26:42 PM
Has anyone seen a diagram of the finished reconstructed interchange between US 222 and PA 61 in Reading, as part of the 61 widening project? They're adding lights, making it four lanes to just past Crossroads Blvd, and seem to be building a free-flowing SB 222-NB 61 ramp, but I'd like to know what else they're doing, if it's not too minor. They don't seem to be doing any huge changes like with the next interchange down on 222 at 183.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on July 25, 2014, 08:18:57 AM
One thing PennDOT has been doing that I like is making Interstates the primary alignments through elaborate interchanges despite changing direction. They did it with the I-81/I-84 interchange (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.4216113&lon=-75.6090506&z=15&l=0&m=s) in Scranton, and the I-99/U.S. 322 East interchange (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=40.825846&lon=-77.8453075&z=15&l=0&m=s) in State College, and they appear to have designed it into the new I-83/I-283 interchange (http://www.i-83beltway.com/mp/master_plan/mp_60.html) in Harrisburg, with the northbound and southbound lanes staying next to each other even as they change direction through the interchange. This actually gives PennDOT a leg up on other states in the Northeast and Midwest that have lots (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.4402211&lon=-90.3298961&z=15&l=0&m=s) of (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=39.8017568&lon=-89.5951827&z=15&l=0&m=s) highways (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=40.5358958&lon=-89.0266832&z=15&l=0&m=s) that (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=39.9502674&lon=-83.0164348&z=15&l=0&m=s) exit (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.0353733&lon=-81.5657701&z=15&l=0&m=s) themselves (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.0617829&lon=-81.5048089&z=15&l=0&m=s).
Similar was done when the I-78/US 22 split just west of Allentown (http://goo.gl/maps/mrUu7) was constructed. 

Back in the mid-90s, when a friend of mine was returning to Norristown from Macungie, she was heading east along I-78/US 22 (she wanted to pick up I-476/NE Extension and head south which can only be done by using US 22) but completely ignored the overhead BGS' and stayed straight thinking she would be still on US 22 (she was actually along I-78).  She didn't realize that she missed the turn for US 22 East until she was approaching the NJ State line (some 26-27 miles later).

Side bar: Your I-83/283 interchange link appears to be broken.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: mtantillo on July 28, 2014, 04:49:24 PM
One thing PennDOT has been doing that I like is making Interstates the primary alignments through elaborate interchanges despite changing direction. They did it with the I-81/I-84 interchange (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.4216113&lon=-75.6090506&z=15&l=0&m=s) in Scranton, and the I-99/U.S. 322 East interchange (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=40.825846&lon=-77.8453075&z=15&l=0&m=s) in State College, and they appear to have designed it into the new I-83/I-283 interchange (http://www.i-83beltway.com/mp/master_plan/mp_60.html) in Harrisburg, with the northbound and southbound lanes staying next to each other even as they change direction through the interchange. This actually gives PennDOT a leg up on other states in the Northeast and Midwest that have lots (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.4402211&lon=-90.3298961&z=15&l=0&m=s) of (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=39.8017568&lon=-89.5951827&z=15&l=0&m=s) highways (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=40.5358958&lon=-89.0266832&z=15&l=0&m=s) that (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=39.9502674&lon=-83.0164348&z=15&l=0&m=s) exit (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.0353733&lon=-81.5657701&z=15&l=0&m=s) themselves (http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=41.0617829&lon=-81.5048089&z=15&l=0&m=s).
Similar was done when the I-78/US 22 split just west of Allentown (http://goo.gl/maps/mrUu7) was constructed. 

Back in the mid-90s, when a friend of mine was returning to Norristown from Macungie, she was heading east along I-78/US 22 (she wanted to pick up I-476/NE Extension and head south which can only be done by using US 22) but completely ignored the overhead BGS' and stayed straight thinking she would be still on US 22 (she was actually along I-78).  She didn't realize that she missed the turn for US 22 East until she was approaching the NJ State line (some 26-27 miles later).

Side bar: Your I-83/283 interchange link appears to be broken.

Although....the I-81/I-78 split is kind of weird. In the southbound direction, I-78's lanes are the ones that end (since I-78 ends at I-81). However in the northbound direction at the split, the new lanes forming on the left are for those staying on I-81, while the through lanes become I-78 east. This is a perfect example of an interstate exiting itself for no reason other than striping!
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Duke87 on July 28, 2014, 08:53:24 PM
Although....the I-81/I-78 split is kind of weird. In the southbound direction, I-78's lanes are the ones that end (since I-78 ends at I-81). However in the northbound direction at the split, the new lanes forming on the left are for those staying on I-81, while the through lanes become I-78 east. This is a perfect example of an interstate exiting itself for no reason other than striping!

The northbound split striping makes sense because 81 north to 78 east is a much more popular movement than staying on 81 north.

The southbound merge striping logically should mirror it but for whatever reason it does not.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: mtantillo on July 29, 2014, 11:58:11 AM
Although....the I-81/I-78 split is kind of weird. In the southbound direction, I-78's lanes are the ones that end (since I-78 ends at I-81). However in the northbound direction at the split, the new lanes forming on the left are for those staying on I-81, while the through lanes become I-78 east. This is a perfect example of an interstate exiting itself for no reason other than striping!

The northbound split striping makes sense because 81 north to 78 east is a much more popular movement than staying on 81 north.

The southbound merge striping logically should mirror it but for whatever reason it does not.

I actually might disagree with that. I'd say the traffic splits fairly close to 50/50. I would personally be in favor of compromise...one lane forms on the left, one on the right.

In the southbound direction, what is interesting is that it is the left lanes that are ending, but the physical pavement (based on following the expansion joints in the concrete) has the lanes ending on the right. So basically you have left lane ending, then 3 lanes shift to the left, then left lane ending, then 2 lanes shifting to the right.

Ultimately, I hope they widen this stretch to 3 lanes (and actually all of I-78 in PA too), which would make this all somewhat of a moot point, since at least one of those lanes would be for through traffic on I-81.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on July 29, 2014, 01:21:49 PM
Although....the I-81/I-78 split is kind of weird. In the southbound direction, I-78's lanes are the ones that end (since I-78 ends at I-81). However in the northbound direction at the split, the new lanes forming on the left are for those staying on I-81, while the through lanes become I-78 east. This is a perfect example of an interstate exiting itself for no reason other than striping!

The northbound split striping makes sense because 81 north to 78 east is a much more popular movement than staying on 81 north.

The southbound merge striping logically should mirror it but for whatever reason it does not.

I actually might disagree with that. I'd say the traffic splits fairly close to 50/50. I would personally be in favor of compromise...one lane forms on the left, one on the right.

In the southbound direction, what is interesting is that it is the left lanes that are ending, but the physical pavement (based on following the expansion joints in the concrete) has the lanes ending on the right. So basically you have left lane ending, then 3 lanes shift to the left, then left lane ending, then 2 lanes shifting to the right.

Ultimately, I hope they widen this stretch to 3 lanes (and actually all of I-78 in PA too), which would make this all somewhat of a moot point, since at least one of those lanes would be for through traffic on I-81.

It looks like it once did mirror the NB configuration, but they changed it at some point to treat 81 as the through route.

I agree that they should change it for the merge and the split so that a lane forms/ends on each side so that ultimately the left lane goes to 81 and the right lane goes to 78.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on July 29, 2014, 06:34:13 PM
Quote
I actually might disagree with that. I'd say the traffic splits fairly close to 50/50.

Back-calculating from 2012 traffic volumes shows 28K/day continuing on I-78 and 22K/day continuing on I-81 (two-way volumes).  So a 56/44 split...not too far from 50/50, but slightly favoring I-78.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on August 02, 2014, 02:34:51 PM
Using roundabouts for a corridor with heavy truck traffic like 222 seems ludicrous.

It is.  Even better when they are small and multi-lane.  People don't realize that my trailer cannot magically stay in my lane around a curve radius that tight.  Some of these so-called "engineers" need to be shot.  Or better yet, subject to driving ALL TYPES of vehicles through their creations.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on August 02, 2014, 02:43:23 PM
Freewayization of US 322 from Milroy to Boalsburg

About goddamn time.  My company LOVES to route me this way when coming from SEPA and going to Ohio and the Midwest, and there is no good alternative that doesn't mean either a metric shit-ton of extra miles, or unauthorized tolls.  322 between  Milroy and Boalsburg is a royal PITA.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 03, 2014, 11:22:25 AM
Why is I-70's speed limit only 55 mph between the MD line and Breezewood?

Also, there are a lot of wrecks on I-70 westbound (really northbound at that point) approaching the signalized intersection at U.S. 30 in Breezewood.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: vdeane on August 03, 2014, 05:27:25 PM
Using roundabouts for a corridor with heavy truck traffic like 222 seems ludicrous.

It is.  Even better when they are small and multi-lane.  People don't realize that my trailer cannot magically stay in my lane around a curve radius that tight.  Some of these so-called "engineers" need to be shot.  Or better yet, subject to driving ALL TYPES of vehicles through their creations.
You're not supposed to.  What do you think that tapered island for?  Trucks/vehicles with trailers are SUPPOSED to drive on that!  Your problem is not that the roundabouts are there.  Your problem is that you don't know how to use roundabouts.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on August 03, 2014, 07:31:17 PM
Quote from: vdeane
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy
It is.  Even better when they are small and multi-lane.  People don't realize that my trailer cannot magically stay in my lane around a curve radius that tight.  Some of these so-called "engineers" need to be shot.  Or better yet, subject to driving ALL TYPES of vehicles through their creations.
You're not supposed to.  What do you think that tapered island for?  Trucks/vehicles with trailers are SUPPOSED to drive on that!

Hence why MnDOT calls it a Truck Apron (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roundabouts/oversize.html)...
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Duke87 on August 03, 2014, 09:53:41 PM
The northbound split striping makes sense because 81 north to 78 east is a much more popular movement than staying on 81 north.

The southbound merge striping logically should mirror it but for whatever reason it does not.

I actually might disagree with that. I'd say the traffic splits fairly close to 50/50. I would personally be in favor of compromise...one lane forms on the left, one on the right.

Per PennDOT's traffic counts (http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/bureaus/pdplanres.nsf/infoBPRTrafficInfoTrafficVolumeMap)...
I-81 south of the split: 50,000
I-78 east of the split: 30,000
I-81 north of the split: 24,000

So logically, we've got 2,000 making the acute angle movement, 28,000 going through to 78, and 22,000 staying on I-81.

This is a 56/44 split in favor of 78... which isn't as disparate as I had thought. Hmm.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on August 03, 2014, 10:13:18 PM
Same thing I posted a few days ago (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2410.msg316073#msg316073)...  :cool:
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 09, 2014, 08:15:31 PM
Split the I-70 reconstruction talk into the thread on the same topic in the Ohio Valley section.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5062.0
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: mtantillo on August 11, 2014, 07:41:45 PM
And what if it is a multi-lane roundabout and the truck needs to be in the outside lane to get to their destination?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: vdeane on August 12, 2014, 07:04:10 PM
I believe they ignore the lane lines... might be why the signs say "yield to all lanes in circle".
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on August 12, 2014, 08:40:56 PM
Quote
And what if it is a multi-lane roundabout and the truck needs to be in the outside lane to get to their destination?

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roundabouts/oversize.html
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 09, 2014, 10:20:54 PM
Maybe somebody from Bucks County can answer this, but I saw that the US 13-Old Bristol Pike interchange was screwed up by turning the never-built southbound bridge beneath northbound US 13 into a hiking trail, or something.

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: J N Winkler on October 10, 2014, 01:26:17 PM
Thought I'd mention that I-78 is getting new signs:  the construction plans are under ECMS 91957 and include almost 80 pattern-accurate sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: qguy on October 11, 2014, 09:29:08 PM
Maybe somebody from Bucks County can answer this, but I saw that the US 13-Old Bristol Pike interchange was screwed up by turning the never-built southbound bridge beneath northbound US 13 into a hiking trail, or something.

I'm not from Bucks County, but until recently I lived in northeast Philadelphia and drove on that route semi-frequently. A blocked-off and disused ramp was removed and two tunnels were constructed under new embankment fill (one each under both the northbound and southbound carriageways) of the US 13 freeway just yards from the southern end of the freeway portion of US 13.

The tunnels allow for a gap to be filled in the Delaware Canal towpath trail, which stretches some 60 miles from Bristol at its southern end to Easton at its northern end.

The ramp hadn't been used in the 25-some years I lived in the area because of a reconfiguration to eliminate a traffic conflict caused by the ramp crossing the main line of the freeway. The ramp was dangerous and was never going to be re-used. And the trail is extremely popular. So it's just aswell.

Seeing that the canal has become extremely popular as a kayaking route in recent years, what truly puzzles me is why PennDOT went to the trouble and expense to reconstruct the carriageways for construction of tunnels for the trail but provided only conduit pipes for flow of the canal water and not tunnels for full travel on the canal. I know that the canal prism itself is discontinuous in a few other places in the immediate area, but many have been pushing to have those remedied piece by piece.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 22, 2014, 01:58:30 AM
I'm not from Bucks County, but until recently I lived in northeast Philadelphia and drove on that route semi-frequently. A blocked-off and disused ramp was removed and two tunnels were constructed under new embankment fill (one each under both the northbound and southbound carriageways) of the US 13 freeway just yards from the southern end of the freeway portion of US 13.

The tunnels allow for a gap to be filled in the Delaware Canal towpath trail, which stretches some 60 miles from Bristol at its southern end to Easton at its northern end.

The ramp hadn't been used in the 25-some years I lived in the area because of a reconfiguration to eliminate a traffic conflict caused by the ramp crossing the main line of the freeway. The ramp was dangerous and was never going to be re-used. And the trail is extremely popular. So it's just aswell.
Okay, that makes sense. But it just seems like a waste to have that big wide median for no reason, and leave the ramps at Old Bristol Pike going only one way.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on December 17, 2014, 02:34:55 AM
Plans unveiled for I-80 reconstruction in Monroe County (MM 303 to MM 307) (http://www.i80project.com/)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on December 17, 2014, 08:09:48 AM
I like the 2A concept at 191/611 (Exit 307), and the 2D concept west of there.  Too bad the project website doesn't have any real way to communicate that, though...didn't find a single email address on it, even though they mention email as a way to contact.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on December 18, 2014, 03:53:07 AM
I like the 2A concept at 191/611 (Exit 307), and the 2D concept west of there.  Too bad the project website doesn't have any real way to communicate that, though...didn't find a single email address on it, even though they mention email as a way to contact.

This project, along with the ongoing reconstruction of I-70 near Pittsburgh, and the upgrades of I-83 on the drawing board in Harrisburg and York, ought to put a nice dent in Pennsylvania's substandard Interstate mileage. Here's how I see it:

I-70 from I-79 to the Pennsylvania Turnpike (37 miles)
I-76 from the Pennsylvania Turnpike to the Walt Whitman Bridge (24 miles)
I-78 from I-81 to the Pennsylvania Turnpike Northeast Extension (51 miles)
I-80 from I-380 to the New Jersey state line (18 miles)
I-83 except a brief segment in York (47 miles)
I-376 from Pittsburgh International Airport to the Pennsylvania Turnpike (29 miles)

That makes 206 miles of substandard Interstate, with about 45 miles being upgraded in the near future.

As for the I-80 project, here's the PennDOT District 5 (http://www.dot.state.pa.us/penndot/districts/district5.nsf/) home page. I'm sure you can find an e-mail link there.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 18, 2014, 10:20:59 AM
I thought some parts of 78 east of 81 to 476 were upgraded
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 02 Park Ave on December 18, 2014, 10:55:18 AM
I say, in which direction from the Pittsburgh airport to the Turnpike are you concerned about the I-376?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on December 18, 2014, 12:24:52 PM
Is there also a project in the works to six-lane 80 all the way to the bridge for when it's replaced? Maybe even west to 380?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on December 18, 2014, 03:29:33 PM
Quote
As for the I-80 project, here's the PennDOT District 5 home page. I'm sure you can find an e-mail link there.

I looked...no luck without going through a whole bunch of strings.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on December 18, 2014, 03:43:17 PM
I thought some parts of 78 east of 81 to 476 were upgraded

I just examined I-78 via satellite images, and it appears that the first 10 miles east of I-81 have already been upgraded, as well as MM 30 to MM 35. This leaves MM 10 to MM 30 and MM 35 to MM 50 to be upgraded, so that's 35 miles of I-78 in need of upgrading, instead of 51 miles.

I say, in which direction from the Pittsburgh airport to the Turnpike are you concerned about the I-376?

Through the city of Pittsburgh. It's one of the worst examples of substandard Interstate in the United States. Honestly, I bet PennDOT is getting all the "easy" substandard Interstate upgrades (I-70, I-78, I-80, I-83) out of the way first before it tackles the two notorious segments in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

Is there also a project in the works to six-lane 80 all the way to the bridge for when it's replaced? Maybe even west to 380?

There was a study done in 2005 that recommended upgrading I-80 all the way from the New Jersey state line to I-380, and widening it to six lanes in the process. The segment in Stroudsburg that I linked to above is the first (and most difficult) step in the process. After it's done, the two remaining segments that will need upgrading are a 10-mile segment west to I-380, and a four-mile segment east to the New Jersey state line.

Also worth noting is that a segment of I-80 in western Pennsylvania (MM 90 to MM 97) is being reconstructed, though it already meets modern Interstate standards. Also, though they're not Interstates, PennDOT has hinted at reconstruction of U.S. 222 between Lancaster and Reading, and there's already upgrades for U.S. 422 in Reading on the drawing board. I also expect I-79 between the Pennsylvania Turnpike and I-80 to be reconstructed, though that probably won't happen until next decade.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: hbelkins on December 18, 2014, 08:13:15 PM
Thought I'd mention that I-78 is getting new signs:  the construction plans are under ECMS 91957 and include almost 80 pattern-accurate sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets.

Clearview?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: rickmastfan67 on December 18, 2014, 08:26:01 PM
I say, in which direction from the Pittsburgh airport to the Turnpike are you concerned about the I-376?

Through the city of Pittsburgh. It's one of the worst examples of substandard Interstate in the United States. Honestly, I bet PennDOT is getting all the "easy" substandard Interstate upgrades (I-70, I-78, I-80, I-83) out of the way first before it tackles the two notorious segments in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

I'm pretty sure that the segment between US-22 Business (Exit 80) and the Turnpike is up to Interstate standards (or really close) since it was built using Interstate money unlike the rest of the Parkway East.

As for the segment between I-279 and Exit 71A (the bathtub segment), I don't see any way of upgrading it any farther than it has been without doing a true 'Big Dig' and routing it under the Monongahela River and bypassing the Fort Pitt Bridge & Tunnel.

Now, I could see them in the future maybe trying to add a third lane to the Fort Pitt Tunnel, but that would cost a lot of money, but at least the Fort Pitt Bridge would be ready for it already as long as they either eliminate Exit 69C (West Carson Street), or shrink the ramps for it down to one lane only and giving the other lane to the tunnel traffic (which would be an easy traffic reliever for the traffic from I-279).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on December 19, 2014, 01:58:40 AM
I say, in which direction from the Pittsburgh airport to the Turnpike are you concerned about the I-376?

Through the city of Pittsburgh. It's one of the worst examples of substandard Interstate in the United States. Honestly, I bet PennDOT is getting all the "easy" substandard Interstate upgrades (I-70, I-78, I-80, I-83) out of the way first before it tackles the two notorious segments in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

I'm pretty sure that the segment between US-22 Business (Exit 80) and the Turnpike is up to Interstate standards (or really close) since it was built using Interstate money unlike the rest of the Parkway East.

As for the segment between I-279 and Exit 71A (the bathtub segment), I don't see any way of upgrading it any farther than it has been without doing a true 'Big Dig' and routing it under the Monongahela River and bypassing the Fort Pitt Bridge & Tunnel.

Now, I could see them in the future maybe trying to add a third lane to the Fort Pitt Tunnel, but that would cost a lot of money, but at least the Fort Pitt Bridge would be ready for it already as long as they either eliminate Exit 69C (West Carson Street), or shrink the ramps for it down to one lane only and giving the other lane to the tunnel traffic (which would be an easy traffic reliever for the traffic from I-279).

The segment of I-376 past downtown Pittsburgh would stay as is because there's no realistic way to upgrade it, but I do think the segment between Grant Street and the Boulevard of the Allies should at least be given full-width exterior shoulders, even if the number of lanes remains at four.

Basically, what I'd do is make the Parkway West six lanes with full-width interior and exterior shoulders between Pittsburgh International Airport and I-79, and eight lanes with full-width interior and exterior shoulders between I-79 and Saw Mill Run Boulevard. I'd also expand the Fort Pitt Tunnel to three lanes in each tube, and drop one lane from each of the Carson Street ramps at the (south)west end of the Fort Pitt Bridge. The Saw Mill Run Boulevard interchange would be reconfigured to a modified "directional T" with an eastbound 'EXIT ONLY' lane and a new westbound lane.

Eventually, the Parkway East would be widened to six lanes with full-width interior and exterior shoulders from the Boulevard of the Allies to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, though the Squirrel Hill Tunnel might remain "shoulderless" even with an expansion. Most interchanges along the Parkway East would be reconfigured.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 19, 2014, 11:15:12 AM
I had thoughts of a Parkway west as a 3-2-3 configuration with the reversible center "2" branching off before Banksville into a whole separate alignment and tunnel.  Have it stay on the south shore with ramps to either a new Wabash Bridge, the Smilthfield Bridge and/or into a big Station Square parking garage with direct "T" access.  This reversible "2" would recross the Mon and rejoin the parkway near the J&L bend with ramps to/from 2nd Ave SB and Bates into Oakland.  I also envision a 2-3 lane HOT alignment from the Bus 22 exit goint to and along/ adjacent to the east Busway with a large parking structure around 28th and Liberty, a "T" connection to downtown via the Penn Station line.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on February 19, 2015, 09:53:59 AM
Are there still any old signs left anywhere in PA?  I always remembered even in the early 2000's seeing old signs from the 70's and before on many PA freeways.  Some were so faded that PennDOT left them there regardless of how useless they became, then there was the US 22 freeway that still had old signs or carbon copy of old signs, and even when PA 145 was extended south of US 22 to meet I-78 in the late 80's, instead of replacing the 7th Street signs to include the route number, PennDOT just added a shield to the top of the signs that were there.

Even US 1 in Chester County along the freeway, had faded old signs that they finally replaced in 02 with newer signs featuring shields instead of text, but for many years the PA 896 sign NB was so faded it was blank and I could never understand why some engineer did not replace it sooner as it gave out no vital information for a driver to read.

Are all the old text and signs gone or does PA still have some old relics that have not yet been replaced?  I am asking because I do not get to go on my yearly visit to NJ anymore where I used to also cross the Delaware River to check out PA, so I am curious if there are any historical signing left in this disposable age.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on February 19, 2015, 10:24:23 AM
Are all the old text and signs gone or does PA still have some old relics that have not yet been replaced?  I am asking because I do not get to go on my yearly visit to NJ anymore where I used to also cross the Delaware River to check out PA, so I am curious if there are any historical signing left in this disposable age.
Short answer, there are still some out there (see above comments from others) but not as many as there once were. 

If you're expecting to see a stretch of older signs (pre-80s) in one location; you're probably too late for that.  The ones that might be still standing today are mostly entrance ramp signage vs. ones on the actual mainline (with an occasional exception).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 19, 2015, 10:55:52 AM
Are all the old text and signs gone or does PA still have some old relics that have not yet been replaced?  I am asking because I do not get to go on my yearly visit to NJ anymore where I used to also cross the Delaware River to check out PA, so I am curious if there are any historical signing left in this disposable age.

We still have a 'text' sign over here in Pittsburgh on PA-28.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 19, 2015, 10:47:24 PM
I was stumbling through news items about some of my favorite PA projects to be and found this:

http://www.dailyitem.com/news/m-thruway-bridge-to-be-bid-this-year/article_7047e1cc-9d1b-11e4-a96b-375f1fef4ef8.html

The new PA 147 bridge potion of the US 11/15/PA 147 freeway will go out to bid in August
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 26, 2015, 09:37:28 PM
Here is a cool you tube video by the builder of the last part of the superstructure for the new Hulton Bridge being set into place.

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mr_Northside on February 27, 2015, 01:53:11 PM
I crossed the [existing] bridge 2 or so weeks ago.  It's impressive how much higher the new bridge is in the middle compared to the current Hulton Bridge.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on March 04, 2015, 08:08:43 PM
Business groups in Franklin County are urging PennDOT to widen I-81 to six lanes (http://www.publicopiniononline.com/local/ci_26824240/business-groups-time-widen-i-81-is-now). I support this, especially since the Harrisburg area is becoming a major warehouse distribution hub.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on March 05, 2015, 06:54:16 PM
That badly needs widening. It's not in Franklin County, and is only about 2 miles, but there is apparently a project in the pipeline to widen I-81 from PA 581 to PA 114.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on March 06, 2015, 01:46:02 AM
Were the old incomplete unnumbered freeways of PA state maintained?  I often wondered before the current US 222 bypass of Reading was given the US 222 number, and referred to by locals as the "Road to nowhere" as literally it did go no place at the time and of course it had no number either.

Also the US 1 Bucks County Freeway was unnumbered from the current south business end to Oxford Valley for decades until PennDOT completed it from Oxford Valley to Morrisville in 1987.

Even PA 12 did not gets its number until US 222 was realigned to the Road to Nowhere, and the freeway was simply signed Pricetown going east and west I was not sure as I never got to see the ramps leading to it WB in those days.

I know that reference numbers are used just like NY State has for its parkways and expressways, but they are part of the state road's network.  I would imagine that future state route freeways partially completed in PA until completed fully, were also given reference numbers, however did PennDOT maintain them when they were not shielded with even temporary numbers?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: NE2 on March 06, 2015, 11:56:55 AM
Were the old incomplete unnumbered freeways of PA state maintained?
Yes. Some freeways still have no signed number.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on March 06, 2015, 10:05:25 PM
Are there still any old signs left anywhere in PA?  I always remembered even in the early 2000's seeing old signs from the 70's and before on many PA freeways.  Some were so faded that PennDOT left them there regardless of how useless they became, then there was the US 22 freeway that still had old signs or carbon copy of old signs, and even when PA 145 was extended south of US 22 to meet I-78 in the late 80's, instead of replacing the 7th Street signs to include the route number, PennDOT just added a shield to the top of the signs that were there.

Even US 1 in Chester County along the freeway, had faded old signs that they finally replaced in 02 with newer signs featuring shields instead of text, but for many years the PA 896 sign NB was so faded it was blank and I could never understand why some engineer did not replace it sooner as it gave out no vital information for a driver to read.

Are all the old text and signs gone or does PA still have some old relics that have not yet been replaced?  I am asking because I do not get to go on my yearly visit to NJ anymore where I used to also cross the Delaware River to check out PA, so I am curious if there are any historical signing left in this disposable age.

Elsewhere in Chester County (on WB U.S. 30 west of Coatesville), this old sign was still up in Sept. 2012...

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.992347,-75.859477,3a,24.4y,260.61h,90.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCJWHNqmKrp89v_x2bNI9fA!2e0

I-95 between Philadelphia International Airport and the Delaware state line in the '70s and '80s had almost nothing but all-text, all-caps (except for numerals), non-button copy signs (interstate was the only shield used), but they all have been replaced.  The replacement actually started with the reconstruction of the Flower Street interchange in Chester into the connection with the Commodore Barry Bridge, a project that started about 8 months after the opening of the CBB in 1974.  New overhead signs with shields (some with button copy, a couple without) were erected as part of that project.  Alas, it's all reflective signs now on that part of 95.

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 07, 2015, 08:59:03 PM
Are these beauties still up? 

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.312267,-74.803063,3a,75y,59.13h,86.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scYJh41mXNEEkRZP3p2eWvA!2e0

and according to GSV looks like they're reconstructing I-84 but looks like no concrete is being used.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3592,-74.699645,3a,75y,74.06h,72.71t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1saACSF30VAYcpSqR3ti9YwQ!2e0
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 08, 2015, 05:14:05 PM
Are there any plans to extend the US-202 freeway east of Doylestown? I was in the area today and there looked to be some road way at the eastern stub end of the bypass. That 2-lane section of US-202 is barely adequate for the traffic in the area. Tons of rim busting potholes too, typical PA.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on March 08, 2015, 06:47:41 PM
Are there any plans to extend the US-202 freeway east of Doylestown? I was in the area today and there looked to be some road way at the eastern stub end of the bypass. That 2-lane section of US-202 is barely adequate for the traffic in the area. Tons of rim busting potholes too, typical PA.

No, and in fact, there is a project just starting to basically get rid of the stub ending there, make US 202 a straight-thru movement, have E State St end at US 202 as a T-intersection, and add left turn lanes at the PA 313/US 202 intersection.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on March 08, 2015, 07:01:19 PM
Are these beauties still up? 

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.312267,-74.803063,3a,75y,59.13h,86.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scYJh41mXNEEkRZP3p2eWvA!2e0

and according to GSV looks like they're reconstructing I-84 but looks like no concrete is being used.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3592,-74.699645,3a,75y,74.06h,72.71t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1saACSF30VAYcpSqR3ti9YwQ!2e0

Apparently the concrete base of the existing I-84 roadbed is having a chemical reaction with the bedrock under it, which might be why the new base is asphalt. It also looks like I-84 will be completely reconstructed through Pike County (http://wnep.com/2014/03/10/ripping-up-and-replacing-an-entire-interstate/) over the next several years.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on March 08, 2015, 07:23:45 PM
Are these beauties still up? 

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.312267,-74.803063,3a,75y,59.13h,86.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scYJh41mXNEEkRZP3p2eWvA!2e0

and according to GSV looks like they're reconstructing I-84 but looks like no concrete is being used.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3592,-74.699645,3a,75y,74.06h,72.71t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1saACSF30VAYcpSqR3ti9YwQ!2e0

Apparently the concrete base of the existing I-84 roadbed is having a chemical reaction with the bedrock under it, which might be why the new base is asphalt. It also looks like I-84 will be completely reconstructed through Pike County (http://wnep.com/2014/03/10/ripping-up-and-replacing-an-entire-interstate/) over the next several years.

One breakdown or accident in that westbound cattle chute and...

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on March 08, 2015, 09:07:53 PM
Are these beauties still up? 

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.312267,-74.803063,3a,75y,59.13h,86.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scYJh41mXNEEkRZP3p2eWvA!2e0

and according to GSV looks like they're reconstructing I-84 but looks like no concrete is being used.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3592,-74.699645,3a,75y,74.06h,72.71t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1saACSF30VAYcpSqR3ti9YwQ!2e0

Apparently the concrete base of the existing I-84 roadbed is having a chemical reaction with the bedrock under it, which might be why the new base is asphalt. It also looks like I-84 will be completely reconstructed through Pike County (http://wnep.com/2014/03/10/ripping-up-and-replacing-an-entire-interstate/) over the next several years.

One breakdown or accident in that westbound cattle chute and...

ixnay

Unfortunately, reconstructing half the roadbed at a time in each direction doesn't seem to be an option due to the deterioration of the concrete base. They have to work on the entire roadbed in one direction, and then the entire roadbed in the other. My guess is that they started with the westbound roadbed because it's in worse shape than the eastbound roadbed. Hopefully the new asphalt roadbed lasts longer than 40 years. As for accidents, they probably have emergency pull-off areas in the construction zone.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: DeaconG on March 08, 2015, 09:16:10 PM
Hell, I'd be thrilled to see US 202 four laned between Norristown and Montgomeryville, but that won't happen in my lifetime...if ever.  I drove it several years ago during a visit to my family in Philly and going "nope, nope, nope y'all, you have to deal with this!"

Probably couldn't get past the NIMBYs, much less get funded.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on March 09, 2015, 09:00:45 AM
Are there any plans to extend the US-202 freeway east of Doylestown? I was in the area today and there looked to be some road way at the eastern stub end of the bypass. That 2-lane section of US-202 is barely adequate for the traffic in the area. Tons of rim busting potholes too, typical PA.

No, and in fact, there is a project just starting to basically get rid of the stub ending there, make US 202 a straight-thru movement, have E State St end at US 202 as a T-intersection, and add left turn lanes at the PA 313/US 202 intersection.
The main reason why the originally-planned 4-lane US 202 Bypass, south of Doylestown, was scaled down to a mostly-2-lane Parkway was due to then-Gov. Rendell placating to those that lived north of Doylestown.  Their fears were had the Bypass' southern extension would've fueled pressure to build the northern extension.
Hell, I'd be thrilled to see US 202 four laned between Norristown and Montgomeryville, but that won't happen in my lifetime...if ever.  I drove it several years ago during a visit to my family in Philly and going "nope, nope, nope y'all, you have to deal with this!"

Probably couldn't get past the NIMBYs, much less get funded.
At one time, US 202 in PA was envisioned to be a outer-bypass of Greater Philadelphia; kind of like what I-495 in MA is with respect to Greater Boston.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 10, 2015, 06:21:11 PM
Are there any plans to extend the US-202 freeway east of Doylestown? I was in the area today and there looked to be some road way at the eastern stub end of the bypass. That 2-lane section of US-202 is barely adequate for the traffic in the area. Tons of rim busting potholes too, typical PA.

No, and in fact, there is a project just starting to basically get rid of the stub ending there, make US 202 a straight-thru movement, have E State St end at US 202 as a T-intersection, and add left turn lanes at the PA 313/US 202 intersection.

Are there any plans or news articles online?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 10, 2015, 06:27:14 PM
Are these beauties still up? 

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.312267,-74.803063,3a,75y,59.13h,86.4t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scYJh41mXNEEkRZP3p2eWvA!2e0

and according to GSV looks like they're reconstructing I-84 but looks like no concrete is being used.


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3592,-74.699645,3a,75y,74.06h,72.71t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1saACSF30VAYcpSqR3ti9YwQ!2e0

Apparently the concrete base of the existing I-84 roadbed is having a chemical reaction with the bedrock under it, which might be why the new base is asphalt. It also looks like I-84 will be completely reconstructed through Pike County (http://wnep.com/2014/03/10/ripping-up-and-replacing-an-entire-interstate/) over the next several years.

I thought the asphalt base was bc of cheapness. New expressway sections in CT also gave asphalt base. Guaranteed it won't last 40 years.

Seems to be typical PA interstate reconstruction. 20 years ago they had the same setup redoing parts of I-80 and I-81 for miles with pull offs for breakdowns but the new road was concrete
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on March 11, 2015, 07:35:40 AM
Quote from: doofy103
Are there any plans or news articles online?

http://www.doylestownpa.org/route-202-improvement-realignment/

Not much...just a basic overview.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on March 11, 2015, 09:47:15 AM
Not much...just a basic overview.
Based on that article, most of the work seems to be focused on the US 202/PA 313 intersection located just beyond where the US 202 Bypass terminates (at State St.).  The mentioned Park-and-Ride, IMHO, will likely be located at the truncated US 202 Bypass/State St. interchange.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on March 14, 2015, 09:02:41 PM
Hell, I'd be thrilled to see US 202 four laned between Norristown and Montgomeryville, but that won't happen in my lifetime...if ever.  I drove it several years ago during a visit to my family in Philly and going "nope, nope, nope y'all, you have to deal with this!"

Probably couldn't get past the NIMBYs, much less get funded.
  I see on GSV that it only has a 40 mph maximum speed.   That is just as stupid as being two lanes there and the sudden drop south of PA 611 as the SB to SB ramp merges after the road narrows and the NB to SB exit for PA 611 on 202 is before the road widens is even more stupid.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: odditude on March 15, 2015, 11:47:02 AM
Hell, I'd be thrilled to see US 202 four laned between Norristown and Montgomeryville, but that won't happen in my lifetime...if ever.  I drove it several years ago during a visit to my family in Philly and going "nope, nope, nope y'all, you have to deal with this!"

Probably couldn't get past the NIMBYs, much less get funded.
  I see on GSV that it only has a 40 mph maximum speed.   That is just as stupid as being two lanes there and the sudden drop south of PA 611 as the SB to SB ramp merges after the road narrows and the NB to SB exit for PA 611 on 202 is before the road widens is even more stupid.
dude, word salad. break it out to multiple sentences.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on March 15, 2015, 07:30:01 PM
Hell, I'd be thrilled to see US 202 four laned between Norristown and Montgomeryville, but that won't happen in my lifetime...if ever.  I drove it several years ago during a visit to my family in Philly and going "nope, nope, nope y'all, you have to deal with this!"

Probably couldn't get past the NIMBYs, much less get funded.
  I see on GSV that it only has a 40 mph maximum speed.   That is just as stupid as being two lanes there and the sudden drop south of PA 611 as the SB to SB ramp merges after the road narrows and the NB to SB exit for PA 611 on 202 is before the road widens is even more stupid.
dude, word salad. break it out to multiple sentences.
That's like telling the Thing to use moisturizer.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 21, 2015, 11:37:13 PM
Heading to Milford, PA this week, I'll let you know how the I-84 traffic is and if the US-6-206-209 button copy beauties are still there.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on March 22, 2015, 08:33:29 AM
Hell, I'd be thrilled to see US 202 four laned between Norristown and Montgomeryville, but that won't happen in my lifetime...if ever.  I drove it several years ago during a visit to my family in Philly and going "nope, nope, nope y'all, you have to deal with this!"

Probably couldn't get past the NIMBYs, much less get funded.
  I see on GSV that it only has a 40 mph maximum speed.   That is just as stupid as being two lanes there and the sudden drop south of PA 611 as the SB to SB ramp merges after the road narrows and the NB to SB exit for PA 611 on 202 is before the road widens is even more stupid.
dude, word salad. break it out to multiple sentences.
That's like telling the Thing to use moisturizer.

 :-D :-D :-D

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 26, 2015, 11:23:21 PM
http://www.wgal.com/news/19mile-section-of-turnpike-to-be-shut-down-part-of-this-weekend/32024286

Won't the Pennsylvania Turnpike heading east out of Harrisburg be fun this weekend! Well...
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on March 26, 2015, 11:32:42 PM
http://www.wgal.com/news/19mile-section-of-turnpike-to-be-shut-down-part-of-this-weekend/32024286

Won't the Pennsylvania Turnpike heading east out of Harrisburg be fun this weekend! Well...
From midnight to 6 AM, maybe. I can't see it being a problem. The detour route is silly, in the interest of not skipping any exits. PA 283 to US 222 makes far more sense than US 322 to PA 73. (Same distance, I checked.) US 15 to PA 581 also makes more sense than I-76 to I-283, if you really wanted to take 322 for some reason.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 26, 2015, 11:48:34 PM
I've only been on that stretch in question once: Last June, leaving a Senators baseball game in Harrisburg and then heading east to the Bensalem exit near Philadelphia. I'll pass along your tip for the detour to a friend who already lives in that state.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Flyer78 on March 27, 2015, 02:03:33 PM
They are also closing the mainline between 28 (Cranberry) and 39 (Butler Valley) Midnight-4.

VMS on NB I-476 indicated there would also be a closure between Willow Grove (343) and Bensalem (351), but I do not see that reflected on the Turnpike homepage.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: MASTERNC on March 27, 2015, 08:33:31 PM
They are also closing the mainline between 28 (Cranberry) and 39 (Butler Valley) Midnight-4.

VMS on NB I-476 indicated there would also be a closure between Willow Grove (343) and Bensalem (351), but I do not see that reflected on the Turnpike homepage.

I saw Bensalem to Delaware Valley on a VMS near King of Prussia.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 02 Park Ave on March 27, 2015, 10:43:14 PM
Would taking the I-376 between Turnpike exits 10 and 57 be a suitable detour?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: rickmastfan67 on March 27, 2015, 11:55:53 PM
Would taking the I-376 between Turnpike exits 10 and 57 be a suitable detour?

No.  Especially when the Ft. Pitt Tunnel might be closed as well as between I-79 and the Greentree exit overnight.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on March 28, 2015, 08:01:24 AM
Would taking the I-376 between Turnpike exits 10 and 57 be a suitable detour?

No.  Especially when the Ft. Pitt Tunnel might be closed as well as between I-79 and the Greentree exit overnight.

For what reason?

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on March 28, 2015, 08:03:19 AM
OK, it's Sat. 3/28, a little after 8:00a EDT.  Do you know where your PA Turnpike closures are?

IOW why is Google Maps showing the two PA Tpk stretches as being wide open?  Where are the red dots with white bars?

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: rickmastfan67 on March 28, 2015, 09:07:28 AM
Would taking the I-376 between Turnpike exits 10 and 57 be a suitable detour?

No.  Especially when the Ft. Pitt Tunnel might be closed as well as between I-79 and the Greentree exit overnight.

For what reason?

ixnay

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2015/03/27/Fort-Pitt-Tunnel-closing-this-weekend-pittsburgh-parkway-west/stories/201503270331
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 28, 2015, 10:12:09 AM
Nothing on the PA Pike homepage about the Cranberry to BV closing either. I wonder if they were demoing the Thorn Hill Bridge?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 29, 2015, 06:43:25 PM
Nothing on the PA Pike homepage about the Cranberry to BV closing either. I wonder if they were demoing the Thorn Hill Bridge?

It was indeed the Thorn Hill Road bridge.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 02, 2015, 07:42:24 PM
How's the Allentown area for old signage?  I see some all text button copy around PA-309 and US-22.  Is there an upcoming signing contract for these? I'd like to take a trip out there.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.597993,-75.564501,3a,75y,55.11h,96.13t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8rKkwIpfvRciN8_r4Hunpg!2e0

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: storm2k on April 02, 2015, 08:47:08 PM
How's the Allentown area for old signage?  I see some all text button copy around PA-309 and US-22.  Is there an upcoming signing contract for these? I'd like to take a trip out there.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.597993,-75.564501,3a,75y,55.11h,96.13t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8rKkwIpfvRciN8_r4Hunpg!2e0

I was just on 22 this afternoon. Headed east from the NE Extension out to NJ. The sign you linked from GSV is still there, but a lot of other signage along that stretch has been replaced (including 22WB for 309), so I would imagine these signs' days are numbered.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 02, 2015, 10:48:45 PM
How's the Allentown area for old signage?  I see some all text button copy around PA-309 and US-22.  Is there an upcoming signing contract for these? I'd like to take a trip out there.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.597993,-75.564501,3a,75y,55.11h,96.13t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8rKkwIpfvRciN8_r4Hunpg!2e0

I was just on 22 this afternoon. Headed east from the NE Extension out to NJ. The sign you linked from GSV is still there, but a lot of other signage along that stretch has been replaced (including 22WB for 309), so I would imagine these signs' days are numbered.

Good to know, yeah the GSV also shows the new WB signage in Clearview and the timeline shows it there since 2008. 
I was on the PENNDOT website and didn't see any looming signing plans.  Of course I don't know if one is in the works though.  I wish there was a project look up status page.

Any other goodies around there?  I'd like to spend the day.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 07, 2015, 03:37:06 PM
Since this thread is up, anyone got any good projects to report from this years round of hot Act 89 road building action?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on April 20, 2015, 09:48:37 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.416407,-80.103196,3a,75y,349.09h,85.45t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scW4TakvTGognzWGJ3f7FBg!2e0
I see PennDOT is getting to be like NM and CO with signing US and Interstate concurrencies.  No mention of either US 22 and US 30 here on NB I-79 considering that I-376 here is new.

You can see on the signs the modifications that were indeed made when I-376 took over I-279 through this interchange.  In fact the green area above I-376 WEST looks like it had individual directional headers for US 22 & 30 Westbound at one time as no interstate went west from here before the 376 extension was granted.

You would think that PennDOT would have kept signing US 22 & US 30 as that was what the road was called (at least WB) up until AASHTO decided to let I-376 continue on, so to please the area locals they would have signed all three routes together.

In addition that Eastern PA does sign US routes with interstates, such as US 6 with I-81, US 22 with I-78, US 30 with both I-76 and I-676, and closer yet US 220 with I-99 as that setup is less than 100 miles away as the crow flies.

I always thought we on the east coast kept US routes alive, but I guess some engineers in PA do not care about them at all.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: rickmastfan67 on April 20, 2015, 09:56:42 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.416407,-80.103196,3a,75y,349.09h,85.45t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scW4TakvTGognzWGJ3f7FBg!2e0
I see PennDOT is getting to be like NM and CO with signing US and Interstate concurrencies.  No mention of either US 22 and US 30 here on NB I-79 considering that I-376 here is new.

Well, they may no longer be signed on the BGS, they are still WELL SIGNED along I-376 itself.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on April 20, 2015, 10:06:29 PM
Are you sure about that?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.446392,-80.170373,3a,75y,96.17h,99.49t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spkTtnmfcJTryFfn1noUmBQ!2e0
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: rickmastfan67 on April 21, 2015, 12:05:01 AM
Are you sure about that?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.446392,-80.170373,3a,75y,96.17h,99.49t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spkTtnmfcJTryFfn1noUmBQ!2e0

Don't doubt a Pittsburgh'er on his own highways. ;)
http://goo.gl/maps/LYvaZ
http://goo.gl/maps/x6H4V
http://goo.gl/maps/ioZKp
http://goo.gl/maps/1M69L
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mr_Northside on April 21, 2015, 08:25:32 PM
It also gets mentioned on most approaches of other highways, including:
I-79: http://goo.gl/maps/BVStP (http://goo.gl/maps/BVStP)
US-19/Banksville Rd: http://goo.gl/maps/4h1mh (http://goo.gl/maps/4h1mh)
Beechview Ave (Squirrel Hill): http://goo.gl/maps/G1YAj (http://goo.gl/maps/G1YAj)

I'm pretty sure both directions of PA-51/Saw Mill Run Blvd have them.  Not ALL the exits have them for every direction, but many, if not most, do.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on May 18, 2015, 01:11:51 PM
From PennDOT District 8-0:  PennDOT is INCREASING (yes, INCREASING) Speed Limits on US 22 (non-freeway) east of Harrisburg through to where it joins I-78...most increasing from 45 to 50 or 50 to 55...
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: J N Winkler on May 23, 2015, 04:27:36 PM
Just a tidbit for the Pennsylvania control-city file:  PennDOT ECMS 102872 (bids opened in the last month) calls for the I-80/I-81 interchange to be fitted with signs pointing to Wilkes-Barre and New England on the one hand and Hazleton and New York City on the other.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Zeffy on May 23, 2015, 04:34:01 PM
Just a tidbit for the Pennsylvania control-city file:  PennDOT ECMS 102872 (bids opened in the last month) calls for the I-80/I-81 interchange to be fitted with signs pointing to Wilkes-Barre and New England on the one hand and Hazleton and New York City on the other.

Wilkes Barre and Hazleton are acceptable (for obvious reasons). New England though? Not totally a fan of that one...
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: J N Winkler on May 23, 2015, 04:56:54 PM
Current installation (newish signs) featuring just Wilkes-Barre and Hazleton (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.045418,-76.012852,3a,75y,69.21h,89.92t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sLkleBc8sA24umx7xObt8cg!2e0!6m1!1e1)

They didn't do the smart thing, which is to ask us for our opinion.  Perhaps a bit of Ohio envy going on?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on May 23, 2015, 05:04:17 PM
I had to look this one up—the PennDOT spec drawing for the assembly is below.

“New England” makes a bit more sense considered in the context of the I-81 North - To I-84 shields and legend above, and previously, there had been supplemental signs “TRUCKS - USE I-81 and I-84 to New England”, but I still don’t like its use as a control point.

I wonder if this signals a shift in thinking at PennDOT, and future I-80 signage will likewise include NYC as a control city.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8879/18016936311_f2f38c535b_o.png)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on May 24, 2015, 09:57:04 AM
If they're going to include "TO I-84" signage, I see no problem with including New England as well.  You can't pinpoint just a single New England city from that far out.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on May 24, 2015, 11:23:20 AM
I had to look this one up—the PennDOT spec drawing for the assembly is below.

“New England” makes a bit more sense considered in the context of the I-81 North - To I-84 shields and legend above, and previously, there had been supplemental signs “TRUCKS - USE I-81 and I-84 to New England”, but I still don’t like its use as a control point.

I wonder if this signals a shift in thinking at PennDOT, and future I-80 signage will likewise include NYC as a control city.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8879/18016936311_f2f38c535b_o.png)
Replace "New England" with Newburgh, Hartford, or Bridgeport (Bridgeport is I-84 to US 7 to I-95).

Bridgeport probably wouldn't be a good control city at all since I-84 goes nowhere near it. If you're going to use any CT city, the one that makes sense is Hartford. I agree with Froggie, simply having New England or even New York State is better than a single city.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 24, 2015, 11:28:03 AM
Any chance the FHA outright asked for this signage to divert Hartford/Boston bound traffic away from NYC?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Zeffy on May 24, 2015, 11:28:26 AM
If they're going to include "TO I-84" signage, I see no problem with including New England as well.  You can't pinpoint just a single New England city from that far out.

Well, now that I see they point towards I-84, then New England is fine. I thought they were just going to have I-81 NORTH, which is why I disliked the use of New England as a destination.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 24, 2015, 04:50:32 PM
Instead of I-84 saying Bridgeport, why not have it say either Newburgh, NY/Hartford, CT or Newburgh, NY/Danbury, CT?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: MASTERNC on May 24, 2015, 09:17:26 PM
Another interesting item from PennDOT's ECMS.  As part of the reconstruction of I-70 in Washington, there will be a two lane ramp from WB I-70 to NB I-79 (the new third lane will exit, with the middle lane becoming an optional lane).  However, the advance BGS will not be using APL but rather the old diagram.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 24, 2015, 10:22:01 PM
Instead of I-84 saying Bridgeport, why not have it say either Newburgh, NY/Hartford, CT or Newburgh, NY/Danbury, CT?

You can only have two destinations, and since Wilkes Barre is one, you can only choose one other.  It's a toss up at that point, and there's probably no one specific destination that the majority of the traffic heads towards.  Thus, "New England".
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on May 24, 2015, 10:38:11 PM
Instead of I-84 saying Bridgeport, why not have it say either Newburgh, NY/Hartford, CT or Newburgh, NY/Danbury, CT?

You can only have two destinations, and since Wilkes Barre is one, you can only choose one other.  It's a toss up at that point, and there's probably no one specific destination that the majority of the traffic heads towards.  Thus, "New England".

How about "Boston"? It's the primary city of New England, and conveys pretty well that traffic for that whole region should go this way.

Signage in the NYC area recently dropped instances of "New England" in favor of specific cities. Assuming that was a good idea, is there a reason it wouldn't be likewise in PA?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on May 25, 2015, 05:05:34 AM
This sign structure is already over the MUTCD limit, isn’t it? I believe the guidelines are “no more than two destinations per sign—no more than three per assembly”. Not that PennDOT doesn’t violate this rule as a matter of course...

I actually like “Boston” over “New England”—taking I-84 and then I-90 to their logical ends. Unlike Danbury, Newburgh, etc., Boston is large enough and significant enough that I think regional motorists would associate a broad array of New England destinations with it. In a way, it’s not entirely unlike signing “Los Angeles” as the westbound control on I-40 in Arizona.

But I don’t see the need for “Hazleton” on this assembly. For one, you’re already in the greater Hazleton area at this point, but more significantly, most Hazleton destinations are better accessed from I-81 South, not I-80 East. If PennDOT insisted on keeping a in-state control city for I-80 East here, it would be Stroudsburg. Otherwise, it should just be “New York City”.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on May 25, 2015, 11:06:06 AM
I honestly don't mind PennDOT using "New England" as the control city for I-84, considering it's how most people in Pennsylvania and New England get between the two.

Honestly, I'd like to see more long-distance control cities in Pennsylvania. Only IDOT is more parochial when it comes to control cities. I'd also like to see more leeway in the number of control cities if there are multiple major cities served by a highway. Here's how I'd list the control cities on the Interstates in Pennsylvania...


I-70 East

"Pittsburgh" between the West Virginia state line and I-79
"Baltimore | Washington DC" between I-79 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike (west junction)
"Harrisburg | Philadelphia | Baltimore | Washington DC" along the multiplex with the Pennsylvania Turnpike
"Baltimore | Washington DC" between the Pennsylvania Turnpike (east junction) and the Maryland state line


I-70 West

"Pittsburgh | Columbus" between the Maryland state line and the Pennsylvania Turnpike (east junction)
"Pittsburgh | Columbus" along the multiplex with the Pennsylvania Turnpike
"Wheeling | Columbus" between the Pennsylvania Turnpike (west junction) and the West Virginia state line


I-76 (PA Turnpike) East

"Pittsburgh" between the Ohio state line and I-79
"Harrisburg | Philadelphia" between I-79 and I-70 (west junction)
"Harrisburg | Philadelphia | Baltimore | Washington DC" along the multiplex with I-70
"Harrisburg | Philadelphia" between I-70 (east junction) and I-83
"Philadelphia" between I-83 and I-276
"Philadelphia" between the Pennsylvania Turnpike and downtown Philadelphia
"Camden | Atlantic City" between downtown Philadelphia and the New Jersey state line
"Trenton | New York City" on I-276 East
"Trenton | New York City" on I-95 North


I-76 (PA Turnpike) West

"Philadelphia" on I-95 South
"Harrisburg | Pittsburgh" on I-276 West
"Harrisburg | Pittsburgh" between I-276 and I-283
"Pittsburgh" between I-283 and I-70 (east junction)
"Pittsburgh | Columbus" along the multiplex with I-70
"Pittsburgh" between I-70 (west junction) and I-376 (east junction)
"Youngstown | Cleveland" between I-376 (east junction) and the Ohio state line


I-78 East

"Allentown | New York City" between I-81 and U.S. 22 (east junction)
"Newark | New York City" between U.S. 22 (east junction) and the New Jersey state line


I-78 West

"Allentown | Harrisburg" between the New Jersey state line and PA 309
"Harrisburg" between PA 309 and I-81


I-79 North

"Pittsburgh" between the West Virginia state line and I-376
"Erie" between I-376 and PA 5


I-79 South

"Pittsburgh" between PA 5 and I-279
"Morgantown" between I-279 and the West Virginia state line


I-80 East

"State College | New York City" between the Ohio state line and I-99 (future west junction)
"Williamsport | New York City" along the future multiplex with I-99
"Hazleton | New York City" between I-99 (future east junction) and I-81
"New York City" between I-81 and the New Jersey state line


I-80 West

"Hazleton | Cleveland" between the New Jersey state line and I-81
"Williamsport | Cleveland" between I-81 and I-180
"State College | Cleveland" between I-180 and I-99 (future west junction)
"DuBois | Cleveland" between I-99 (future west junction) and U.S. 219
"Clarion | Cleveland" between U.S. 219 and PA 68
"Sharon | Cleveland" between PA 68 and I-376
"Youngstown | Cleveland" between I-376 and the Ohio state line


I-81 North

"Harrisburg" between the Maryland state line and I-83
"Wilkes-Barre | Scranton" between I-83 and PA 29
"Scranton" between PA 29 and I-84/I-380
"Binghamton | Syracuse" between I-84/I-380 and the New York state line


I-81 South

"Scranton | Wilkes-Barre" between the New York state line and I-84/I-380
"Wilkes-Barre" between I-84/I-380 and PA 309
"Harrisburg" between PA 309 and I-83
"Hagerstown" between I-83 and the Maryland state line


I-83 North

"York" between the Maryland state line and I-83 Business
"Harrisburg" between I-83 Business and PA 581
"Downtown Harrisburg | STATE CAPITOL" between PA 581 and 2nd Street in Harrisburg
"Hershey" between PA 230 and U.S. 322 (south junction)
Allentown | Wilkes-Barre between U.S. 322 (south junction) and I-81


I-83 South

"Harrisburg | Harrisburg Int'l Airport" between I-81 and U.S. 322 (south junction)
"Downtown Harrisburg | STATE CAPITOL" between U.S. 322 (south junction) and 2nd Street in Harrisburg
"York | Baltimore" between 2nd Street in Harrisburg and U.S. 30
"Baltimore" between U.S. 30 and the Maryland state line


I-84 East

"New York City | New England" along the multiplex with I-380
"Milford | New England" from I-380 to U.S. 6
"Newburgh | New England" from U.S. 6 to the New York state line

I-84 West

"Scranton" from the New York state line to I-81


I-86 East

"Jamestown" from I-90 to the New York state line


I-86 West

"Erie | Cleveland" from the New York state line to I-90


I-90 East

"Erie | Buffalo" from the Ohio state line to I-79
"Buffalo" from I-79 to the New York state line


I-90 West

"Erie | Cleveland" from the New York state line to PA 290
"Cleveland" from PA 290 to the Ohio state line


I-95 North

"Philadelphia" from the Delaware state line to I-476
"Philadelphia Int'l Airport | Philadelphia" from I-476 to Philadelphia International Airport
"Philadelphia" from Philadelphia International Airport to PA 291
NONE from PA 291 to I-676
"Trenton | New York City" from I-676 to the New Jersey state line


I-95 South

"Philadelphia" from the New Jersey state line to I-676
"Philadelphia Int'l Airport | Wilmington" from I-676 to Philadelphia International Airport
"Wilmington | Baltimore" from Philadelphia International Airport to the Delaware state line


I-99 North

"Altoona" from the Pennsylvania Turnpike to U.S. 220 Business in Altoona
"State College" from U.S. 220 Business in Altoona to U.S. 322 Business
"Penn State Univ | Williamsport" from U.S. 322 Business to U.S. 322 (east junction)
"Williamsport" from U.S. 322 (east junction) to I-80 (future west junction)


I-99 South

"State College" from I-80 to U.S. 322 (east junction)
"Altoona" from U.S. 322 (east junction) to 17th Street in Altoona
"Bedford | Cumberland MD" from 17th Street in Altoona to the Pennsylvania Turnpike
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 25, 2015, 11:48:51 PM
Well, I am going to take this opportunity to ask my regular question:  Anyone got any serious "decade of investment" action to report.  FWIW, I still read that the PA 147 freeway bridge across the W Branch Susquehanna is going to bid Aug 15.  And that is a real biggie.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on May 26, 2015, 03:02:39 PM
Signage in the NYC area recently dropped instances of "New England" in favor of specific cities. Assuming that was a good idea, is there a reason it wouldn't be likewise in PA?
Good point.  I thought the phase-out of New England as a listed I-95 northbound destination in northern NJ & NYC was in response to a FHWA (?) directive now prohibiting such general locales/regions.

If true, then either Newburgh, NY, Danbury, CT or Hartford, CT should be used instead of New England.

I-76 (PA Turnpike) East

"Harrisburg | Philadelphia" between I-70 (east junction) and I-83
Don't you mean I-81?  Signage along I-76 eastbound for the Carlisle (Exit 226/US 11 to I-81) interchange lists Harrisburg as a northbound US 11/I-81 destination.

I-95 North

"Philadelphia" from the Delaware state line to I-476
"Philadelphia Int'l Airport | Philadelphia" from I-476 to Philadelphia International Airport
"Philadelphia" from Philadelphia International Airport to PA 291
Do keep in mind that the first exit (Exit 10) for PA 291 (eastbound) comes before the exit for the airport.

NONE from PA 291 to I-676
Disagree, the current Central Philadelphia listing(s) work fine.

I-95 South

"Philadelphia" from the New Jersey state line to I-676
Present convention has Central Philadelphia as a southbound I-95 destination from PA 63 (Exit 35) southward because one is actually in the City of Philadelphia limits at that point.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on May 26, 2015, 06:51:24 PM
Signage in the NYC area recently dropped instances of "New England" in favor of specific cities. Assuming that was a good idea, is there a reason it wouldn't be likewise in PA?
Good point.  I thought the phase-out of New England as a listed I-95 northbound destination in northern NJ & NYC was in response to a FHWA (?) directive now prohibiting such general locales/regions.

If true, then either Newburgh, NY, Danbury, CT or Hartford, CT should be used instead of New England.

How come not Boston?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on May 26, 2015, 07:25:03 PM
I honestly don't mind PennDOT using "New England" as the control city for I-84, considering it's how most people in Pennsylvania and New England get between the two.

Honestly, I'd like to see more long-distance control cities in Pennsylvania. Only IDOT is more parochial when it comes to control cities. I'd also like to see more leeway in the number of control cities if there are multiple major cities served by a highway. Here's how I'd list the control cities on the Interstates in Pennsylvania...


I-70 East

"Pittsburgh" between the West Virginia state line and I-79
"Baltimore | Washington DC" between I-79 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike (west junction)
"Harrisburg | Philadelphia | Baltimore | Washington DC" along the multiplex with the Pennsylvania Turnpike
"Baltimore | Washington DC" between the Pennsylvania Turnpike (east junction) and the Maryland state line


I-70 West

"Pittsburgh | Columbus" between the Maryland state line and the Pennsylvania Turnpike (east junction)
"Pittsburgh | Columbus" along the multiplex with the Pennsylvania Turnpike
"Wheeling | Columbus" between the Pennsylvania Turnpike (west junction) and the West Virginia state line


I-76 (PA Turnpike) East

"Pittsburgh" between the Ohio state line and I-79
"Harrisburg | Philadelphia" between I-79 and I-70 (west junction)
"Harrisburg | Philadelphia | Baltimore | Washington DC" along the multiplex with I-70
"Harrisburg | Philadelphia" between I-70 (east junction) and I-83
"Philadelphia" between I-83 and I-276
"Philadelphia" between the Pennsylvania Turnpike and downtown Philadelphia
"Camden | Atlantic City" between downtown Philadelphia and the New Jersey state line
"Trenton | New York City" on I-276 East
"Trenton | New York City" on I-95 North


I-76 (PA Turnpike) West

"Philadelphia" on I-95 South
"Harrisburg | Pittsburgh" on I-276 West
"Harrisburg | Pittsburgh" between I-276 and I-283
"Pittsburgh" between I-283 and I-70 (east junction)
"Pittsburgh | Columbus" along the multiplex with I-70
"Pittsburgh" between I-70 (west junction) and I-376 (east junction)
"Youngstown | Cleveland" between I-376 (east junction) and the Ohio state line


I-78 East

"Allentown | New York City" between I-81 and U.S. 22 (east junction)
"Newark | New York City" between U.S. 22 (east junction) and the New Jersey state line


I-78 West

"Allentown | Harrisburg" between the New Jersey state line and PA 309
"Harrisburg" between PA 309 and I-81


I-79 North

"Pittsburgh" between the West Virginia state line and I-376
"Erie" between I-376 and PA 5


I-79 South

"Pittsburgh" between PA 5 and I-279
"Morgantown" between I-279 and the West Virginia state line


I-80 East

"State College | New York City" between the Ohio state line and I-99 (future west junction)
"Williamsport | New York City" along the future multiplex with I-99
"Hazleton | New York City" between I-99 (future east junction) and I-81
"New York City" between I-81 and the New Jersey state line


I-80 West

"Hazleton | Cleveland" between the New Jersey state line and I-81
"Williamsport | Cleveland" between I-81 and I-180
"State College | Cleveland" between I-180 and I-99 (future west junction)
"DuBois | Cleveland" between I-99 (future west junction) and U.S. 219
"Clarion | Cleveland" between U.S. 219 and PA 68
"Sharon | Cleveland" between PA 68 and I-376
"Youngstown | Cleveland" between I-376 and the Ohio state line


I-81 North

"Harrisburg" between the Maryland state line and I-83
"Wilkes-Barre | Scranton" between I-83 and PA 29
"Scranton" between PA 29 and I-84/I-380
"Binghamton | Syracuse" between I-84/I-380 and the New York state line


I-81 South

"Scranton | Wilkes-Barre" between the New York state line and I-84/I-380
"Wilkes-Barre" between I-84/I-380 and PA 309
"Harrisburg" between PA 309 and I-83
"Hagerstown" between I-83 and the Maryland state line


I-83 North

"York" between the Maryland state line and I-83 Business
"Harrisburg" between I-83 Business and PA 581
"Downtown Harrisburg | STATE CAPITOL" between PA 581 and 2nd Street in Harrisburg
"Hershey" between PA 230 and U.S. 322 (south junction)
Allentown | Wilkes-Barre between U.S. 322 (south junction) and I-81


I-83 South

"Harrisburg | Harrisburg Int'l Airport" between I-81 and U.S. 322 (south junction)
"Downtown Harrisburg | STATE CAPITOL" between U.S. 322 (south junction) and 2nd Street in Harrisburg
"York | Baltimore" between 2nd Street in Harrisburg and U.S. 30
"Baltimore" between U.S. 30 and the Maryland state line


I-84 East

"New York City | New England" along the multiplex with I-380
"Milford | New England" from I-380 to U.S. 6
"Newburgh | New England" from U.S. 6 to the New York state line

I-84 West

"Scranton" from the New York state line to I-81


I-86 East

"Jamestown" from I-90 to the New York state line


I-86 West

"Erie | Cleveland" from the New York state line to I-90


I-90 East

"Erie | Buffalo" from the Ohio state line to I-79
"Buffalo" from I-79 to the New York state line


I-90 West

"Erie | Cleveland" from the New York state line to PA 290
"Cleveland" from PA 290 to the Ohio state line


I-95 North

"Philadelphia" from the Delaware state line to I-476
"Philadelphia Int'l Airport | Philadelphia" from I-476 to Philadelphia International Airport
"Philadelphia" from Philadelphia International Airport to PA 291
NONE from PA 291 to I-676
"Trenton | New York City" from I-676 to the New Jersey state line


I-95 South

"Philadelphia" from the New Jersey state line to I-676
"Philadelphia Int'l Airport | Wilmington" from I-676 to Philadelphia International Airport
"Wilmington | Baltimore" from Philadelphia International Airport to the Delaware state line


I-99 North

"Altoona" from the Pennsylvania Turnpike to U.S. 220 Business in Altoona
"State College" from U.S. 220 Business in Altoona to U.S. 322 Business
"Penn State Univ | Williamsport" from U.S. 322 Business to U.S. 322 (east junction)
"Williamsport" from U.S. 322 (east junction) to I-80 (future west junction)


I-99 South

"State College" from I-80 to U.S. 322 (east junction)
"Altoona" from U.S. 322 (east junction) to 17th Street in Altoona
"Bedford | Cumberland MD" from 17th Street in Altoona to the Pennsylvania Turnpike
My attempt #2 (I failed at NJ)


I-70 EB (West of Exit 75/New Stanton int.)
Ohio State Line to Milepost 17
Pittsburgh - Breezewood

Milepost 17 to Interchange 75 (PA Tpk.)
Breezewood - Baltimore

I-70 EB - East of Breezewood
Baltimore - Washington D.C.

I-70 WB - East of Breezewood
Breezewood - Columbus

I-70 WB - West of New Stanton
New Stanton Int. to Milepost 21
Pittsburgh - Columbus

Milepost 17 to Ohio State Line
Wheeling - Columbus


I-76 EB
Ohio State Line to Milepost 31
Pittsburgh - Butler

Milepost 31.1 to Milepost 57.9
Pittsburgh - New Stanton

Milepost 58 to Milepost 76
Indianapolis - New Stanton

Milepost 76.1 to Milepost 111
Stoystown

Milepost 111.1 to Milepost 161.7
Breezewood - Baltimore

Milepost 161.8 to Milepost 227
Syracuse - Harrisburg

Milepost 227.1 to Milepost 250
Harrisburg - Hershey

Milepost 250.1 to Milepost 326.4
New York City - Philadelphia OR Valley Forge

Milepost 326.5 to New Jersey State Line
Camden - New York City

I-76 WB
NJ State Line to Milepost 326.2
Philadelphia - Harrisburg

Milepost 326.1 to Milepost 225
Harrisburg - Syracuse

Milepost 225.1 to Milepost 160.9
Breezewood - Washington D.C.

Milepost 160.8 to Milepost 109.8
Stoystown - Columbus

Milepost 109.7 to Milepost 74.5
Columbus - Pittsburgh

Milepost 74.4 to Milepost 56.7
Pittsburgh - Cleveland

Milepost 56.6 to Ohio State Line
Cleveland


I-78 EB:
Western Terminus to Milepost 50.1
Allentown - New York City

Milepost 50.2 to Milepost 66.7
Bethlehem - New York City

Milepost 66.8 to NJ State Line
Newark - New York City

I-78 WB
NJ State Line to Milepost 49.1
Allentown - Harrisburg

Milepost 49 to Western Terminus
Harrisburg - Syracuse

I-79 NB
W. VA State Line to Milepost 35.6
Columbus - Erie

Milepost 41 to Milepost 117
Cleveland - Erie

Milepost 117.1 to Northern Terminus
Buffalo - Cleveland

I-79 SB
Northern Terminus to Milepost 115
Cleveland - New York City

Milepost 114.1 to Milepost 40.9
Columbus - Pittsburgh

Milepost 35 to W. Va State Line
Charleston


I-80 EB
Ohio State Line to Milepost 19.8
Erie - Pittsburgh

Milepost 19.9 to Milepost 71
Harrisburg

Milepost 71.1 to Milepost 101.9
Ebensburgh - State College

Milepost 102 to Milepost 162
State College - Bedford

Milepost 162.1 to Milepost 211
Rochester

Milepost 211.1 to Milepost 261.5
Scranton - Williamsport

Milepost 261.6 to NJ State Line
New York City - Stroudsburg

I-80 WB:
NJ State Line to Milepost 209
Harrisburg - Williamsport

Milepost 208.9 to Milepost 159
Bedford - Lock Haven

Milepost 158.9 to Milepost 69
Cleveland

Milepost 68.9 to Milepost 17
Pittsburgh - Chicago

Milepost 16.9 to NJ State Line
Chicago - Cleveland


I-81 NB
MD State Line to Milepost 22.3
Chambersburg - Harrisburg

Milepost 22.4 to Milepost 77.2
Harrisburg - Allentown

Milepost 77.3 to Milepost 150
Allentown - Syracuse

Milepost 150.1 to New York State Line
Scranton - Syracuse

SB
NY State Line to Milepost 169
Scranton - Pittsburgh

Milepost 168.9 to Milepost 90
Allentown - Harrisburg

Milepost 89.9 to Milepost 51.2
Pittsburgh - Harrisburg

Milepost 51.1 to Milepost 8
Chambersburg - Carlisle

Milepost 7.9 to MD State Line
Baltimore - Hagerstown


I-83 NB
MD State Line to Milepost 24
York- Harrisburg

Milepost 24.1 to Milepost 41.3
Harrisburg - Philadelphia

Milepost 41.4 to Northern Terminus
Allentown

I-83 SB
Northern Terminus to Milepost 38.9
Philadelphia - Harrisburg

Milepost 38.8 to Milepost 16.8
York - Baltimore

Milepost 16.7 to MD State Line
Baltimore

I-84 EB
Hartford - Boston


I-84 WB
Syracuse - New York City


I-86 EB
New York City - Albany

I-86 WB
Buffalo - Cleveland

I-90 EB
Ohio State Line to Milepost 23
Albany - Pittsburgh

Milepost 23.1 to NY State Line
Buffalo - Rochester

I-90 WB
NY State Line to Milepost 22
Cleveland - Toledo

Milepost 21.9 to OH State Line
Cleveland - Chicago

I-95 NB
Delaware State Line to Milepost 10
Chester - Allentown

Milepost 10.1 to Milepost 39.8
Trenton - New York City

Milepost 39.9 to NJ State Line
New York City

I-95 SB
NJ State Line to Milepost 34.5
Philadelphia - Edgemoor

Milepost 34.4 to Milepost 19.2
Penns Landing - Central City

Milepost 22.1 to Milepost 12.8
Central City

Milepost 12.7 to Milepost 9.9
Philadelphia International Airport

Milepost 9.8 to Delaware State Line
Chester - Wilmington (OR Allentown)


I-99 NB
Southern Terminus to Milepost 29
Ebensburgh

Milepost 29.1 to Milepost 74
State College - New York City

Milepost 74.1 to I-80 (not using "Northern Terminus")
N.Y. City - Cleveland

I-99 SB
I-80 to Milepost 72
State College

Milepost 71.9 to Milepost 27.9
Ebensburgh

Milepost 27.8 to Southern Terminus
Bedford



Side note: Feel free to move these posts, mods!  :bigass:
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on May 26, 2015, 09:28:38 PM
Well, I am going to take this opportunity to ask my regular question:  Anyone got any serious "decade of investment" action to report.  FWIW, I still read that the PA 147 freeway bridge across the W Branch Susquehanna is going to bid Aug 15.  And that is a real biggie.

I seem to recall hearing that the 322 Potters Mill project has started

Edit:http://www.centredaily.com/2015/03/12/4647755/work-begins-on-us-322-improvements.html (http://www.centredaily.com/2015/03/12/4647755/work-begins-on-us-322-improvements.html)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: SteveG1988 on May 27, 2015, 08:14:01 AM
On I-81 near I-78 you get Trucker Notice signs to use I-81 to connect to I-84 to get to New England instead of using I-78. I normally use I-78 to I-287 and connect to I-84 via I-684
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman on May 27, 2015, 09:08:25 AM
I had to look this one up—the PennDOT spec drawing for the assembly is below.

“New England” makes a bit more sense considered in the context of the I-81 North - To I-84 shields and legend above, and previously, there had been supplemental signs “TRUCKS - USE I-81 and I-84 to New England”, but I still don’t like its use as a control point.

I wonder if this signals a shift in thinking at PennDOT, and future I-80 signage will likewise include NYC as a control city.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8879/18016936311_f2f38c535b_o.png)
Why Wilkes-Barre and not Scranton (which is the junction of I-81 and I-84)?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on May 27, 2015, 10:27:31 AM
Signage in the NYC area recently dropped instances of "New England" in favor of specific cities. Assuming that was a good idea, is there a reason it wouldn't be likewise in PA?
Good point.  I thought the phase-out of New England as a listed I-95 northbound destination in northern NJ & NYC was in response to a FHWA (?) directive now prohibiting such general locales/regions.

If true, then either Newburgh, NY, Danbury, CT or Hartford, CT should be used instead of New England.

How come not Boston?
Unlike the above-listed cities; I-84 (while carrying Boston-bound traffic) ends nowhere near Boston.  Heck, it's only just over 7 miles long in (south/central) Massachusetts.

Boston doesn't even start appearing as a listed eastbound destination along I-84 until one is actually in Hartford.  While such doesn't change the fact that I-84 itself doesn't go near Boston; having it listed as a destination in that area and further east makes more sense due to the closer proximity and the fact that MA borders CT (PA does not).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on May 27, 2015, 11:27:42 AM
Signage in the NYC area recently dropped instances of "New England" in favor of specific cities. Assuming that was a good idea, is there a reason it wouldn't be likewise in PA?
Good point.  I thought the phase-out of New England as a listed I-95 northbound destination in northern NJ & NYC was in response to a FHWA (?) directive now prohibiting such general locales/regions.

If true, then either Newburgh, NY, Danbury, CT or Hartford, CT should be used instead of New England.

How come not Boston?
Unlike the above-listed cities; I-84 (while carrying Boston-bound traffic) ends nowhere near Boston.  Heck, it's only just over 7 miles long in (south/central) Massachusetts.

True, but are control cities really supposed to be chosen based on whether they're actually located on the numbered routes? If so, we'd have to change "New York City" on these signs, and a lot of others around the country as well!

Quote
Boston doesn't even start appearing as a listed eastbound destination along I-84 until one is actually in Hartford.  While such doesn't change the fact that I-84 itself doesn't go near Boston; having it listed as a destination in that area and further east makes more sense due to the closer proximity and the fact that MA borders CT (PA does not).

I would agree that skipping over Hartford is a little unpalatable; it is another capital city, if nothing else, and it would help to show that I-84 goes through Connecticut on its way to the rest of New England. I would be fine with skipping Newburgh and Danbury as primary control cities, leaving them more as intermediate destinations.

But I think ultimately, if the wording we're trying to replace is "New England", then "Boston" comes closer, overall, to doing so. And we only get one choice on this particular sign; after Scranton, of course, we can start getting signs for "Newburgh/Boston", "Danbury/Boston" and "Hartford/Boston".
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on May 27, 2015, 12:48:55 PM
True, but are control cities really supposed to be chosen based on whether they're actually located on the numbered routes? If so, we'd have to change "New York City" on these signs, and a lot of others around the country as well!
The main difference with the NYC example(s) vs. signing I-84 for Boston west of Hartford is that (and you mentioned it) is that there is no capital city nor large metropolitan city between I-80/81 and NYC (via I-80).  Similar can be said regarding I-95 northbound being signed for NYC in MD and even as far south as Alexandria, VA.  Since one can bypass Philly (the next large metropolitan city between Baltimore & NYC) and Trenton (the nearest capital city between Baltimore & NYC) via I-295 in DE to the NJTP and head towards the Big Apple from there.
 
But I think ultimately, if the wording we're trying to replace is "New England", then "Boston" comes closer, overall, to doing so. And we only get one choice on this particular sign; after Scranton, of course, we can start getting signs for "Newburgh/Boston", "Danbury/Boston" and "Hartford/Boston".
One needs to realize (and this is coming from a native New Englander here) that New England is a 6-state region (for those that don't know: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI & VT).  Not every New England-bound traveler along I-84 eastbound is heading towards Boston or even eastern Massachusetts for that matter.  Using a CT city (the I-84 passes through or near like Danbury or Hartford) makes more sense because it's the first New England state one encounters via I-84.

Why Wilkes-Barre and not Scranton (which is the junction of I-81 and I-84)?
Probably because one goes through Wilkes-Barre prior to Scranton (via I-81 northbound).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on May 27, 2015, 03:05:43 PM
True, but are control cities really supposed to be chosen based on whether they're actually located on the numbered routes? If so, we'd have to change "New York City" on these signs, and a lot of others around the country as well!
The main difference with the NYC example(s) vs. signing I-84 for Boston west of Hartford is that (and you mentioned it) is that there is no capital city nor large metropolitan city between I-80/81 and NYC (via I-80).  Similar can be said regarding I-95 northbound being signed for NYC in MD and even as far south as Alexandria, VA.  Since one can bypass Philly (the next large metropolitan city between Baltimore & NYC) and Trenton (the nearest capital city between Baltimore & NYC) via I-295 in DE to the NJTP and head towards the Big Apple from there.

OK. That argument makes a lot more sense to me than "the I-84 designation stops short of Boston, so Boston can't be a control city."

So, thinking along those lines, I'd be happy with Hartford, but I'd pass over Newburgh or Danbury.
 
Quote
But I think ultimately, if the wording we're trying to replace is "New England", then "Boston" comes closer, overall, to doing so. And we only get one choice on this particular sign; after Scranton, of course, we can start getting signs for "Newburgh/Boston", "Danbury/Boston" and "Hartford/Boston".
One needs to realize (and this is coming from a native New Englander here) that New England is a 6-state region (for those that don't know: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI & VT).  Not every New England-bound traveler along I-84 eastbound is heading towards Boston or even eastern Massachusetts for that matter.  Using a CT city (the I-84 passes through or near like Danbury or Hartford) makes more sense because it's the first New England state one encounters via I-84.

One certainly does realize this (and I personally include parts of one more state in the definition, but that's another story). But just as not every New England-bound traveler is headed for Boston, at the same time not every New England-bound traveler is not headed to Boston. So unless we have exact statistics for what people's destinations are, it's hard to choose control cities based on where people may or may not be headed.

Again, though, I'm perfectly happy with Hartford, being a capital city in the first part of New England you'd reach, as well as an important junction point where you can head north on I-91 to western and northern New England, keep going on I-84 towards Boston, or even head south for New Haven and the Sound shore.

But I think the salient point of my argument, which I don't think has been successfully refuted yet, is that if you had to replace the phrase "New England" with the name of one city to denote the region as a whole, that city would certainly be Boston. In other words, if we accept that "New England" is perfectly acceptable, except for the sole fact that it's a region and not a city (which is my supposition), then the closest possible replacement is certainly "Boston". If, on the other hand, we reject "New England" because it's too general or under-informative, then we get into a situation where "Hartford" may well be the best choice.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 27, 2015, 03:40:23 PM
Overall, better.

I-76 EB...
Milepost 250.1 to Milepost 326.4
New York City - Philadelphia OR Valley Forge

Milepost 326.5 to New Jersey State Line
Camden - New York City

I'm not sure where you think New York City is located.  If one wanted to go to New York City, they would remain on the PA Turnpike, where it becomes I-276.  Once they exit the PA Turnpike and continue on I-76 towards Philly, an appropriate Control City would remain Philadelphia.  At I-676, it could become PHL Airport, Atlantic City, etc.  When you are on the Walt Whitman Bridge, the control city is Atlantic City.

Quote
I-76 WB
NJ State Line to Milepost 326.2
Philadelphia - Harrisburg

Milepost 326.1 to Milepost 225
Harrisburg - Syracuse

Milepost 225.1 to Milepost 160.9
Breezewood - Washington D.C.

You're already west of Syracuse and Washington DC by these points, and I-76 West isn't taking you anywhere near those destinations.  If one wanted to reach Syracuse, they would've used the Northeast Extension.  If one was travelling east, I-70 is fine for Washington DC, but they would be awfully out of their way if they used that same exit going west.

Quote
Milepost 160.8 to Milepost 109.8
Stoystown - Columbus

Milepost 109.7 to Milepost 74.5
Columbus - Pittsburgh

Milepost 74.4 to Milepost 56.7
Pittsburgh - Cleveland

You shouldn't drop a control city if you haven't reached the city yet.  The purpose of a control city is to guide you to that city.

Quote
I-95 NB
Delaware State Line to Milepost 10
Chester - Allentown

Milepost 10.1 to Milepost 39.8
Trenton - New York City

Milepost 39.9 to NJ State Line
New York City

You ignored PA's largest city, and arguably the entire reason why I-95 still exists in PA.

Quote
I-95 SB
NJ State Line to Milepost 34.5
Philadelphia - Edgemoor

Milepost 34.4 to Milepost 19.2
Penns Landing - Central City

Milepost 22.1 to Milepost 12.8
Central City

Milepost 12.7 to Milepost 9.9
Philadelphia International Airport

Milepost 9.8 to Delaware State Line
Chester - Wilmington (OR Allentown)

Penns Landing & Center City (Not Central City) are neighborhoods and are not appropriate for use as control city.  Simply using Philadelphia is fine.

Allentown is well north of Philadelphia, not south of it.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on May 27, 2015, 04:49:20 PM
But I think the salient point of my argument, which I don't think has been successfully refuted yet, is that if you had to replace the phrase "New England" with the name of one city to denote the region as a whole, that city would certainly be Boston.
The various I-95 northbound signs in North Jersey and NYC that once used New England for a listing now use New Haven, CT.  One old-old I-287 BGS (replaced during the 1990s) at the I-87/287 split (below the Tappan Zee Bridge) that once used New England as a listing now simply use Rye (located at the CT border) as its most-distant listing. 

In other words, if we accept that "New England" is perfectly acceptable, except for the sole fact that it's a region and not a city (which is my supposition), then the closest possible replacement is certainly "Boston".
If there was absolutely nothing (in Gene Wilder/Willy Wonka voice), in terms of cities or populous areas, between the CT/NY state line and Boston; then (and only then) would that assumption be correct. 

One drive along I-84 through Danbury, Waterbury & Hartford during rush hours is proof enough that nobody would ever mistake I-84 through CT for I-80 through PA in terms of surroundings & traffic.

If, on the other hand, we reject "New England" because it's too general or under-informative, then we get into a situation where "Hartford" may well be the best choice.
See above-examples of destination listing changes that took place on I-95 (& I-287) signs.  The Feds have since frowned on using such generalities like New England or even state names.  Either the town where the highway ends (Rye for I-287) or the next city along the way (New Haven, CT for I-95) is used. 

If such were done for I-84 (though most I-84 signs actually don't list New England as a destination); Danbury could be chosen over Hartford for the simple reasons that:

1.  It's the first city one enters along I-84 from New York (state).

and

2.  FWIW, interchanges w/US 7 there; which connects to other CT cities (Norwalk), along with points along western MA and VT.  Granted, US 7's not a continuous freeway (though there probably were once plans for such) but it is the most direct route for the westernmost parts of New England from I-84.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on May 27, 2015, 09:01:16 PM
In other words, if we accept that "New England" is perfectly acceptable, except for the sole fact that it's a region and not a city (which is my supposition), then the closest possible replacement is certainly "Boston".
If there was absolutely nothing (in Gene Wilder/Willy Wonka voice), in terms of cities or populous areas, between the CT/NY state line and Boston; then (and only then) would that assumption be correct.

Sorry…which assumption do you mean? That "New England" is unacceptable because it's the name of a region and not of a city?

We're probably trying to find the answers to different questions here, and that's why we keep ending up with different answers. To simplify my position even more, I'm saying Boston is the principal city in New England. As such, it could readily stand in place of the term "New England" if you were obliged to use the name of an actual city and not of a region.

Now, having established that, we can find—and you've pointed out—many additional reasons why Boston shouldn't be the control city; in other words, why the term "New England" should be replaced by something not just comparable to the scope of that term, but more specific or particular. Considering those reasons, then absolutely, "Hartford" is also an excellent choice. However, the reason Hartford would be a good choice is not because it is the princpial city of, and thus semantically equivalent to, New England.

I don't know if that makes my argument any clearer; as for myself, I'm actually more confused by this point! :-P
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: spooky on May 28, 2015, 06:53:02 AM
I don't want to jump in someone else's debate, but in my opinion it's a flawed assumption that Boston can stand as representative of the region. Boston is a city and a destination, not a region.

If we agree with the MUTCD and disallow the use of a region or a state on the BGS, then Hartford would be far more appropriate than Boston. Danbury would also be appropriate for the reasons that PHLBOS already stated.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Zeffy on May 28, 2015, 09:46:56 AM
I think it's a bit folly to assume most travelers are going to Boston when they take I-84. Besides, you can't even reach Boston from I-84 alone - you have to jump on the Massachusetts Turnpike / I-90 to actually reach it from Sturbridge! Therefore, I would say Hartford, Connecticut, being a state capital and a fairly large-sized city should be signed.

Didn't New York used to have signs for New England on I-95 within New York City? Did they ever replace all of those with (I presume) New Haven?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on May 28, 2015, 10:10:18 AM
I don't want to jump in someone else's debate, but in my opinion it's a flawed assumption that Boston can stand as representative of the region. Boston is a city and a destination, not a region.

Granted, one city can never truly represent the whole region, but can you think of a better choice?

Quote
If we agree with the MUTCD and disallow the use of a region or a state on the BGS, then Hartford would be far more appropriate than Boston. Danbury would also be appropriate for the reasons that PHLBOS already stated.

If the region being replaced were "Southern New England", then I'd certainly agree that "Hartford" is far more appropriate. But we're replacing the term "New England", meaning all six states, from the CT panhandle to the Northwoods of Maine. At this stage in my argument, I'm not yet considering whether the whole region is an appropriate control city destination; you're right that plenty of good reasons have been given for Hartford or Danbury as control cities, but you're ahead of the game if you're applying them yet.

I think it's a bit folly to assume most travelers are going to Boston when they take I-84. Besides, you can't even reach Boston from I-84 alone - you have to jump on the Massachusetts Turnpike / I-90 to actually reach it from Sturbridge! Therefore, I would say Hartford, Connecticut, being a state capital and a fairly large-sized city should be signed.

I think it's also folly. However, I challenge anyone to find a control city that genuinely reflects where most travelers are actually headed; that's not how they're chosen, is it?

And again, I don't buy the argument of route number continuity. True, Boston isn't on I-84, but neither is Memphis on I-57, nor is Boise on I-86, nor is New York on I-80 (nor is it on I-90, as signed from Boston). However, I do buy the argument that Hartford is a state capital and a fairly large-sized city; that would be a reason to include it, not simply because it's on I-84.

Quote
Didn't New York used to have signs for New England on I-95 within New York City? Did they ever replace all of those with (I presume) New Haven?

Yes, that's why I brought it up in the first place. New Haven is as good a choice for I-95 as Hartford is for I-84, and in addition, Boston is also equally appropriate for both routes.

Keep in mind, I'm not arguing against Hartford. I'm arguing for Boston as one possibility. (Danbury or Newburgh, on the other hand, I'm definitely not sold on.)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: spooky on May 28, 2015, 03:50:17 PM
I don't want to jump in someone else's debate, but in my opinion it's a flawed assumption that Boston can stand as representative of the region. Boston is a city and a destination, not a region.

Granted, one city can never truly represent the whole region, but can you think of a better choice?

Quote
If we agree with the MUTCD and disallow the use of a region or a state on the BGS, then Hartford would be far more appropriate than Boston. Danbury would also be appropriate for the reasons that PHLBOS already stated.

If the region being replaced were "Southern New England", then I'd certainly agree that "Hartford" is far more appropriate. But we're replacing the term "New England", meaning all six states, from the CT panhandle to the Northwoods of Maine. At this stage in my argument, I'm not yet considering whether the whole region is an appropriate control city destination; you're right that plenty of good reasons have been given for Hartford or Danbury as control cities, but you're ahead of the game if you're applying them yet.

If you want the destination to represent the region, keep it as New England. If it needs to be a control city, it shouldn't be decided based upon some misguided need to have a singular city represent a region.

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 28, 2015, 06:08:55 PM
I think that from this distance "New England" would be the general destination for a significant number of motorists.  So it would provide guidance to all of them not just to those heading for a particular city.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on May 28, 2015, 08:26:31 PM
If you want the destination to represent the region, keep it as New England. If it needs to be a control city, it shouldn't be decided based upon some misguided need to have a singular city represent a region.

I don't know whether anyone's actually expressed that need. But putting that aside, would you consider Boston based upon any other criteria? Being the principal city of New England may not be a reason to choose it as a control city, but is it a reason not to consider it?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: spooky on May 29, 2015, 07:49:40 AM
If you want the destination to represent the region, keep it as New England. If it needs to be a control city, it shouldn't be decided based upon some misguided need to have a singular city represent a region.

I don't know whether anyone's actually expressed that need.

In other words, if we accept that "New England" is perfectly acceptable, except for the sole fact that it's a region and not a city (which is my supposition), then the closest possible replacement is certainly "Boston".

I think this is the basic flaw in your logic. If we accept that "New England" is perfectly acceptable, then why replace it? If we instead accept that "New England" needs to replaced - and why wouldn't you be starting with this assumption, if we're discussing what would replace it - then why also wouldn't we assume that it's replaced in the same manner that was used to replace "New England" with "New Haven CT" on I-95 leaving NYC, or to replace "NH-Maine" with "Portsmouth NH" on I-95 in MA? Destinations aren't supposed to be regional - that's why they're being replaced.

("supposed to be" based on MUTCD guidelines, not my own personal preference)

But putting that aside, would you consider Boston based upon any other criteria? Being the principal city of New England may not be a reason to choose it as a control city, but is it a reason not to consider it?

If there was absolutely nothing (in Gene Wilder/Willy Wonka voice), in terms of cities or populous areas, between the CT/NY state line and Boston; then (and only then) would that assumption be correct. 

yeah, what he said.

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on May 29, 2015, 09:21:05 AM
In other words, if we accept that "New England" is perfectly acceptable, except for the sole fact that it's a region and not a city (which is my supposition), then the closest possible replacement is certainly "Boston".

I think this is the basic flaw in your logic. If we accept that "New England" is perfectly acceptable, then why replace it?

The flaw here is in your quote: I said more than that. We accept that we have to replace it because it's a region and not a city.

Now, why anybody would require us to do this, I don't know. I don't know whether that was FHWA's reason for doing it in NYC; I rather suspect not. But I'm not addressing that just yet. At this stage in the discussion, my entire point is this: Boston is the city that would stand in place of the region of New England to have the most similar connotation.

Quote
If we instead accept that "New England" needs to replaced - and why wouldn't you be starting with this assumption, if we're discussing what would replace it…

I am starting with that assumption, because it happened in New York.

Quote
…then why also wouldn't we assume that it's replaced in the same manner that was used to replace "New England" with "New Haven CT" on I-95 leaving NYC, or to replace "NH-Maine" with "Portsmouth NH" on I-95 in MA?

We would. And if that manner is simply to replace the name of a region with a semantically comparable city name, you'd choose Boston. Now the fact that New Haven was chosen for I-95 suggest that the manner was something else, which is where my endorsement of Hartford comes into play.

But what I think you have to know about my position is that being "yes" for Hartford doesn't equal being "no" for Boston as a control city. Remember that I'm looking at signage that reads, in different locations, "Wilkes-Barre/Boston", then "Newburgh/Boston", then "Hartford/Boston" or some such sequence.

Guys, I hope this clears up what I'm saying, because I frankly can't spend any more time explaining it. It's already taken way longer to discuss than its initial offhandedness should have warranted. :-)

Final wrap up for me: Hartford yes, Boston yes. Danbury, doubtful. Newburgh, no.

If there was absolutely nothing (in Gene Wilder/Willy Wonka voice), in terms of cities or populous areas, between the CT/NY state line and Boston; then (and only then) would that assumption be correct. 

yeah, what he said.

I'm actually not sure what he said; I never got what "assumption" referred to in this context, but that's OK.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 29, 2015, 09:29:25 AM
I still remember an on-ramp sign for I-84 West in Danbury simply reading "NY State" in the past. I think that says "NY State | Norwalk" now, assuming one makes the connection for US Route 7 South at Exit 3.

As for CT control cities, the last mileage sign in New York state gives the distances for Danbury and Hartford.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on May 29, 2015, 11:20:19 AM
I still remember an on-ramp sign for I-84 West in Danbury simply reading "NY State" in the past. I think that says "NY State | Norwalk" now, assuming one makes the connection for US Route 7 South at Exit 3.
Nope, the destination listings for I-84 West BGS' in Danbury now read Newburgh.

Where US 7 South meets I-84 West (http://goo.gl/maps/7HyCL)

At US 7 South/I-84 West split (http://goo.gl/maps/FRPax).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: mrsman on May 29, 2015, 12:20:56 PM
With regard to the proposed signage at I-80/I-81, currently it reads I-81 Wilkes-Barre and I-80 Hazleton.  By adding control cities for Hartford and New York City, you will be helping long distance traffic, especially guiding traffic from 80 to 81 to 84.

But currently, the control city on I-84 EB from I-81 and I-380 is Milford.  This is much too small of a city for control.  If Penn-DOT puts Hartford on the I-80/I-81 sign, doesn't that mean that Penn, NY, and CT would now have to change the control city on every BGS along EB I-84 to include Hartford?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman on May 29, 2015, 12:40:19 PM
But currently, the control city on I-84 EB from I-81 and I-380 is Milford.  This is much too small of a city for control.  If Penn-DOT puts Hartford on the I-80/I-81 sign, doesn't that mean that Penn, NY, and CT would now have to change the control city on every BGS along EB I-84 to include Hartford?

Yes, ideally when a major control city is changed, then all other existing signs along the affected section of roadway should be revised to have consistent control cities as well.  However, having different control cities on signs entering I-84 from secondary roads than those on the I-84 mainline at major decision points is not disallowed by FHWA.

The general trend towards disallowing states or regions as control destinations on signs notwithstanding, I agree with the use of New England as a control on the new I-80 at I-81 signs.  However, for continuity, PennDOT should also replace Milford with New England on the I-84 signs at the I-81/I-84/I-380 split and at the I-84/I-380 split.

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on May 29, 2015, 12:54:32 PM
If there has to be a specific control city from I-84 eastbound from Scranton, then I'd say make it Hartford, because it's a major metropolitan area (more than 1,000,000 population) and a state capital as well. Besides, I think most people realize that Hartford is near Boston, so they'd go in the direction of Hartford to get to Boston.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 29, 2015, 01:37:00 PM
I think it's telling that when considering appropriate control "destinations" (since cities are not alone in this in practice) I have created in my mind a passive thought process that can be best summed up as "Stop thinking of what would be helpful and instead think of what fits the regulations."  The two should be the same, but often are not.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: spooky on May 29, 2015, 02:52:40 PM
At this stage in the discussion, my entire point is this: Boston is the city that would stand in place of the region of New England to have the most similar connotation.

I don't want to keep multi-quoting and rehashing the same discussion, and you can admonish me again for not quoting all of what you said, but since you boiled it down to a single point I will do the same: If you want the name to be connotative of the region, why would you change it in the first place?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on May 29, 2015, 03:14:46 PM
With regard to the proposed signage at I-80/I-81, currently it reads I-81 Wilkes-Barre and I-80 Hazleton.  By adding control cities for Hartford and New York City, you will be helping long distance traffic, especially guiding traffic from 80 to 81 to 84.
IMHO, a better (& more MUTCD/FHWA-complaint) approach of doing such would be to have a separate gantry with supplemental BGS' for New England and New York (City) for I-81 & 80 respectively just prior to the interchange.  It is my understanding that listing regions on supplemental BGS' is still allowed... is it not?

Just a hunch, but the likely main problem/issue with existing ground-mounted supplemental BGS for New England (located beyond the right shoulder) is that it's more susceptible to:

1.  Being knocked down by an errant vehicle.
or
2.  Being obstructed by either vegetation or a truck in the right-lane (for left-lane drivers).

Having just these supplemental BGS' elevated (and directly above the road) is probably all that's really called for.  There's no need to place these more distant destinations/regions on every ramp and/or pull-through signs along the way.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman on May 29, 2015, 06:30:20 PM
Excellent suggestion PHLBOS.  And you are correct, destinations on supplemental guide signs (either ground-mounted or overhead), even for interchanges with major Interstates, do not have to conform to control city requirements.  The only issue I possibly see is with sign spacing, especially on I-81 northbound in Scranton.

Even if this were done, I still believe that Milford should be replaced with a more easterly control city on I-84 (IMO even Newburgh NY would suffice).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on May 29, 2015, 08:36:22 PM
At this stage in the discussion, my entire point is this: Boston is the city that would stand in place of the region of New England to have the most similar connotation.

I don't want to keep multi-quoting and rehashing the same discussion, and you can admonish me again for not quoting all of what you said, but since you boiled it down to a single point I will do the same: If you want the name to be connotative of the region, why would you change it in the first place?

Don't know, that's a different question I wasn't attempting to answer.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on May 29, 2015, 10:47:36 PM
With regard to things NOT having to do with I-80/I-81 interchange signs, I can report that in the Harrisburg area, the I-83 project is starting to wrap up. I-83 now has 4 travel lanes (rather than 3) through the "York Split" interchange with PA 581. Additionally, in the coming weeks, an adjacent bridge carrying PA 581 is due to be replaced.

Edit:
Also, the US 220 project just north of I-80 is progressing. Driving through there last week,I saw that the new future southbound exits and the approaches to the bridge are being graded. Traffic is currently detoured onto the future northbound ramps.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on May 29, 2015, 10:57:35 PM
With regard to things NOT having to do with I-80/I-81 interchange signs, I can report that in the Harrisburg area, the I-83 project is starting to wrap up. I-83 now has 4 travel lanes (rather than 3) through the "York Split" interchange with PA 581. Additionally, in the coming weeks, an adjacent bridge carrying PA 581 is due to be replaced.
When my family drove through there in June 2014, between exit 41A and I-81, it was so horrid. Only the bridge crossing the Susquehanna River was smooth, but it was very fast-paced, with horrible pavement, tight weaving (in order to get to Harrisburg Mall from US 322, you have to do a weave through four lanes in 1/8 of a mile), four lanes each way (between exit 43 to exit 47), low overpasses (the 19th St. overpass is low), and people who do not know how to drive (no, the speed limit is 65!).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: thenetwork on May 29, 2015, 11:28:42 PM
Maybe
If you want the destination to represent the region, keep it as New England. If it needs to be a control city, it shouldn't be decided based upon some misguided need to have a singular city represent a region.

I don't know whether anyone's actually expressed that need.

In other words, if we accept that "New England" is perfectly acceptable, except for the sole fact that it's a region and not a city (which is my supposition), then the closest possible replacement is certainly "Boston".

I think this is the basic flaw in your logic. If we accept that "New England" is perfectly acceptable, then why replace it? If we instead accept that "New England" needs to replaced - and why wouldn't you be starting with this assumption, if we're discussing what would replace it - then why also wouldn't we assume that it's replaced in the same manner that was used to replace "New England" with "New Haven CT" on I-95 leaving NYC, or to replace "NH-Maine" with "Portsmouth NH" on I-95 in MA? Destinations aren't supposed to be regional - that's why they're being replaced.

("supposed to be" based on MUTCD guidelines, not my own personal preference)

But putting that aside, would you consider Boston based upon any other criteria? Being the principal city of New England may not be a reason to choose it as a control city, but is it a reason not to consider it?

If there was absolutely nothing (in Gene Wilder/Willy Wonka voice), in terms of cities or populous areas, between the CT/NY state line and Boston; then (and only then) would that assumption be correct. 

yeah, what he said.



They could always take a page out of the Caltrans signing bible and use the control city of "Other New England Cities" :rofl:
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: RevZimmerman on June 04, 2015, 11:34:23 AM
A couple news articles about a bridge replacement on PA-581, just west of the I-83 York Split in the West Shore part of the Harrisburg metro area:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/05/penndot_route_581_york_split.html (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/05/penndot_route_581_york_split.html)
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/06/a_doozy_of_a_detour_penndot_pr.html (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/06/a_doozy_of_a_detour_penndot_pr.html)

Bridge replacement begins this weekend.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on June 04, 2015, 01:29:20 PM
New England, I must admit, is too ambiguous as it covers a lot of territory.  If you travel I-287 in New Jersey heading to the New York Border you will see it as signs there for "New England" to use I-87 North to I-84 East when staying on I-287 can also get you there.  In fact going to Stamford, Bridgeport, New Haven, and Providence your better staying on I-287 across the Tappan Zee Bridge.

Only for Danbury, Waterbury, Hartford, and Boston is I-84 really going to help anyone.  Of course NH, and ME via MA freeways it will help, but VT you would have to use I-87 past Albany to reach that. 

I think cities are better used except far away. In I-80's case, its not far enough because to get to Stamford, lets say, taking I-81 to I-84 is not the way to go.  Using I-80 to I-95 or I-80 to I-287 to I-95 is your best bet even as far away as that.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on June 05, 2015, 01:23:34 PM
Tonight, eastbound PA 581 closes between US 15 and I-83 for a bridge replacement. The eastbound half of the bridge is to be removed, and replaced with a prebuilt structure by Monday (June 8) morning. If anyone is interested, the replacement f the bridge will be streaming live. http://www.purpose1.com/pa-581-reconstruction (http://www.purpose1.com/pa-581-reconstruction)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on June 05, 2015, 03:04:12 PM
Tonight, eastbound PA 581 closes between US 15 and I-83 for a bridge replacement. The eastbound half of the bridge is to be removed, and replaced with a prebuilt structure by Monday (June 8) morning. If anyone is interested, the replacement f the bridge will be streaming live. http://www.purpose1.com/pa-581-reconstruction (http://www.purpose1.com/pa-581-reconstruction)
Note to self: do not shunpike via PA 581 this weekend when returning from the All-Ford Nationals in Carlisle. :)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on June 05, 2015, 03:07:26 PM
Tonight, eastbound PA 581 closes between US 15 and I-83 for a bridge replacement. The eastbound half of the bridge is to be removed, and replaced with a prebuilt structure by Monday (June 8) morning. If anyone is interested, the replacement f the bridge will be streaming live. http://www.purpose1.com/pa-581-reconstruction (http://www.purpose1.com/pa-581-reconstruction)
Note to self: do not shunpike via PA 581 this weekend when returning from the All-Ford Nationals in Carlisle. :)
Yeah, with the Ford Nationals going on, that will just make the traffic situation that much worse. The contractor and/or Penndot could have definitely chosen a better time.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on June 12, 2015, 07:17:55 PM
PA 581 westbound bridge replacement starts tonight. Streaming live https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaDDaaq_GfM&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaDDaaq_GfM&feature=youtu.be here)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on July 17, 2015, 04:41:50 PM
I was noticing that on GSV along US 22 near Grantville, PA that at the time the image was captured, that PennDOT was in the process of repaving the four lane arterial.  While at it the median was removed, not that there was much of one to begin with as if memory serves me had just a small raised concrete strip that was there for night contrast rather than safety.  Some portions of US 22 between Harrisburg and its concurrency with I-78 had a center guardrail with two back to back W rails.

I was just wondering, if anyone in the area who is a user here, knows if they re-erected some sort of median, guardrail, or even a jersey barrier since the repaving project finished there?   Judging by the amount of traffic signals added between PA 743 and Paxtonia since the early 90's, I assume that a lot of safety concerns have been made over the past 20 years which would make a paved open area between the travel lanes another safety issue.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: MASTERNC on July 18, 2015, 10:59:13 AM
I'd love to know when PA is going to raise more freeway speed limits to 70 MPH.  They were talking about doing it in the spring, and even the Turnpike talked about raising the speed limit systemwide.  Is Wolf's administration completely against the higher speed limit, or are they taking their time in doing speed studies?  With the exception of high profile accidents on I-380, I haven't heard of any negative changes in crash rates.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on July 18, 2015, 01:18:45 PM
I was noticing that on GSV along US 22 near Grantville, PA that at the time the image was captured, that PennDOT was in the process of repaving the four lane arterial.  While at it the median was removed, not that there was much of one to begin with as if memory serves me had just a small raised concrete strip that was there for night contrast rather than safety.  Some portions of US 22 between Harrisburg and its concurrency with I-78 had a center guardrail with two back to back W rails.

I was just wondering, if anyone in the area who is a user here, knows if they re-erected some sort of median, guardrail, or even a jersey barrier since the repaving project finished there?   Judging by the amount of traffic signals added between PA 743 and Paxtonia since the early 90's, I assume that a lot of safety concerns have been made over the past 20 years which would make a paved open area between the travel lanes another safety issue.

Yes, PennDOT has reconstructed 22 from just east of PA 39 to the merge with I-78, replacing the old W-beam with a Jersey barrier, and putting in plenty of turning lanes that I don't think were there before. They also changed some of the old substandard merges at its few ancient interchanges with right-angle stop-controlled intersections. It was rebuilt between 343 (eastern end of multiplex) and 78 first, then 39 and just east of 72, and most recently the piece connecting these two sections. I don't know if they plan on reconstructing it any farther west than 39.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on July 19, 2015, 06:51:15 PM
Work in Reading?  Got your detour plans in hand?  The Buttonwood Street bridge closes on Tues. (7/21) for two years.

http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-berks/travel-changes-in-place-ahead-of-buttonwood-street-bridge-closure/34167260

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: MASTERNC on July 19, 2015, 08:17:58 PM
I'd love to know when PA is going to raise more freeway speed limits to 70 MPH.  They were talking about doing it in the spring, and even the Turnpike talked about raising the speed limit systemwide.  Is Wolf's administration completely against the higher speed limit, or are they taking their time in doing speed studies?  With the exception of high profile accidents on I-380, I haven't heard of any negative changes in crash rates.

Someone must have seen my question.  That said, it shouldn't be taking this long when they were first quoting spring/summer for future changes.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/07/pennsylvania_drivers_still_wai.html#incart_river
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on July 20, 2015, 10:42:47 AM
I'd love to know when PA is going to raise more freeway speed limits to 70 MPH.  They were talking about doing it in the spring, and even the Turnpike talked about raising the speed limit systemwide.  Is Wolf's administration completely against the higher speed limit, or are they taking their time in doing speed studies?  With the exception of high profile accidents on I-380, I haven't heard of any negative changes in crash rates.

Someone must have seen my question.  That said, it shouldn't be taking this long when they were first quoting spring/summer for future changes.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/07/pennsylvania_drivers_still_wai.html#incart_river
IMHO, and yes such is political, with a new governor (of a different party) now in charge; all bets are off in terms of adding more 70 mph limits on PA highways.

The only way I could see Gov. Wolf doing such would be if the State Legislature (both House & Senate) voted on the matter and sustained enough votes (2/3s IIRC) to override a possible veto.  For those that don't already know; Wolf has already used his veto pen once just recently (regarding the state budget); but such is another topic for another website.  I only mention this because one could see another stand-off regarding placing more 70-mph limits on other highway stretches looming in the horizon.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 20, 2015, 11:34:20 AM
I'd love to know when PA is going to raise more freeway speed limits to 70 MPH.  They were talking about doing it in the spring, and even the Turnpike talked about raising the speed limit systemwide.  Is Wolf's administration completely against the higher speed limit, or are they taking their time in doing speed studies?  With the exception of high profile accidents on I-380, I haven't heard of any negative changes in crash rates.

Someone must have seen my question.  That said, it shouldn't be taking this long when they were first quoting spring/summer for future changes.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/07/pennsylvania_drivers_still_wai.html#incart_river
IMHO, and yes such is political, with a new governor (of a different party) now in charge; all bets are off in terms of adding more 70 mph limits on PA highways.

The only way I could see Gov. Wolf doing such would be if the State Legislature (both House & Senate) voted on the matter and sustained enough votes (2/3s IIRC) to override a possible veto.  For those that don't already know; Wolf has already used his veto pen once just recently (regarding the state budget); but such is another topic for another website.  I only mention this because one could see another stand-off regarding placing more 70-mph limits on other highway stretches looming in the horizon.

What's his attitude regarding higher limits?  And at this point, does he have much of a say on the issue?  If PennDOT or the PA Turnpike commission want to expand the limit, do they have to go thru the Governor to get it done? 

Note: There's always the issue of the Governor wanting his way, so he can highly suggest to those departments not to raise the limit. Honestly though it will be a little unusual for a limit to be tested; studies showing there's no issues with those expanded limits, and then a Governor saying we're not going to expand the limits for these (lame) reasons. 
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on July 20, 2015, 02:52:29 PM
What's his attitude regarding higher limits?
While not completely known at this point; recent history has shown that city Democrats in PA (Wolf's from York, PA) tend to not push any efforts to increase speed limits.
And at this point, does he have much of a say on the issue?
Just like any other state, the Governor can either allow a speed limit increase initiative to either continue or place a moratorium on such. 
If PennDOT or the PA Turnpike commission want to expand the limit, do they have to go thru the Governor to get it done?
Absolutely.  Using your homestate of NJ as an example; did NJDOT, NJTA, NJHA and/or SJTA raise their speed limits to 65 before Gov. Whitman authorized such?  IIRC, it wasn't until NJ 101.5 FM made an issue of it and prompted listeners to call their state Representatives and Senators to get legislation rolling on such and submit such to Gov. Whitman.
Note: There's always the issue of the Governor wanting his way, so he can highly suggest to those departments not to raise the limit. Honestly though it will be a little unusual for a limit to be tested; studies showing there's no issues with those expanded limits, and then a Governor saying we're not going to expand the limits for these (lame) reasons.
FYI, the only reason why PA stayed at 55 from 1987 through 1995; was indeed because then-Gov. Casey (Sr.) was opposed to raising PA's maximum speed limit.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 20, 2015, 03:15:07 PM
If PennDOT or the PA Turnpike commission want to expand the limit, do they have to go thru the Governor to get it done?
Absolutely.  Using your homestate of NJ as an example; did NJDOT, NJTA, NJHA and/or SJTA raise their speed limits to 65 before Gov. Whitman authorized such?  IIRC, it wasn't until NJ 101.5 FM made an issue of it and prompted listeners to call their state Representatives and Senators to get legislation rolling on such and submit such to Gov. Whitman.

These are different issues than what is going on in PA.

In PA, the law has already been passed to allow 70 mph, and now they are in a 'testing' phase.  The question was if the Governor needs to approve any additional increases.  From what I can tell, it's not really his call at this point.

In regards to NJ, yes, just like every other state, the governor had to pass a bill to allow a higher speed limit.  After a 3 year testing phase, NJDOT (and other authorities) determined what additional highways and stretches of existing 65 mph could be expanded, but the governor didn't have to sign off on those additions.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 02 Park Ave on July 20, 2015, 05:40:26 PM
There was a story in today's Courier-Post in which it was stated that it would be a year until the decision is made.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on July 20, 2015, 07:37:17 PM
Work in Reading?  Got your detour plans in hand?  The Buttonwood Street bridge closes on Tues. (7/21) for two years.

http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-berks/travel-changes-in-place-ahead-of-buttonwood-street-bridge-closure/34167260

Here's U.S. 422 westbound going under it in Oct. 2011...

http://tinyurl.com/nksu77e

And here's the view of the Schuylkill from the bridge itself in September 2011...

http://tinyurl.com/qax3suw

This button copy sign will probably go by the time the project's done, if it hasn't already...

http://tinyurl.com/p5nzgcu

And here's WFMZ-69's report...


ixnay

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on July 21, 2015, 02:05:36 PM
There's a lot of button copy in the mess of where 183 ends at Bus. 422.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on August 13, 2015, 03:38:58 PM
What is the purpose of the x15 routes in Northeastern PA?  The routes PA 115, PA 315, and PA 715 are all not even near US 15 to be children of it, and I find it too much of a coincidence that all those x15s are all connected to each other and assigned to the same reason.  Also PA 115 being truncated made that a much bigger highway at one time as it used to enter Easton via Sullivan Trail and connect to US 22 in Center City, so I get the feeling something bigger went on that influenced that numbering.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 13, 2015, 03:44:17 PM
What is the purpose of the x15 routes in Northeastern PA?  The routes PA 115, PA 315, and PA 715 are all not even near US 15 to be children of it, and I find it too much of a coincidence that all those x15s are all connected to each other and assigned to the same reason.  Also PA 115 being truncated made that a much bigger highway at one time as it used to enter Easton via Sullivan Trail and connect to US 22 in Center City, so I get the feeling something bigger went on that influenced that numbering.

PA's system is designed like this:

100s-700s: spurs of 1-99
800-831: No pattern.
832-899-900s: starting from 99 and going backwards spurs. (Hence 832->99)

215-715 are all spurs of PA 15, which was replaced by PA 115 in 1928 to eliminate redundancy. So in effect, PA 115 is the parent.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ekt8750 on August 13, 2015, 04:36:46 PM
This site is a good primer on the PA State Highway System
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on August 13, 2015, 09:27:49 PM
What is the purpose of the x15 routes in Northeastern PA?  The routes PA 115, PA 315, and PA 715 are all not even near US 15 to be children of it, and I find it too much of a coincidence that all those x15s are all connected to each other and assigned to the same reason.  Also PA 115 being truncated made that a much bigger highway at one time as it used to enter Easton via Sullivan Trail and connect to US 22 in Center City, so I get the feeling something bigger went on that influenced that numbering.

PA's system is designed like this:

100s-700s: spurs of 1-99
800-831: No pattern.
832-899-900s: starting from 99 and going backwards spurs. (Hence 832->99)

215-715 are all spurs of PA 15, which was replaced by PA 115 in 1928 to eliminate redundancy. So in effect, PA 115 is the parent.
So basically I sort of stumbled on to it as I had a feeling that PA 115's original routing was the key.  I just did not know how.

So just like PA 83 turned into PA 183 in Berks County, so this happened.  Interesting, as I just acquired an old PA map, however not old enough, but old enough that PA 115 came down to Easton while US 611 entered New Jersey.

  I do remember the US 22/ PA 33 interchange being built in which PA 115 still had to exist south of US 209 then as PA 33 replaced PA 115 south of Snydersville.  So anytime in the the  mid to late 50's  that map had to be published as I-83 did not exist east of the Susquehana River and there was no I-78 or I-81 even on the map as well as many other interstates.  The US 611 freeway in New Jersey was built in 1953 as that is the time of the current I-80 crossing of the Delaware opening to traffic.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 13, 2015, 11:54:44 PM
Weird situation with 83, because 83 was replaced by multiple routes in 1960-1 due to the redundancy of interstates. There have been 2 183 as a result.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on August 14, 2015, 06:53:22 AM
This site is a good primer on the PA State Highway System

Are you talking about pahighways.com ?  Or aaroads.com/forum ?

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ekt8750 on August 14, 2015, 12:05:22 PM
This site is a good primer on the PA State Highway System

Are you talking about pahighways.com ?  Or aaroads.com/forum ?

ixnay

Sigh. I'm and idiot and forgot to include the link to the site I was referring to:

http://www.m-plex.com/roads/paindex.html
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on August 14, 2015, 06:00:12 PM
100s-700s: spurs of 1-99
800-831: No pattern.
832-899-900s: starting from 99 and going backwards spurs. (Hence 832->99)
I have no idea what that last phrase means. Elaborate.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ekt8750 on August 14, 2015, 06:53:36 PM
100s-700s: spurs of 1-99
800-831: No pattern.
832-899-900s: starting from 99 and going backwards spurs. (Hence 832->99)
I have no idea what that last phrase means. Elaborate.

He means the parent routes of the 800-999 spur routes start at PA99 and continue in descending order. In the example he used, PA832's parent route is PA99.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 14, 2015, 09:01:47 PM
100s-700s: spurs of 1-99
800-831: No pattern.
832-899-900s: starting from 99 and going backwards spurs. (Hence 832->99)
I have no idea what that last phrase means. Elaborate.

As noted above, starting at 832, the routes serve as spurs from a parent starting with 99, with 832 being a spur of 99, 833 with 96, 834 with 92 and so on.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on August 15, 2015, 01:35:10 AM
100s-700s: spurs of 1-99
800-831: No pattern.
832-899-900s: starting from 99 and going backwards spurs. (Hence 832->99)
I have no idea what that last phrase means. Elaborate.

As noted above, starting at 832, the routes serve as spurs from a parent starting with 99, with 832 being a spur of 99, 833 with 96, 834 with 92 and so on.
Does that pattern repeat, or does it terminate after the first go-through? I have no source to go by online (they just generically say "no pattern over 800").
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ekt8750 on August 15, 2015, 03:02:23 PM
100s-700s: spurs of 1-99
800-831: No pattern.
832-899-900s: starting from 99 and going backwards spurs. (Hence 832->99)
I have no idea what that last phrase means. Elaborate.

As noted above, starting at 832, the routes serve as spurs from a parent starting with 99, with 832 being a spur of 99, 833 with 96, 834 with 92 and so on.
Does that pattern repeat, or does it terminate after the first go-through? I have no source to go by online (they just generically say "no pattern over 800").

No the parent routes can and have multiple spurs assigned to them. A lot of the 800-999 series spur routes have been reclassified as Quadrant Routes since they were introduced in the early 80s.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: MASTERNC on September 11, 2015, 09:22:57 PM
Looks like PennDOT is unveiling a new website this weekend.  One of my bookmarked links tried to redirect me to a new site, but I then got an error.

The new address is http://www.penndot.gov/.  Trying it right now starts an endless redirect loop.

Hopefully the new site is more streamlined.  Seemed each district differed significantly in format and content.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on September 21, 2015, 11:38:02 PM
Just out of curiosity, just when did PennDOT reconstruct the current US 22 & PA 145 interchange in Whitehall from the previous cloverleaf that stood for decades before?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on September 22, 2015, 10:33:42 AM
Just recently, I think it wrapped up some time last year.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on September 22, 2015, 10:52:46 AM
This just in: Long-awaited widening of Route 22 begins Monday (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-route22-widening-project-starting-20150918-story.html).

Project involves the Lehigh Valley Expressway stretch of US 22 (to be widened from 4-lanes to 6-lanes).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on September 22, 2015, 12:16:50 PM
This just in: Long-awaited widening of Route 22 begins Monday (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-route22-widening-project-starting-20150918-story.html).

Project involves the Lehigh Valley Expressway stretch of US 22 (to be widened from 4-lanes to 6-lanes).

One thing I couldn't tell:  is this a true widening to 6-lanes, or is this just adding auxiliiary lanes between interchanges and across the Lehigh River Bridge (not that it wouldn't help)?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on September 22, 2015, 12:34:18 PM
One thing I couldn't tell:  is this a true widening to 6-lanes, or is this just adding auxiliiary lanes between interchanges and across the Lehigh River Bridge (not that it wouldn't help)?
From what I've read and can tell; it will be a true widening.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on September 22, 2015, 03:34:52 PM
Are there longer-term plans to widen more of it? It could use a widening between the NE Extension and 33, at least.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on September 22, 2015, 03:59:14 PM
Are there longer-term plans to widen more of it? It could use a widening between the NE Extension and 33, at least.
I'd say widen it between I-78 to I-78 east of Alpha, New Jersey. It's the only part of I-78 that US 22 gets, at the very least.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on September 22, 2015, 04:34:48 PM
Are there longer-term plans to widen more of it? It could use a widening between the NE Extension and 33, at least.

Quote from: Morning Call article
construction crews will be on the highway to begin a five-year project to widen the road from MacArthur Road east to the Lehigh River.
...
What's starting now is a precursor to the next phase of widening, expected to cost more than $200 million, that will expand Route 22 to six lanes from Airport Road to 15th Street in Allentown.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2015, 09:19:24 PM
WGAL-TV (Channel 8): PennDOT shuts down Norman Wood Bridge in York/Lancaster counties - Officials say there is a structural deficiency (http://www.wgal.com/news/norman-wood-bridge-shut-down-in-yorklancaster-counties/35535284)

Quote
The Norman Wood Bridge that carries Route 372 over the Susquehanna River between Lancaster and York counties has been shut down.

Quote
PennDOT says the closure is necessary because of the discovery of a crack in one of the steel girders.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on September 29, 2015, 07:34:09 AM
WGAL-TV (Channel 8): PennDOT shuts down Norman Wood Bridge in York/Lancaster counties - Officials say there is a structural deficiency (http://www.wgal.com/news/norman-wood-bridge-shut-down-in-yorklancaster-counties/35535284)

Quote
The Norman Wood Bridge that carries Route 372 over the Susquehanna River between Lancaster and York counties has been shut down.

Quote
PennDOT says the closure is necessary because of the discovery of a crack in one of the steel girders.

*That* will be a mess for employees of the Holtwood power plant who live in York County or commuters from Lancaster County to Peach Bottom.

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jpi on October 07, 2015, 03:19:41 PM
WGAL-TV (Channel 8): PennDOT shuts down Norman Wood Bridge in York/Lancaster counties - Officials say there is a structural deficiency (http://www.wgal.com/news/norman-wood-bridge-shut-down-in-yorklancaster-counties/35535284)

Quote
The Norman Wood Bridge that carries Route 372 over the Susquehanna River between Lancaster and York counties has been shut down.

Quote
PennDOT says the closure is necessary because of the discovery of a crack in one of the steel girders.

*That* will be a mess for employees of the Holtwood power plant who live in York County or commuters from Lancaster County to Peach Bottom.

ixnay
From what I understand it will be closed for a month. Found this out when Steph and I were in central PA last week. The bridge opened in the late 60's but has been "pounded" by VERY LARGE loads over the years, not sure if this has anything to do with this crack they found or not.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on October 19, 2015, 03:04:46 PM
http://abc27.com/2015/10/16/penndot-reopens-part-of-norman-wood-bridge/ (http://abc27.com/2015/10/16/penndot-reopens-part-of-norman-wood-bridge/)

The PA 372 bridge was partially reopened a few days ago. One lane, alternating direction.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 09, 2015, 08:58:08 PM
OK, so I will again ask the question I ask here on occasion:  With the end of the construction season lets have some feedback on the success and failures of "Decade of investment"
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on November 17, 2015, 06:10:37 PM
A 4 mile portion of US 30 eastbound is closed between York and Lancaster after an oversize truck hit a bridge beam. It's expected to be closed until Friday.
http://www.wgal.com/news/portion-of-route-30-closed/36492250 (http://www.wgal.com/news/portion-of-route-30-closed/36492250)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on November 18, 2015, 08:05:08 PM
A 4 mile portion of US 30 eastbound is closed between York and Lancaster after an oversize truck hit a bridge beam. It's expected to be closed until Friday.
http://www.wgal.com/news/portion-of-route-30-closed/36492250 (http://www.wgal.com/news/portion-of-route-30-closed/36492250)

http://www.wgal.com/news/portion-of-route-30-closed/36492250 now says it's reopened...

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 22, 2015, 08:54:09 AM
Good to see these signs at PA-309 and US-22 still there....at least at the time the GSV car went through. 
I thought for sure when I shot them last year they'd be gone by now.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6000258,-75.5593652,3a,75y,70.74h,71.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX7QaiuS_-k23OtlR7tCreg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7724/16860740698_7db13fd674_z.jpg)

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8826/17048234835_d7d80ecca8_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on November 23, 2015, 12:28:09 PM
Only the ones EB remain, the WB ones have been replaced with signs of the same size, though not text-only, instead with small shields. You can see the new ones in the same Street View.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 25, 2015, 08:22:37 PM
Great resource of aerial photos of Pennsylvania from 1930s to late 1960s:

http://www.pennpilot.psu.edu/
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on November 25, 2015, 10:14:01 PM
Great resource of aerial photos of Pennsylvania from 1930s to late 1960s:

http://www.pennpilot.psu.edu/

The 1971 aerial of Chester, PA show the ferryboats plying across from the foot of Flower Street (U.S. 322) to Bridgeport, NJ before 322 resumes its trek to Atlantic City, while the ferry's replacement, the Commodore Barry Bridge, is under construction.  The hospital where I was born is in that aerial too (too bad there aren't street and landmark labels, though to be fair, the lack of same alleviates the clutter). Growing up in Chester and Boothwyn, I rode that ferry a few times on the way to the Jersey Shore, NYC, and even on an elementary school field trip.  I was 12 and a half when the CBB opened, and my dad and I drove across it the day after.  Seeing that aerial brings back memories.  Thanks, CanesFan, and RIP Dad and Chester-Bridgeport Ferry.

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on December 17, 2015, 03:27:08 PM
http://abc27.com/2015/12/17/penndot-opens-new-route-411-bypass-around-columbia/ (http://abc27.com/2015/12/17/penndot-opens-new-route-411-bypass-around-columbia/)

The PA 441 (not 411 as the article says) bypass around Columbia, Lancaster County is now open.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on December 17, 2015, 04:51:47 PM
The town's website has a project page (http://www.columbiapa.net/route-441/) that includes construction photos and maps of the alternatives considered (Alt 4A is what they went with).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on December 19, 2015, 06:44:34 AM
In a near repeat of the US 30 incident in York County about a month ago, yet another oversize load truck has damaged an overpass on a highway. This time, its along US 222 northbound at Landis Valley Rd, north of Lancaster. US 222 is back open, but the bridge is still closed. There must be something in the water around here...

http://www.wgal.com/news/truck-smashes-into-bridge-shuts-down-route-222/37034334 (http://www.wgal.com/news/truck-smashes-into-bridge-shuts-down-route-222/37034334)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on December 19, 2015, 07:25:37 AM
In a near repeat of the US 30 incident in York County about a month ago, yet another oversize load truck has damaged an overpass on a highway. This time, its along US 222 northbound at Landis Valley Rd, north of Lancaster. US 222 is back open, but the bridge is still closed. There must be something in the water around here...

http://www.wgal.com/news/truck-smashes-into-bridge-shuts-down-route-222/37034334 (http://www.wgal.com/news/truck-smashes-into-bridge-shuts-down-route-222/37034334)
The overpasses are outdated. Most of them are under 14 feet (somewhere around 12-13 feet to be exact), because PennDOT won't raise them. I know  this from personal experience.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on December 19, 2015, 07:52:51 AM
In a near repeat of the US 30 incident in York County about a month ago, yet another oversize load truck has damaged an overpass on a highway. This time, its along US 222 northbound at Landis Valley Rd, north of Lancaster. US 222 is back open, but the bridge is still closed. There must be something in the water around here...

http://www.wgal.com/news/truck-smashes-into-bridge-shuts-down-route-222/37034334 (http://www.wgal.com/news/truck-smashes-into-bridge-shuts-down-route-222/37034334)
The overpasses are outdated. Most of them are under 14 feet (somewhere around 11-12 feet to be exact), because PennDOT won't raise them. I know  this from personal experience.

The ones on US 30 and US 222 FREEWAYS are not 11-12 feet...though many of them are under 14' 5", and PennDOT is generally pretty good about signing anything 14' 5"and under on freeways.  The ones mentioned in the article are on freeways.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on December 19, 2015, 08:07:52 AM
In a near repeat of the US 30 incident in York County about a month ago, yet another oversize load truck has damaged an overpass on a highway. This time, its along US 222 northbound at Landis Valley Rd, north of Lancaster. US 222 is back open, but the bridge is still closed. There must be something in the water around here...

http://www.wgal.com/news/truck-smashes-into-bridge-shuts-down-route-222/37034334 (http://www.wgal.com/news/truck-smashes-into-bridge-shuts-down-route-222/37034334)
The overpasses are outdated. Most of them are under 14 feet (somewhere around 11-12 feet to be exact), because PennDOT won't raise them. I know  this from personal experience.

The ones on US 30 and US 222 FREEWAYS are not 11-12 feet...though many of them are under 14' 5", and PennDOT is generally pretty good about signing anything 14' 5"and under on freeways.  The ones mentioned in the article are on freeways.
My mistake. Meant to type 12-13.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on December 19, 2015, 08:12:45 PM
In a near repeat of the US 30 incident in York County about a month ago, yet another oversize load truck has damaged an overpass on a highway. This time, its along US 222 northbound at Landis Valley Rd, north of Lancaster. US 222 is back open, but the bridge is still closed. There must be something in the water around here...

http://www.wgal.com/news/truck-smashes-into-bridge-shuts-down-route-222/37034334 (http://www.wgal.com/news/truck-smashes-into-bridge-shuts-down-route-222/37034334)
The overpasses are outdated. Most of them are under 14 feet (somewhere around 11-12 feet to be exact), because PennDOT won't raise them. I know  this from personal experience.

The ones on US 30 and US 222 FREEWAYS are not 11-12 feet...though many of them are under 14' 5", and PennDOT is generally pretty good about signing anything 14' 5"and under on freeways.  The ones mentioned in the article are on freeways.
My mistake. Meant to type 12-13.

Apparently, the bridge in question was 14' 5"
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Buffaboy on January 20, 2016, 10:14:44 PM
Why is I-90 built narrower in rural parts of PA than it is in rural parts of NY?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on January 20, 2016, 10:19:53 PM
Why is I-90 built narrower in rural parts of PA than it is in rural parts of NY?
All I-90 serves in PA is just the boonies of Erie....no need for any additional lanes. I-90's AADT in Erie County is 21,460 as of 2010.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: thenetwork on January 21, 2016, 03:23:00 AM
Why is I-90 built narrower in rural parts of PA than it is in rural parts of NY?
All I-90 serves in PA is just the boonies of Erie....

Fixed!   :D
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2016, 05:08:59 PM
Baltimore Sun: 3 dead, scores hospitalized after Pennsylvania pileup involving 50 vehicles (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/ct-pennsylvania-pileup-20160213-story.html)

Quote
A pileup involving dozens of vehicles on a Pennsylvania interstate that killed three people and sent scores to hospitals appears to have been related to a passing snow squall, authorities said Saturday.

Quote
Trooper Justin Summa said three fatalities had been confirmed and an unknown number of critically injured patients were flown to hospitals. Seventy more were transported by ambulance to other facilities following the crash in Interstate 78 in Fredericksburg.

Quote
State police said more than 50 vehicles were involved in the crash, which happened around 9:45 a.m. The pileup left tractor-trailers, box trucks and cars tangled together across three traffic lanes and into the snow-covered median about 75 miles northwest of Philadelphia.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 13, 2016, 05:38:23 PM
Baltimore Sun: 3 dead, scores hospitalized after Pennsylvania pileup involving 50 vehicles (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/ct-pennsylvania-pileup-20160213-story.html)

Quote
A pileup involving dozens of vehicles on a Pennsylvania interstate that killed three people and sent scores to hospitals appears to have been related to a passing snow squall, authorities said Saturday.

Quote
Trooper Justin Summa said three fatalities had been confirmed and an unknown number of critically injured patients were flown to hospitals. Seventy more were transported by ambulance to other facilities following the crash in Interstate 78 in Fredericksburg.

Quote
State police said more than 50 vehicles were involved in the crash, which happened around 9:45 a.m. The pileup left tractor-trailers, box trucks and cars tangled together across three traffic lanes and into the snow-covered median about 75 miles northwest of Philadelphia.

I am linking the PennLive (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/02/state_police_detail_gruesome_i.html) update on this.  This incident and the fatal crash on PA 641 at Locust Point Road (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/02/one_killed_several_injured_in.html#incart_article_small) west of Mechanicsburg on Tuesday involving a school bus and knocking down power lines has made it a long, sad week up here.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2016, 11:41:31 PM
I am linking the PennLive (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/02/state_police_detail_gruesome_i.html) update on this.  This incident and the fatal crash on PA 641 at Locust Point Road (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/02/one_killed_several_injured_in.html#incart_article_small) west of Mechanicsburg on Tuesday involving a school bus and knocking down power lines has made it a long, sad week up here.

Agreed. That school bus crash was bad enough.

I-78 seems to have earned a lot of notoriety of late for bad crashes, and the high percentage of truck traffic (at least some of the trucks presumably shunpiking the Pennsylvania Turnpike and its high tolls) does not make matters better.

Though IMO there are Interstates in Pennsylvania that are much more of a challenge to drive when compared to I-78 - most of "free" I-70 and nearly all of I-83 in Pennsylvania are in that category.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on February 14, 2016, 06:54:52 AM
It's not just the traffic.  As I've been arguing with someone on Facebook, the topography and climate of Pennsylvania lend themselves well to snow squalls.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on February 14, 2016, 07:48:39 AM
The fact that I-78 is virtually a tangent from the I-81 junction to the U.S. 22 split near Allentown doesn't help either IMO (causes highway hypnosis).  I'm lucky to have never been in a I-78 mishap or inconvenienced by one.

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on February 14, 2016, 09:36:09 AM
http://fox43.com/2016/02/13/update-3-people-dead-along-interstate-78-pileup-in-lebanon-county/

I take we are talking about this here.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on February 14, 2016, 10:37:04 AM
http://fox43.com/2016/02/13/update-3-people-dead-along-interstate-78-pileup-in-lebanon-county/

I take we are talking about this here.
Yep. I've been on I-78 every time we have go to NYC, there's always some bad incident that causes a ripple effect. ixnay on the other hand, is very lucky compared to me.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on February 14, 2016, 10:27:29 PM
The fact that I-78 is virtually a tangent from the I-81 junction to the U.S. 22 split near Allentown doesn't help either IMO (causes highway hypnosis).  I'm lucky to have never been in a I-78 mishap or inconvenienced by one.

ixnay
See, I don't feel that way. It does have some minor horizontal bends, but vertically it keeps changing, and you're in a narrow trench (on and off) for several miles. With the constant jockeying among trucks and slow PA drivers, I've never had a dull moment on 78.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 15, 2016, 06:50:36 AM
Though IMO there are Interstates in Pennsylvania that are much more of a challenge to drive when compared to I-78 - most of "free" I-70 and nearly all of I-83 in Pennsylvania are in that category.

Maybe it was just me, but now that I got a chance to drive the Schuylkill Expressway portion of I-76 when it was not congested, I feel that it is safer to drive on there when it is congested due to how substandard it is.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 15, 2016, 08:58:47 PM
Though IMO there are Interstates in Pennsylvania that are much more of a challenge to drive when compared to I-78 - most of "free" I-70 and nearly all of I-83 in Pennsylvania are in that category.

Maybe it was just me, but now that I got a chance to drive the Schuylkill Expressway portion of I-76 when it was not congested, I feel that it is safer to drive on there when it is congested due to how substandard it is.

LOL

From 676 on North it's not too bad. Its a little hairy South of 676 in the tunnel and approaching Passyunk Ave. But considering I've been on it several times when it's entirely possible to go well above the speed limit, I guess I'm just used to it!
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on February 25, 2016, 11:10:26 PM
I am linking the PennLive (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/02/state_police_detail_gruesome_i.html) update on this.  This incident and the fatal crash on PA 641 at Locust Point Road (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/02/one_killed_several_injured_in.html#incart_article_small) west of Mechanicsburg on Tuesday involving a school bus and knocking down power lines has made it a long, sad week up here.

Agreed. That school bus crash was bad enough.

I-78 seems to have earned a lot of notoriety of late for bad crashes, and the high percentage of truck traffic (at least some of the trucks presumably shunpiking the Pennsylvania Turnpike and its high tolls) does not make matters better.

Though IMO there are Interstates in Pennsylvania that are much more of a challenge to drive when compared to I-78 - most of "free" I-70 and nearly all of I-83 in Pennsylvania are in that category.

But I-70 and I-83 seem to have far fewer major accidents than I-78 does. And the crazy thing about this pileup is that it occurred on a reconstructed segment that actually exceeds Interstate standards with 12' interior and exterior shoulders despite having only four lanes. I'm beginning to think that people so lack any sense of self-preservation that they don't even think to slow down in the snow. Seriously, if I was able to drive for 53 miles in a rear-wheel-drive pickup truck during a major ice storm without even coming close to crashing, then I really don't see how these pileups can happen. You treat a snow squall the same way you treat a sudden burst of heavy rain: You can see it in advance, so slow down before you enter it. It's common sense.

Anyway, based on what I saw on Google Maps, I-78 appears to be substandard from 10 miles east of the I-81 split (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4679294,-76.3293164,3134m/data=!3m1!1e3) to one mile west of the U.S. 22 split (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5824666,-75.6104759,3207m/data=!3m1!1e3). That's about 40 miles of highway that needs to be reconstructed.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on February 25, 2016, 11:41:04 PM
Anyway, based on what I saw on Google Maps, I-78 appears to be substandard from 10 miles east of the I-81 split (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4679294,-76.3293164,3134m/data=!3m1!1e3) to one mile west of the U.S. 22 split (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5824666,-75.6104759,3207m/data=!3m1!1e3). That's about 40 miles of highway that needs to be reconstructed.

Or in other words, the section that was built in the ’50s as the US 22 freeway prior to its inclusion into Pennsylvania’s Interstate network. It’s basically the same scenario with I-83 (originally an upgraded US 111) and substandard section of I-70 (originally billed “new PA 71”).

I wouldn’t describe I-78 as being as deficient as either I-83 or I-70 between Washington (Pa) and New Stanton, however. With a few exceptions, the highway at least offers ten-foot interior shoulders and twelve feet on the exterior. There’s a lot of substandard ramp geometry, but there have been some improvements (such as at Hamburg), and many of the exits are low-volume interchanges where few people get off or on (Frystown, Grimes, New Smithville, etc.)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on February 26, 2016, 08:21:53 AM
Quote from: Gnutella
on a reconstructed segment that actually exceeds meets Interstate standards with 12' interior and exterior shoulders on a heavy truck route despite having only four lanes.

FTFY, since Interstate design standards say a 12ft shoulder should be considered where truck traffic is heavy.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2016, 01:33:41 PM
Isn't there a huge stub here? Does this mean it will finally be used?

Bids Announced for the Route 219 Paving Contract from Somerset to Meyersdale

02/25/2016



​Hollidaysburg, PA – PennDOT today announced the bid results for the paving phase of the Route 219 Somerset to Meyersdale project that will build approximately 11 miles of new, four-lane limited-access highway from Somerset to Meyersdale in Summit, Black, Brothersvalley and Somerset townships, Somerset County.

The paving phase is the third and final phase of the project and includes final grading, paving, guiderail, drainage, and interchange work, including lighting.

 

The first two phases of the project were the earthwork phase and the structures phase. These phases are currently under construction.

The apparent low bidder was New Enterprise Stone & Lime Co., Inc., of New Enterprise with a bid amount of $52,124,021. They were the lowest of four bidders. PennDOT will now review the bid materials from New Enterprise Stone & Lime Co., Inc. If the information is complete and in order, the construction contract should be awarded to the company within the next month.

 

“We’re very excited to be moving forward with the final phase of the project and expect the highway to be open to traffic by 2018. This project has been a long time coming and once complete will provide improved safety and mobility for the traveling public as well as economic growth potential for the region,” said Thomas Prestash, PennDOT District 9-0 Executive.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cl94 on April 27, 2016, 03:51:06 PM
That stretch has been under construction for a couple of years and yes, it does involve the stub. Once it is open, US 219 will be a continuous freeway from a few miles north of the Maryland line to Ebensburg, about 1/3 of its length in the state.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: rickmastfan67 on April 27, 2016, 08:30:53 PM
Isn't there a huge stub here? Does this mean it will finally be used?

Bids Announced for the Route 219 Paving Contract from Somerset to Meyersdale

02/25/2016



​Hollidaysburg, PA – PennDOT today announced the bid results for the paving phase of the Route 219 Somerset to Meyersdale project that will build approximately 11 miles of new, four-lane limited-access highway from Somerset to Meyersdale in Summit, Black, Brothersvalley and Somerset townships, Somerset County.

The paving phase is the third and final phase of the project and includes final grading, paving, guiderail, drainage, and interchange work, including lighting.

 

The first two phases of the project were the earthwork phase and the structures phase. These phases are currently under construction.

The apparent low bidder was New Enterprise Stone & Lime Co., Inc., of New Enterprise with a bid amount of $52,124,021. They were the lowest of four bidders. PennDOT will now review the bid materials from New Enterprise Stone & Lime Co., Inc. If the information is complete and in order, the construction contract should be awarded to the company within the next month.

 

“We’re very excited to be moving forward with the final phase of the project and expect the highway to be open to traffic by 2018. This project has been a long time coming and once complete will provide improved safety and mobility for the traveling public as well as economic growth potential for the region,” said Thomas Prestash, PennDOT District 9-0 Executive.


https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2269.0 ;)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on April 28, 2016, 03:48:44 PM
From PennDOT:  Pennsylvania Turnpike and PennDOT Announce Next Step for Planned I-81-Turnpike Beltway for Scranton Region

http://www.penndot.gov/Pages/all-news-details.aspx?newsid=218#.VyJoB3fD_IU (http://www.penndot.gov/Pages/all-news-details.aspx?newsid=218#.VyJoB3fD_IU)

Quote
The plan calls for highway-speed connections that will enable motorists to seamlessly drive from interstate to interstate in northbound and southbound directions. It includes two separate links: one connection south of Scranton in the Borough of Dupont and Pittston Township, Luzerne County, and a second connection north of Scranton in South Abington Township, Lackawanna County.

Quote
Environmental studies and preliminary design for the Scranton Beltway are expected to last three to four years with a cost of up to $10 million. Final design would start at the completion of preliminary design. Following design, construction could start as soon as 2021. The construction cost is estimated at around $160 million; PennDOT will contribute $40 million, with the remaining portion funded by the Turnpike.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: vdeane on April 28, 2016, 06:56:31 PM
Given how the I-95/I-276 interchange is being handled, construction starting in 2021 is overly optimistic.  2071 seems more likely.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 13, 2016, 03:16:02 PM
WNEP Channel 16 (ABC in Scranton, Pennsylvania): Wrong-Way Drivers: The PennDOT Interview (http://wnep.com/2016/05/12/wrong-way-drivers-the-penndot-interview/)

Quote
The problem of wrong-way driving in our area lately has received so much attention, and so much reaction from our viewers, that Newswatch 16 traveled to Harrisburg to talk with the head of PennDOT.

Quote
It appears as though Pennsylvania is in the middle of elaborate research studies on an issue Newswatch 16 has been reporting on this month: wrong-way driving on interstate highways.

Quote
Pennsylvania is among nearly a half dozen states in the northeast taking part in research focused on wrong-way driving on highways.



Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on June 08, 2016, 06:10:21 PM
Question for those of you who live near or travel I-80 in the Poconos.  Are the Pocono Exits signs still there along the interstate from the Delaware River to Hazelton listing the next three exits by exit number?

I cannot remember for sure, but the last time I was there in 01, along that road, I could have thought I saw those particular signs amended to list the exits by mileage rather than be exit number.  I was wondering if that recollection was correct?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on June 09, 2016, 02:39:10 PM
I’m not sure if this is what you are talking about, but I drove from New York to central PA about a month ago and can verify that this sign is still in place: https://goo.gl/maps/9sXrmDUA37R2 (https://goo.gl/maps/9sXrmDUA37R2)

I recall an earlier, button copy version of the sign that was basically the same except in button copy and with the earlier sequential exit numbers rather than the current mileage-based ones.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on June 09, 2016, 08:07:29 PM
Nice find, but there were others like west of Stroudsburg with:

Pocono Exits
46N Bartonsville
45  Tannersvile
44  Scotrun

Then I believe there was one west of Dreher Avenue:
46S Snydersville
46N Bartonsville
45   Tannersville

They used to be button copy, but I swore that one reflective sign had it the same way with the next 3 exits but instead of using the exit number before the town it services, it was followed after the community with a mileage number.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.986063,-75.2324126,3a,75y,173.84h,69.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1serE6NM6gxY8YEncW5UVZlQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Above is the exit list sign for EB I-80 for its two Stroudsburg Exits.  Notice how it list the distance to both Main Street and Park Avenue.  I believe before it listed the former exit numbers 48- Main St. and 50- Park Ave with no mileage to either exits.  The same goes for the Pocono list exits sign.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Flyer78 on June 10, 2016, 08:58:56 AM
Here is one off I-81 in Scranton, https://goo.gl/maps/MZJ3rxvU9zo

In the time after conversion, the sequential exit numbers were covered up, leaving just the exit destination and distance. (Both the current (2014) image and the oldest in GSV show the mile-based exists in place)

I tried to find a similar sign on I-80, I remember it, but not coming up with it.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on June 10, 2016, 02:06:02 PM
Nice find, but there were others like west of Stroudsburg with:

Pocono Exits
46N Bartonsville
45  Tannersvile
44  Scotrun

My guess is that the Pocono-area signs were gone by the early 2000s, because that’s when I began driving, and I don’t recall having seen them. Of course I might have just overlooked them.

There are still signs around Hazleton like the ones you described (https://goo.gl/maps/4ByBsWA99mN2), although they do include mileage to the interchange, and the exit numbers (I believe two-digit sequential numbers) have since been greened out.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on June 10, 2016, 06:12:26 PM
The first step of I-83 East Shore Section 1 starts next week:

http://abc27.com/2016/06/09/major-closure-and-detour-in-dauphin-county-starts-on-june-15/ (http://abc27.com/2016/06/09/major-closure-and-detour-in-dauphin-county-starts-on-june-15/)

'Bout damn time...
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on June 11, 2016, 04:21:11 AM
The first step of I-83 East Shore Section 1 starts next week:

http://abc27.com/2016/06/09/major-closure-and-detour-in-dauphin-county-starts-on-june-15/ (http://abc27.com/2016/06/09/major-closure-and-detour-in-dauphin-county-starts-on-june-15/)

'Bout damn time...
FINALLY. That section is so narrow and substandard, I have no idea why it didn't stay as US 230. Now we wait for them to fix the I-83/Turnpike interchange, 83/581, and the Eisenhower.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 11, 2016, 07:05:27 AM
But will they be smart enough to bridge spans to accomodate 8 lanes if it ever becomes needed.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: billpa on June 11, 2016, 07:19:19 AM
The first step of I-83 East Shore Section 1 starts next week:

http://abc27.com/2016/06/09/major-closure-and-detour-in-dauphin-county-starts-on-june-15/ (http://abc27.com/2016/06/09/major-closure-and-detour-in-dauphin-county-starts-on-june-15/)

'Bout damn time...
This is my home area and I travel it daily. It'll be a mess for years but I welcome it.

SM-T230NU

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 11, 2016, 10:04:30 AM
But will they be smart enough to bridge spans to accomodate 8 lanes if it ever becomes needed.
See here for the Preliminary Design (http://www.i-83beltway.com/img/I83ES%20WEBSITE%20ROLL%20PLOT.pdf).  Practically there will be 6 lanes plus 2 auxiliary lanes between each interchange when the project is finally complete.  Ultimately the north end will tie into the current ramp configuration at the I-81/I-83 interchange. 

Also the I-81 widening to three lanes from I-83 to Linglestown/Paxtonia (Exit 72) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7602.msg2134752#msg2134752)(the next exit northbound) is supposed to start later this year as well.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on June 12, 2016, 07:15:07 PM
But will they be smart enough to bridge spans to accomodate 8 lanes if it ever becomes needed.
See here for the Preliminary Design (http://www.i-83beltway.com/img/I83ES%20WEBSITE%20ROLL%20PLOT.pdf).  Practically there will be 6 lanes plus 2 auxiliary lanes between each interchange when the project is finally complete.  Ultimately the north end will tie into the current ramp configuration at the I-81/I-83 interchange. 

Also the I-81 widening to three lanes from I-83 to Linglestown/Paxtonia (Exit 72) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7602.msg2134752#msg2134752)(the next exit northbound) is supposed to start later this year as well.
That, and the section from PA 114 to PA 581 as well, if I am not mistaken. Been keeping an ear out for those projects, but haven't heard anything about them lately.

The first step of I-83 East Shore Section 1 starts next week:

http://abc27.com/2016/06/09/major-closure-and-detour-in-dauphin-county-starts-on-june-15/ (http://abc27.com/2016/06/09/major-closure-and-detour-in-dauphin-county-starts-on-june-15/)

'Bout damn time...
FINALLY. That section is so narrow and substandard, I have no idea why it didn't stay as US 230. Now we wait for them to fix the I-83/Turnpike interchange, 83/581, and the Eisenhower.

The Eisenhower is a realistic expectation. The other two, not so sure. Given that they just modified it, and the fact that further upgrades aren't in Penndot's 12 year plan, I wouldn't expect to even hear about a full reconstruction of 83/581 for another decade, at minimum. That said, looks like the Lowther st. bridge that was redone in 2012, was designed with expansion in mind. I-83/Turnpike interchange reconfiguration? That's simply not going to happen unless the PTC plans to widen the turnpike under I-83 and has to do work around there
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on June 12, 2016, 10:55:56 PM
Given that they just modified it, and the fact that further upgrades aren't in Penndot's 12 year plan, I wouldn't expect to even hear about a full reconstruction of 83/581 for another decade, at minimum. That said, looks like the Lowther st. bridge that was redone in 2012, was designed with expansion in mind.

PennDOT at least had (http://www.i-83beltway.com/master_plan/mp_48.html) a much better redesign as part of the "Master Plan" for I-83. Not sure if that's been pushed to the far back burner, with the new design being mostly a quick fix, or cancelled outright in favor of the new design.

The Lowther St. bridge really does have plenty of room, and the new I-83 mainline and SB on-ramp from 581 in the original design appear to fit right into the new bridge.

I-83/Turnpike interchange reconfiguration? That's simply not going to happen unless the PTC plans to widen the turnpike under I-83 and has to do work around there

The PTC has ultimate plans to widen the entire Turnpike to six lanes, except in the tunnels, so a widening under I-83 would happen eventually. As for an actual interchange redesign, though, there isn't much room to redesign it and tie in the interchange immediately north on 83, so a beefed-up double-trumpet and maybe an extra slip ramp or two are probably all that would ever happen.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cl94 on June 14, 2016, 12:35:13 AM
I was on US 15 yesterday between the New York border and Mansfield and the speed limit is indeed 70. PennDOT must have bumped up the limit pretty quickly after it was announced. Heading north, the limit drops to 65 immediately north of the last exit in PA, but raises to 70 immediately after crossing the state line SB.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on June 14, 2016, 02:20:16 AM
What about the section from the river north to the Eisenhower? There's some really old overpasses and it's really narrow. I actually get nervous at that section of I-83 because of how narrow it is. One scary overpass for me is the 19th Street overpass, it seems much lower than 14 feet. Also, that section is always congested, even outside of rush hour. That section is a problem whenever I've went to Hersheypark before, most recently last summer, and that was a slog up until the Eisenhower Interchange.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 14, 2016, 06:12:38 AM
What about the section from the river north to the Eisenhower? There's some really old overpasses and it's really narrow. I actually get nervous at that section of I-83 because of how narrow it is. One scary overpass for me is the 19th Street overpass, it seems much lower than 14 feet. Also, that section is always congested, even outside of rush hour. That section is a problem whenever I've went to Hersheypark before, most recently last summer, and that was a slog up until the Eisenhower Interchange.

From what I remember (and verified on the I-83 Master Plan (http://www.i-83beltway.com/master_plan/mp_60.html)), the Eisenhower interchange reconstruction will be after Section 1, then it will be from there to the river after that.  (basically each contract following I-83 SB)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on June 14, 2016, 05:45:47 PM
Given that they just modified it, and the fact that further upgrades aren't in Penndot's 12 year plan, I wouldn't expect to even hear about a full reconstruction of 83/581 for another decade, at minimum. That said, looks like the Lowther st. bridge that was redone in 2012, was designed with expansion in mind.

PennDOT at least had (http://www.i-83beltway.com/master_plan/mp_48.html) a much better redesign as part of the "Master Plan" for I-83. Not sure if that's been pushed to the far back burner, with the new design being mostly a quick fix, or cancelled outright in favor of the new design.

The Lowther St. bridge really does have plenty of room, and the new I-83 mainline and SB on-ramp from 581 in the original design appear to fit right into the new bridge.
Yes, there is room for at least 2 lanes plus full shoulders in both directions, plus some assorted ramps, and that's why even though they half-assed things, I do believe that they eventually intend to do the redesign depicted in the I-83 master plan. Just a matter of funding and priorities.

I-83/Turnpike interchange reconfiguration? That's simply not going to happen unless the PTC plans to widen the turnpike under I-83 and has to do work around there

The PTC has ultimate plans to widen the entire Turnpike to six lanes, except in the tunnels, so a widening under I-83 would happen eventually. As for an actual interchange redesign, though, there isn't much room to redesign it and tie in the interchange immediately north on 83, so a beefed-up double-trumpet and maybe an extra slip ramp or two are probably all that would ever happen.

Yes, I should have said "until". And you're right, there really isn't alot of room. Personally, I wouldn't have any issue with the Limekiln Rd. exit immediately to the north being shut down. That will not happen though. The restaurants and motels there would have a fit.

Unrelated: Does anyone know if Penndot has any intentions of eventually reconstructing the rest of the substandard sections of I-83 outside York, Harrisburg and Shrewsbury?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 14, 2016, 09:30:25 PM
As I ask every so often:  How is the "Decade of investment" program going and how is the big PPP bridge replacement work going?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 05, 2016, 01:22:01 AM
has PennDOT been replacing a lot of signs lately? I've noticed far less forward-tilted signs than before and these are newer looking signs with highway gothic vs clearview. The gantries don't seem brand new.

I noticed this on 78 in Allentown area and in the Harrisburg area on 81


Also my car hates the mountainous terrain of central PA.
Title: 2016 Pennsylvania official state map now available
Post by: briantroutman on July 15, 2016, 02:01:55 AM
This probably isn’t big enough to warrant it’s own thread...

I was in Pennsylvania about a week ago and noticed that the 2016 Official Tourism and Transportation Maps have arrived—or at least they had at the I-80 welcome center near Stroudsburg. PennDOT has updated the PDF version (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_PDF_FILES/MAPS/Statewide/otm/otmplot_web.pdf) available on their website to reflect the 2016 edition.

A few observations:

- New map is more tightly cropped on PA and cuts out OH 11; Fairmont, WV; and Reisterstown, MD which were previously visible

- Secondary road geometry is now more complex and perhaps more realistic—more sharp corners and jagged alignments

- This map shows absolutely no new roads under construction anywhere within the state—this despite work currently underway on the second segment of Pittsburgh’s Southern Beltway, the US 219 freeway in Somerset County, and at least the Susquehanna River bridge of the CSVT near Northumberland

- E-ZPass-only exit at Hickory Run added

- “Old Stone House” POI added near Slippery Rock

- Numerous hiking trail changes

- West Lawn now back on the map near Reading

- Earlier maps made it appear as if the I-99 freeway continued all the way to I-80; now there’s roughly 2/3 of a mile that’s shown as a non-access controlled divided highway, then an undivided highway

- PennDOT has long used a triangle in a semicircle symbol on freeways to show rest areas and a bare triangle along secondary highways to mark the NO COMFORT FACILITIES wayside picnic areas, many of which have been around since the ’40s. I noticed a new one marked on William Penn Highway just of PA 33 near Easton, and thinking that odd, I pulled it up on Google Maps and noticed that it’s a new and rather large park and ride lot, not a picnic or rest area. While it wasn’t on earlier maps, the smaller park and ride lot at the Quakertown Interchange of the NE Extension had been. Seems odd that these two park and rides would be labeled as if they were no-bathroom rest areas. I don’t see any other park and rides labeled as picnic areas elsewhere across the state
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on July 15, 2016, 09:45:57 PM
Update: I-83 East Shore Section 1 is under way. As of yesterday, the Elmerton Ave Bridge, which closed last month, is currently being dismantled. The approaches to the bridge have been dug out, and the structure over the beam has been removed. I suspect that they will be removing the beams very soon. Additionally, at least one new ramp alignment (SW quadrant) has been graded at the US 22 interchange.

Edit: Rolling closures on I-83 tonight to Monday morning to remove old bridge beams. http://fox43.com/2016/07/16/overnight-traffic-stoppages-scheduled-for-i-83-in-colonial-park-area/ (http://fox43.com/2016/07/16/overnight-traffic-stoppages-scheduled-for-i-83-in-colonial-park-area/)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jpi on August 01, 2016, 04:18:53 PM
Not to change the Philly subject but here is a link of the progress being made at I-83 and Mt Rose Ave (my road meet spot light from April)
http://www.ydr.com/story/news/2016/08/01/i-83-mt-rose-ave-project-what-you-need-know/87357322/
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2016, 09:34:20 PM
Not to change the Philly subject but here is a link of the progress being made at I-83 and Mt Rose Ave (my road meet spot light from April)
http://www.ydr.com/story/news/2016/08/01/i-83-mt-rose-ave-project-what-you-need-know/87357322/

Yeah, I was by there in July, and it was clear that there had been  some progress since your meet. 
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jpi on August 02, 2016, 12:56:32 AM
I will be back up there for a day middle of this month, looking forward to seeing this progress.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 03, 2016, 05:39:14 PM
Also the new US 30 configuration in Gap (http://fox43.com/2016/08/03/new-westbound-alignment-for-route-30-to-open-at-gap-this-weekend/) should open Thursday Night.  The WB lanes will be on a new alignment with the EB lanes on the current alignment.  (and new signals at PA 41 and PA 772, PA 41 NB traffic will ultimately stay straight to go on the US 30 WB lanes)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 08, 2016, 05:47:12 AM
The loop ramp from US 22 WB to I-83 SB (http://abc27.com/2016/08/08/new-traffic-pattern-at-route-22-interchange-at-i-83-expected-to-cause-delays/) at Exit 50 will be closed tonight and be replaced by a left turn onto a new ramp on the south side of the interchange that connects to the existing ramp from US 22 EB to I-83 SB.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jpi on August 08, 2016, 03:35:40 PM
The loop ramp from US 22 WB to I-83 SB (http://abc27.com/2016/08/08/new-traffic-pattern-at-route-22-interchange-at-i-83-expected-to-cause-delays/) at Exit 50 will be closed tonight and be replaced by a left turn onto a new ramp on the south side of the interchange that connects to the existing ramp from US 22 EB to I-83 SB.
Thanks for the heads up, will have to remember this since this time next week I will be in the Colonial Park area.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Tom958 on August 08, 2016, 08:11:37 PM
Looks like Series B on that overhead: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2962303,-76.8252778,3a,75y,338.27h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdO01L3aDTyiysD1af9Qq3w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on August 08, 2016, 09:30:31 PM
Looks like Series B on that overhead: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2962303,-76.8252778,3a,75y,338.27h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdO01L3aDTyiysD1af9Qq3w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

If you get right under the sign on GSV and look up at it from underneath (https://goo.gl/maps/AotKEQR6FiA2), you can see that “Jonestown Rd” is on a greenout panel covering up the previous destination, which was Progress. I think the destination names “Progress” and “Colonial Park” provided more useful information to motorists.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ekt8750 on August 09, 2016, 12:28:25 AM
Looks like Series B on that overhead: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2962303,-76.8252778,3a,75y,338.27h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdO01L3aDTyiysD1af9Qq3w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That's actually Clearview 5WR artificially compressed.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: LeftyJR on August 11, 2016, 09:03:59 AM
I like Clearview, but not compressed like that - ugh.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: DJStephens on August 21, 2016, 04:59:07 PM
Looks like Series B on that overhead: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2962303,-76.8252778,3a,75y,338.27h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdO01L3aDTyiysD1af9Qq3w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That's actually Clearview 5WR artificially compressed.

Ghastly.  The older fonts, especially with the button copy appear so much better.   
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 07, 2016, 09:02:30 PM
That, and the section from PA 114 to PA 581 as well, if I am not mistaken. Been keeping an ear out for those projects, but haven't heard anything about them lately.
Prep work has begun for the I-81 widening (http://fox43.com/2016/09/07/prep-work-started-on-i-81-widening-project-between-exits-57-and-59-in-cumberland-county/) from PA 114 (Exit 57) to PA 581 (Exit 59).  (It seems to be the plan is to add the third lane in each direction in the current median.)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: amroad17 on September 10, 2016, 06:02:45 AM
PennDOT's new highway gothic APL sign (https://goo.gl/maps/cSGk8sJxYty) on I-95 seems to be fully uncovered now, as the Blue Route exit now has an option lane. Has PennDOT been using the standard FHWA fonts on any other new signs?
Still won't add Allentown or Scranton to the sign, will they?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CentralPAGal on September 12, 2016, 05:13:19 PM
In other news, the I-81 widening project west of Harrisburg has begun:
http://abc27.com/2016/09/12/i-81-widening-project-underway/ (http://abc27.com/2016/09/12/i-81-widening-project-underway/)

Just shoulder work for now
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 13, 2016, 12:30:53 AM
I have a question about I-84 in northeast PA: I haven't been in this part of the state in 5 years. I've seen and read about work being done under what the interstate sits on. How has that progressed?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on September 13, 2016, 08:17:37 PM
I have a question about I-84 in northeast PA: I haven't been in this part of the state in 5 years. I've seen and read about work being done under what the interstate sits on. How has that progressed?

From what I can tell, based on the timetable mentioned in an article (http://www.neagle.com/article/20140702/news/140709884) from July 2014, reconstruction of the segment from Exit 46 (Milford) to the New York state line should have finished this past spring. Apparently the segment from MM 34 to MM 40 is currently (http://www.emsnp.org/News/news_PennDot_Roadwork_Schedule.pdf) being reconstructed. I'm not sure what the status is of the segment from MM 40 to Exit 46, though.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 14, 2016, 10:23:16 AM
I was on the entire 54-ish miles of I-84 on Tuesday. You're pretty much correct about mile 34 to 40...or close. I have to say the following: I did NOT like that "cattle chute" effect heading back to Connecticut eastbound in the dark. The tractor trailers being so close whizzing past you is bad enough...but what if there's an accident and the vehicle can't reach on of those emergency pull-off areas?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on September 22, 2016, 06:08:29 PM
Someone here mentioned here in one thread about PennDOT using Wilkes-Barre as a control city on I-81 southbound before Scranton is reached as well as Hazleton staring to see usage from Pittston as Wilkes-Barre vanishes there long before the freeway enters its city limits.

I cannot find that post, but I thought I would say that those are unusual for PennDOT as in other signing practices they wait up until the the last exit before the actual city to sign the next control destination.  Especially that along I-81 northbound that uses Harrisburg from Carlisle on northward, where it is even signed along US 11 & 15 in Enola where having Harrisburg signed is irrelevant because US 11 & 15 come within a mile from the PA capital's city center to the south of that particular interchange.

Then who can forget Trenton being signed in Oxford Valley from US 1, a freeway that goes directly there, and really should have the next city north along I-95 signed from there. 

So whoever mentioned that fact that the Scranton area jumps the gun with control cities signed, I thought I would say that is only a regional thing as other places that should jump the gun, do not.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 22, 2016, 11:55:11 PM
I couldn't help but notice that about I-81 and Wilkes-Barre! These two pictures are from the western terminus of I-84 in Dunmore, PA. Pictures taken September 13, 2016.

(http://i.imgur.com/y8I4crc.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/SQBhQ8w.jpg)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on September 23, 2016, 08:54:37 AM
In the first photo above, the next sign bridge has a sign listing "Scranton Exits" - so the implication is that you are actually already in Scranton at that point...so no need to list Scranton as a control city at that point.  Also, at that point, Scranton exits are on both I-81 North and I-81 South.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Rothman on September 23, 2016, 09:31:24 AM
In the first photo above, the next sign bridge has a sign listing "Scranton Exits" - so the implication is that you are actually already in Scranton at that point...so no need to list Scranton as a control city at that point.  Also, at that point, Scranton exits are on both I-81 North and I-81 South.

^This.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on September 23, 2016, 01:20:41 PM
On I-81 they need to do this at the PA 581 exit going NB.  It should list the Harrisburg exits on both roads (although it would have to be I-83's exits as PA 581 does not have exits for Harrisburg) and Hazelton should be used at the NB ramps from Wertzville Road  and US 11 & 15 as that is really after the first Harrisburg exit.

PA 581 serves the city better and should be used as a signed first Harrisburg exit along with Front Street and Cameron Street giving the reason to post a sign pre PA 581 for those three exits to be given.

The above is at Scranton so you cannot really list that city for either way on I-81.  The way they did it is perfect.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on September 23, 2016, 02:20:20 PM
On I-81 they need to do this at the PA 581 exit going NB.  It should list the Harrisburg exits on both roads (although it would have to be I-83's exits as PA 581 does not have exits for Harrisburg) and Hazelton should be used at the NB ramps from Wertzville Road  and US 11 & 15 as that is really after the first Harrisburg exit.

PA 581 serves the city better and should be used as a signed first Harrisburg exit along with Front Street and Cameron Street giving the reason to post a sign pre PA 581 for those three exits to be given.

The above is at Scranton so you cannot really list that city for either way on I-81.  The way they did it is perfect.

I don't know if I agree that 581 is a better option for Harrisburg...it kinda depends on where in Harrisburg you're going and time of day.  581/83 can get pretty backed up.  There are times where, even if you're going to Downtown Harrisburg, where I-81 to Front St may be better than PA 581 to I-83 to 2nd St.

I like what was done from the other way, on I-81 south approaching I-83...the control cities are North Harrisburg for I-81, and South Harrisburg for I-83.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on September 23, 2016, 03:11:42 PM
On I-81 they need to do this at the PA 581 exit going NB.  It should list the Harrisburg exits on both roads (although it would have to be I-83's exits as PA 581 does not have exits for Harrisburg) and Hazelton should be used at the NB ramps from Wertzville Road  and US 11 & 15 as that is really after the first Harrisburg exit.

PA 581 serves the city better and should be used as a signed first Harrisburg exit along with Front Street and Cameron Street giving the reason to post a sign pre PA 581 for those three exits to be given.

The above is at Scranton so you cannot really list that city for either way on I-81.  The way they did it is perfect.

I don't know if I agree that 581 is a better option for Harrisburg...it kinda depends on where in Harrisburg you're going and time of day.  581/83 can get pretty backed up.  There are times where, even if you're going to Downtown Harrisburg, where I-81 to Front St may be better than PA 581 to I-83 to 2nd St.

I like what was done from the other way, on I-81 south approaching I-83...the control cities are North Harrisburg for I-81, and South Harrisburg for I-83.
Ditto on that. Generally if I have to go north or south on 11/15 and do things in the north side of the city, I take 81. If I'm heading to Hersheypark, or going downtown, I do 581/83. Usually I haven't had any traffic problems unless it's summer during the AM rush, where people try to head to Hersheypark. Even then the main backup was on PA 39 or US 322, and was usually on the weekends.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on September 24, 2016, 01:39:54 PM
So I've been wondering about this...why is the US 322 freeway not complete from Boalsburg to State College? Not much development is in the way and I'm not sure if the forest is protected land. At most a neighborhood would be destroyed, and even then it's small.

I never heard if any proposals existed and were fought back with opposition, considering that the bypass of State College was constructed in 1981 and they had no problems.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 24, 2016, 11:04:01 PM
I'm clueless with those parts of Pennsylvania. I've only been west of the Susquehanna River twice ( * ), both times in Cumberland County, PA. Both times involved City Island and the Harrisburg Senators baseball stadium...going the wrong way one time and a different friend getting towards I-83 when he should've done the Turnpike east instead. I'm from central Connecticut. I remember the drive south down I-81 being quite hilly out of Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, with the terrain flattening out almost immediately near mile marker 90 or so. That was in 2011, so I'll have to check the notes I took.

I know this picture from 2011 was likely in Chambersburg, PA. The visiting players for other Eastern League baseball teams stayed here.
(http://i.imgur.com/XlsZMch.jpg)

* - I was once at PIT airport in Findlay, PA near Pittsburgh. It was for a stop on a Southwest Airlines flight from BWI in Maryland to MDW (Midway) in Chicago. I don't count the air space I fly over. However, I was definitely on the ground at PIT, so I count it.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on September 24, 2016, 11:30:25 PM
I know this picture from 2011 was likely in Chambersburg, PA. The visiting players for other Eastern League baseball teams stayed here.
(http://i.imgur.com/XlsZMch.jpg)
:-D :-D :-D

Nah, that's a couple miles north of Camp Hill. You were off by about 50 miles.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 24, 2016, 11:38:24 PM
5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

I knew it ended in -burg though! It was from the lot of the Park Inn by Radisson - Harrisburg West. The main drag was US Route 11.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on September 24, 2016, 11:54:34 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20160925_Amtrak_s_slow_ride_to_Pittsburgh.html

Philly.com comparing why it takes Amtrak so long to get between Philadelphia towards Pittsburgh, comparing it to the Turnpike and a short flight.

As I read the article, I began thinking that it’s ironic that driving via the Turnpike is a faster alternative considering that, had the South Penn Railroad been completed, its alignment may never have been re-used for the Turnpike, and we’d have a much straighter, lower-elevation rail route between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.

And then I saw that, not only did the article acknowledge this fact, it went on to say that PennDOT studied the cost of building trackage along the Turnpike ROW but dismissed it out of hand as far too expensive.

I remember the drive south down I-81 being quite hilly out of Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, with the terrain flattening out almost immediately near mile marker 90 or so.

Yes—just north of Exit 90 (PA 72 - Lebanon) you pass through a gap in Blue Mountain, a continuous ridge that necessitates two separate PA Turnpike tunnels over 100 miles apart—the Blue Mountain tunnel on the main line and the Lehigh Tunnel on the Northeast Extension.

PA 581 serves the city better ...

I don't know if I agree that 581 is a better option for Harrisburg...it kinda depends on where in Harrisburg you're going and time of day.  581/83 can get pretty backed up.

Having lived in Harrisburg for a number of years, I can confirm that the decision to use PA 581 vs. I-81 does heavily depend on specifically where in the city you’re headed. Even without traffic, if your destination is almost anywhere north of Market (which encompasses the majority of the city’s land area), you’re better off taking I-81. With heavy traffic, you’re almost certainly better off to take I-81. I-83 comes much closer to the visible center of downtown, but its poor connections to the city’s street grid and frequent congestion severely handicap its usefulness.

Another wrinkle you should consider with regard to I-81, I-83, and PA 581 control city selections: Though three different numbers, PennDOT considers these three routes to comprise a single beltway (“Capital Beltway”) and the half of the beltway that’s east of the Susquehanna River is surrounded by Harrisburg mailing addresses on all sides. So in a sense, all three routes can serve “Harrisburg”-bound traffic in both directions under various circumstances—for example, I’d often go west on PA 581 from Mechanicsburg to loop back to I-81 northbound to get back to my apartment that was nominally in “Harrisburg”.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on September 24, 2016, 11:58:13 PM
5401 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

I knew it ended in -burg though! It was from the lot of the Park Inn by Radisson - Harrisburg West. The main drag was US Route 11.
If it really was Chambersburg, the main drag is actually US 30. There's a ton of development on that road.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 25, 2016, 12:03:38 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/S2vK8W7UtyF2

https://goo.gl/maps/ppNt8U2obEN2 (zoom shot from their lot on G.S.V.)

It was definitely this hotel. I took the picture of that gantry from their big parking lot, back in July of 2011.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 25, 2016, 08:31:35 AM
Another wrinkle you should consider with regard to I-81, I-83, and PA 581 control city selections: Though three different numbers, PennDOT considers these three routes to comprise a single beltway (“Capital Beltway”) and the half of the beltway that’s east of the Susquehanna River is surrounded by Harrisburg mailing addresses on all sides. So in a sense, all three routes can serve “Harrisburg”-bound traffic in both directions under various circumstances—for example, I’d often go west on PA 581 from Mechanicsburg to loop back to I-81 northbound to get back to my apartment that was nominally in “Harrisburg”.

Personally, I am not a fan of the "Capital Beltway" name mainly as it confuses me with the Capital Beltway around DC being less than two hours from Harrisburg via US 15 and I-270.  Part of that can be blamed on me being from VA I guess; however, I am unsure if that would matter since I would know they both are "Capital Beltways" anyway more than likely.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: epzik8 on September 26, 2016, 07:34:54 PM
Another wrinkle you should consider with regard to I-81, I-83, and PA 581 control city selections: Though three different numbers, PennDOT considers these three routes to comprise a single beltway (“Capital Beltway”) and the half of the beltway that’s east of the Susquehanna River is surrounded by Harrisburg mailing addresses on all sides. So in a sense, all three routes can serve “Harrisburg”-bound traffic in both directions under various circumstances—for example, I’d often go west on PA 581 from Mechanicsburg to loop back to I-81 northbound to get back to my apartment that was nominally in “Harrisburg”.

Personally, I am not a fan of the "Capital Beltway" name mainly as it confuses me with the Capital Beltway around DC being less than two hours from Harrisburg via US 15 and I-270.  Part of that can be blamed on me being from VA I guess; however, I am unsure if that would matter since I would know they both are "Capital Beltways" anyway more than likely.
My dad, from Prince George's County, would agree with you.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: epzik8 on September 26, 2016, 07:38:00 PM
70 MPH SPEED LIMIT IN PA ALERT! 70 MPH SPEED LIMIT IN PA ALERT!
I-79 at Mount Morris at the West Virginia line.
(http://i.imgur.com/FlDyNyT.jpg)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: qguy on September 26, 2016, 08:19:52 PM
...why is the US 322 freeway not complete from Boalsburg to State College? Not much development is in the way and I'm not sure if the forest is protected land. At most a neighborhood would be destroyed, and even then it's small.

I never heard if any proposals existed and were fought back with opposition, considering that the bypass of State College was constructed in 1981 and they had no problems.

Do you mean from Potters Mills to State College? Traveling westbound on US 322, the freeway ends just east of the Potters Mills Gap and starts again at Boalsburg, continuing to State College.

In the early 00s, PennDOT had an active project in design for completing the freeway from Potters Mills to Boalsburg, called South Central Centre County Transportation Study (SCCCTS).

Here's a link to a presentation that has on the first slide after the title slide a graphic that shows the preliminary alternatives studied under the SCCCTS. The alternatives were eventually narrowed down to four or five, IIRC.
http://www.crcog.net/vertical/sites/%7B6AD7E2DC-ECE4-41CD-B8E1-BAC6A6336348%7D/uploads/COG_GF_PMG_presentation_short_version(1).pdf

You can see that some alternatives continued the freeway from Potters Mills to Boalsburg, some continued it from Potters Mills to I-99/US 220 near Bellefonte, and some extended the freeway in a Y-shape from Potters Mills to both places.

Either way if this project had gone to construction, US 322 would today be a continuous freeway from Harrisburg to State College, save for a short section near Duncannon, on the west bank of the Susquehanna River. (That section near Duncannon is four-laned but not center-medianed or grade-separated.)

In 2004, however, officials in District 2-0 were within approximately two weeks of selecting a preferred alternative when then-Governor Ed Rendell deferred the project indefinitely, citing a lack of funds. District officials were livid. (At the same time, Gov. Rendell also indefinitely deferred completion of the freeway gap of US 220 just west of Williamsport, in District 3-0, despite a preferred alternative having already been selected. Officials in that district were none too pleased either, to greatly understate it. But I digress.)

At any rate, PennDOT District 2-0 made short-term improvements along that stretch of US 322 in the meantime (like widening the roadway without adding lanes, and providing turning lanes in places). They also broke up the original project area into smaller chunks, the easier to manage improvements and (more importantly) fund them.

The first freeway extension project to reach the construction stage is the Potters Mills Gap project. The freeway will be extended through the eponymous gap and grade separation will be provided at Sand Mountain Road. The freeway will not continue all the way to the end of the State College Bypass at Boalsburg, however, but will end just west of the PA 144 intersection. Closing the freeway gap all the way will need to wait a few more years (decades?), but it is definitely the medium-to-long-term goal.

Here's a link to PennDOT's project webpage. The page features a link to a series of summary graphics that feature a good diagram/map of the project.
http://www.crcog.net/vertical/sites/%7B6AD7E2DC-ECE4-41CD-B8E1-BAC6A6336348%7D/uploads/COG_GF_PMG_presentation_short_version(1).pdf
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Bitmapped on September 27, 2016, 05:08:30 PM
70 MPH SPEED LIMIT IN PA ALERT! 70 MPH SPEED LIMIT IN PA ALERT!
I-79 at Mount Morris at the West Virginia line.
(http://i.imgur.com/FlDyNyT.jpg)

This happened back in May. See https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2016/20160502143015.htm.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: vdeane on September 27, 2016, 05:29:40 PM
Also see: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10754.0
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 27, 2016, 09:30:46 PM
70 MPH SPEED LIMIT IN PA ALERT! 70 MPH SPEED LIMIT IN PA ALERT!
I-79 at Mount Morris at the West Virginia line.
(http://i.imgur.com/FlDyNyT.jpg)

And it's been 70 mph on the PA Turnpike for a few years now.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: VTGoose on September 29, 2016, 10:28:59 AM
Personally, I am not a fan of the "Capital Beltway" name mainly as it confuses me with the Capital Beltway around DC being less than two hours from Harrisburg via US 15 and I-270.  Part of that can be blamed on me being from VA I guess; however, I am unsure if that would matter since I would know they both are "Capital Beltways" anyway more than likely.

I may be having a CRS moment, but in the old m.t.r. days didn't Scott Kozel have meltdowns over PennDOT using (usurping) "Capital Beltway" from The Only Real And True Capital Beltway?

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Rothman on September 29, 2016, 12:12:34 PM
Personally, I am not a fan of the "Capital Beltway" name mainly as it confuses me with the Capital Beltway around DC being less than two hours from Harrisburg via US 15 and I-270.  Part of that can be blamed on me being from VA I guess; however, I am unsure if that would matter since I would know they both are "Capital Beltways" anyway more than likely.

I may be having a CRS moment, but in the old m.t.r. days didn't Scott Kozel have meltdowns over PennDOT using (usurping) "Capital Beltway" from The Only Real And True Capital Beltway?

Bruce in Blacksburg


I've always thought that designation in Harrisburg was pretty silly myself.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cl94 on September 29, 2016, 02:09:27 PM
Personally, I am not a fan of the "Capital Beltway" name mainly as it confuses me with the Capital Beltway around DC being less than two hours from Harrisburg via US 15 and I-270.  Part of that can be blamed on me being from VA I guess; however, I am unsure if that would matter since I would know they both are "Capital Beltways" anyway more than likely.

I may be having a CRS moment, but in the old m.t.r. days didn't Scott Kozel have meltdowns over PennDOT using (usurping) "Capital Beltway" from The Only Real And True Capital Beltway?

Bruce in Blacksburg


I've always thought that designation in Harrisburg was pretty silly myself.

It would be one thing if it was a continuous road. It isn't.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on September 29, 2016, 02:31:03 PM
The only small credence I'll give it is - this happened not too long after the gap in PA 581 was closed, which was when the entire road was designated PA 581.  Before then, the freeway ended at US 11/Carlisle Pike, and had no posted number.  So...to encourage folks to use PA 581 instead of getting hung up on I-83 on the East Shore, this was a way to assert that the combination of I-81, I-83, and PA 581 could be considered a Beltway.  I'm OK with it.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on September 29, 2016, 03:40:17 PM
The only small credence I'll give it is - this happened not too long after the gap in PA 581 was closed, which was when the entire road was designated PA 581.  Before then, the freeway ended at US 11/Carlisle Pike, and had no posted number.  So...to encourage folks to use PA 581 instead of getting hung up on I-83 on the East Shore, this was a way to assert that the combination of I-81, I-83, and PA 581 could be considered a Beltway.  I'm OK with it.
Then again, if you knew what you were doing you could've used US 15 along the West Shore to avoid I-83 traffic pre-581. I believe I did that once on a trip because 581 was closed and 83 was jammed.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on September 29, 2016, 07:41:56 PM
The only small credence I'll give it is - this happened not too long after the gap in PA 581 was closed, which was when the entire road was designated PA 581.  Before then, the freeway ended at US 11/Carlisle Pike, and had no posted number. So...to encourage folks to use PA 581 instead of getting hung up on I-83 on the East Shore, this was a way to assert that the combination of I-81, I-83, and PA 581 could be considered a Beltway.  I'm OK with it.

I might have been on that "unnumbered" freeway one Easter Sunday in the early '80s when when I visted my stepsister and her husband.  They lived in Camp Hill at the time.  My mom, stepdad, and I drove out the turnpike from our Philly-area home to see them (my first time in the Harrisburg area on the ground, although I'd flown over the area [spotting the capitol dome and TMI] in passenger planes previously).  [EDIT:  I'd also been to Hersheypark and Chocolate World a few years earlier [before my mom met my stepdad], and I guess Hershey counts as "the Harrisburg area".]

I'm sure PennDOT had a number for that "unnumbered" freeway somewhere in their paper work (581, maybe)?

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on September 30, 2016, 09:53:57 PM
It was only unnumbered from US 15 to I-83.  It was US 11 where the US route is now cosigned with it.  Signs from I-83 read "TO US 11 & 15- Camp Hill- Gettysburg and from US 11 & 15 I think it was just signed TO I-83 with either Harrisburg alone or both Harrisburg and York,
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: epzik8 on October 04, 2016, 03:11:39 PM
So are they re-doing the entire southbound carriageway of I-81 between MM 96 and 106? I went through there today and the northbound carriageway is two-way with southbound traffic using the normal northbound left lane currently.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 04, 2016, 06:42:10 PM
So are they re-doing the entire southbound carriageway of I-81 between MM 96 and 106? I went through there today and the northbound carriageway is two-way with southbound traffic using the normal northbound left lane currently.

Yes, ultimately they will have done both directions.  I-81 should be back to the normal four-lane configuration by May 2017 (http://www.mcall.com/news/traffic/mc-using-i-81-this-july-fourth-weekend-you-could-be-sitting-in-traffic-20160630-story.html).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cl94 on October 04, 2016, 06:48:00 PM
So are they re-doing the entire southbound carriageway of I-81 between MM 96 and 106? I went through there today and the northbound carriageway is two-way with southbound traffic using the normal northbound left lane currently.

Yes, ultimately they will have done both directions.  I-81 should be back to the normal four-lane configuration by May 2017 (http://www.mcall.com/news/traffic/mc-using-i-81-this-july-fourth-weekend-you-could-be-sitting-in-traffic-20160630-story.html).

Is traffic decent in that section? I'd rather not chance I-78 heading down to the Alabama meet on Friday, but I might cut down 209/33 if it has been bad lately.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 04, 2016, 07:01:13 PM
So are they re-doing the entire southbound carriageway of I-81 between MM 96 and 106? I went through there today and the northbound carriageway is two-way with southbound traffic using the normal northbound left lane currently.

Yes, ultimately they will have done both directions.  I-81 should be back to the normal four-lane configuration by May 2017 (http://www.mcall.com/news/traffic/mc-using-i-81-this-july-fourth-weekend-you-could-be-sitting-in-traffic-20160630-story.html).

Is traffic decent in that section? I'd rather not chance I-78 heading down to the Alabama meet on Friday, but I might cut down 209/33 if it has been bad lately.

From having seen travel times from traveling I-81 and I-78 somewhat frequently this year, I would say you may be fine in the morning or overnight (I went through there around 10 PM on the way back from the Albany meet about a week ago with no issues).  However, the worst through there is usually Friday afternoons and evenings.  Also in the morning and afternoon rush hours, there can be back ups (sometimes even as far as the exit for PA 743 (Exit 80) on Fridays) on I-81 SB from north of the Linglestown/Paxtonia Interchange (Exit 72) to where it widens leading to the I-83 interchange.

When it comes to I-78, I have never had any problems west of the US 22 merge just west of Allentown.  I will mention that you should be cautious around the PA 737 (Exit 40) Exit near Krumsville due to I-78 having no shoulders as a result of the construction there.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cl94 on October 04, 2016, 07:07:04 PM
Alright, thanks. I'd probably be passing through there around 9 AM, so sounds like I'd be fine on I-81. I have no desire to use I-287 during rush hour due to the uncertainty and 209 adds around 20 minutes in good conditions.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: MASTERNC on October 16, 2016, 09:46:13 PM
This doesn't seem to be mentioned (also appears to have been little fanfare) but Pennsylvania's first DDI opened last month in Washington.

http://www.observer-reporter.com/20160914/officials_say_diverging_diamond_traffic_flowing_well_in_south_strabane
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on November 13, 2016, 09:08:06 PM
Are there any plans to extend the US-202 freeway east of Doylestown? I was in the area today and there looked to be some road way at the eastern stub end of the bypass. That 2-lane section of US-202 is barely adequate for the traffic in the area. Tons of rim busting potholes too, typical PA.

No, and in fact, there is a project just starting to basically get rid of the stub ending there, make US 202 a straight-thru movement, have E State St end at US 202 as a T-intersection, and add left turn lanes at the PA 313/US 202 intersection.

The new alignment of the east end of the US202 Doylestown Bypass is open; it's a pretty seamless transition now.   Also, US 202 Business is now signed on the old US 202 alignments, including a multiplex with PA 309.  I didn't notice any references to US 202 Business on US 202 South at all, but the BGSs on PA 611 do reference US 202 Business.  I am not in this area often, so I don't know when any of this was actually completed.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 14, 2016, 05:57:51 PM
Update: I-83 East Shore Section 1 is under way. As of yesterday, the Elmerton Ave Bridge, which closed last month, is currently being dismantled. The approaches to the bridge have been dug out, and the structure over the beam has been removed. I suspect that they will be removing the beams very soon. Additionally, at least one new ramp alignment (SW quadrant) has been graded at the US 22 interchange.

Edit: Rolling closures on I-83 tonight to Monday morning to remove old bridge beams. http://fox43.com/2016/07/16/overnight-traffic-stoppages-scheduled-for-i-83-in-colonial-park-area/ (http://fox43.com/2016/07/16/overnight-traffic-stoppages-scheduled-for-i-83-in-colonial-park-area/)


The Elmerton Ave Bridge over I-83 reopened last week on Election Day. (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/11/elmerton_avenue_bridge_reopens.html)  Somehow I did not realize it was open until today as I drove on it heading back to my apartment.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 23, 2016, 05:11:21 PM
From US 11/US 15 closure thread:
On US22/US 322, there are new *temporary* 2/10 mile markers between Clarks Ferry and PA 39...in Clearview, with a not-so-normal green.  Temporary, as in, the signs are standing on the shoulder, held by sand bags like other Work Zone signage.  Seems to be, this would have been a good time to put in permanent mile markers, since there have been permanent ones east/south of PA 39 for years...

A local fire official wants permanent mile markers along this section of US 22/322. (http://abc27.com/2016/11/22/fire-official-to-penndot-install-mile-markers-to-improve-emergency-response/)  Note that these were removed shortly after the US 11/15 closure ended and the article mentions other funding priorities.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on November 23, 2016, 08:22:59 PM
From US 11/US 15 closure thread:
On US22/US 322, there are new *temporary* 2/10 mile markers between Clarks Ferry and PA 39...in Clearview, with a not-so-normal green.  Temporary, as in, the signs are standing on the shoulder, held by sand bags like other Work Zone signage.  Seems to be, this would have been a good time to put in permanent mile markers, since there have been permanent ones east/south of PA 39 for years...

A local fire official wants permanent mile markers along this section of US 22/322. (http://abc27.com/2016/11/22/fire-official-to-penndot-install-mile-markers-to-improve-emergency-response/)  Note that these were removed shortly after the US 11/15 closure ended and the article mentions other funding priorities.
I feel like they also have to fix the milemarkers south of the Clarks Ferry Bridge to I-81. They're confusing because some of them list the route as US 22, but the mileage is US 322's. It hasn't been fixed for at least more than two years, as they've been the same since late 2014.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 23, 2016, 08:48:34 PM
From US 11/US 15 closure thread:
On US22/US 322, there are new *temporary* 2/10 mile markers between Clarks Ferry and PA 39...in Clearview, with a not-so-normal green.  Temporary, as in, the signs are standing on the shoulder, held by sand bags like other Work Zone signage.  Seems to be, this would have been a good time to put in permanent mile markers, since there have been permanent ones east/south of PA 39 for years...

A local fire official wants permanent mile markers along this section of US 22/322. (http://abc27.com/2016/11/22/fire-official-to-penndot-install-mile-markers-to-improve-emergency-response/)  Note that these were removed shortly after the US 11/15 closure ended and the article mentions other funding priorities.
I feel like they also have to fix the milemarkers south of the Clarks Ferry Bridge to I-81. They're confusing because some of them list the route as US 22, but the mileage is US 322's. It hasn't been fixed for at least more than two years, as they've been the same since late 2014.

Actually the permanent ones are only between PA 39 and I-81.  There are none west of PA 39 that I know of since the temporary ones were removed.  Also I believe that the mile markers should be for US 22 since it is SR 22 in RMS.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on December 22, 2016, 07:53:48 PM
PA Interstate News:
I-81 returned to 4 lanes in Schuylkill County reconstruction zone (Exits 100-104):
http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-5/pages/details.aspx?newsid=653

I-95 widening to 8 lanes completed in Philadelphia on either side of Exit 30/PA 73/Cottman Ave
http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-6/Pages/details.aspx?newsid=980
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: epzik8 on December 25, 2016, 02:58:42 PM
PA Interstate News:
I-81 returned to 4 lanes in Schuylkill County reconstruction zone (Exits 100-104):
http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-5/pages/details.aspx?newsid=653

I went through this portion of I-81 in early October returning from the Poconos and I uploaded footage of that mess to YouTube.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 25, 2016, 05:06:17 PM
PA Interstate News:
I-81 returned to 4 lanes in Schuylkill County reconstruction zone (Exits 100-104):
http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-5/pages/details.aspx?newsid=653
I went through this portion of I-81 in early October returning from the Poconos and I uploaded footage of that mess to YouTube.

This was briefly discussed  here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7602.msg2183550#msg2183550).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 26, 2016, 10:27:59 AM
PA Interstate News:
I-81 returned to 4 lanes in Schuylkill County reconstruction zone (Exits 100-104):
http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-5/pages/details.aspx?newsid=653

I-95 widening to 8 lanes completed in Philadelphia on either side of Exit 30/PA 73/Cottman Ave
http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-6/Pages/details.aspx?newsid=980

Good news on both, which had miserable no-shoulder work zones (the mostly cattle chute work zone on I-81 in Schuylkill County around Ravine was probably worse because of the  relatively steep grades).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on December 28, 2016, 07:47:37 AM
Why are the ramps linking PA 51/PA 837 to the West End Bridge in Pittsburgh closed?

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on December 29, 2016, 05:43:56 PM
In other news, some progress has been done to connect the US 322 freeway gap between State College and Potters Mills. They're a little behind on the project, as no construction has been done ever since August 2016. Project website here. (http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-2/ConstructionsProjectsAndRoadwork/Pages/Potters_Mills_Gap_Transportation_Project.aspx)

I'm not sure why this wasn't done when the freeway was extended west of Lewistown. The only places that could be affected are mostly businesses that could set up shop in State College instead of out in the boonies. There's quite a bit of land south of State College that could be developed, such as on PA 45 between Pine Grove Mills and Boalsburg.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: froggie on December 29, 2016, 08:43:35 PM
Funding, or lack thereof.  Plus, at the time, the focus was on doing something about the "Lewistown Narrows" section between Lewistown and Cuba Mills...that was finally rectified about a decade ago.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jpi on January 02, 2017, 07:09:12 PM
I am considering doing at least 2 central PA road meets in 2018 and 2019, 2018 may be focusing on this project and the Central Susquehanna Valley Expressway project near Selinsgrove, 2019 would be the diverging diamond interchange at Shrewsbury.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 02, 2017, 07:37:32 PM
I am considering doing at least 2 central PA road meets in 2018 and 2019, 2018 may be focusing on this project and the Central Susquehanna Valley Expressway project near Selinsgrove, 2019 would be the diverging diamond interchange at Shrewsbury.

I guess the bigger question at this point would be which one includes I-83 in Harrisburg.  I would presume 2019 as the bridges for Phase 1 should be done by then.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jpi on January 02, 2017, 07:57:41 PM
Yes 2019 but I am thinking of some other options for this meet, they include checking out the re-aligned PA 214 in Loganville and possibly a rail trail that goes through one of the oldest still active railroad tunnels in the USA, stay tuned for more details but again, this all hinges on when the Shrewsbury diverging diamond interchange construction starts.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on January 23, 2017, 01:08:49 PM
I had to look this one up—the PennDOT spec drawing for the assembly is below.

“New England” makes a bit more sense considered in the context of the I-81 North - To I-84 shields and legend above, and previously, there had been supplemental signs “TRUCKS - USE I-81 and I-84 to New England”, but I still don’t like its use as a control point.

I wonder if this signals a shift in thinking at PennDOT, and future I-80 signage will likewise include NYC as a control city.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8879/18016936311_f2f38c535b_o.png)

Excuse me if this was already posted, but this sign has now been installed (in ugly Clearview, unfortunately):

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/335/31673980553_4f4624252a_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Rothman on January 23, 2017, 01:16:06 PM
I can't remember if there are similar signs down in the Harrisburg area, directing New England-bound traffic to I-84.  If there are, it's probably ineffective since GoogleMaps has routed me across I-78 and "through" the City from that area to get to Hartford, Springfield or Boston for a few years now.  Makes sense from I-80; just not so sure about from I-81/PA Turnpike down south.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: billpa on January 23, 2017, 01:26:15 PM
I can't remember if there are similar signs down in the Harrisburg area, directing New England-bound traffic to I-84.  If there are, it's probably ineffective since GoogleMaps has routed me across I-78 and "through" the City from that area to get to Hartford, Springfield or Boston for a few years now.  Makes sense from I-80; just not so sure about from I-81/PA Turnpike down south.
There's one on 81 just before the 78 split. It's under a "TRUCK INFO" banner.


https://goo.gl/maps/qP8f4TXxCyF2


HTC6525LVW

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on January 23, 2017, 02:22:26 PM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/335/31673980553_4f4624252a_k.jpg)
Is it me or do those direction cardinals and the TO label next to the I-84 shield appear a bit small?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman on January 23, 2017, 02:54:33 PM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/335/31673980553_4f4624252a_k.jpg)
Is it me or do those direction cardinals and the TO label next to the I-84 shield appear a bit small?
You beat me to the comment.  Yes, they are too small.  Per the sign design sheet posted above, they are 8 inches high with a 10 inch initial letter.  For the shield size (36"), they should be 12 inches high, with a 15 inch initial letter for 'NORTH' and "EAST" only  (The legend 'TO' does not require an initial letter).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: thenetwork on January 23, 2017, 08:53:27 PM
And the "C" in New York City seems a bit too low as well.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on January 24, 2017, 07:51:16 AM
Where's the plug for Parsippany? :)

And what are the destinations on the WB ramp and pull through signs nowadays at that interchange?

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on January 24, 2017, 12:29:20 PM
And what are the destinations on the WB ramp and pull through signs nowadays at that interchange?

I didn’t drive through this interchange westbound on I-80 this trip, but I did a few weeks ago, and nothing registered in my mind as being novel or different, so I’d expect they’re unchanged.

As I recall, the overhead sign assembly at the EB gore point had been missing for a considerable period of time, and the installation of the new New England/New York City signs pictured above wasn’t part of a comprehensive resigning project...just installing the one missing assembly.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on January 24, 2017, 01:18:33 PM
As I recall, the overhead sign assembly at the EB gore point had been missing for a considerable period of time, and the installation of the new New England/New York City signs pictured above wasn’t part of a comprehensive resigning project...just installing the one missing assembly.
Looking at the older GSVs from nearly 10 years ago; the older BGS' at that location only featured single-line control cities of Wilkes-Barre & Hazelton.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on January 24, 2017, 07:18:11 PM
And what are the destinations on the WB ramp and pull through signs nowadays at that interchange?

I didn’t drive through this interchange westbound on I-80 this trip, but I did a few weeks ago, and nothing registered in my mind as being novel or different, so I’d expect they’re unchanged.

As I recall, the overhead sign assembly at the EB gore point had been missing for a considerable period of time, and the installation of the new New England/New York City signs pictured above wasn’t part of a comprehensive resigning project...just installing the one missing assembly.

In October 2015 the overhead sign assembly was still missing at that gore point per GSV. 

GSV's latest view of the westbound exit 260B gore point was uploaded in Oct. 2011, when Bloomsburg was the pull through control city on WB 80, Harrisburg the SB 81 control city, and Wilkes-Barre the NB 81 control city.

ixnay

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: epzik8 on January 24, 2017, 07:27:11 PM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/335/31673980553_4f4624252a_k.jpg)
Is it me or do those direction cardinals and the TO label next to the I-84 shield appear a bit small?
You beat me to the comment.  Yes, they are too small.  Per the sign design sheet posted above, they are 8 inches high with a 10 inch initial letter.  For the shield size (36"), they should be 12 inches high, with a 15 inch initial letter for 'NORTH' and "EAST" only  (The legend 'TO' does not require an initial letter).
New England! The city where the Patriots play! /s
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman on January 25, 2017, 02:34:19 PM
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/335/31673980553_4f4624252a_k.jpg)
Is it me or do those direction cardinals and the TO label next to the I-84 shield appear a bit small?
You beat me to the comment.  Yes, they are too small.  Per the sign design sheet posted above, they are 8 inches high with a 10 inch initial letter.  For the shield size (36"), they should be 12 inches high, with a 15 inch initial letter for 'NORTH' and "EAST" only  (The legend 'TO' does not require an initial letter).
New England! The city where the Patriots play! /s
Which got me thinking.  Why Wilkes-Barre and not Scranton?  As Scranton is the I-81/I-84 junction, it would make more sense to use that as the control city.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mr_Northside on January 25, 2017, 02:54:58 PM
Which got me thinking.  Why Wilkes-Barre and not Scranton?  As Scranton is the I-81/I-84 junction, it would make more sense to use that as the control city.

That's one of the first things I was thinking.  I also thought (but could very well be wrong) that Scranton was bigger as well.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on January 25, 2017, 05:05:07 PM
Which got me thinking.  Why Wilkes-Barre and not Scranton?  As Scranton is the I-81/I-84 junction, it would make more sense to use that as the control city.

That's one of the first things I was thinking.  I also thought (but could very well be wrong) that Scranton was bigger as well.

Population-wise, Scranton is nearly twice the size of Wilkes-Barre (77,000 vs. 40,000), although the cluster of municipalities that makes up greater Wilkes-Barre is even more fragmented (W-B City vs. W-B Township, plus Kingston, Forty-Fort, etc.) than that of greater Scranton, so the practical gap in city size is perhaps not as great.

But I understand that there is a certain us vs. them dynamic at work—enough that Wilkes-Barre resident and former (and disgraced) Congressman Dan Flood fought relentlessly to get the airport designated as “Wilkes-Barre/Scranton” and not “Scranton/Wilkes-Barre”.

I grew up in Williamsport, where the local TV network affiliates are all translators of Scranton/Wilkes-Barre stations (with token coverage of Central PA), and I always thought of the two cities as a unit. But my wife, who’s a native of Wilkes-Barre, says that the two cities are different worlds that rarely intermix. She grew up reading W-B newspapers, listening to W-B radio, and shopping at W-B stores—never going to Scranton.

That brings up the question of “twin city” pairs in general. Heading east out of Abilene on I-20, does TxDOT sign the larger Dallas or the smaller Fort Worth that you encounter first? Same thing on I-94 heading west out of Wisconsin: St. Paul or Minneapolis? Perhaps the better question is: How should these pairs be signed?

In the case of I-81, I believe PennDOT signs whichever you hit first—Wilkes-Barre northbound and Scranton southbound.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: amroad17 on February 05, 2017, 12:10:06 AM
As far as your question about Wisconsin, St. Paul is signed as the control city on I-94 from Tomah on west of the I-90/I-94 split.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2017, 04:59:26 PM
N.Y. Times: As Trump Vows Building Splurge, Famed Traffic Choke Point Offers Warning (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/us/politics/a-pennsylvania-highway-town-at-the-junction-of-politics-and-policy.html)

Quote
Millions of people who travel between the Mid-Atlantic and the Midwest each year fight through Breezewood, Pa., a strange gap in the Interstate System. A leg of Route I-70 brings drivers north from Washington and Baltimore to plug into the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the great road network that runs west to the heartland cities of Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Chicago.

Quote
But no ramps join these two huge highways at their crossing. Instead, drivers travel an extra two-mile loop that takes them out of rural Appalachia and into several suddenly urban blocks with traffic lights and a dense bazaar of gas stations, fast-food restaurants and motels.

Quote
“Things that make no sense: Breezewood, Pa. Why does the interstate turn into an interchange?” Stephanie Wonderlick recently posted on Twitter as she and her family returned home to Washington from Milwaukee.

Quote
She is not alone. Many other drivers vent similar — often profane — anger and confusion about this notorious choke point. As a Washingtonian from northern Indiana who transits Breezewood for family visits, I have often wondered the same thing — a question that became more galling after my younger son, jolted by our sudden deceleration into the area’s stop-and-go traffic, threw up all over the back seat.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2017, 12:10:20 AM
While it was nice that the NY Times highlighted the interchange issues, I'm still scratching my head at to how Trump's infrastructure plan has anything remotely in common with it. 

In fact, Trump's name was only mentioned  once throughout this story....and in such unrelated fashion that it offered no clue as to what his policies would do in such situations. 

If anything, why didn't they question Shuster? Well, they tried, but got no response. So they just threw together something, added Trump's name to it, and published it.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2017, 12:47:01 AM
If anything, why didn't they question Shuster? Well, they tried, but got no response. So they just threw together something, added Trump's name to it, and published it.

I did not write it, but I think they were trying to point out that some of these things require more thinking and analysis than some in the administration want  to devote to such issues. 

The effective ban on a connection between "free" (90% funded by federal taxes) Interstates and the state toll roads being an example of that (fortunately it was repealed at some point).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on February 07, 2017, 07:45:53 AM
If anything, why didn't they question Shuster? Well, they tried, but got no response.

More like, why didn't Shuster want to be questioned?  I wonder how the Times contacted his office (phone?  Email?)?  Did the Times' request ever even get past Shuster's staff?  What goes through windbags' minds when they decide to turn down requests for comment?

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: AlexandriaVA on February 07, 2017, 08:44:51 AM
I think it's fair to say that major media organizations like the NY Times and Washington Post have established and proven ways to reach out to various elected officials for comment.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2017, 09:28:00 AM
I think the story was more of a rant.  Take this paragraph:

Quote
...As a Washingtonian from northern Indiana who transits Breezewood for family visits, I have often wondered the same thing — a question that became more galling after my younger son, jolted by our sudden deceleration into the area’s stop-and-go traffic, threw up all over the back seat.

Basically, like many of us, he doesn't like the interchange.  So he wrote a story.  And if you look up his NY Times stories, since January 21, every single one of them involves Trump.  That probably makes sense being he's the Times' White House Correspondent.  But on something like this, being that we're dealing with policies from the '60s and '70s that allowed this intersection of 2 interstates to happen, and dealing with house leaders under numerous other administrations that had nothing to do with Trump, he really had to stretch this story to involve Trump somehow. 

As far as his sick kid goes...no doubt the writer has been thru this area many times before.  And no doubt dad has gone thru traffic lights before.  Sounds like the kid has the cold/virus that has hit practically all of America.  He just chose to get sick in the car in Breezewood!

However, the story itself was informative, and this is where it moves away from politics, the presidential kind, and towards politics, the other kind.  And in many respects, when you read between and through the lines, it's how most projects get done:  You need a lead agency that commits to getting something done.  In PA's case, they decided to allow the local areas to have a great deal of say in the project (NJ is the same way).  And being that Breezewood knows they have a good thing going for them, any elected official in the area, if he wants to stay elected, is going to do whatever they can to keep Breezewood from being bypassed.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: AlexandriaVA on February 07, 2017, 11:43:50 AM
Furthermore I would wager that most people who work in Breezewood who voted were Trump voters. It would be ironic if a Trump project put them out-of-business.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2017, 01:45:22 PM
Being that there's absolutely no talk whatsoever about converting Breezewood to a regular, sensible interchange, I don't think we have to worry about who voted for who.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: amroad17 on February 10, 2017, 07:51:09 PM
People should appreciate the novelty that is Breezewood.  Yes, there is stop-and-go traffic at times but where else on our Interstate system is something quite like this?  I never did mind driving through Breezewood--in fact, I would purposely stop there just to eat or fuel up.  Building a new interchange bypassing Breezewood would financially put a big dent in the area.  If Breezewood is such a pain to people then they should find a way not to drive through Breezewood.  There are ways to avoid it--if it is such a hassle.  I, myself, find Breezewood to be unique and a throwback to our early days of the Interstate system--and if I need to drive through there to go to a certain destination, then I will.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: sparker on February 11, 2017, 02:59:58 AM
People should appreciate the novelty that is Breezewood.  Yes, there is stop-and-go traffic at times but where else on our Interstate system is something quite like this?  I never did mind driving through Breezewood--in fact, I would purposely stop there just to eat or fuel up.  Building a new interchange bypassing Breezewood would financially put a big dent in the area.  If Breezewood is such a pain to people then they should find a way not to drive through Breezewood.  There are ways to avoid it--if it is such a hassle.  I, myself, find Breezewood to be unique and a throwback to our early days of the Interstate system--and if I need to drive through there to go to a certain destination, then I will.

WTF?  Yeah, it's unique -- but a throwback?  First time I've heard anyone nostalgic for the times when the Interstate network was still in bits & pieces.  Sort of reminds me of that old Dana Carvey SNL sketch where the elderly gentleman waxes on about unpleasant or even cruel practices of his youth, concluding with the phrase "And we LIKED it!" :-D  Oh well, to each their own, I suppose.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 11, 2017, 09:55:55 AM
People should appreciate the novelty that is Breezewood.  Yes, there is stop-and-go traffic at times but where else on our Interstate system is something quite like this?  I never did mind driving through Breezewood--in fact, I would purposely stop there just to eat or fuel up.  Building a new interchange bypassing Breezewood would financially put a big dent in the area.  If Breezewood is such a pain to people then they should find a way not to drive through Breezewood.  There are ways to avoid it--if it is such a hassle.  I, myself, find Breezewood to be unique and a throwback to our early days of the Interstate system--and if I need to drive through there to go to a certain destination, then I will.

Not that much in the way of routes to bypass Breezewood.  I suppose it is possible to exit I-70 westbound at Pennsylvania Exit 168 (Warfordsburg) onto U.S. 522 northbound, and follow 522 about 37 miles to enter the Pennsylvania Turnpike at Exit 180, Fort Littleton (means a higher toll charge, of course).

For drivers headed west on I-70 beyond Washington, Pennsylvania, taking I-68 from Hancock, Maryland into West Virginia, then north on either Toll PA-43 back to I-70 at California; or I-79 to I-70 at Washington.

I do not include routes involving U.S. 30 through Breezewood because it also involves the schlock of the place.

But for drivers wanting to take I-70 to Breezewood, then I-76 beyond New Stanton, the alternatives are not that great - I suppose U.S. 220 from I-68 east of Cumberland to Bedford is one; or U.S. 219 from I-68 at Grantsville to Somerset is another.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 11, 2017, 10:36:12 AM
People should appreciate the novelty that is Breezewood.  Yes, there is stop-and-go traffic at times but where else on our Interstate system is something quite like this?  I never did mind driving through Breezewood--in fact, I would purposely stop there just to eat or fuel up.  Building a new interchange bypassing Breezewood would financially put a big dent in the area.  If Breezewood is such a pain to people then they should find a way not to drive through Breezewood.  There are ways to avoid it--if it is such a hassle.  I, myself, find Breezewood to be unique and a throwback to our early days of the Interstate system--and if I need to drive through there to go to a certain destination, then I will.

If you want a throwback, take many of the US routes that parallel interstate highways.

Unfortunately, this attitude is why Breezewood exists.  The majority of the drivers show no interest in stopping here.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Rothman on February 12, 2017, 12:17:33 AM
People should appreciate the novelty that is Breezewood.  Yes, there is stop-and-go traffic at times but where else on our Interstate system is something quite like this?  I never did mind driving through Breezewood--in fact, I would purposely stop there just to eat or fuel up.  Building a new interchange bypassing Breezewood would financially put a big dent in the area.  If Breezewood is such a pain to people then they should find a way not to drive through Breezewood.  There are ways to avoid it--if it is such a hassle.  I, myself, find Breezewood to be unique and a throwback to our early days of the Interstate system--and if I need to drive through there to go to a certain destination, then I will.

I don't think anyone has called for no access at all into Breezewood.  Just building the ramps needed so through traffic doesn't have to go through that choke point.  Let the rest of us get on with our travels; you can get off and keep going through town if you'd like.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on February 12, 2017, 01:28:56 AM
For all of the Times and Post articles about Breezewood—which invariably include some overwrought hyperbole along the lines of “...a blaze of Las Vegas neon piercing the inky shadows of the Appalachian countryside...”—I don’t find Breezewood to be much larger, brighter, or gaudier than countless other rural Interstate interchanges that have attracted a few truck stops and some assorted gas stations, fast food joints, and hotels.

And those other Interstate exits don’t force motorists off the Interstate mainline, either. They exist simply because truckers and road-trippers need to eat, sleep, and refuel. That wouldn’t change if a direct connection was built, and I’m certain Breezewood would survive as a popular pit stop.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: qguy on February 12, 2017, 04:08:53 PM
And those other Interstate exits don’t force motorists off the Interstate mainline, either. They exist simply because truckers and road-trippers need to eat, sleep, and refuel. That wouldn’t change if a direct connection was built, and I’m certain Breezewood would survive as a popular pit stop.

One of the things I learned during my tenure at PennDOT is that in high-congestion, high-aggravation situations like Breezewood, when through-traffic is separated from local traffic, local businesses often see an increase in patronage, not a decrease. This is because the high congestion and accompanying aggravation is so great that many drivers who might stop to patronize a local business are discouraged from doing so because it takes so long and is so annoying just getting through that they don't want to add to the time and aggravation by stopping. Once the through-traffic and local traffic is separated, stopping is much less of a hassle and more drivers then choose choose to do it.

So perhaps the most frustrating thing about Breezewood is that the whole thing is so short-sighted and unnecessary. If a direct connection with local access were constructed, the local businesses would probably see an increase in business, not a decrease. They'd be better off, not worse off.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: amroad17 on February 24, 2017, 12:58:44 AM
Couldn't the Carlisle interchange be considered a "Breezewood"?  Is there any future plans to allieviate traffic there?

Since I am in the minority (of one, apparently), I do see the need for some direct ramps for those who do not want to stop (or even drive) in Breezewood.  I just appreciate the oddities of our Interstate system and just deal with whatever is brought before me.  This is not to say there should not be progress made to improve the system in places where it is needed.
And those other Interstate exits don’t force motorists off the Interstate mainline, either. They exist simply because truckers and road-trippers need to eat, sleep, and refuel. That wouldn’t change if a direct connection was built, and I’m certain Breezewood would survive as a popular pit stop.

One of the things I learned during my tenure at PennDOT is that in high-congestion, high-aggravation situations like Breezewood, when through-traffic is separated from local traffic, local businesses often see an increase in patronage, not a decrease. This is because the high congestion and accompanying aggravation is so great that many drivers who might stop to patronize a local business are discouraged from doing so because it takes so long and is so annoying just getting through that they don't want to add to the time and aggravation by stopping. Once the through-traffic and local traffic is separated, stopping is much less of a hassle and more drivers then choose choose to do it.

So perhaps the most frustrating thing about Breezewood is that the whole thing is so short-sighted and unnecessary. If a direct connection with local access were constructed, the local businesses would probably see an increase in business, not a decrease. They'd be better off, not worse off.
In reality, this interchange should have been reconfigured in 1968 when the bypass around the tunnels opened.  Correct me if I am wrong, but at that time, wasn't there a law or rule that the PTC had where there could be no direct Interstate to Turnpike connection?  Or was it more the local leaders in Breezewood who forced the interchange to be built the way it was? 



Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: epzik8 on February 24, 2017, 05:31:15 AM
I personally don't mind Breezewood. It's just two traffic lights and two turns. It's also visually stimulating to me seeing the plethora of services there.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on February 24, 2017, 07:02:08 AM
I personally don't mind Breezewood. It's just two traffic lights and two turns. It's also visually stimulating to me seeing the plethora of services there.

Morgantown, PA was Breezewood East (though not on as big a scale) when I was attending what is now Kutztown University in the early '80s and went through there frequently on my way home to Wallingford, PA.  Haven't been through there too much (for a number of reasons) since graduating, so I don't know the full effect of the direct I-176/turnpike connection on Morgantown.

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on February 24, 2017, 11:08:41 AM
I personally don't mind Breezewood. It's just two traffic lights and two turns. It's also visually stimulating to me seeing the plethora of services there.

Doesn't bother me, either. To be sure, it's almost never been much on my route to anywhere, so it's not something I've ever been forced to deal with; rather, I almost had to find excuses to go there. But to me (and I'm a pretty methodical-type guy), what's most interesting about the various systems we have is that they're different from place to place, and sometimes rules are broken. That's why I don't mind NY's sequential exit numbering, either, and I-99 doesn't throw me into fits.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2017, 12:04:34 PM
In reality, this interchange should have been reconfigured in 1968 when the bypass around the tunnels opened.  Correct me if I am wrong, but at that time, wasn't there a law or rule that the PTC had where there could be no direct Interstate to Turnpike connection?  Or was it more the local leaders in Breezewood who forced the interchange to be built the way it was? 

In the early days of interstate highway building, no interstate (in any state, not just PA) could have an interchange with a toll road.  That rule/law is long rescinded.  Most states, if the issue existed, have rectified most such intersections to include direct connections.  PA has lagged far behind.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: thenetwork on February 24, 2017, 01:12:46 PM
Speaking for the Ohio Turnpike, the first true turnpike to interstate connection was with I-71 in 1967.

You can argue that I-280 in Toledo was the first, but it was not up to interstate standards until the 80s.  There were at-grade intersections either side of the Turnpike until then.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: vdeane on February 24, 2017, 01:15:31 PM
Pretty sure it was federal funds couldn't be used for an interchange, not that the interchange couldn't be built.  Most Thruway/Interstate interchanges were direct from the get-go, and our major breezewood (I-87/I-84) was rectified a few years ago.  However, the PTC was unwilling to spend their own money to build the interchanges, unlike other toll authorities.  Given the progress of the I-95 interchange, they still aren't.  I get the feeling they don't give a f*** about the larger picture and are happy to keep on viewing the Turnpike system as entirely separate from the rest of the state's infrastructure.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on February 24, 2017, 02:06:04 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but at that time, wasn't there a law or rule that the PTC had where there could be no direct Interstate to Turnpike connection?

You can get the full story from the FHWA’s old “Rambler” column here: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm)

In short, laws at the time prohibited use of federal funds to pay for direct connections to toll facilities. Had the Pennsylvania Department of Highways (the forerunner of PennDOT) constructed a direct interchange back in 1968, they’d have been forced to pay the full cost rather than token 10% they would have borne otherwise.

That is...unless the toll road agency agreed to cease collecting tolls after the road’s bonds had been satisfied. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission had no desire to agree to stop collecting tolls, nor did the agency want to spend its own revenues to build a direct connection. A quote from a PTC official at the time pretty clearly explains the commission’s position on the issue:

Quote
...where new interchanges would not afford an increase, great increase in revenue, we do not feel that these matters should be thrust upon the turnpike commission.

A very pragmatic and private sector business-like position, but one which unfortunately shafts the motorist:
If this investment won’t bring in more dollars than it costs, we’re not doing it.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2017, 03:05:18 PM
A very pragmatic and private sector business-like position, but one which unfortunately shafts the motorist:
If this investment won’t bring in more dollars than it costs, we’re not doing it.

But a fair position as well.  Turnpikes and toll roads don't get federal funds, so they must rely on toll revenue (along with service area revenue, billboards, etc).  If they need to spend $100 million on a new interchange, that money has to come from somewhere.  If toll revenue from the new interchange won't pay for it, then they need to postpone/cancel other projects they can't afford.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: vdeane on February 24, 2017, 05:44:42 PM
Of course, the PTC is not a business, they are a government agency.  Even though they're funded by tolls and not taxes, the public good should be their prime concern.  I could understand these days, because of Act 44, but that was long before they were being used as a cash cow.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on February 25, 2017, 10:32:52 AM
Of course, the PTC is not a business, they are a government agency.  Even though they're funded by tolls and not taxes, the public good should be their prime concern.  I could understand these days, because of Act 44, but that was long before they were being used as a cash cow.

On the other hand, the building of turnpikes was originally a purpose for which business ventures were specifically created (and then dissolved upon completion). The agencies that built them were the forerunners of modern corporations, and that heritage doubtless imbued the PTC's mindset in its early years, if not still today.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2017, 12:16:16 PM
It also depends on what the needs are. If the Turnpike has money available to either: A) Build a new interchange or B) widen the highway adding a lane and full shoulders, what is the best use of that money? 
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: amroad17 on February 25, 2017, 11:13:25 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but at that time, wasn't there a law or rule that the PTC had where there could be no direct Interstate to Turnpike connection?

You can get the full story from the FHWA’s old “Rambler” column here: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm)

In short, laws at the time prohibited use of federal funds to pay for direct connections to toll facilities. Had the Pennsylvania Department of Highways (the forerunner of PennDOT) constructed a direct interchange back in 1968, they’d have been forced to pay the full cost rather than token 10% they would have borne otherwise.

That is...unless the toll road agency agreed to cease collecting tolls after the road’s bonds had been satisfied. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission had no desire to agree to stop collecting tolls, nor did the agency want to spend its own revenues to build a direct connection. A quote from a PTC official at the time pretty clearly explains the commission’s position on the issue:

Quote
...where new interchanges would not afford an increase, great increase in revenue, we do not feel that these matters should be thrust upon the turnpike commission.

A very pragmatic and private sector business-like position, but one which unfortunately shafts the motorist:
If this investment won’t bring in more dollars than it costs, we’re not doing it.
Thank you for the answer briantroutman.  I knew there was a reason that a direct connection was never built--I just didn't know the exact reason.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jpi on February 27, 2017, 07:54:37 PM
Just came across this on Pennlive.com-
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/02/re-building_of_i-83_beltway_to.html#incart_river_home_pop
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on February 28, 2017, 02:59:29 PM
Just came across this on Pennlive.com-
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/02/re-building_of_i-83_beltway_to.html#incart_river_home_pop

I'm quite curious to see what the plans are for the new Eisenhower Interchange, and  the new I-283/PA-283/PA Turnpike interchange...
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on February 28, 2017, 03:27:27 PM
I'm quite curious to see what the plans are for the new Eisenhower Interchange, and  the new I-283/PA-283/PA Turnpike interchange...

This is what was included in the I-83 Master Plan (http://www.i-83beltway.com/assets/I-83-masterplan.php#p=1) PennDOT released in 2003.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3693/33133179846_e7072ba487_c.jpg)

That 2003 plan didn’t mention the 283/283 interchange, but based on the tepid language in the Patriot-News article (“... shifting the ramp from Route 283 to the Turnpike interchange to remove the traffic ‘weave’...”), my expectations are low, unfortunately. It might be as simple as removing the loop ramp from PA 283 westbound to the Turnpike and replacing it with a left turn instead.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on February 28, 2017, 06:28:08 PM
I'm quite curious to see what the plans are for the new Eisenhower Interchange, and  the new I-283/PA-283/PA Turnpike interchange...

This is what was included in the I-83 Master Plan (http://www.i-83beltway.com/assets/I-83-masterplan.php#p=1) PennDOT released in 2003.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3693/33133179846_e7072ba487_c.jpg)

That 2003 plan didn’t mention the 283/283 interchange, but based on the tepid language in the Patriot-News article (“... shifting the ramp from Route 283 to the Turnpike interchange to remove the traffic ‘weave’...”), my expectations are low, unfortunately. It might be as simple as removing the loop ramp from PA 283 westbound to the Turnpike and replacing it with a left turn instead.

That's one thing PennDOT has begun to do that I wish other transportation agencies would adopt: keeping the main right-of-way intact and high-speed through an interchange even as the highway changes direction. They've done it with I-81 at its junction with I-84 in Scranton, I-78 at its junction with U.S. 22 in Allentown, I-99 at its junction with U.S. 322 in State College, and I-279 at its junction with I-579 in Pittsburgh. They're also doing it with I-95 at its junction with the Pennsylvania Turnpike. In a lot of other states, there are still lots of junctions where highways exit themselves and/or drop to one lane as they change direction.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: OracleUsr on February 28, 2017, 11:42:58 PM
I had to look this one up—the PennDOT spec drawing for the assembly is below.

“New England” makes a bit more sense considered in the context of the I-81 North - To I-84 shields and legend above, and previously, there had been supplemental signs “TRUCKS - USE I-81 and I-84 to New England”, but I still don’t like its use as a control point.

I wonder if this signals a shift in thinking at PennDOT, and future I-80 signage will likewise include NYC as a control city.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8879/18016936311_f2f38c535b_o.png)

Excuse me if this was already posted, but this sign has now been installed (in ugly Clearview, unfortunately):

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/335/31673980553_4f4624252a_k.jpg)

GAAAH, MY EYES!!!!

I know control cities are supposed to be important, too, but what is the point of using raised caps if the type is small (we have local signs in Statesville that use micro-type for cardinal directions, too, but not on interstate signs!!!!!)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on March 01, 2017, 11:56:05 AM
I looked but couldn’t find where this had been mentioned:

The signage at the I-78/US 22 split west of Allentown was replaced in the past year, and the new signs replace 476’s Interstate shield with one of the PTC’s green PA Turnpike keystones.

https://goo.gl/maps/W7Z43KGMDpN2 (https://goo.gl/maps/W7Z43KGMDpN2)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Rothman on March 01, 2017, 12:36:40 PM
I looked but couldn’t find where this had been mentioned:

The signage at the I-78/US 22 split west of Allentown was replaced in the past year, and the new signs replace 476’s Interstate shield with one of the PTC’s green PA Turnpike keystones.

https://goo.gl/maps/W7Z43KGMDpN2 (https://goo.gl/maps/W7Z43KGMDpN2)
Somebody made do when they didn't have room for a bigger sign.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 01, 2017, 03:58:08 PM
I looked but couldn’t find where this had been mentioned:

The signage at the I-78/US 22 split west of Allentown was replaced in the past year, and the new signs replace 476’s Interstate shield with one of the PTC’s green PA Turnpike keystones.

https://goo.gl/maps/W7Z43KGMDpN2 (https://goo.gl/maps/W7Z43KGMDpN2)
Somebody made do when they didn't have room for a bigger sign.

See here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg2132615#msg2132615).  Ultimately that was the same conclusion I learned especially when seeing this one at the I-78/PA 309 split (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5756219,-75.546973,3a,75y,317.3h,75.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-7qaZ4TLGlyGWdxDzep2Rw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  (with advance errors before that (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5740449,-75.5433145,3a,75y,292.83h,87.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8WVDlx9IGr87IorwITprQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656))
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: amroad17 on March 02, 2017, 01:02:04 AM
^ What the...?

Maybe New Jersey should be replaced with New York City--although, here in the Cincinnati area, Kentucky is used as a control point for I-275 east and west of the city.

As far as the new signs put up at I-81/I-80, I am impressed with Pennsylvania doing that.  Perhaps PA DOT could do something similar at the I-81/I-84 interchange.  They could replace (green over) Milford and Mt. Pocono with New England and New York City on one of the BGS's because just before the I-84/I-380 split, there is two ground-mounted LGS's advising motorists which Interstate to take for New England (USE I-84 EAST) and New York City (USE I-380 SOUTH).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 02, 2017, 07:01:53 AM
Quote
Maybe New Jersey should be replaced with New York City--although, here in the Cincinnati area, Kentucky is used as a control point for I-275 east and west of the city.

The PA 33 SB ramp to I-78 EB (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6403744,-75.2752166,3a,75y,143.49h,88.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suxhoTEXKn6s6f4G-pQrctQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is the only knowledge I know of when it comes to a reference to New York City.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on March 02, 2017, 09:21:50 AM
It's worth noting that the New Jersey listing for I-78 eastbound in this area has existed for a while and long before FHWA/MUTCD got anal (IMHO) regarding using state names as control destinations.  The newer BGS' (w/the Clearview font) appear to be a match-in-kind in terms of destination listings.

For the eastbound I-78/US 22 split; the use of either Easton, Phillipsburg (NJ) or Newark (NJ) would meet the newer criteria at this location.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: sbeaver44 on March 04, 2017, 10:09:08 AM
It's worth noting that the New Jersey listing for I-78 eastbound in this area has existed for a while and long before FHWA/MUTCD got anal (IMHO) regarding using state names as control destinations.  The newer BGS' (w/the Clearview font) appear to be a match-in-kind in terms of destination listings.

For the eastbound I-78/US 22 split; the use of either Easton, Phillipsburg (NJ) or Newark (NJ) would meet the newer criteria at this location.
I wonder if the New Jersey thing relates to the fact that US 22 stops being freeway just into NJ and when 78 was built as the "new" bypass it was a hint that anyone going anywhere in NJ on 78 should use 78 now instead of 22.

Personally I usually take 22 going to NYC because I like the drop into Easton and always stop at Wawa in Phillipsburg for gas and food, as it is approximately halfway for me.

And I noticed the Green TPK 476 last week at Exit 51.  Interesting for sure.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 05, 2017, 10:50:54 PM
I'm quite curious to see what the plans are for the new Eisenhower Interchange, and  the new I-283/PA-283/PA Turnpike interchange...

It looks like movements from 322 to 83, Hershey to downtown are only one lane, is this problematic

This is what was included in the I-83 Master Plan (http://www.i-83beltway.com/assets/I-83-masterplan.php#p=1) PennDOT released in 2003.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3693/33133179846_e7072ba487_c.jpg)

That 2003 plan didn’t mention the 283/283 interchange, but based on the tepid language in the Patriot-News article (“... shifting the ramp from Route 283 to the Turnpike interchange to remove the traffic ‘weave’...”), my expectations are low, unfortunately. It might be as simple as removing the loop ramp from PA 283 westbound to the Turnpike and replacing it with a left turn instead.

That's one thing PennDOT has begun to do that I wish other transportation agencies would adopt: keeping the main right-of-way intact and high-speed through an interchange even as the highway changes direction. They've done it with I-81 at its junction with I-84 in Scranton, I-78 at its junction with U.S. 22 in Allentown, I-99 at its junction with U.S. 322 in State College, and I-279 at its junction with I-579 in Pittsburgh. They're also doing it with I-95 at its junction with the Pennsylvania Turnpike. In a lot of other states, there are still lots of junctions where highways exit themselves and/or drop to one lane as they change direction.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on March 06, 2017, 09:21:01 AM
It's worth noting that the New Jersey listing for I-78 eastbound in this area has existed for a while and long before FHWA/MUTCD got anal (IMHO) regarding using state names as control destinations.  The newer BGS' (w/the Clearview font) appear to be a match-in-kind in terms of destination listings.

For the eastbound I-78/US 22 split; the use of either Easton, Phillipsburg (NJ) or Newark (NJ) would meet the newer criteria at this location.
I wonder if the New Jersey thing relates to the fact that US 22 stops being freeway just into NJ and when 78 was built as the "new" bypass it was a hint that anyone going anywhere in NJ on 78 should use 78 now instead of 22.
No doubt, that was the reasoning.  And, again, the original legends were approved well before FHWA/MUTCD changed their criteria regarding what can be used as control cities.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 06, 2017, 04:15:50 PM
I looked but couldn’t find where this had been mentioned:

The signage at the I-78/US 22 split west of Allentown was replaced in the past year, and the new signs replace 476’s Interstate shield with one of the PTC’s green PA Turnpike keystones.

https://goo.gl/maps/W7Z43KGMDpN2 (https://goo.gl/maps/W7Z43KGMDpN2)

and exploring up to US-22 and PA-309, I see all of the original non-reflective button copy has finally been replaced with crap.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7659/16426078714_3608a88328_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/r2vWVG)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: sbeaver44 on March 20, 2017, 08:24:40 PM
I looked but couldn’t find where this had been mentioned:

The signage at the I-78/US 22 split west of Allentown was replaced in the past year, and the new signs replace 476’s Interstate shield with one of the PTC’s green PA Turnpike keystones.

https://goo.gl/maps/W7Z43KGMDpN2 (https://goo.gl/maps/W7Z43KGMDpN2)

and exploring up to US-22 and PA-309, I see all of the original non-reflective button copy has finally been replaced with crap.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7659/16426078714_3608a88328_c.jpg)
 (https://flic.kr/p/r2vWVG)
Speaking of Cedar Crest Blvd, did PA 29 ever terminate at US 22?  It stops at 78/309 now, but that section of highway is less than 30 yrs old.  I read the wiki page for PA 29, has an interesting history, but didn't pick up on that answer.

Also, it's funny that US 222 continues as a SR 222 at either end of itself.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on March 21, 2017, 07:50:05 AM

Speaking of Cedar Crest Blvd, did PA 29 ever terminate at US 22?  It stops at 78/309 now, but that section of highway is less than 30 yrs old.  I read the wiki page for PA 29, has an interesting history, but didn't pick up on that answer.

Also, it's funny that US 222 continues as a SR 222 at either end of itself.

That section of highway was PA 309 well before I-78 was there...it was reconstructed and widened ~30 years ago to be part of I-78.  The section of I-78 east of PA 309/PA 145 was new construction, as well as the small part west of US 222.

I believe the two PA 29s were once connected roughly along PA 309...back when the two routes went through Slatington along PA 873, Palmerton along PA 248, multiplexed along US 209 to Jim Thorpe, and then along PA 93 to Hazleton.  This explains the existence of PA 329.

I personally would renumber the northern PA 29 to be PA 67.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 21, 2017, 09:18:23 AM
How is PA's Decade of Investment going?  I really do not hear to much about it.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on March 21, 2017, 09:27:15 AM
How is PA's Decade of Investment going?  I really do not hear to much about it.

The Road Maintenance and Preservation Program was just announced a couple of weeks ago.
http://www.penndot.gov/about-us/Pages/Act-89-Funding-Plan.aspx (http://www.penndot.gov/about-us/Pages/Act-89-Funding-Plan.aspx)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on March 21, 2017, 07:31:02 PM
I believe the two PA 29s were once connected roughly along PA 309...back when the two routes went through Slatington along PA 873, Palmerton along PA 248, multiplexed along US 209 to Jim Thorpe, and then along PA 93 to Hazleton.  This explains the existence of PA 329.

Thank you.

Quote
I personally would renumber the northern PA 29 to be PA 67.

Per pahighways.com there were 2 PA 67's, in Crawford County (decommissioned 1928) and in Bradford and Susquehanna Counties (decommissioned 1930).

But what do you do with the two PA *9*7's (in Erie and Adams Counties)?

As for connecting, decommissioning, or downgrading the two U.S. 422's (relevant to this thread since both are wholly or substantially in PA)...

ixnay

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on March 21, 2017, 08:47:05 PM
I believe the two PA 29s were once connected roughly along PA 309...back when the two routes went through Slatington along PA 873, Palmerton along PA 248, multiplexed along US 209 to Jim Thorpe, and then along PA 93 to Hazleton.  This explains the existence of PA 329.

Thank you.

Quote
I personally would renumber the northern PA 29 to be PA 67.

Per pahighways.com there were 2 PA 67's, in Crawford County (decommissioned 1928) and in Bradford and Susquehanna Counties (decommissioned 1930).

But what do you do with the two PA *9*7's (in Erie and Adams Counties)?

As for connecting, decommissioning, or downgrading the two U.S. 422's (relevant to this thread since both are wholly or substantially in PA)...

ixnay


Since the western one is 197 internally, sign it as that. I would say the same for any road with a different internal designation (283/300).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on April 03, 2017, 01:05:46 PM
If the info. contained in the below-article is correct & true; it looks like some of PA's gas tax is being (illegally) diverted to bolster State Police budgets.

How Harrisburg (probably illegally) mishandles road and bridge funds (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/Baer-Harrisburg-roads-bridges-funds.html)

Quote from: Philadelphia Inquirer Article Excerpts
The legislature and governors, Republican and Democrat, Tom Ridge to Tom Wolf, annually siphon off funds allocated to fix roads and bridges, and use the money for something else -- to bolster budgets of the Pennsylvania State Police.

But the way they do it looks illegal. Here’s why.

The state Motor License Fund is fed by your gas taxes and license and vehicle fees. The state Constitution (Art. VIII, Sec. 11) says it shall be used “solely for construction, reconstruction, maintenance and repair of and safety on public highways and bridges.”

But big chunks of the fund are not used for roads, bridges, or their safety.

How big? In just one year (fiscal 2015-16), $222 million-plus.

...

The legislative analysis shows that of the total fund money PSP got for the year examined ($755 million), $222.2 million wasn’t for highway safety. It was mixed in with other money to run the PSP.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on April 15, 2017, 01:41:22 PM
Evidently US 15 isn't fully interstate-ready from Williamsport north, as there's a single at-grade intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/6bF743aDtop) with some gravel road on the northbound lanes just north of Trout Run. I suppose when/if they ever get around to completing the upgrades for I-99 on US 220, they'll also need to turn this little intersection into a proper RIRO or just block it off.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on April 15, 2017, 07:28:41 PM
Evidently US 15 isn't fully interstate-ready from Williamsport north, as there's a single at-grade intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/6bF743aDtop) with some gravel road on the northbound lanes just north of Trout Run. I suppose when/if they ever get around to completing the upgrades for I-99 on US 220, they'll also need to turn this little intersection into a proper RIRO or just block it off.

File with this gem on WB U.S. 50/SB U.S. 301 approaching MD 2 (Ritchie Highway)...

http://tinyurl.com/leqz4az

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on April 15, 2017, 11:17:50 PM
Evidently US 15 isn't fully interstate-ready from Williamsport north, as there's a single at-grade intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/6bF743aDtop) with some gravel road on the northbound lanes just north of Trout Run. I suppose when/if they ever get around to completing the upgrades for I-99 on US 220, they'll also need to turn this little intersection into a proper RIRO or just block it off.

File with this gem on WB U.S. 50/SB U.S. 301 approaching MD 2 (Ritchie Highway)...

http://tinyurl.com/leqz4az

ixnay

Wow, and only one tiny little one-way sign to stop people from going down the wrong direction...
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on April 15, 2017, 11:50:42 PM
Evidently US 15 isn't fully interstate-ready from Williamsport north, as there's a single at-grade intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/6bF743aDtop) with some gravel road on the northbound lanes just north of Trout Run. I suppose when/if they ever get around to completing the upgrades for I-99 on US 220, they'll also need to turn this little intersection into a proper RIRO or just block it off.

File with this gem on WB U.S. 50/SB U.S. 301 approaching MD 2 (Ritchie Highway)...

http://tinyurl.com/leqz4az

ixnay
I've driven that, in the SB direction. It's an interesting right turn at the end. Can't see why they couldn't dead end the SB direction before that point.

As for Trout Run, if Google Maps is correct then that can and should be closed off completely because there are other ways in. If Google Maps is not correct (like the sun rises in the morning) and there's no other way in, then it needs to be a simple RIRO. Meanwhile, there are some interesting solutions in that area, like an overpass at Confair Ln. to the single house in the median. With all the expense PA went through for single properties and other random small roads, they couldn't find a solution for 4 Mile Road?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 16, 2017, 07:16:52 AM
Work on the I-83/US 322 interchange at Union Deposit Rd (Exit 48) begins Tuesday with planned lane closures along Union Deposit Rd. (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/04/interstate_83_overpass_work_to.html) (PennLive)

Also an update on the I-81 widening from Exits 70-72. (http://abc27.com/2017/04/16/two-major-road-projects-kicking-off-in-dauphin-county/) (ABC27, also mentions the work on I-83)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on April 16, 2017, 07:53:37 AM
Evidently US 15 isn't fully interstate-ready from Williamsport north, as there's a single at-grade intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/6bF743aDtop) with some gravel road on the northbound lanes just north of Trout Run. I suppose when/if they ever get around to completing the upgrades for I-99 on US 220, they'll also need to turn this little intersection into a proper RIRO or just block it off.

File with this gem on WB U.S. 50/SB U.S. 301 approaching MD 2 (Ritchie Highway)...

http://tinyurl.com/leqz4az

ixnay
I've driven that, in the SB direction. It's an interesting right turn at the end. Can't see why they couldn't dead end the SB direction before that point.

Like they did with this on the other side of 50/301.

http://tinyurl.com/kgzstlb

This is apparently the continuation of MD 648 (the next driveable segment begins here at http://tinyurl.com/lt7dsa3), which finally terminates for good at MD 450 at the Naval Academy bridge.

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 16, 2017, 02:55:41 PM


Quote
I personally would renumber the northern PA 29 to be PA 67.

Why not number it PA 7 to continue the number from NY?  It's available.


Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on April 16, 2017, 03:26:26 PM


Quote
I personally would renumber the northern PA 29 to be PA 67.

Why not number it PA 7 to continue the number from NY?  It's available.

I always thought PA 7 would be better for the mile-long unnumbered road connecting DE 7 at the state line to PA 41 in Delaware County, but this makes more sense.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ekt8750 on April 16, 2017, 04:28:16 PM


Quote
I personally would renumber the northern PA 29 to be PA 67.

Why not number it PA 7 to continue the number from NY?  It's available.

I always thought PA 7 would be better for the mile-long unnumbered road connecting DE 7 at the state line to PA 41 in Delaware County, but this makes more sense.

They probably don't want to do it because it would violate the route numbering system. PA for some reason goes against what most of the country has adopted of north-south routes being odd numbered and east-west being even for its state routes. Here it's the other way around. So a north-south Route 7 would be a non-starter.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on April 16, 2017, 10:14:46 PM
I'm sorry, you think PA actually cares about their numbering system? Ha.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 17, 2017, 07:08:03 AM
I'm sorry, you think PA actually cares about their numbering system? Ha.

Your response makes much more sense to me.   :-D
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ekt8750 on April 17, 2017, 09:58:25 AM
I'm sorry, you think PA actually cares about their numbering system? Ha.

Silly me  :-D
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on April 17, 2017, 10:09:07 AM
I'm sorry, you think PA actually cares about their numbering system? Ha.

There are so many exceptions to this "rule" (PA 23, 29, 51, 33, etc.) that I didn't even realize there was a rule to begin with.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 17, 2017, 02:45:57 PM
I'm sorry, you think PA actually cares about their numbering system? Ha.

There are so many exceptions to this "rule" (PA 23, 29, 51, 33, etc.) that I didn't even realize there was a rule to begin with.

Is it even a rule? Or just more of a coincidence?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: vdeane on April 17, 2017, 08:57:53 PM
NY also does that with one and two digit state routes, but again, there are a zillion exceptions.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on April 17, 2017, 09:44:25 PM
I'm sorry, you think PA actually cares about their numbering system? Ha.

There are so many exceptions to this "rule" (PA 23, 29, 51, 33, etc.) that I didn't even realize there was a rule to begin with.

Is it even a rule? Or just more of a coincidence?

Well from my quick look at various routes to make sure, it seems most one- and two-digit state routes follow this rule, but there are so many exceptions it's difficult to see there's a rule at all.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on April 17, 2017, 10:10:17 PM
NY also does that with one and two digit state routes, but again, there are a zillion exceptions.

I'm not sure NY has really observed that since the 1924 system.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on April 18, 2017, 07:57:36 AM
PA had system which was well outlined on Tim Reichard's PA Highways site.  For 1 and 2 digits; routes ending in even # ran N-S, odd # N-S, and ending in 0 filled in gaps.  3 digit routes bet 101-799 were spurs off of related 2 digits.  820-999 were sequential spurs off of 2 digits in reverse order (832 was a spur off of 98, 999 was a spur off of 1/now US 30).

The first renumbering, when US routes were introduced, was the first of many rule violations. 
29 used to be connected as one route and used to be 22, before US 22...so it fits
33 used to be US 11 south of Harrisburg, so it fits.

Much more info here: http://www.m-plex.com/roads/numbering.html (http://www.m-plex.com/roads/numbering.html)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: vdeane on April 18, 2017, 10:16:31 PM
NY also does that with one and two digit state routes, but again, there are a zillion exceptions.

I'm not sure NY has really observed that since the 1924 system.
The pattern still holds today, so it must have been at least acknowledged in the 1930 renumbering that gave us the modern system.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on April 19, 2017, 09:37:43 AM
NY also does that with one and two digit state routes, but again, there are a zillion exceptions.

I'm not sure NY has really observed that since the 1924 system.
The pattern still holds today, so it must have been at least acknowledged in the 1930 renumbering that gave us the modern system.

I think it probably was, and so wasn't patently destroyed. But it doesn't look like they especially paid attention to it for any of the new routes assigned at the time.
Title: I-476: “Broomall” replaced what?
Post by: briantroutman on May 03, 2017, 02:42:55 PM
Since moving back to the Philadelphia area, I’ve been driving I-476 quite often and just noticed that on all guide signs at the interchange with PA 3, “Broomall” is on a greenout plate that’s slightly narrower than “Upper Darby”—assumably covering up a different westbound control city that was signed previously. Anyone know what that was? West Chester?

“Upper Darby” doesn’t appear to have been changed.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on May 03, 2017, 03:20:22 PM
Since moving back to the Philadelphia area, I’ve been driving I-476 quite often and just noticed that on all guide signs at the interchange with PA 3, “Broomall” is on a greenout plate that’s slightly narrower than “Upper Darby”—assumably covering up a different westbound control city that was signed previously. Anyone know what that was? West Chester?

“Upper Darby” doesn’t appear to have been changed.

I vaguely remember "Newtown Sq" but I may be wrong.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on May 03, 2017, 03:44:50 PM
Since moving back to the Philadelphia area, I’ve been driving I-476 quite often and just noticed that on all guide signs at the interchange with PA 3, “Broomall” is on a greenout plate that’s slightly narrower than “Upper Darby”—assumably covering up a different westbound control city that was signed previously. Anyone know what that was? West Chester?

“Upper Darby” doesn’t appear to have been changed.

I vaguely remember "Newtown Sq" but I may be wrong.
Correct.  When the signs were first erected & when the highway opened; it did indeed read Newtown Square (or Newtown Sq) but such was replaced with Broomall about a year later.   

At the same time, supplemental signage for the Media/Swarthmore interchange (old Exit 2, current Exit 3) indicating Baltimore Pike were also erected.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Ian on May 04, 2017, 09:49:35 PM
Since moving back to the Philadelphia area, I’ve been driving I-476 quite often and just noticed that on all guide signs at the interchange with PA 3, “Broomall” is on a greenout plate that’s slightly narrower than “Upper Darby”—assumably covering up a different westbound control city that was signed previously. Anyone know what that was? West Chester?

“Upper Darby” doesn’t appear to have been changed.

I vaguely remember "Newtown Sq" but I may be wrong.
Correct.  When the signs were first erected & when the highway opened; it did indeed read Newtown Square (or Newtown Sq) but such was replaced with Broomall about a year later.   

You know, I had always wondered myself what was under that patch, seeing as it's not too far up the Blue Route from where my hometown is. Thanks for that piece of information!
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on May 04, 2017, 11:13:36 PM
jemacedo9, PHLBOS-

Thanks for solving the mystery.

I didn’t think “West Chester” could be the answer since it is slightly wider (spelled out) than “Upper Darby”—which itself is slightly wider than the greenout panel. And I couldn’t imagine PennDOT using “W. Chester” on a guide sign.

In some ways, I think “Newtown Sq” is a more useful control destination than “Broomall”, and it’s also what PennDOT signs for PA 3 East on US 202 in West Chester. I wonder what local political concerns were at play with regard to the change. In a similar instance: I was quite surprised to read about how resentful residents of Kulpsville were over the Turnpike interchange being signed as “Lansdale”.

You know, I had always wondered myself what was under that patch, seeing as it's not too far up the Blue Route from where my hometown is.

Don’t forget—Media’s everybody’s hometown! And now, mine as well. I enjoy living here.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Ian on May 04, 2017, 11:54:25 PM
Don’t forget—Media’s everybody’s hometown! And now, mine as well. I enjoy living here.

Nice, I loved growing up in Media. It's very walkable, and the trolley is pretty neat. Many late night walks to the Wawa on Baltimore Pike with my high school buddies were had (and still happen whenever I take part in the weekend bar crawls when I'm visiting home). I miss living there.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on May 05, 2017, 09:05:15 AM
In some ways, I think “Newtown Sq” is a more useful control destination than “Broomall”, and it’s also what PennDOT signs for PA 3 East on US 202 in West Chester. I wonder what local political concerns were at play with regard to the change.
I agree with you that Newtown Sq should have remained on the main signage and Broomall should've been on the supplemental signs for the following reasons:

1.  The interchange itself is located in Broomall.

2.  One can easily access Broomall from either PA 3 westbound or Lawrence Road, located just east of the interchange; the latter has the Lawrence Park Shopping Center located at its southern terminus.

Whether Marple Township (which Broomall is a part of) swayed PennDOT to do what they did on those signs is not completely known.  Personally, I'm surprised that Haverford Township, located just east of the interchange didn't push to have Havertown replace Upper Darby on the main signage; such does appear on supplemental signage.  Then again, Haverford Township may not have been too pleased about I-476 becoming reality at the time.

The sign changes along with the fore-mentioned supplemental signage came about due to complaints PennDOT received from motorists that several interchange signs along I-476 listed too little and/or vague information. 

The signage that received the largest amounts of complaints was the Baltimore Pike interchange; which only listed Media & Swarthmore and gave no hint that such can serve Springfield (only the US 1 interchange listed such at the time) or that the road was indeed Baltimore Pike.

While PennDOT followed the letter of the MUTCD law with its signage & later supplemental signage; IMHO, they should have done what other agencies (NJDOT & MassDPW/Highway/DOT) have done and listed both the street name along with the 2 control cities on the main panels. 
Title: Why doesn’t PA 100 follow Graphite Mine Road around Eagle?
Post by: briantroutman on May 05, 2017, 05:02:49 PM
Another observation from driving around SEPA:

While I was a student at West Chester, PennDOT was building a short bypass of the village of Eagle, and it seemed inevitable that they would move the PA 100 designation to the bypass after its completion.

But I drove through there today, and to my surprise, PA 100 still follows Pottstown Pike through Eagle, and the bypass carries only its name: Graphite Mine Road. PennDOT does hint that Graphite Mine is a bypass, though: From the south, the lane from PA 100 to Graphite Mine Road is signed “Graphite Mine Rd to PA 100 North”. And from the north, a sign carries the corresponding message (“Graphite Mine Rd to PA 100 South”).

Anyone have ideas as to why PennDOT wouldn’t simply move the 100 shields to the bypass?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 05, 2017, 05:45:03 PM
Another observation from driving around SEPA:

While I was a student at West Chester, PennDOT was building a short bypass of the village of Eagle, and it seemed inevitable that they would move the PA 100 designation to the bypass after its completion.

But I drove through there today, and to my surprise, PA 100 still follows Pottstown Pike through Eagle, and the bypass carries only its name: Graphite Mine Road. PennDOT does hint that Graphite Mine is a bypass, though: From the south, the lane from PA 100 to Graphite Mine Road is signed “Graphite Mine Rd to PA 100 North”. And from the north, a sign carries the corresponding message (“Graphite Mine Rd to PA 100 South”).

Anyone have ideas as to why PennDOT wouldn’t simply move the 100 shields to the bypass?

I noticed this via the PA 100 Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_100) and noted to myself to clinch both whenever I get to clinching what I have left of PA 100.

Also the PA 283 reconstruction from Eisenhower Blvd to PA 341 has begun. (http://abc27.com/2017/05/04/penndot-marks-start-of-route-283-construction-project/)  Note that the loop ramp from PA 283 WB to I-283 SB will become a left-turn at a new traffic light that connects to the existing ramps to the PA Turnpike from PA 283 EB and Eisenhower Blvd.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: qguy on May 05, 2017, 09:28:18 PM
Don’t forget—Media’s everybody’s hometown! And now, mine as well. I enjoy living here.

Nice, I loved growing up in Media. It's very walkable, and the trolley is pretty neat. Many late night walks to the Wawa on Baltimore Pike with my high school buddies were had (and still happen whenever I take part in the weekend bar crawls when I'm visiting home). I miss living there.

And the food options are many and great!
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on May 06, 2017, 08:33:08 AM
Another observation from driving around SEPA:

While I was a student at West Chester, PennDOT was building a short bypass of the village of Eagle, and it seemed inevitable that they would move the PA 100 designation to the bypass after its completion.

But I drove through there today, and to my surprise, PA 100 still follows Pottstown Pike through Eagle, and the bypass carries only its name: Graphite Mine Road. PennDOT does hint that Graphite Mine is a bypass, though: From the south, the lane from PA 100 to Graphite Mine Road is signed “Graphite Mine Rd to PA 100 North”. And from the north, a sign carries the corresponding message (“Graphite Mine Rd to PA 100 South”).

Anyone have ideas as to why PennDOT wouldn’t simply move the 100 shields to the bypass?

I worked in that area when it was constructed.  Vague recall - I believe Upper Uwchlan Twp paid for part of most of the construction, and in fact, the portion north of Byers Rd is not a state road at all; it's township owned.  The portion south of Byers Rd is SR 1055.  It's either that reason, or the businesses wanted to keep PA 100's routing on the original road.

What bothers me is:  northbound, the design encourages you to take the bypass road, by making PA 100 take a left.  Southbound is the opposite...the design encourages you to NOT take the bypass road, because the bypass road is the one making a left.  At a minimum, I feel either the bypass should be labeled PA 100 By-Pass, or the old road could be designated PA 100 Business...but that's why I think the issue is, who paid for construction.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on May 07, 2017, 05:48:20 PM
...the portion north of Byers Rd is not a state road at all; it's township owned.  The portion south of Byers Rd is SR 1055.

Looking at PennDOT’s type 10 map for Chester County (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/Maps/GHS/Roadnames/Chester_GHSN.PDF), that appears to be correct. Only the southern third of the bypass is a state road. Are there any instances where a PA numbered route is signed over a non-PennDOT-maintained road? I don’t know of any.

Perhaps it’s not so coincidental, then, that the road’s geometry northbound (the PennDOT maintained portion) encourages through traffic to use the bypass, and the southbound geometry doesn’t. But still, I’m baffled as to why PennDOT and the township would spend millions of dollars building a bypass that would not or perhaps could not be designated as the route number it’s intended to relieve. After all, most PA 100 traffic is simply going to follow the 100 shields; people aren’t looking for tiny text that says “TO PA 100 NORTH FOLLOW...

Also the PA 283 reconstruction from Eisenhower Blvd to PA 341 has begun.

I’m quite disappointed (although honestly, not very surprised) that PennDOT’s reconstruction of this interchange is so unambitious. Removal of one loop (PA 283 West to I-283 South) will eliminate the minor weave there, but the plan does nothing to address the larger problem: The through movement (Harrisburg to Lancaster) is squeezed down to a single lane and through the tightest of the four loop ramps. As I sketched over a decade ago, I think a truly complete solution needs to eliminate the TOTSO.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4185/34387998991_e9fbc60c44_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 07, 2017, 06:52:08 PM
Also the PA 283 reconstruction from Eisenhower Blvd to PA 341 has begun.

I’m quite disappointed (although honestly, not very surprised) that PennDOT’s reconstruction of this interchange is so unambitious. Removal of one loop (PA 283 West to I-283 South) will eliminate the minor weave there, but the plan does nothing to address the larger problem: The through movement (Harrisburg to Lancaster) is squeezed down to a single lane and through the tightest of the four loop ramps. As I sketched over a decade ago, I think a truly complete solution needs to eliminate the TOTSO.

I think District 8 is so focused on making sure they just have funding for I-83 in Harrisburg and York that I think that pretty much any other major projects are most likely off the table for now.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: thenetwork on May 08, 2017, 09:45:52 AM
Also the PA 283 reconstruction from Eisenhower Blvd to PA 341 has begun.

I’m quite disappointed (although honestly, not very surprised) that PennDOT’s reconstruction of this interchange is so unambitious. Removal of one loop (PA 283 West to I-283 South) will eliminate the minor weave there, but the plan does nothing to address the larger problem: The through movement (Harrisburg to Lancaster) is squeezed down to a single lane and through the tightest of the four loop ramps. As I sketched over a decade ago, I think a truly complete solution needs to eliminate the TOTSO.

I think District 8 is so focused on making sure they just have funding for I-83 in Harrisburg and York that I think that pretty much any other major projects are most likely off the table for now.

They don't call 'em "Capital" Improvement Projects for nothin'..
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on May 08, 2017, 01:19:31 PM
Also the PA 283 reconstruction from Eisenhower Blvd to PA 341 has begun.

I’m quite disappointed (although honestly, not very surprised) that PennDOT’s reconstruction of this interchange is so unambitious. Removal of one loop (PA 283 West to I-283 South) will eliminate the minor weave there, but the plan does nothing to address the larger problem: The through movement (Harrisburg to Lancaster) is squeezed down to a single lane and through the tightest of the four loop ramps. As I sketched over a decade ago, I think a truly complete solution needs to eliminate the TOTSO.

I think District 8 is so focused on making sure they just have funding for I-83 in Harrisburg and York that I think that pretty much any other major projects are most likely off the table for now.

Agreed.  My question is - is an $89M full reconstruction really needed, as opposed to a cheaper rehabilitation?  I would rather, in this case, do a cheaper rehab of most of the 6 mile length, and then add the flyovers, then this. 
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on May 08, 2017, 01:21:55 PM
...the portion north of Byers Rd is not a state road at all; it's township owned.  The portion south of Byers Rd is SR 1055.

Looking at PennDOT’s type 10 map for Chester County (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/Maps/GHS/Roadnames/Chester_GHSN.PDF), that appears to be correct. Only the southern third of the bypass is a state road. Are there any instances where a PA numbered route is signed over a non-PennDOT-maintained road? I don’t know of any.

Perhaps it’s not so coincidental, then, that the road’s geometry northbound (the PennDOT maintained portion) encourages through traffic to use the bypass, and the southbound geometry doesn’t. But still, I’m baffled as to why PennDOT and the township would spend millions of dollars building a bypass that would not or perhaps could not be designated as the route number it’s intended to relieve. After all, most PA 100 traffic is simply going to follow the 100 shields; people aren’t looking for tiny text that says “TO PA 100 NORTH FOLLOW...

That baffles me also.

PA 23 in Lower Merion Twp Montgomery County has a long portion that is not an SR.  I don't know if there are many other examples in PA.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Bitmapped on May 08, 2017, 09:39:37 PM
...the portion north of Byers Rd is not a state road at all; it's township owned.  The portion south of Byers Rd is SR 1055.

Looking at PennDOT’s type 10 map for Chester County (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/Maps/GHS/Roadnames/Chester_GHSN.PDF), that appears to be correct. Only the southern third of the bypass is a state road. Are there any instances where a PA numbered route is signed over a non-PennDOT-maintained road? I don’t know of any.

Perhaps it’s not so coincidental, then, that the road’s geometry northbound (the PennDOT maintained portion) encourages through traffic to use the bypass, and the southbound geometry doesn’t. But still, I’m baffled as to why PennDOT and the township would spend millions of dollars building a bypass that would not or perhaps could not be designated as the route number it’s intended to relieve. After all, most PA 100 traffic is simply going to follow the 100 shields; people aren’t looking for tiny text that says “TO PA 100 NORTH FOLLOW...

That baffles me also.

PA 23 in Lower Merion Twp Montgomery County has a long portion that is not an SR.  I don't know if there are many other examples in PA.

PA 281 in Fayette County from the WV line to the Markleysburg borough limits is maintained by Henry Clay Township. As you might expect, a rural township in a poor county doesn't do the greatest job with its roads.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on May 08, 2017, 11:38:05 PM
Nothing at all inside Lebanon city limits is maintained by PennDOT. It's all city-maintained, including numbered roads.

Also, as bad a rep as PennDOT gets for road maintenance, Lebanon is even worse (https://goo.gl/maps/gyCHkvEKaL62).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on May 09, 2017, 01:43:35 PM
Nothing at all inside Lebanon city limits is maintained by PennDOT. It's all city-maintained, including numbered roads.

Sounds similar to Baltimore city in MD, where all numbered routes are maintained by the city (including IIRC I-83 but not including I-95 and I-895, which are maintained by the MdTA).

Are there any other cities or boroughs in PA where the municipality maintains the numbered roads?  How about Bloomsburg, which is PA's only town?

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on May 09, 2017, 02:32:15 PM
Are there any other cities or boroughs in PA where the municipality maintains the numbered roads?

PennDOT’s type 10 county maps use a red line to mark state-maintained routes...and they also a red line to mark PA traffic routes—regardless of ownership. So unfortunately, you can’t tell from the map whether a numbered PA route is state owned or not.

You can, however, see on the Lebanon County type 10 map that all of state-maintained quadrant routes stop dead at the Lebanon city boundary.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4155/33715798594_1a25d330e2_z.jpg)


How about Bloomsburg, which is PA's only town?

Again, the map doesn’t show whether the numbered traffic routes are state maintained or not, but unlike Lebanon, Bloomsburg has at least two state-maintained quadrant routes, state-maintained ramps at the US 11/PA 42 interchange, and a section of I-80 within its boundaries.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4178/34558485415_38f6dedec0_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on May 09, 2017, 04:06:56 PM
The 2013 traffic count maps would show important non-PennDOT roads with a dotted line, including the numbered routes in Lebanon. All the years since then don't make this distinction, though. Numbered roads are solid no matter what, and non-PennDOT roads are given no special indication at all.

Interestingly, the little bit of 422 eastbound (Walnut St.) outside city limits is also locally-owned (township I guess).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Bitmapped on May 09, 2017, 05:09:34 PM
According to the Type 5 map for Lebanon city, there is a small section of state-maintained US 422 (SR 0422) on the eastern edge of the city. See http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/Maps/Type5/38301.pdf
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on May 09, 2017, 05:27:21 PM
According to the Type 5 map for Lebanon city, there is a small section of state-maintained US 422 (SR 0422) on the eastern edge of the city. See http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/Maps/Type5/38301.pdf

The city line actually runs along 422 WB and 897 here, so the SE quadrant of the Cumberland-897 intersection isn't part of the city. Also, iTMS (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/itms/main.htm) and the little LRS paddle signs indicate SR 0422 as stopping at 897 and not poking into the city.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: sbeaver44 on May 09, 2017, 05:45:07 PM
According to the Type 5 map for Lebanon city, there is a small section of state-maintained US 422 (SR 0422) on the eastern edge of the city. See http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/Maps/Type5/38301.pdf

The city line actually runs along 422 WB and 897 here, so the SE quadrant of the Cumberland-897 intersection isn't part of the city. Also, iTMS (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/itms/main.htm) and the little LRS paddle signs indicate SR 0422 as stopping at 897 and not poking into the city.
That 422/897 intersection always looks weird to me, since 422 W is otherwise a one way street through Lebanon.

470 E Cumberland St

https://goo.gl/maps/VPWygXcrvsG2

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 13, 2017, 08:58:55 AM
FOX43:  Mount Rose Avenue roadway project behind schedule, according to PennDOT (http://fox43.com/2017/05/12/mount-rose-avenue-roadway-project-behind-schedule-according-to-penndot/)

I had heard about this some while working with District 8, but the additional excavation mentioned in the article is just part of the problem.

WFMZ:  Work to fix falling rock problem closes Route 724 in Cumru (http://www.wfmz.com/news/berks/work-to-fix-falling-rock-problem-closes-route-724-in-cumru/499655000)
Quote
CUMRU TWP., Pa. - The threat of falling rocks has prompted PennDOT to close a stretch of Route 724 in Berks County for the next 10 days.

The stretch of Route 724 between Interstate 176 and Route 10 in Cumru Township was closed Monday so that crews can address an ongoing problem with rocks sliding off the adjacent hillside and onto the road.

"It's a little bit scary going through there," Joe Pichler told 69 News last week.

PennDOT will clean up rocks that have fallen onto the road and replace the fence that runs between the road and the hillside.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on May 17, 2017, 02:52:49 PM
New website for the US 30 Coatesville-Downingtown Bypass reconstruction (AND WIDENING) to occur next decade (Chester County/SE PA)...

http://www.us30-chesco.com/ (http://www.us30-chesco.com/)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on May 17, 2017, 05:06:52 PM
New website for the US 30 Coatesville-Downingtown Bypass reconstruction (AND WIDENING) to occur next decade (Chester County/SE PA)...
http://www.us30-chesco.com/ (http://www.us30-chesco.com/)
So US 30 between PA 82 & Business US 30, east of Downingtown is being widened from 4 to 6 lanes.  Isn't such going to create a bottleneck along the newer 4-lane Exton stretch between Business US 30 & US 202?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Beltway on May 17, 2017, 05:16:49 PM
New website for the US 30 Coatesville-Downingtown Bypass reconstruction (AND WIDENING) to occur next decade (Chester County/SE PA)...

http://www.us30-chesco.com/ (http://www.us30-chesco.com/)

The eastern half will be widened to 6 lanes with 12-foot right and left shoulders.  Very good!

Are there any plans to widen the US-30 Exton Bypass?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on May 17, 2017, 06:44:05 PM
Isn't such going to create a bottleneck along the newer 4-lane Exton stretch between Business US 30 & US 202?

Are there any plans to widen the US-30 Exton Bypass?

I don’t know if there are any widening plans farther east, but according to PennDOT’s Chester County traffic volume map (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/County_Maps/Chester_TV.pdf), US 30 AADT peaks at 75,000 at Downingtown before declining to 61,000 west of PA 100 and then dropping to just 38,000 between PA 100 and US 202.

In other words, close to half—if not more than half—of US 30 traffic turns over at the PA 100 interchange. And as demonstrated the by long lines of vehicles stopped in the right lane or on the shoulder of eastbound US 30 approaching that interchange at peak times, the interchange itself is woefully under-designed. So arguably, widening the freeway farther west in Downingtown isn’t creating a new bottleneck so much as it is moving an existing bottleneck further westward—choking traffic heading into a chokepoint.

The additional lane capacity needed between the eastern end of Downingtown and PA 100 would be in the form of dedicated lanes to and from PA 100. But more pressing is a complete reconfiguration of the interchange itself—probably to include streamlined access to an expanded park-and-ride facility at the Exton train station.

Widening the eastern half of the Exton Bypass is probably unnecessary.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: qguy on May 18, 2017, 06:40:45 PM
Until sometime in the 1970s, PennDOH/PennDOT envisioned PA 100 being upgraded to a freeway from its split with US 202 just north of West Chester to I-78/US 22. Certain features in places along this length, like interchanges and surface expressway design standards, are a legacy of that.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on May 18, 2017, 08:03:21 PM
I don’t know if there are any widening plans farther east, but according to PennDOT’s Chester County traffic volume map (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/County_Maps/Chester_TV.pdf), US 30 AADT peaks at 75,000 at Downingtown before declining to 61,000 west of PA 100 and then dropping to just 38,000 between PA 100 and US 202.

In other words, close to half—if not more than half—of US 30 traffic turns over at the PA 100 interchange.

What's in Exton and/or West Chester that causes the dropoff on 30 east of 100?

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on May 19, 2017, 08:00:13 AM
I don’t know if there are any widening plans farther east, but according to PennDOT’s Chester County traffic volume map (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_pdf_files/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/County_Maps/Chester_TV.pdf), US 30 AADT peaks at 75,000 at Downingtown before declining to 61,000 west of PA 100 and then dropping to just 38,000 between PA 100 and US 202.

In other words, close to half—if not more than half—of US 30 traffic turns over at the PA 100 interchange.

What's in Exton and/or West Chester that causes the dropoff on 30 east of 100?

ixnay

Commuters.  There are a lot of corporate centers and retail centers in the Exton area, along Business 30 and along 100.  With the backups at the 100 exit, I'm sure many people exit at Business 30 to get to Exton.  As far as 100 south, West Chester is the county seat, so the courthouse and county gov't are there.  Plus, many people work in the Wilmington area with those Corp HQ and commute down 202 south, or in the Newtown SQ area that take 202 South to PA 3 East.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Chris19001 on May 19, 2017, 12:41:06 PM
Commuters.  There are a lot of corporate centers and retail centers in the Exton area, along Business 30 and along 100.  With the backups at the 100 exit, I'm sure many people exit at Business 30 to get to Exton.  As far as 100 south, West Chester is the county seat, so the courthouse and county gov't are there.  Plus, many people work in the Wilmington area with those Corp HQ and commute down 202 south, or in the Newtown SQ area that take 202 South to PA 3 East.
And the regional rail station is just across the street at the interchange.  It is one of the few convenient "park and ride" stations on the SEPTA network.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on May 19, 2017, 10:21:21 PM
^ Agreed on the suburb-to-suburb commuting patterns, and while I initially thought commuters parking at Exton might be a significant factor, SEPTA’s website indicates that the parking lot has less than 650 spaces. That might make a dent in traffic volumes, but it’s just a little over 1% of the AADT of US 30 west of PA 100.

In addition to the areas served directly by PA 100 (Eagle, Lionville, Exton, West Chester) and by US 202 south of West Chester (Concordville, Wilmington), this is a popular “jumping off point” to avoid the nearly constant traffic pinch on I-76 east of King of Prussia and on I-476. Traffic makes the connection to PA 113, PA 100, and onto the Turnpike for destinations north and east—or heads south on PA 100 and disperses across PA 3, PA 352, US 1, and a number of other routes and back roads into western and southern Delaware County and South Philadelphia.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 31, 2017, 07:13:32 AM
Construction starts June 11th to put auxiliary lanes (or more or less extend the existing ones from the US 22 split) on I-78/US 22 from PA 100 to the US 22 split. (http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-upper-macungie-interstate-78-lanes-20170530-story.html)(The Morning Call)

I remember the merge of US 22 WB onto I-78 WB there was a bottleneck (especially on Fridays) when I went to Allentown a lot last year for work.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 12, 2017, 07:07:30 PM
There's an EB stub on I-176, what was that for?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1664994,-75.886184,749m/data=!3m1!1e3

Any update on the US-219 stub around Somerset?

Any other stubs with a future to them?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on June 12, 2017, 07:13:48 PM
There's an EB stub on I-176, what was that for?

The Runaway Truck Expressway—which was built in its entirety: https://goo.gl/maps/Az6hLBo5SUP2
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: rickmastfan67 on June 13, 2017, 01:14:51 AM
Any update on the US-219 stub around Somerset?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2269.0
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 13, 2017, 07:00:18 AM
People should appreciate the novelty that is Breezewood.  Yes, there is stop-and-go traffic at times but where else on our Interstate system is something quite like this?  I never did mind driving through Breezewood--in fact, I would purposely stop there just to eat or fuel up.  Building a new interchange bypassing Breezewood would financially put a big dent in the area.  If Breezewood is such a pain to people then they should find a way not to drive through Breezewood.  There are ways to avoid it--if it is such a hassle.  I, myself, find Breezewood to be unique and a throwback to our early days of the Interstate system--and if I need to drive through there to go to a certain destination, then I will.

WTF?  Yeah, it's unique -- but a throwback?  First time I've heard anyone nostalgic for the times when the Interstate network was still in bits & pieces.  Sort of reminds me of that old Dana Carvey SNL sketch where the elderly gentleman waxes on about unpleasant or even cruel practices of his youth, concluding with the phrase "And we LIKED it!" :-D  Oh well, to each their own, I suppose.

I also like Breezewood.  And I am nostalgic for those days as well.  You don't have to want something back to be nostalgic about it.  I appreciate the fascinating transition into the era of Interstates and the collision of old and new worlds.  What historically-interested person wouldn't find such a period of change remarkable?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on June 15, 2017, 04:44:12 PM
What's the current status of the US 6/11 reconstruction from Factoryville to Clarks Summit?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on June 15, 2017, 09:24:39 PM
People should appreciate the novelty that is Breezewood.  Yes, there is stop-and-go traffic at times but where else on our Interstate system is something quite like this?  I never did mind driving through Breezewood--in fact, I would purposely stop there just to eat or fuel up.  Building a new interchange bypassing Breezewood would financially put a big dent in the area.  If Breezewood is such a pain to people then they should find a way not to drive through Breezewood.  There are ways to avoid it--if it is such a hassle.  I, myself, find Breezewood to be unique and a throwback to our early days of the Interstate system--and if I need to drive through there to go to a certain destination, then I will.

WTF?  Yeah, it's unique -- but a throwback?  First time I've heard anyone nostalgic for the times when the Interstate network was still in bits & pieces.  Sort of reminds me of that old Dana Carvey SNL sketch where the elderly gentleman waxes on about unpleasant or even cruel practices of his youth, concluding with the phrase "And we LIKED it!" :-D  Oh well, to each their own, I suppose.

I also like Breezewood.  And I am nostalgic for those days as well.  You don't have to want something back to be nostalgic about it.  I appreciate the fascinating transition into the era of Interstates and the collision of old and new worlds.  What historically-interested person wouldn't find such a period of change remarkable?

I also appreciate it for what it is, and one thing I've noticed about this forum as compared to m.t.r. is that I'm even more in the minority with that opinion here than I was there!
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 17, 2017, 10:36:42 PM
is there any plans to connect the lancaster and downington area sections of the US 30 freeway?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on June 18, 2017, 01:46:37 AM
is there any plans to connect the lancaster and downington area sections of the US 30 freeway?
no
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on June 18, 2017, 02:11:17 AM
is there any plans to connect the lancaster and downington area sections of the US 30 freeway?
no

To my knowledge, it’s never even been brought up as some state representative’s pipe dream. At the moment, the only items on PennDOT’s twelve-year plan relevant to this section are various resurfacing projects and intersection improvements. In fact, PennDOT just spent about $10 million on a slight realignment of the westbound lanes at the PA 41 intersection in Gap.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 18, 2017, 07:16:27 AM
is there any plans to connect the lancaster and downington area sections of the US 30 freeway?
no

I had actually thought about this last night.  I would have to look into this more, but I feel that if the Goat Path Expressway was ever truly brought back, it should function as mainly a US 30 bypass of that area and then at most maybe a spur to connect PA 23 to PA 10 and I-176.  Note that I am unsure how east the ROW continues for it east of PA 772.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Beltway on June 18, 2017, 07:52:13 AM
is there any plans to connect the lancaster and downington area sections of the US 30 freeway?
no

To my knowledge, it’s never even been brought up as some state representative’s pipe dream. At the moment, the only items on PennDOT’s twelve-year plan relevant to this section are various resurfacing projects and intersection improvements. In fact, PennDOT just spent about $10 million on a slight realignment of the westbound lanes at the PA 41 intersection in Gap.

Sure would be a massive improvement to the region if PennDOT and the local officials could engineer a route for a US-30 freeway that has the maximum sensitivity to the natural and human environments.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on June 18, 2017, 08:17:32 AM
People should appreciate the novelty that is Breezewood.  Yes, there is stop-and-go traffic at times but where else on our Interstate system is something quite like this?  I never did mind driving through Breezewood--in fact, I would purposely stop there just to eat or fuel up.  Building a new interchange bypassing Breezewood would financially put a big dent in the area.  If Breezewood is such a pain to people then they should find a way not to drive through Breezewood.  There are ways to avoid it--if it is such a hassle.  I, myself, find Breezewood to be unique and a throwback to our early days of the Interstate system--and if I need to drive through there to go to a certain destination, then I will.

WTF?  Yeah, it's unique -- but a throwback?  First time I've heard anyone nostalgic for the times when the Interstate network was still in bits & pieces.  Sort of reminds me of that old Dana Carvey SNL sketch where the elderly gentleman waxes on about unpleasant or even cruel practices of his youth, concluding with the phrase "And we LIKED it!" :-D  Oh well, to each their own, I suppose.

I also like Breezewood.  And I am nostalgic for those days as well.  You don't have to want something back to be nostalgic about it.  I appreciate the fascinating transition into the era of Interstates and the collision of old and new worlds.  What historically-interested person wouldn't find such a period of change remarkable?

I also appreciate it for what it is, and one thing I've noticed about this forum as compared to m.t.r. is that I'm even more in the minority with that opinion here than I was there!

What's m.t.r. stand for?

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: dgolub on June 18, 2017, 09:44:41 AM
People should appreciate the novelty that is Breezewood.  Yes, there is stop-and-go traffic at times but where else on our Interstate system is something quite like this?  I never did mind driving through Breezewood--in fact, I would purposely stop there just to eat or fuel up.  Building a new interchange bypassing Breezewood would financially put a big dent in the area.  If Breezewood is such a pain to people then they should find a way not to drive through Breezewood.  There are ways to avoid it--if it is such a hassle.  I, myself, find Breezewood to be unique and a throwback to our early days of the Interstate system--and if I need to drive through there to go to a certain destination, then I will.

WTF?  Yeah, it's unique -- but a throwback?  First time I've heard anyone nostalgic for the times when the Interstate network was still in bits & pieces.  Sort of reminds me of that old Dana Carvey SNL sketch where the elderly gentleman waxes on about unpleasant or even cruel practices of his youth, concluding with the phrase "And we LIKED it!" :-D  Oh well, to each their own, I suppose.

I also like Breezewood.  And I am nostalgic for those days as well.  You don't have to want something back to be nostalgic about it.  I appreciate the fascinating transition into the era of Interstates and the collision of old and new worlds.  What historically-interested person wouldn't find such a period of change remarkable?

I also appreciate it for what it is, and one thing I've noticed about this forum as compared to m.t.r. is that I'm even more in the minority with that opinion here than I was there!

What's m.t.r. stand for?

ixnay

misc.transport.road

It was a newsgroup for roadgeeks back in the days when people actually used newsgroups.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: qguy on June 18, 2017, 10:00:54 AM
is there any plans to connect the lancaster and downington area sections of the US 30 freeway?
no

To my knowledge, it’s never even been brought up as some state representative’s pipe dream. At the moment, the only items on PennDOT’s twelve-year plan relevant to this section are various resurfacing projects and intersection improvements. In fact, PennDOT just spent about $10 million on a slight realignment of the westbound lanes at the PA 41 intersection in Gap.

I'll see your "in fact" and raise you and "indeed!"  :D

Approximately 20 years ago, that PA 41 intersection project started out as a proposed short US 30 expressway segment stretching from just west of the US 30 intersection with PA 10 to just west of the US 30 intersection with PA 772. There were various alternative alignments along the north and south sides of existing US 30 as well as various alternative treatments of the intersection with PA 41, including grade-separated alternatives.

Over the years PennDOT progressively downsized it until you have the feeble thing that was recently constructed.

When I lived in Philadelphia and worked for PennDOT District 6, I frequently traveled between there and Harrisburg. When I would get bored with the PA Turnpike, I'd use PA 283, US 30, and US 202 as an alternate on the return trip just for variety. The congestion on the non-freeway portion of US 30 between Lancaster and Coatesville would add so much time to the trip that after just a few times, I gave it up. That was in the 2000s. It's worse today. The PA 41 intersection is better, but that non-freeway stretch backs up along its entire length.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 18, 2017, 10:20:25 AM
Something tells me connecting the two US 30 freeway sections would involve reviving a modified form of the Goat Path expressway.  US 30 from the end of the freeway portion to PA 41 can be a nightmare from May-December with Dutch Wonderland, the shopping outlets, American Music Theater, and Millers. 
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: sbeaver44 on June 18, 2017, 12:24:03 PM
Something tells me connecting the two US 30 freeway sections would involve reviving a modified form of the Goat Path expressway.  US 30 from the end of the freeway portion to PA 41 can be a nightmare from May-December with Dutch Wonderland, the shopping outlets, American Music Theater, and Millers.
Yes...we go to Bethany Beach every year from Harrisburg.  I started taking PA 741 and PA 272/MD 272 to I-95 to get to DE 1 now.  (Of course, I shunpike with MD/DE 279).  It might be longer timewise but it's way less frustrating.

I used to do 283-30-41-7. 

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Beltway on June 18, 2017, 02:53:51 PM
When I lived in Philadelphia and worked for PennDOT District 6, I frequently traveled between there and Harrisburg. When I would get bored with the PA Turnpike, I'd use PA 283, US 30, and US 202 as an alternate on the return trip just for variety. The congestion on the non-freeway portion of US 30 between Lancaster and Coatesville would add so much time to the trip that after just a few times, I gave it up. That was in the 2000s. It's worse today. The PA 41 intersection is better, but that non-freeway stretch backs up along its entire length.

A few times we used US-322 as a fairly low traffic alternative to the Turnpike.
That was in the 1970s... wonder how it is today?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: sbeaver44 on June 18, 2017, 03:06:30 PM
When I lived in Philadelphia and worked for PennDOT District 6, I frequently traveled between there and Harrisburg. When I would get bored with the PA Turnpike, I'd use PA 283, US 30, and US 202 as an alternate on the return trip just for variety. The congestion on the non-freeway portion of US 30 between Lancaster and Coatesville would add so much time to the trip that after just a few times, I gave it up. That was in the 2000s. It's worse today. The PA 41 intersection is better, but that non-freeway stretch backs up along its entire length.

A few times we used US-322 as a fairly low traffic alternative to the Turnpike.
That was in the 1970s... wonder how it is today?
In some areas, not bad.  But near Hershey and Ephrata it can get trafficky.

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on June 18, 2017, 03:17:41 PM
When I lived in Philadelphia and worked for PennDOT District 6, I frequently traveled between there and Harrisburg. When I would get bored with the PA Turnpike, I'd use PA 283, US 30, and US 202 as an alternate on the return trip just for variety. The congestion on the non-freeway portion of US 30 between Lancaster and Coatesville would add so much time to the trip that after just a few times, I gave it up. That was in the 2000s. It's worse today. The PA 41 intersection is better, but that non-freeway stretch backs up along its entire length.

A few times we used US-322 as a fairly low traffic alternative to the Turnpike.
That was in the 1970s... wonder how it is today?
In some areas, not bad.  But near Hershey and Ephrata it can get trafficky.

Nexus 6P
I can attest to that. During summer seasons, when people go to Hersheypark, that section can become congested. Typically it gets heavier around the late morning/early afternoon (around 9 AM to 11 AM) since that's when Hersheypark opens. I'm not sure WHY they haven't upgraded the section of US 322 between the Eisenhower Interchange and US 422, because there's enough room to put at least a RIRO in for the at-grade intersections.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 18, 2017, 05:21:33 PM
Quote
I can attest to that. During summer seasons, when people go to Hersheypark, that section can become congested. Typically it gets heavier around the late morning/early afternoon (around 9 AM to 11 AM) since that's when Hersheypark opens. I'm not sure WHY they haven't upgraded the section of US 322 between the Eisenhower Interchange and US 422, because there's enough room to put at least a RIRO in for the at-grade intersections.

It would be a lot more complicated than that for the two signals.

The first light EB at Mushroom Hill Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2603434,-76.7743381,18z) connects to a shopping center that includes Wal-Mart and Sam's Club.  (though there is a ramp WB that directly connects to Sam's Club before the intersection)  Also there are other businesses on the south side of US 322 here. 

The second light at Chambers Hill Rd and Grayson Rd  (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2616532,-76.7438145,3a,75y,280.05h,82.13t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHKeqOUsaBzfnH5wCENKHrw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DHKeqOUsaBzfnH5wCENKHrw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D303.86868%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) is a multiple-way intersection that causes the real congestion of the two.  Grayson Rd connects to Milroy Rd, which becomes Nyes Rd that connects to Jonestown Rd in Paxtonia, which connects to US 22 and I-81 at Exit 72.

PENNDOT's website shows a planned improvement to the latter intersection (http://www.projects.penndot.gov/projects/Reports/ProjectReport.aspx?ProjectID=92945&ReportType=Project), but I know nothing about an interchange being placed here.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on June 18, 2017, 09:10:50 PM
The first light EB at Mushroom Hill Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2603434,-76.7743381,18z) connects to a shopping center that includes Wal-Mart and Sam's Club.  (though there is a ramp WB that directly connects to Sam's Club before the intersection)  Also there are other businesses on the south side of US 322 here. 
Trying not to get into Fictional, my proposal is to use a SPUI. I'm not an engineer, so I'm not sure if depressing US 322 or elevating Mushroom Hill, but the only real effects I can see is that the Dunkin Donuts and propane company would have to be demolished (to make room for the bottom right ramp), the bottom third of the Weis and Walmart would have to be demolished (taking away the tobacco store and the Aldi respectively) to make room for the top two ramps, and the bottom left ramp is clear land.

Quote
The second light at Chambers Hill Rd and Grayson Rd  (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2616532,-76.7438145,3a,75y,280.05h,82.13t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHKeqOUsaBzfnH5wCENKHrw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DHKeqOUsaBzfnH5wCENKHrw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D303.86868%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) is a multiple-way intersection that causes the real congestion of the two.  Grayson Rd connects to Milroy Rd, which becomes Nyes Rd that connects to Jonestown Rd in Paxtonia, which connects to US 22 and I-81 at Exit 72.
This is tougher... I'd say a modified SPUI - connect Grayson/Hilton (or Pine) to South 82nd/Chambers Hill as the bridge. However, there's less stuff to demolish - SW side is maybe 2 homes, SE and NW sides are clear, and NE would have to require a direct exit to
Pine Street, since it's impossible to build a ramp to the intersection.

I'd also cut off every road (aside from the two aforementioned interchanges), since those roads are accessible by Grayson Road (a parallel road). The only RIRO I'd leave in is the one to the water treatment plant.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 22, 2017, 10:58:24 AM
It looks like I-84 in northeastern Pennsylvania still has quite a long way to go. I know they had to redo much of the roadbed underneath the interstate east of here. This was looking west. I only know the mile markers were in the 30s. Possibly MM 36 to MM 33?  :hmmm:

(http://i.imgur.com/NMzQrck.jpg)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jcn on June 22, 2017, 09:51:00 PM
When I lived in Philadelphia and worked for PennDOT District 6, I frequently traveled between there and Harrisburg. When I would get bored with the PA Turnpike, I'd use PA 283, US 30, and US 202 as an alternate on the return trip just for variety. The congestion on the non-freeway portion of US 30 between Lancaster and Coatesville would add so much time to the trip that after just a few times, I gave it up. That was in the 2000s. It's worse today. The PA 41 intersection is better, but that non-freeway stretch backs up along its entire length.

A few times we used US-322 as a fairly low traffic alternative to the Turnpike.
That was in the 1970s... wonder how it is today?
In some areas, not bad.  But near Hershey and Ephrata it can get trafficky.

Nexus 6P

If you think that's bad, US-322 in Delaware County between US-1 and I-95 is horrible.  Luckily, a major construction has just begun to help ease that stretch. 
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 22, 2017, 11:01:36 PM
When I lived in Philadelphia and worked for PennDOT District 6, I frequently traveled between there and Harrisburg. When I would get bored with the PA Turnpike, I'd use PA 283, US 30, and US 202 as an alternate on the return trip just for variety. The congestion on the non-freeway portion of US 30 between Lancaster and Coatesville would add so much time to the trip that after just a few times, I gave it up. That was in the 2000s. It's worse today. The PA 41 intersection is better, but that non-freeway stretch backs up along its entire length.

A few times we used US-322 as a fairly low traffic alternative to the Turnpike.
That was in the 1970s... wonder how it is today?
In some areas, not bad.  But near Hershey and Ephrata it can get trafficky.

Nexus 6P

If you think that's bad, US-322 in Delaware County between US-1 and I-95 is horrible.  Luckily, a major construction has just begun to help ease that stretch. 

Just a 6 year project with no improvements with the merge onto 95.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadgeek01 on June 24, 2017, 10:00:11 AM
I have a question regarding the US-322/US-422 interchange in Hershey. I noticed that while viewing said interchange on Google maps, I noticed a ramp stub.  It would be nice to have a explanation for that.  I have a link here: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2674124,-76.6833245,19z/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: davewiecking on June 24, 2017, 10:21:29 AM
Old topo maps (viewed via historicaerials.com) suggest that this is leftover asphalt from when W. Governor Rd connected with E. Main St., prior to the existing interchange being constructed in the late 60's.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Buffaboy on June 25, 2017, 11:48:22 AM
The button copy signs outside of Breezewood on I-70 are pretty stunning.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on June 25, 2017, 03:15:51 PM
I noticed some interesting things about the old signs on US 422/I-376 around New Castle in the old Street View, particularly at current Exit 12.

As late as 2009, you still had the original text-only button copy signs (https://goo.gl/maps/2eTdmHWbkXD2), with centered exit tabs as well. Interestingly, even after Toll 60 (today I-376) was built, these signs were never updated to refer to 60 as continuing south past this interchange; it's only referred to as US 422. Some signs feature blank spaces (https://goo.gl/maps/aAcQcjwzXLU2) that would presumably have held "PA 60 South" and "Pittsburgh". One sign (https://goo.gl/maps/KWBMYRz8k8J2) that used shields even had a blank keystone shield. Presumably it was this way until all the signs were replaced with the redesignation to I-376.

Also of note is that all of these old signs on then-60 feature exit tabs. Were they anticipating the 60 corridor becoming I-376 or some other Interstate even way back then, or were non-Interstate expressways often given blank exit tabs on these old signs back then?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: route17fan on June 25, 2017, 03:53:11 PM
Also of note is that all of these old signs on then-60 feature exit tabs. Were they anticipating the 60 corridor becoming I-376 or some other Interstate even way back then, or were non-Interstate expressways often given blank exit tabs on these old signs back then?

US 219 in Bradford and US 220 in Williamsport and west of Williamsport had blank exit tabs as well. I'm afraid I do not know about then-future plans, but quite a few expressways had them back then.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on June 26, 2017, 09:00:11 AM
If you think that's bad, US-322 in Delaware County between US-1 and I-95 is horrible.  Luckily, a major construction has just begun to help ease that stretch. 

Just a 6 year project with no improvements with the merge onto 95.
The proposed I-95/US 322 interchange reconfiguration (I've seen an overall plan view of such for such) is a separate project.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2017, 09:21:59 AM
If you think that's bad, US-322 in Delaware County between US-1 and I-95 is horrible.  Luckily, a major construction has just begun to help ease that stretch. 

Just a 6 year project with no improvements with the merge onto 95.
The proposed I-95/US 322 interchange reconfiguration (I've seen an overall plan view of such for such) is a separate project.

Yep. But without a proposed date for that project, this project just funnels more traffic into the short left merge area.

Did they decide on a preferred alternative for that 322/95 project?  Last time I saw anything, there were about a half-dozen alternatives they were considering.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on June 26, 2017, 11:11:03 AM
If you think that's bad, US-322 in Delaware County between US-1 and I-95 is horrible.  Luckily, a major construction has just begun to help ease that stretch. 

Just a 6 year project with no improvements with the merge onto 95.
The proposed I-95/US 322 interchange reconfiguration (I've seen an overall plan view of such for such) is a separate project.

Yep. But without a proposed date for that project, this project just funnels more traffic into the short left merge area.
It is my understanding that the 322 project's eastern limits end somewhere between the Cherry Tree Road intersection and the PA 452 interchange; where 322 transitions from a 4-lane divided highway to a 2-lane undivided roadway.  As long as developers don't go bonkers along the impacted corridor immediately post-construction; the eastbound traffic along the existing divided stretch of 322 to I-95 should not be impacted.  The primary objective of the 322 project is to relieve the traffic flow & choke points.

Did they decide on a preferred alternative for that 322/95 project?  Last time I saw anything, there were about a half-dozen alternatives they were considering.
The plan I saw, from an engineering consultant, shows the reconfigured interchange as an elaborate trumpet w/full movements (the current interchange doe not have direct access to US 322 West from I-95 North).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2017, 12:17:55 PM
While the current 322 construction won't affect 95 directly, the results will.  Today, the light on 322 at Cherry Tree Rd & Bethel Ave acts pretty much as a meter, preventing much traffic from flowing further downstream onto 95 (the only other significant point of access to 322 beyond this point is Rt. 452).  After the widening project is complete in that area, assuming the light timing stays the same, twice as much traffic will get thru this light...only to bottleneck at 95.  At least it'll free up the persistent congestion plaguing 322 in the Chichester area.

Looking up the DVRPC site, the 95-322 interchange is a distant dream.  It's now hidden within the 2025-2040 Long Range plan.  The website the DVRPC supposedly set up for the project doesn't work as well.  A newspaper article I came across from 2008 at the time had the project beginning in 2016!
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: LeftyJR on June 27, 2017, 05:17:00 PM
Any updates on the I-99/I-80 interchange?  PennDOT had crews at the current northern end of 99 removing acres of trees around Exit 161 on I-80.  It looks like a football field up there now - hardly recognizable.  I thought this was deferred?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on June 27, 2017, 05:40:27 PM
^ Are you sure they were PennDOT crews working on state right-of-way and not workers on private property abutting I-80?

The most recent news regarding an I-80/I-99 interchange I can find is this Centre Daily Times article (http://www.centredaily.com/news/article44745765.html) from late 2015. It essentially says that needed funding isn’t there and the chances of the interchange being constructed in the near future are nil.

Quote from: Centre Daily Times - Officials look to build case for I-80/99 interchanges
The prospect of doing the interchange projects, Zilla said, is dismal, particularly because the $164 million price tag goes well beyond federal funds available for him to work with.

“Centre County’s allocation for the current program for roads and bridges is about $60 million for four years for all road and bridge improvements,” Zilla said. “That’s what we get.”
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Buffaboy on July 01, 2017, 06:31:36 PM
Breezewood button copy, picture I took

(http://i.imgur.com/Q686WkK.jpg)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on July 02, 2017, 02:25:36 PM
Breezewood button copy, picture I took

(http://i.imgur.com/Q686WkK.jpg)

Huh, why's US 30 west signed from that exit way down there? Were you not always able to turn left at the end of the road?

----

Found two new Highway Gothic signs, one by PennDOT and the other by the Turnpike, both in the Allentown area, within 100 feet of each other too! The first (https://goo.gl/maps/KwLsVXyfNDw) by PennDOT is on US 22 westbound at the Northeast Extension exit. It was put up some time between November 2015 and August 2016. The other (https://goo.gl/maps/CtEaHur7X6C2) on the extension itself was put up between August 2011 and September 2013, and it's the final southbound sign before the Lehigh Valley exit. The sign had been missing for a while; it was there in the 2009 street view, missing in 2011, and back in 2013.

How many other new Highway Gothic signs are there around the state? The only ones I know of besides these are the APL on 95 at the Blue Route, and all the signs on I-81 at the new PA 465 interchange.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on July 02, 2017, 03:21:53 PM
Huh, why's US 30 west signed from that exit way down there? Were you not always able to turn left at the end of the road?

I had never noticed that before—although for the dozens of times I’ve approached Breezewood, I think only once or twice was it from the south.

Looking at the map, I can only assume that PennDOT is trying to divert as much left-turning traffic as possible to South Breezewood Road to reduce the number of needed left turn cycles (I-70 WB to US 30 WB) at that intersection so that the conflicting left turn (US 30 WB to I-70 EB—a.k.a “thru” I-70 EB) is as unimpeded as possible.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: amroad17 on July 03, 2017, 12:55:46 AM
briantroutman is correct in his post.  US 30 WEST has always been signed for Exit 149 (old Exit 29) for as long as I remember--probably to divert as much traffic heading west on US 30 from the "interchange" at the end/beginning of I-70 on this section, as he mentioned in his post.

Nice fading/sine rot late-1970's signs, although they do need to be changed.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mr_Northside on July 03, 2017, 03:37:05 PM
How many other new Highway Gothic signs are there around the state? The only ones I know of besides these are the APL on 95 at the Blue Route, and all the signs on I-81 at the new PA 465 interchange.

There were new ones put up on PA-65 (Ohio River Blvd) SB during it's final miles before ending @ 279 as part of a major rehab project.
They are doing the NB lanes this construction season, where they're supposed to replace most (if not all) of those signs.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ekt8750 on July 03, 2017, 04:45:47 PM
How many other new Highway Gothic signs are there around the state? The only ones I know of besides these are the APL on 95 at the Blue Route, and all the signs on I-81 at the new PA 465 interchange.

There's a sign on 95 North near the Airport (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8746103,-75.2892004,3a,75y,59.71h,100.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s01f2iv5bQa_tRD2wkPyWSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) that was hit about 5 years ago by a dump truck that was driving with its hopper fully extended; it was recently replaced with a Highway Gothic sign.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 04, 2017, 08:54:32 PM
so the glorious non-reflective button copy will be taken down soon near Breezewood? 
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on July 05, 2017, 09:23:38 AM
How many other new Highway Gothic signs are there around the state? The only ones I know of besides these are the APL on 95 at the Blue Route, and all the signs on I-81 at the new PA 465 interchange.

There's a sign on 95 North near the Airport (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8746103,-75.2892004,3a,75y,59.71h,100.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s01f2iv5bQa_tRD2wkPyWSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) that was hit about 5 years ago by a dump truck that was driving with its hopper fully extended; it was recently replaced with a Highway Gothic sign.
Some other new Highway Gothic BGS' in PA in addition to the above-listed ones are:
One I-476 North through BGS near Exit 1 (MacDade Blvd. interchange) (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.869449,-75.344568,3a,75y,298.09h,90.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJFTFk7OBpAU3gEVBduHrDg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)  Ironically, the adjacent EXIT 1 MacDade Blvd. exit BGS has Clearview lettering.

Exit BGS for PA 29 along US 202 northbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0510757,-75.5447861,3a,75y,71.41h,86.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFOreZaTCb7IAmUW8n2resQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)  This is probably the only post-Clearview BGS that was erected during the 202 widening project.

No photo nor updated GSV of such yet, but the replacement exit BGS along the westbound PA Turnpike (I-76) at the Carlisle interchange (Exit 226 - US 11 to I-81) exit ramp features Highway Gothic (control city lettering looks to be Series E w/EM spacing).  It also features the ugly, bloated US 11 shield that's been seen on several other BGS' in recent years.  Yuck!  :thumbdown:
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: amroad17 on July 05, 2017, 11:11:30 PM
At least most of the new Clearview signs in Pennsylvania do look nice.  Some of those erected when Clearview first started looked hideous and cartoonish.  On the other hand, some of those on I-81 north of Scranton do leave something to be desired.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ekt8750 on July 06, 2017, 10:05:50 AM
At least most of the new Clearview signs in Pennsylvania do look nice.  Some of those erected when Clearview first started looked hideous and cartoonish.  On the other hand, some of those on I-81 north of Scranton do leave something to be desired.

You should see the ones going up on the I-95/Betsy Ross Bridge interchange project. They must have been done by a contractor, cause they look hideous. Spacing is way off, there's a few all caps Clearview situations as well.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on July 08, 2017, 07:12:12 PM
At least most of the new Clearview signs in Pennsylvania do look nice.  Some of those erected when Clearview first started looked hideous and cartoonish.  On the other hand, some of those on I-81 north of Scranton do leave something to be desired.

Sign quality in Pennsylvania seems to vary by district.


District 1 (Erie)

Pattern accuracy: Poor
BGS construction: Numerous increment-panel


District 2 (Bradford/Du Bois/State College)

Pattern accuracy: Excellent
BGS construction: Entirely extruded-panel


District 3 (Williamsport)

Pattern accuracy: Good
BGS construction: Mostly extruded-panel


District 4 (Scranton/Wilkes-Barre)

Pattern accuracy: Fair
BGS construction: Numerous increment-panel


District 5 (Allentown/Bethlehem)

Pattern accuracy: Fair
BGS construction: Some increment-panel


District 6 (Philadelphia)

Pattern accuracy: Good
BGS construction: Entirely extruded-panel


District 8 (Harrisburg/Lancaster/York)

Pattern accuracy: Good
BGS construction: Entirely extruded-panel


District 9 (Johnstown/Altoona)

Pattern accuracy: Poor
BGS construction: Some increment-panel


District 10 (Butler/Clarion/Indiana)

Pattern accuracy: Good
BGS construction: Mostly extruded-panel


District 11 (Pittsburgh)

Pattern accuracy: Excellent
BGS construction: Entirely extruded-panel


District 12 (Greensburg/Uniontown/Washington)

Pattern accuracy: Fair
BGS construction: Mostly extruded-panel


I'd rank the districts like this for sign quality, from best to worst:


1. District 2
2. District 11
3. District 6
4. District 8
5. District 3
6. District 10
7. District 12
8. District 5
9. District 4
10. District 9
11. District 1


Ironically, PennDOT makes cleaner-looking extruded-panel BGSs than increment-panel BGSs. Many of their increment-panel BGSs look cheap and flimsy, while their extruded-panel BGSs look sturdy and handsome. Good thing is, most BGSs in Pennsylvania are extruded-panel. District 1 and District 4 are the only ones that get carried away with increment-panel BGSs.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: amroad17 on July 08, 2017, 11:10:02 PM
Yes, some of those around Erie are awful.  They just do not look right.  Those along I-80 along the Dubois stretch are very good-looking ones.  Haven't seen the Pittsburgh ones as I have not ventured there in ten or eleven years.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on July 09, 2017, 01:32:19 PM

District 5 (Allentown/Bethlehem)


Don't forget Reading, Kutztown, and Pocono Raceway.  (I attended Kutztown University, and years later saw Jimmie Johnson [before he began his string of championships] win under the yellow at the Tricky Triangle.)

Here's a map of the districts...

http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/Pages/default.aspx

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: qguy on July 09, 2017, 02:09:46 PM
Quote from: Gnutella  :-Dlink=topic=2410.msg2241553#msg2241553 date=1499555532
At least most of the new Clearview signs in Pennsylvania do look nice.  Some of those erected when Clearview first started looked hideous and cartoonish.  On the other hand, some of those on I-81 north of Scranton do leave something to be desired.

Sign quality in Pennsylvania seems to vary by district.


District 1 (Erie)

Pattern accuracy: Poor
BGS construction: Numerous increment-panel


District 2 (Bradford/Du Bois/State College)

Pattern accuracy: Excellent
BGS construction: Entirely extruded-panel


District 3 (Williamsport)

Pattern accuracy: Good
BGS construction: Mostly extruded-panel


District 4 (Scranton/Wilkes-Barre)

Pattern accuracy: Fair
BGS construction: Numerous increment-panel


District 5 (Allentown/Bethlehem)

Pattern accuracy: Fair
BGS construction: Some increment-panel


District 6 (Philadelphia)

Pattern accuracy: Good
BGS construction: Entirely extruded-panel


District 8 (Harrisburg/Lancaster/York)

Pattern accuracy: Good
BGS construction: Entirely extruded-panel


District 9 (Johnstown/Altoona)

Pattern accuracy: Poor
BGS construction: Some increment-panel


District 10 (Butler/Clarion/Indiana)

Pattern accuracy: Good
BGS construction: Mostly extruded-panel


District 11 (Pittsburgh)

Pattern accuracy: Excellent
BGS construction: Entirely extruded-panel


District 12 (Greensburg/Uniontown/Washington)

Pattern accuracy: Fair
BGS construction: Mostly extruded-panel


I'd rank the districts like this for sign quality, from best to worst:


1. District 2
2. District 11
3. District 6
4. District 8
5. District 3
6. District 10
7. District 12
8. District 5
9. District 4
10. District 9
11. District 1


Ironically, PennDOT makes cleaner-looking extruded-panel BGSs than increment-panel BGSs. Many of their increment-panel BGSs look cheap and flimsy, while their extruded-panel BGSs look sturdy and handsome. Good thing is, most BGSs in Pennsylvania are extruded-panel. District 1 and District 4 are the only ones that get carried away with increment-panel BGSs.

You skipped District 7.  :-D
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on July 09, 2017, 04:41:07 PM
[Gnutella] skipped District 7.  :-D

Either Gnutella skipped Dist. 7 or PennDOT did.  I don't see it on the map I linked.

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: J N Winkler on July 09, 2017, 05:01:20 PM
There hasn't been a PennDOT District 7 since the 1940's or thereabouts.  When it existed, it covered the area around Harrisburg, which is currently in District 8.  (Qguy was actually making a joke.)

District 1 has historically had a problem with too-high capital letters in mixed-case legend.  Someone from that District was actually on this forum and asked why that was a problem, and I am not sure anyone came up with an explanation that made sense to him or to the person (who was not participating directly) that actually prepares the signing plans.  It can be very difficult to explain something that seems intuitively obvious to us.

In terms of signing plans (not the actual signs themselves), District 11 is reliably good, while the others are variable.  The variation started when PennDOT downloaded sign design to the districts in the early 1980's.  Before that time, PennDOT signing plans were put together by a specialist unit at headquarters in Harrisburg and were works of art.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on July 10, 2017, 05:02:20 PM
I noticed a mystery ramp from I-79 north of Mt. Morris. It appears to have been a temporary connection to Davistown Rd, with all movements except a southbound exit from 79. It even featured an at-grade left turn onto 79 south. From Historic Aerials, it appears to have been upgraded from some local driveway between 2004 and 2006. It sat there for years, blocked off at both ends from traffic, until the part directly connecting to 79 was removed in 2010 or 2011. The bulk of it still remains. What was this for?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: seicer on July 10, 2017, 05:12:08 PM
Weird. It looks like it connected Davistown Road to I-79, with a connection to and from NB I-79 and a connection to SB I-79.

Connection severed ~2011. Rebuilt 2006. Some ramp did exist before that but it looks like it was long abandoned then.

--

Edit: Looks like it was built when the US 19 bridge was rebuilt over Dunkard Creek in 2007.

Edit 2: You can see the ramps in clear detail in 2007: https://goo.gl/maps/YJJiyWjmuxA2. Streetview from 2008 indicate that it was for emergency vehicles.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Beltway on July 10, 2017, 09:08:21 PM
There hasn't been a PennDOT District 7 since the 1940's or thereabouts.  When it existed, it covered the area around Harrisburg, which is currently in District 8.  (Qguy was actually making a joke.)

When I worked in District 6-0 in the 1970s there was some discussion in the office about the missing District 7.  That is what I recall, that there was a Harrisburg District.  It is not obvious from the current district map as to which counties it had, and the current map has a pretty good balance of the configuration of counties in each district.

Trivia:  In many information systems at VDOT the Central Office is designated as District 0, as from a general staffing standpoint it has the size and management levels of a typical district.  Nobody but IT folks actually call it District 0 (zero) in general verbal speech.  VDOT has 9 field districts, and the number of each district is here -- http://www.virginiadot.org/about/districts.asp
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: MASTERNC on July 10, 2017, 09:10:55 PM
I noticed a mystery ramp from I-79 north of Mt. Morris. It appears to have been a temporary connection to Davistown Rd, with all movements except a southbound exit from 79. It even featured an at-grade left turn onto 79 south. From Historic Aerials, it appears to have been upgraded from some local driveway between 2004 and 2006. It sat there for years, blocked off at both ends from traffic, until the part directly connecting to 79 was removed in 2010 or 2011. The bulk of it still remains. What was this for?

There is a head scratching story to this.  PennDOT never bought the underground rights along the ROW for I-79, so a coal company did long wall mining underneath the roadway.  The road did sag a bit, and they had to reduce the speed limit and close a lane for the longest time.  These ramps were in case the roadway had to be closed long-term and traffic diverted onto US 19.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on July 10, 2017, 09:40:22 PM
I noticed a mystery ramp from I-79 north of Mt. Morris. It appears to have been a temporary connection to Davistown Rd, with all movements except a southbound exit from 79. It even featured an at-grade left turn onto 79 south. From Historic Aerials, it appears to have been upgraded from some local driveway between 2004 and 2006. It sat there for years, blocked off at both ends from traffic, until the part directly connecting to 79 was removed in 2010 or 2011. The bulk of it still remains. What was this for?

There is a head scratching story to this.  PennDOT never bought the underground rights along the ROW for I-79, so a coal company did long wall mining underneath the roadway.  The road did sag a bit, and they had to reduce the speed limit and close a lane for the longest time.  These ramps were in case the roadway had to be closed long-term and traffic diverted onto US 19.

So I take it that's no longer an issue? And is/was there a complementary set of ramps farther north or would an existing interchange have been used?

Also, I don't think that ramp was ever an abandoned off-ramp. It seems like it was a local driveway or something.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: seicer on July 10, 2017, 09:59:14 PM
Odd. The signs for it are unfortunately turned away in the streetview but it also looks like it was pretty temporary. Perhaps it was first built for the road settling issues and then reused for the US 19 project?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: davewiecking on July 10, 2017, 10:15:35 PM
Some of the Google Earth historical shots (9/05 thru 10/08) show patterns in the dirt as if the ramps saw significant use, especially across the median to access SOUTHBOUND I-79 (not I-91). The US-19 bridge is missing in the 8/07 one.

I like the "subsiding due to coal mining" story. About when was that?

(edited to fix incorrect interstate reference)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: VTGoose on July 11, 2017, 09:14:53 AM
I noticed a mystery ramp from I-79 north of Mt. Morris. It appears to have been a temporary connection to Davistown Rd, with all movements except a southbound exit from 79. It even featured an at-grade left turn onto 79 south. From Historic Aerials, it appears to have been upgraded from some local driveway between 2004 and 2006. It sat there for years, blocked off at both ends from traffic, until the part directly connecting to 79 was removed in 2010 or 2011. The bulk of it still remains. What was this for?

That was the northern end of I-79 coming out of West Virginia in the '70s (would have been mid-70s). U.S. 19 was the route to continue north but I don't remember where the interstate was regained. Waynesboro maybe? I vaguely remember using those ramps on a Pittsburgh-Blacksburg trip trying out I-79 as a better route than the I-77/I-70/I-79 route. It took a few years for it to become truly viable, as more of the highway was completed in West Virginia (at that time, neither I-77 or I-79 were completed to/through Charleston). The next "improvement" was the construction of U.S. 19, although until the New River Gorge Bridge was completed, "backroad" travel was required from the U.S. 60 junction to reach U.S. 460 at Rich Creek.

Bruce in Blacksburg (but a native of the 'Burgh)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 11, 2017, 05:19:41 PM
ABC 27:Pa. Senate votes for work-zone speed cameras (http://abc27.com/2017/07/11/pa-senate-votes-for-work-zone-speed-cameras/)

Quote
Senate Bill 172 would establish a three-year pilot program to determine whether automated enforcement zones deter drivers from speeding through active work zones on interstates and other limited-access highways.

The bill was sent to the House of Representatives of a vote of 45-3.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on July 11, 2017, 05:33:03 PM
ABC 27:Pa. Senate votes for work-zone speed cameras (http://abc27.com/2017/07/11/pa-senate-votes-for-work-zone-speed-cameras/)

Quote
Senate Bill 172 would establish a three-year pilot program to determine whether automated enforcement zones deter drivers from speeding through active work zones on interstates and other limited-access highways.

The bill was sent to the House of Representatives of a vote of 45-3.
I'm pretty sure that statement said by Schwank is basically "I want money". I'm just getting tired of all this crap concerning police, speed traps, red light cameras...the list goes on. Y'know, if we really do want drivers to be safer, why don't we invest in this fantastic thing named "driver's education"?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on July 11, 2017, 06:54:50 PM
ABC 27:Pa. Senate votes for work-zone speed cameras (http://abc27.com/2017/07/11/pa-senate-votes-for-work-zone-speed-cameras/)

Quote
Senate Bill 172 would establish a three-year pilot program to determine whether automated enforcement zones deter drivers from speeding through active work zones on interstates and other limited-access highways.

The bill was sent to the House of Representatives of a vote of 45-3.
I'm pretty sure that statement said by Schwank is basically "I want money". I'm just getting tired of all this crap concerning police, speed traps, red light cameras...the list goes on. Y'know, if we really do want drivers to be safer, why don't we invest in this fantastic thing named "driver's education"?
Re-training drivers every 5 or at least 10 years WOULD likely improve driver safety and reduce congestion, because a lot of problems are caused by senior drivers not knowing road rules.  However, the main problem would be that when people go to driver's school to get a license, they already sleep through most of the class, since most of it is very boring or watching footage of cars crashing.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: VTGoose on July 12, 2017, 09:07:50 AM
Re-training drivers every 5 or at least 10 years WOULD likely improve driver safety and reduce congestion, because a lot of problems are caused by senior drivers not knowing road rules.  However, the main problem would be that when people go to driver's school to get a license, they already sleep through most of the class, since most of it is very boring or watching footage of cars crashing.

Excuse me! This "senior driver" isn't the problem (I'm well aware of "road rules" thank you very much). I'd say the problem is with "younger" drivers, especially those of the "ME FIRST!" generation who are more concerned about getting to the merge point first, who drive like there isn't anyone else on the road but them, and who pretty much ignore most rules of courtesy. Especially in my town, add in the large contingent of those who are DWF (Driving While Foreign) who arrive on campus, get a car, then work on getting a license. Senior drivers indeed.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 12, 2017, 09:15:10 AM
Re-training drivers every 5 or at least 10 years WOULD likely improve driver safety and reduce congestion, because a lot of problems are caused by senior drivers not knowing road rules.  However, the main problem would be that when people go to driver's school to get a license, they already sleep through most of the class, since most of it is very boring or watching footage of cars crashing.

Excuse me! This "senior driver" isn't the problem (I'm well aware of "road rules" thank you very much). I'd say the problem is with "younger" drivers, especially those of the "ME FIRST!" generation who are more concerned about getting to the merge point first, who drive like there isn't anyone else on the road but them, and who pretty much ignore most rules of courtesy. Especially in my town, add in the large contingent of those who are DWF (Driving While Foreign) who arrive on campus, get a car, then work on getting a license. Senior drivers indeed.

Bruce in Blacksburg


The driving population with the most accidents are the new drivers (under 25 years old, especially under 21).

The 2nd largest population with accidents are seniors.

What's funny in your quote: You say "I'M well aware of the road rules..."  Then you immediately follow that with "especially those of the ME FIRST generation.  You can't single yourself out as a great driver then criticize others for thinking of just themselves either!!!  LOL

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on July 12, 2017, 10:19:47 AM
Actually; the Baby Boomer generation, as a whole, was the first of the Me First generation.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: qguy on July 12, 2017, 10:21:29 AM
Re-training drivers every 5 or at least 10 years WOULD likely improve driver safety and reduce congestion, because a lot of problems are caused by senior drivers not knowing road rules.  However, the main problem would be that when people go to driver's school to get a license, they already sleep through most of the class, since most of it is very boring or watching footage of cars crashing.

Excuse me! This "senior driver" isn't the problem (I'm well aware of "road rules" thank you very much). I'd say the problem is with "younger" drivers, especially those of the "ME FIRST!" generation who are more concerned about getting to the merge point first, who drive like there isn't anyone else on the road but them, and who pretty much ignore most rules of courtesy. Especially in my town, add in the large contingent of those who are DWF (Driving While Foreign) who arrive on campus, get a car, then work on getting a license. Senior drivers indeed.

Bruce in Blacksburg


The driving population with the most accidents are the new drivers (under 25 years old, especially under 21).

The 2nd largest population with accidents are seniors.

What's funny in your quote: You say "I'M well aware of the road rules..."  Then you immediately follow that with "especially those of the ME FIRST generation.  You can't single yourself out as a great driver then criticize others for thinking of just themselves either!!!  LOL

I don't see any inconsistency in Bruce's statement at all. Turning the spotlight of examination on yourself ("I think I' do this well," "I think I do that well…") before pointing out the self-centeredness of another cohort is not being self-centered. It's a simple matter of comparison.

Actually; the Baby Boomer generation, as a whole, was the first of the Me First generation.

True that.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Bitmapped on July 12, 2017, 11:05:08 AM
I noticed a mystery ramp from I-79 north of Mt. Morris. It appears to have been a temporary connection to Davistown Rd, with all movements except a southbound exit from 79. It even featured an at-grade left turn onto 79 south. From Historic Aerials, it appears to have been upgraded from some local driveway between 2004 and 2006. It sat there for years, blocked off at both ends from traffic, until the part directly connecting to 79 was removed in 2010 or 2011. The bulk of it still remains. What was this for?

There is a head scratching story to this.  PennDOT never bought the underground rights along the ROW for I-79, so a coal company did long wall mining underneath the roadway.  The road did sag a bit, and they had to reduce the speed limit and close a lane for the longest time.  These ramps were in case the roadway had to be closed long-term and traffic diverted onto US 19.

So I take it that's no longer an issue? And is/was there a complementary set of ramps farther north or would an existing interchange have been used?

Also, I don't think that ramp was ever an abandoned off-ramp. It seems like it was a local driveway or something.

During the mid-2000s, there was a significant amount of longwall mining done under I-79 between roughly MM 7 and MM 12. The ground drops several feet when this happens and there were concerns that I-79 would become temporarily unusable. Emergency ramps were built at Rolling Meadows Road (SR 2026) near Waynesburg in the north and Davistown Road near Mount Morris in the south so that traffic could be funneled to US 19 if needed.

The Davistown Road ramp was built on the site of a PennDOT maintenance outpost which was demolished to make way. I don't think there was anything at the Rolling Meadows ramp before. As part of the preparation, I-79's overpasses over Tower Hill Road were removed and replaced with fill. Tower Hill Road was severed in the process.

I-79's surface dropped several feet in places, but they never had to close the highway. The ramps were barricaded and never used. The sections within the I-79 ROW were ripped out around 2010 or so, but blocked off stubs remain from the side roads.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Bitmapped on July 12, 2017, 11:11:53 AM
I noticed a mystery ramp from I-79 north of Mt. Morris. It appears to have been a temporary connection to Davistown Rd, with all movements except a southbound exit from 79. It even featured an at-grade left turn onto 79 south. From Historic Aerials, it appears to have been upgraded from some local driveway between 2004 and 2006. It sat there for years, blocked off at both ends from traffic, until the part directly connecting to 79 was removed in 2010 or 2011. The bulk of it still remains. What was this for?

That was the northern end of I-79 coming out of West Virginia in the '70s (would have been mid-70s). U.S. 19 was the route to continue north but I don't remember where the interstate was regained. Waynesboro maybe? I vaguely remember using those ramps on a Pittsburgh-Blacksburg trip trying out I-79 as a better route than the I-77/I-70/I-79 route. It took a few years for it to become truly viable, as more of the highway was completed in West Virginia (at that time, neither I-77 or I-79 were completed to/through Charleston). The next "improvement" was the construction of U.S. 19, although until the New River Gorge Bridge was completed, "backroad" travel was required from the U.S. 60 junction to reach U.S. 460 at Rich Creek.

These emergency ramps weren't built until about 2004. I'm reasonably certain there weren't any temporary ramps for I-79 around the PA/WV line. There's no grading or room for them on the WV side. Exit #1 isn't too far into PA, so there'd be no reason for temporary ramps on the PA side. My understanding is that the short PA part from the state line to Exit #1 opened the same time as the WV side in 1974, and the rest from Exit #1 to Exit #14 followed about a year later in 1975.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: seicer on July 12, 2017, 11:34:17 AM
The Waynesburg ramps shown when they were intact: https://goo.gl/maps/PHkGUNvKL1B2
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 12, 2017, 11:45:52 AM
I stopped driving 79 from 68 to 70 around then. I remember the lower speeds and construction work in that area but never realized until now what all was involved. Thanks!

Thus reminds me of the ghost ramps on 79 further north at Moraine State Park.  A ghost on and off ramp on 79 North exists as a result of the Boy Scout Jamborees held there in the mid 70s. I have an old disposable camera photo I took of it in 1998 that was on the old gribblenation site.  I looked at Google maps satalite images of the area and the grading appears to still be there.

The exit tied into the North Shore of the park. You can see the remains from Park Road here.
498 T890

https://goo.gl/maps/JStCJxMWoBk

I'll see if there is anything else I can dig up and do a small blog entry about it. 
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on July 12, 2017, 11:52:35 AM
During the mid-2000s, there was a significant amount of longwall mining done under I-79 between roughly MM 7 and MM 12. The ground drops several feet when this happens and there were concerns that I-79 would become temporarily unusable. Emergency ramps were built at Rolling Meadows Road (SR 2026) near Waynesburg in the north and Davistown Road near Mount Morris in the south so that traffic could be funneled to US 19 if needed.

Assuming that’s the case, I can kind of understand the purpose of the Davistown ramp: If an emergency closure was needed and traffic had been forced to exit at the existing Mt. Morris interchange, the volume of through traffic would have made a somewhat circuitous connection through the center of town in order to follow US 19 north—possibly causing incredible traffic tie-ups.

But the corresponding southbound ramp at Rolling Meadows Road in Waynesburg doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. Rather than simply using the existing Waynesburg interchange and the fairly direct four-lane connection to US 19 afforded by PA 21, why route I-79 through traffic town a two-lane residential street that turns northward and connects to US 19 (without a signal) a mere 500 feet from where they would have connected via PA 21 (and its signalized intersection)?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: VTGoose on July 12, 2017, 12:43:33 PM

The driving population with the most accidents are the new drivers (under 25 years old, especially under 21).

The 2nd largest population with accidents are seniors.

What's funny in your quote: You say "I'M well aware of the road rules..."  Then you immediately follow that with "especially those of the ME FIRST generation.  You can't single yourself out as a great driver then criticize others for thinking of just themselves either!!!  LOL

Sorry, but I took offense to you lumping all "senior drivers" as the problem. Yes, statistics show that as a group seniors may be a problem, but to be accurate you really need to show all the stats for accidents, like type of accident and result (property damage, injury, death). Around here, a lot of accidents that result in death involve young people who aren't wearing a seatbelt vs. a senior not wearing a seatbelt.

I'll bet you don't have to contend with these issues either (I don't recall when my cohorts in high school were getting a driver's license that there were such signs or bumper stickers in anyone's window):

(http://www.brucebharper.info/20170410_LTD.jpg)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 12, 2017, 12:45:43 PM

The driving population with the most accidents are the new drivers (under 25 years old, especially under 21).

The 2nd largest population with accidents are seniors.

What's funny in your quote: You say "I'M well aware of the road rules..."  Then you immediately follow that with "especially those of the ME FIRST generation.  You can't single yourself out as a great driver then criticize others for thinking of just themselves either!!!  LOL

Sorry, but I took offense to you lumping all "senior drivers" as the problem. Yes, statistics show that as a group seniors may be a problem, but to be accurate you really need to show all the stats for accidents, like type of accident and result (property damage, injury, death). Around here, a lot of accidents that result in death involve young people who aren't wearing a seatbelt vs. a senior not wearing a seatbelt.

That's fine.  Then don't lump all new drivers as "ME FIRST" drivers either.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 12, 2017, 12:58:19 PM
Some of the Google Earth historical shots (9/05 thru 10/08) show patterns in the dirt as if the ramps saw significant use, especially across the median to access SOUTHBOUND I-91. The US-19 bridge is missing in the 8/07 one.

I like the "subsiding due to coal mining" story. About when was that?

That had to be one long ramp if it led to I-91. :)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Bitmapped on July 12, 2017, 01:03:15 PM
I stopped driving 79 from 68 to 70 around then. I remember the lower speeds and construction work in that area but never realized until now what all was involved. Thanks!

Thus reminds me of the ghost ramps on 79 further north at Moraine State Park.  A ghost on and off ramp on 79 North exists as a result of the Boy Scout Jamborees held there in the mid 70s. I have an old disposable camera photo I took of it in 1998 that was on the old gribblenation site.  I looked at Google maps satalite images of the area and the grading appears to still be there.

The exit tied into the North Shore of the park. You can see the remains from Park Road here.
498 T890

https://goo.gl/maps/JStCJxMWoBk

I'll see if there is anything else I can dig up and do a small blog entry about it. 


Ironically, PennDOT and DCNR just announced a project to improve access to Moraine State Park for I-79 traffic. They're going to build the missing ramps at the US 422/West Park Road interchange so traffic coming from I-79 won't have to use township roads to get to the North Shore area. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2017/07/10/Moraine-State-Park-Butler-County-Pennsylvania-access-road-work/stories/201707100004
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mr_Northside on July 12, 2017, 02:04:53 PM
Ironically, PennDOT and DCNR just announced a project to improve access to Moraine State Park for I-79 traffic. They're going to build the missing ramps at the US 422/West Park Road interchange so traffic coming from I-79 won't have to use township roads to get to the North Shore area. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2017/07/10/Moraine-State-Park-Butler-County-Pennsylvania-access-road-work/stories/201707100004


Like many projects like this, it gets a well deserved "About F'n Time!"
I remember the first time trying to get to the North Shore area of Moraine, figuring on taking US-422, and having to cross the lake to the South Shore, and get back on just to get there (subsequent trips just involved taking the exit before (which I believe is signed that way as well).... and just thinking about the whole setup was classic PennDOT.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 12, 2017, 02:54:39 PM
I stopped driving 79 from 68 to 70 around then. I remember the lower speeds and construction work in that area but never realized until now what all was involved. Thanks!

Thus reminds me of the ghost ramps on 79 further north at Moraine State Park.  A ghost on and off ramp on 79 North exists as a result of the Boy Scout Jamborees held there in the mid 70s. I have an old disposable camera photo I took of it in 1998 that was on the old gribblenation site.  I looked at Google maps satalite images of the area and the grading appears to still be there.

The exit tied into the North Shore of the park. You can see the remains from Park Road here.
498 T890

https://goo.gl/maps/JStCJxMWoBk

I'll see if there is anything else I can dig up and do a small blog entry about it. 


Ironically, PennDOT and DCNR just announced a project to improve access to Moraine State Park for I-79 traffic. They're going to build the missing ramps at the US 422/West Park Road interchange so traffic coming from I-79 won't have to use township roads to get to the North Shore area. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2017/07/10/Moraine-State-Park-Butler-County-Pennsylvania-access-road-work/stories/201707100004

Wow talk about timing. I wonder if they considered the ramps at mile 100?  It ties right into Park Road and the North Shore drive. (Though it doesn't help traffic to or from 79 south) But, regardless this is great news.



Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: davewiecking on July 12, 2017, 07:30:08 PM
Some of the Google Earth historical shots (9/05 thru 10/08) show patterns in the dirt as if the ramps saw significant use, especially across the median to access SOUTHBOUND I-91. The US-19 bridge is missing in the 8/07 one.

I like the "subsiding due to coal mining" story. About when was that?

That had to be one long ramp if it led to I-91. :)
:clap:
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on July 13, 2017, 09:59:47 AM

The driving population with the most accidents are the new drivers (under 25 years old, especially under 21).

The 2nd largest population with accidents are seniors.

What's funny in your quote: You say "I'M well aware of the road rules..."  Then you immediately follow that with "especially those of the ME FIRST generation.  You can't single yourself out as a great driver then criticize others for thinking of just themselves either!!!  LOL

Sorry, but I took offense to you lumping all "senior drivers" as the problem. Yes, statistics show that as a group seniors may be a problem, but to be accurate you really need to show all the stats for accidents, like type of accident and result (property damage, injury, death). Around here, a lot of accidents that result in death involve young people who aren't wearing a seatbelt vs. a senior not wearing a seatbelt.

That's fine.  Then don't lump all new drivers as "ME FIRST" drivers either.

It isn't just one or the other; there are various different categories of people who cause frustration on the roads. It could be older drivers who aren't aware of newly-enacted rules of the road or familiar with newer roadway designs such as roundabouts* and DDIs; it could be younger drivers and hotheads who have a devil-may-care attitude towards driving; it may be impatient motorists, like the stereotypical New Yorker (where everyone is better than everyone else at being faster than everyone else); and it may be people who learned to drive in other places where the rules are different, or where there simply isn't an emphasis on rules at all.

But these all fall under the general heading of people not playing by the same rules—whether because they decide to ignore some of them, or just don't know what they are—and so, frustrations arise when other drivers constantly fail to meet your expectation of their behavior. Another way to say it is "driver error", which if course is the leading cause of accidents by far. So it does make sense (to the original point) that better training, more frequent retraining, and stricter application and enforcement of that training could all be tools in fixing the problem.

(It's also a reason why self-driving cars will be safer and much more efficient: because every car in the system will have the same rules and expectations as every other, and every car will communicate its intentions to every other.)

*Case in point: I had a discussion with someone about a roundabout in my area. She despised roundabouts altogether, and when she explained why, I immediately saw the problem. She was frustrated because, when the circle is empty, and there's a line of traffic approaching the circle just to her left as she's entering from another approach, that line of traffic would just stream into the circle without stopping, leaving her no opening to get in. She was unhappy because they weren't "taking their yield" and making space for her and other downstream traffic to enter. She seemed to think that a "yield" is a slowing or stopping movement, and didn't seem to realize that it only applies when there's traffic to yield to—which, when the circle is empty, of course there isn't.

So, no wonder she's always frustrated at that circle: she has an expectation of the other drivers that isn't met by their behavior; and in this case, the rules are on their side. (And she's probably doubly frustrated by all the vehicles behind her honking and gesticulating, whenever she approaches an empty circle and decides to stop anyhow!)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on July 13, 2017, 10:24:33 AM
...and so, frustrations arise when other drivers constantly fail to meet your expectation of their behavior.

THIS.  All day long THIS.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: J N Winkler on July 13, 2017, 11:55:09 AM
*Case in point: I had a discussion with someone about a roundabout in my area. She despised roundabouts altogether, and when she explained why, I immediately saw the problem. She was frustrated because, when the circle is empty, and there's a line of traffic approaching the circle just to her left as she's entering from another approach, that line of traffic would just stream into the circle without stopping, leaving her no opening to get in. She was unhappy because they weren't "taking their yield" and making space for her and other downstream traffic to enter. She seemed to think that a "yield" is a slowing or stopping movement, and didn't seem to realize that it only applies when there's traffic to yield to—which, when the circle is empty, of course there isn't.

So, no wonder she's always frustrated at that circle: she has an expectation of the other drivers that isn't met by their behavior; and in this case, the rules are on their side. (And she's probably doubly frustrated by all the vehicles behind her honking and gesticulating, whenever she approaches an empty circle and decides to stop anyhow!)

The other side of this story is that it is a well-known empirical finding that roundabouts are highly likely to fail when traffic on one approach is well out of balance with traffic on the others.  However, when the state in question has a policy that roundabouts will be installed unless an alternative--such as a traffic signal--can meet stringent criteria, then roundabouts will be built that are especially likely not to operate satisfactorily under high-demand conditions.  I'm presuming the roundabout in question is in New York, which does have such a roundabouts-first policy.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on July 13, 2017, 12:28:14 PM
*Case in point: I had a discussion with someone about a roundabout in my area. She despised roundabouts altogether, and when she explained why, I immediately saw the problem. She was frustrated because, when the circle is empty, and there's a line of traffic approaching the circle just to her left as she's entering from another approach, that line of traffic would just stream into the circle without stopping, leaving her no opening to get in. She was unhappy because they weren't "taking their yield" and making space for her and other downstream traffic to enter. She seemed to think that a "yield" is a slowing or stopping movement, and didn't seem to realize that it only applies when there's traffic to yield to—which, when the circle is empty, of course there isn't.

So, no wonder she's always frustrated at that circle: she has an expectation of the other drivers that isn't met by their behavior; and in this case, the rules are on their side. (And she's probably doubly frustrated by all the vehicles behind her honking and gesticulating, whenever she approaches an empty circle and decides to stop anyhow!)

The other side of this story is that it is a well-known empirical finding that roundabouts are highly likely to fail when traffic on one approach is well out of balance with traffic on the others.  However, when the state in question has a policy that roundabouts will be installed unless an alternative--such as a traffic signal--can meet stringent criteria, then roundabouts will be built that are especially likely not to operate satisfactorily under high-demand conditions.  I'm presuming the roundabout in question is in New York, which does have such a roundabouts-first policy.

That's precisely what I explained to her. In this case, I've never observed the lopsided traffic flow she describes, so it must be a very limited occurrence, possibly restricted to certain short periods of the day. Overall, the roundabout seems to work perfectly well.


iPhone
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 13, 2017, 12:36:34 PM
When they look at traffic flow, they do it on an hourly or daily basis.  There are too many minute-by-minute variables.  5 cars in a row could be due to the first car going too slow, a traffic light change down the road, a caravan, minor rush-hour traffic, etc. 

Then there's the fact that some people pull up to a stop sign and freak out if they can't immediately pull out onto a road.  If they have to wait 15 seconds, it feels like they'll never be able to pull out into traffic. But put a traffic light up and they have to wait 45 seconds for the light to turn green, and they're perfectly comfortable with that.  Question them otherwise, and they'll wonder why *you* are in such a rush!
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: vdeane on July 13, 2017, 01:12:56 PM
Perhaps predictability?  Unless traffic is really backed up and blocking the box, when waiting at a light, you know you'll be able to go soon, but at a stop sign, you have no idea when or if the gap will ever come.  There are some roads where gaps are few and far in between and the traffic light provides the security of knowing that cross traffic will eventually be forced to stop.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 13, 2017, 01:32:17 PM
Perhaps predictability?  Unless traffic is really backed up and blocking the box, when waiting at a light, you know you'll be able to go soon, but at a stop sign, you have no idea when or if the gap will ever come.  There are some roads where gaps are few and far in between and the traffic light provides the security of knowing that cross traffic will eventually be forced to stop.

That's definitely why.  But especially in the situations I encounter, there's no blocking the box or other issues.  It's simply a line of traffic flowing down the street.  You also get the people that'll say "I waited 5 minutes for traffic before I could go".  They didn't wait that long...it just felt like they waited that long.  In reality, it was probably under a minute, and most often under 30 seconds.  When engineers look at the intersection and study it, they prove out those lower figures...except people complain that they weren't looking at the right time, they weren't writing down the correct times, etc.  Typical "Do we need a traffic fatality to get a light" and "Think about the children" mentality.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 17, 2017, 07:13:24 PM
Taking a trip to Breezewood soon....are the button copy relics still there?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: amroad17 on July 18, 2017, 04:22:36 PM
Look two pages back.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on July 22, 2017, 04:22:21 PM
More new Highway Gothic signage: though the new signage from the I-79 North flyover at the South Junction is Clearview, all the new signage at the US 19 DDI and the North Junction is Highway Gothic. Example here (https://goo.gl/maps/btkbsAoW8H32) and here (https://goo.gl/maps/TDuPPDKPbk32).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on July 23, 2017, 08:23:54 AM
More new Highway Gothic signage: though the new signage from the I-79 North flyover at the South Junction is Clearview, all the new signage at the US 19 DDI and the North Junction is Highway Gothic. Example here (https://goo.gl/maps/btkbsAoW8H32) and here (https://goo.gl/maps/TDuPPDKPbk32).


In what my stepdad (died 2 years ago today, continue to RIP) called "Little Washington".

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 23, 2017, 11:21:06 AM
And I have followed up with a blog entry on the I-79 Boy Scout Ramps. 

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-story-of-boy-scout-ramps-on.html
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Bitmapped on July 23, 2017, 05:09:03 PM
More new Highway Gothic signage: though the new signage from the I-79 North flyover at the South Junction is Clearview, all the new signage at the US 19 DDI and the North Junction is Highway Gothic. Example here (https://goo.gl/maps/btkbsAoW8H32) and here (https://goo.gl/maps/TDuPPDKPbk32).

The signage at the South Junction isn't really new. It's been in place since the flyover opened in 2013, well before FHWA revoked interim approval for Clearview.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: qguy on July 23, 2017, 05:54:53 PM
Roadsguy wasn't implying the south junction was newer than the FHWA Clearview revocation; he was just contrasting signage at the south junction with that of the other projects from there through the corridor up to and including the north junction.

How do I know this for sure? 'Cause we talk. It's easy. Roadsguy is currently sitting about 25 feet from me. He lives in the same house as I do (well, for a few more weeks, anyway, until he goes off to college). In short, he's my son.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on July 24, 2017, 09:09:39 AM
More new Highway Gothic signage: though the new signage from the I-79 North flyover at the South Junction is Clearview, all the new signage at the US 19 DDI and the North Junction is Highway Gothic. Example here (https://goo.gl/maps/btkbsAoW8H32) and here (https://goo.gl/maps/TDuPPDKPbk32).
Note to PennDOT (& PTC): Please get rid of those short, squatty US shields; they look ridiculous.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on July 26, 2017, 07:01:31 PM
Sign Project Begins on Route 15 in Lycoming and Tioga Counties

Quote
This work includes the installation of new mile marker and exit signs on the highway

Curious to see what route's mileage they are going to use:  US 15 or I-99.  I'm also curious to see if they are going to add exit numbers as they did with US 220 in Clinton County. And many of the signs on this stretch are fairly new, so with a total cost of $130K, there can't be too many BGSs being replaced. 
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: LeftyJR on July 27, 2017, 07:42:24 AM
There are two exits on 220 in Lycoming County that didn't get mile based exit signs.  Maybe district 3 is aligning with 2?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cu2010 on July 27, 2017, 05:46:55 PM
More new Highway Gothic signage: though the new signage from the I-79 North flyover at the South Junction is Clearview, all the new signage at the US 19 DDI and the North Junction is Highway Gothic. Example here (https://goo.gl/maps/btkbsAoW8H32) and here (https://goo.gl/maps/TDuPPDKPbk32).

The "5/8" is still in Clearview...sneaky PennDOT, sneaky.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Bitmapped on July 27, 2017, 10:16:18 PM
Sign Project Begins on Route 15 in Lycoming and Tioga Counties

Quote
This work includes the installation of new mile marker and exit signs on the highway

Curious to see what route's mileage they are going to use:  US 15 or I-99.  I'm also curious to see if they are going to add exit numbers as they did with US 220 in Clinton County. And many of the signs on this stretch are fairly new, so with a total cost of $130K, there can't be too many BGSs being replaced. 


I would assume I-99 exit numbers. It doesn't make much sense to use US 15 numbers now. There are already Future I-99 signs on the corridor and, as far as I know, they could extend I-99 to I-180 at Williamsport now.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: LeftyJR on August 02, 2017, 08:58:43 AM
I live in the area, I'll update when I can.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: sbeaver44 on August 02, 2017, 09:14:09 AM
Sign Project Begins on Route 15 in Lycoming and Tioga Counties

Quote
This work includes the installation of new mile marker and exit signs on the highway

Curious to see what route's mileage they are going to use:  US 15 or I-99.  I'm also curious to see if they are going to add exit numbers as they did with US 220 in Clinton County. And many of the signs on this stretch are fairly new, so with a total cost of $130K, there can't be too many BGSs being replaced. 


I would assume I-99 exit numbers. It doesn't make much sense to use US 15 numbers now. There are already Future I-99 signs on the corridor and, as far as I know, they could extend I-99 to I-180 at Williamsport now.
Does anyone know why US 15's LRS segment numbers start at 1280 north of I-180?  Is 128.0 the mile marker on US 15 from the MD border there?  Seems too low to be I-99's (should be ~134).  Non-Interstates should use 20ths of a mile from the preceding county line or route begin, and it's definitely not 64 miles into Lycoming County there.  For reference, the preceding segment before it joins I-180 is 264.

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: LeftyJR on August 03, 2017, 09:18:29 AM
Sign Project Begins on Route 15 in Lycoming and Tioga Counties

Quote
This work includes the installation of new mile marker and exit signs on the highway

Curious to see what route's mileage they are going to use:  US 15 or I-99.  I'm also curious to see if they are going to add exit numbers as they did with US 220 in Clinton County. And many of the signs on this stretch are fairly new, so with a total cost of $130K, there can't be too many BGSs being replaced. 


I would assume I-99 exit numbers. It doesn't make much sense to use US 15 numbers now. There are already Future I-99 signs on the corridor and, as far as I know, they could extend I-99 to I-180 at Williamsport now.
Does anyone know why US 15's LRS segment numbers start at 1280 north of I-180?  Is 128.0 the mile marker on US 15 from the MD border there?  Seems too low to be I-99's (should be ~134).  Non-Interstates should use 20ths of a mile from the preceding county line or route begin, and it's definitely not 64 miles into Lycoming County there.  For reference, the preceding segment before it joins I-180 is 264.

Nexus 6P



I think that US 15 is more than 128 miles to that point - more like 140?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: sbeaver44 on August 03, 2017, 09:23:50 AM


Does anyone know why US 15's LRS segment numbers start at 1280 north of I-180?  Is 128.0 the mile marker on US 15 from the MD border there?  Seems too low to be I-99's (should be ~134).  Non-Interstates should use 20ths of a mile from the preceding county line or route begin, and it's definitely not 64 miles into Lycoming County there.  For reference, the preceding segment before it joins I-180 is 264.

Nexus 6P



I think that US 15 is more than 128 miles to that point - more like 140?

The mystery deepens...
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: noelbotevera on August 03, 2017, 10:22:08 AM


Does anyone know why US 15's LRS segment numbers start at 1280 north of I-180?  Is 128.0 the mile marker on US 15 from the MD border there?  Seems too low to be I-99's (should be ~134).  Non-Interstates should use 20ths of a mile from the preceding county line or route begin, and it's definitely not 64 miles into Lycoming County there.  For reference, the preceding segment before it joins I-180 is 264.

Nexus 6P



I think that US 15 is more than 128 miles to that point - more like 140?

The mystery deepens...
I think the "1" is an error. Dividing 280/20 gives me 14, which sounds about right (14 miles into Lycoming County).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on August 03, 2017, 11:21:38 AM
Sign Project Begins on Route 15 in Lycoming and Tioga Counties

Quote
This work includes the installation of new mile marker and exit signs on the highway

Curious to see what route's mileage they are going to use:  US 15 or I-99.  I'm also curious to see if they are going to add exit numbers as they did with US 220 in Clinton County. And many of the signs on this stretch are fairly new, so with a total cost of $130K, there can't be too many BGSs being replaced. 


I would assume I-99 exit numbers. It doesn't make much sense to use US 15 numbers now. There are already Future I-99 signs on the corridor and, as far as I know, they could extend I-99 to I-180 at Williamsport now.
Does anyone know why US 15's LRS segment numbers start at 1280 north of I-180?  Is 128.0 the mile marker on US 15 from the MD border there?  Seems too low to be I-99's (should be ~134).  Non-Interstates should use 20ths of a mile from the preceding county line or route begin, and it's definitely not 64 miles into Lycoming County there.  For reference, the preceding segment before it joins I-180 is 264.

Nexus 6P



My *guess* always has been that for some reason, when the US 15 freeway was completed just north of Foy Ave, Segment 1280 was used instead of reusing Seg 280 by adding a one.    This was early on in PAs use of SR segments.  That would leave a gap of Segment 270.

Now, when a route is relocated, or Seg numbers revised, they add 2 to the old segment number...so Seg 280 on the old route would be Seg 282 on the new route; then Seg 292, then 302, etc, until either the route rejoins the old and the old Seg numbers stay, or a county reset.  (In the opposite direction, Seg 281 becomes Seg 283, then 293, 302, etc.)  See US 15's segment numbers in Tioga County, where the new freeway segments were built later.

ALSO...it's not exactly true that 1 segment is 1/20th of a mile.  Segments are based on physical features (intersections, bridges, curves) where 10 equals roughly 1/2 mile.  But there may be segments that are significantly more or less than 1/2 mile.  Sometimes, the uses of a Segment number ending in 4 seems to realign a segment number series back to that 1/2-mail rough standard.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on August 05, 2017, 08:12:06 PM
Now that the "Parkway West" (I-376) construction in Pittsburgh has wrapped up, I'm happy to see that PennDOT District 11 is using "Pittsburgh Intl Airport" (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4211025,-80.0944916,3a,75y,299.8h,95.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ7XYCqkeXvRLlXQV1rG7-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) as a control destination instead of just "Airport."
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on August 05, 2017, 09:29:36 PM
What exactly was the point of widening that to three lanes at the option lane split, but still having it drop to two right after despite there being all the pavement for a third lane westbound all the way through the interchange?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: LeftyJR on August 06, 2017, 08:27:03 AM
Now that the "Parkway West" (I-376) construction in Pittsburgh has wrapped up, I'm happy to see that PennDOT District 11 is using "Pittsburgh Intl Airport" (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4211025,-80.0944916,3a,75y,299.8h,95.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ7XYCqkeXvRLlXQV1rG7-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) as a control destination instead of just "Airport."

When I traveled abroad, other countries almost always use the "plane" symbol on the signs with the airport.  I figure this is because of people who don't speak their native language, but I think it would be a welcome change here in the states.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on August 06, 2017, 12:21:08 PM
Now that the "Parkway West" (I-376) construction in Pittsburgh has wrapped up, I'm happy to see that PennDOT District 11 is using "Pittsburgh Intl Airport" (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4211025,-80.0944916,3a,75y,299.8h,95.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ7XYCqkeXvRLlXQV1rG7-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) as a control destination instead of just "Airport."

While I’m not upset to see “Pittsburgh Int’l”, I don’t think it’s really necessary since PIT is the city’s only commercial service airport. (Arnold Palmer sees less than 1/20th the traffic of PIT and is over 50 miles in the opposite direction, so I don’t think there’s much of a chance for confusion.)

If you’re headed to Allegheny County Airport—a courier taking packages to an air cargo outfit or a chauffeur shuttling an Alcoa exec to his private jet—I don’t think you should expect to have giant overhead guide signs marking the route to a general aviation airport.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: plain on August 06, 2017, 01:08:58 PM
Now that the "Parkway West" (I-376) construction in Pittsburgh has wrapped up, I'm happy to see that PennDOT District 11 is using "Pittsburgh Intl Airport" (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4211025,-80.0944916,3a,75y,299.8h,95.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ7XYCqkeXvRLlXQV1rG7-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) as a control destination instead of just "Airport."

I kinda dig that "LANE ENDS" in yellow background plus arrow on that BGS
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on August 06, 2017, 06:29:01 PM
For those tracking the new signage on US 15 N of Williamsport: nothing new after one week.  My next trip that way will be at the end of Aug.
For those tracking new FHWA signs in PA, two more new ones on a new overhead gantry on US 422 West just before the PA 23 exit in Valley Forge.

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: seicer on August 07, 2017, 09:41:34 AM
Will they be installing the exit numbers and I-99 signage any time soon? And is there a timeline on completing I-99 between I-80 and Williamsport? I noticed most of the new signs have exit tabs but not all.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Bitmapped on August 07, 2017, 09:49:07 AM
What exactly was the point of widening that to three lanes at the option lane split, but still having it drop to two right after despite there being all the pavement for a third lane westbound all the way through the interchange?

The third lane functions as a climbing lane. It ends on the downhill side of the hill, allowing the ramp from I-79 NB to I-376 WB to be an add lane as the hill picks up again. Having the ramp come in as an added lane works a lot more smoothly with the uphill grade than when it used to have to merge in right away with slow traffic coming off the loop.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cl94 on August 07, 2017, 11:29:28 AM
Will they be installing the exit numbers and I-99 signage any time soon? And is there a timeline on completing I-99 between I-80 and Williamsport? I noticed most of the new signs have exit tabs but not all.

Neither is planned remotely soon. US 15 north of Williamsport is Interstate grade, it's a matter of PennDOT wanting to submit an application and change the signs. Exit tabs have been present since the last part of that opened years ago.

As far as the current NT of the PA section up to Williamsport, I'd be surprised if it's completed within the next 25 years. US 220 is horribly substandard and the cost is monumental. They haven't even built a proper interchange with I-80.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 07, 2017, 11:50:27 AM
Now that the "Parkway West" (I-376) construction in Pittsburgh has wrapped up, I'm happy to see that PennDOT District 11 is using "Pittsburgh Intl Airport" (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4211025,-80.0944916,3a,75y,299.8h,95.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ7XYCqkeXvRLlXQV1rG7-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) as a control destination instead of just "Airport."

While I’m not upset to see “Pittsburgh Int’l”, I don’t think it’s really necessary since PIT is the city’s only commercial service airport. (Arnold Palmer sees less than 1/20th the traffic of PIT and is over 50 miles in the opposite direction, so I don’t think there’s much of a chance for confusion.)

If you’re headed to Allegheny County Airport—a courier taking packages to an air cargo outfit or a chauffeur shuttling an Alcoa exec to his private jet—I don’t think you should expect to have giant overhead guide signs marking the route to a general aviation airport.

All the wasted blank space and ugly green out in a few years when PIT stops being an international airport.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: LeftyJR on August 07, 2017, 01:46:45 PM
Now that the "Parkway West" (I-376) construction in Pittsburgh has wrapped up, I'm happy to see that PennDOT District 11 is using "Pittsburgh Intl Airport" (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4211025,-80.0944916,3a,75y,299.8h,95.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ7XYCqkeXvRLlXQV1rG7-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) as a control destination instead of just "Airport."

While I’m not upset to see “Pittsburgh Int’l”, I don’t think it’s really necessary since PIT is the city’s only commercial service airport. (Arnold Palmer sees less than 1/20th the traffic of PIT and is over 50 miles in the opposite direction, so I don’t think there’s much of a chance for confusion.)

If you’re headed to Allegheny County Airport—a courier taking packages to an air cargo outfit or a chauffeur shuttling an Alcoa exec to his private jet—I don’t think you should expect to have giant overhead guide signs marking the route to a general aviation airport.

All the waste
Will they be installing the exit numbers and I-99 signage any time soon? And is there a timeline on completing I-99 between I-80 and Williamsport? I noticed most of the new signs have exit tabs but not all.

Neither is planned remotely soon. US 15 north of Williamsport is Interstate grade, it's a matter of PennDOT wanting to submit an application and change the signs. Exit tabs have been present since the last part of that opened years ago.

As far as the current NT of the PA section up to Williamsport, I'd be surprised if it's completed within the next 25 years. US 220 is horribly substandard and the cost is monumental. They haven't even built a proper interchange with I-80.



220 near I-80 (near Exit 178 on I-80) has plenty of room to make it four lanes - its basically a "super 2" now with an interchange at Mackeyville.  That part shouldn't cost much - the I-80 interchanges here and at Exit 161 would be costly as well. 

The 7 mile section between Williamsport and Jersey Shore has all sorts of problems - and I believe that project was deferred about 5 years ago.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: seicer on August 07, 2017, 01:48:33 PM
For now, they are ripping out the small concrete bulb median and installing jersey barriers.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: billpa on August 12, 2017, 06:44:16 AM
Now that the "Parkway West" (I-376) construction in Pittsburgh has wrapped up, I'm happy to see that PennDOT District 11 is using "Pittsburgh Intl Airport" (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4211025,-80.0944916,3a,75y,299.8h,95.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ7XYCqkeXvRLlXQV1rG7-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) as a control destination instead of just "Airport."

When I traveled abroad, other countries almost always use the "plane" symbol on the signs with the airport.  I figure this is because of people who don't speak their native language, but I think it would be a welcome change here in the states.
And in the rest of the world the plane "points" in the direction you're supposed to go. That's something most states here haven't quite figured out yet.

SM-T230NU

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on August 12, 2017, 10:51:14 AM
And in the rest of the world the plane "points" in the direction you're supposed to go. That's something most states here haven't quite figured out yet.

You mean the arrows on this kind of sign (from the UK) are called "planes"?

(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3ec192033be03350c2097f10541bb2a4-c)

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: thenetwork on August 13, 2017, 10:36:48 AM
And in the rest of the world the plane "points" in the direction you're supposed to go. That's something most states here haven't quite figured out yet.

You mean the arrows on this kind of sign (from the UK) are called "planes"?

(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3ec192033be03350c2097f10541bb2a4-c)

ixnay

Those look like Washington Monuments to me.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on August 13, 2017, 12:24:03 PM
Washington Monuments?  LOL, thenetwork!!!  :-D

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 13, 2017, 12:57:10 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/living/travel/Pennsylvania-turnpike-Breezewood-rest-stop.html?utm_campaign=Philly.com+Facebook+Account&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&cid=Philly.com+Facebook

Philly.com had this person's take on a recent Breezewood outing. :)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: billpa on August 14, 2017, 03:24:15 PM
And in the rest of the world the plane "points" in the direction you're supposed to go. That's something most states here haven't quite figured out yet.

You mean the arrows on this kind of sign (from the UK) are called "planes"?

(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3ec192033be03350c2097f10541bb2a4-c)

ixnay
No, the airplane symbol.

HTC6525LVW

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Ian on August 14, 2017, 04:02:47 PM
And in the rest of the world the plane "points" in the direction you're supposed to go. That's something most states here haven't quite figured out yet.

You mean the arrows on this kind of sign (from the UK) are called "planes"?

[img snipped]http://
No, the airplane symbol.

I believe he's speaking more along the lines of this, where the small airplane symbol points in the direction of the airport (example from Quebec).

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8321/8000818939_a0a68283ed_z.jpg)

I wish more US states did it this way...
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: billpa on August 16, 2017, 02:21:20 PM
And in the rest of the world the plane "points" in the direction you're supposed to go. That's something most states here haven't quite figured out yet.

You mean the arrows on this kind of sign (from the UK) are called "planes"?

[img snipped]http://
No, the airplane symbol.

I believe he's speaking more along the lines of this, where the small airplane symbol points in the direction of the airport (example from Quebec).

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8321/8000818939_a0a68283ed_z.jpg)

I wish more US states did it this way...
Exactly. I was on 128 this past weekend and there were signs for Logan which were done in this fashion (like that example from Quebec.) But, for the most part, our signage follows American exceptionalism rules too often.

SM-T230NU

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 16, 2017, 02:24:15 PM


I believe he's speaking more along the lines of this, where the small airplane symbol points in the direction of the airport (example from Quebec).

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8321/8000818939_a0a68283ed_z.jpg)

I wish more US states did it this way...
Exactly. I was on 128 this past weekend and there were signs for Logan which were done in this fashion (like that example from Quebec.) But, for the most part, our signage follows American exceptionalism rules too often.

SM-T230NU



The bigger question - do people notice?

I certainly noticed the arrow at the bottom in the yellow more than what direction the airplane symbol was facing.  And why would the airplane symbol matter if all the other normal elements of the sign were on the sign, as they are?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: billpa on August 16, 2017, 02:29:02 PM


I believe he's speaking more along the lines of this, where the small airplane symbol points in the direction of the airport (example from Quebec).

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8321/8000818939_a0a68283ed_z.jpg)

I wish more US states did it this way...
Exactly. I was on 128 this past weekend and there were signs for Logan which were done in this fashion (like that example from Quebec.) But, for the most part, our signage follows American exceptionalism rules too often.

SM-T230NU



The bigger question - do people notice?

I certainly noticed the arrow at the bottom in the yellow more than what direction the airplane symbol was facing.  And why would the airplane symbol matter if all the other normal elements of the sign were on the sign, as they are?
Because it looks like an arrow and can be confusing. It can appear to point in a direction which is wrong.
You're also likely communicating with motorists who are, in many cases, from places where the airplane symbol points in the proper direction.

SM-T230NU

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 16, 2017, 03:00:51 PM


I believe he's speaking more along the lines of this, where the small airplane symbol points in the direction of the airport (example from Quebec).

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8321/8000818939_a0a68283ed_z.jpg)

I wish more US states did it this way...
Exactly. I was on 128 this past weekend and there were signs for Logan which were done in this fashion (like that example from Quebec.) But, for the most part, our signage follows American exceptionalism rules too often.

SM-T230NU



The bigger question - do people notice?

I certainly noticed the arrow at the bottom in the yellow more than what direction the airplane symbol was facing.  And why would the airplane symbol matter if all the other normal elements of the sign were on the sign, as they are?
Because it looks like an arrow and can be confusing. It can appear to point in a direction which is wrong.
You're also likely communicating with motorists who are, in many cases, from places where the airplane symbol points in the proper direction.

SM-T230NU

Since it's been often noted that FHWA signage doesn't have the airplane symbol pointing in any specific direction, I'll repeat my question:

Do people notice?

This certainly doesn't come up in any list anywhere of things that confuse motorists.  And even when we're talking about international tourists that are driving vehicles (who may be accustomed to such plane pointing symbols), I can't recall anyone complaining about it.

Further to the point - I tried doing a Google search or two.  There's a million gazillion pages on the internet about everything, and I couldn't come up with anything regarding this.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: seicer on August 16, 2017, 03:01:41 PM
An airplane symbol does not look like an arrow. Good grief.

In New York state, where there are a lot of bilingual residents and visitors, symbols are used extensively to denote universities and schools, libraries, post offices, airports, train stations, information centers and more. A name is often affixed below it. Not only does that provide maximum clarity to non-English (or English as a second language) motorists, but it provides maximum clarity to native residents as well.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on August 16, 2017, 04:30:22 PM
As a graphic designer who frequently deals with issues involving iconography and clarity of word-less communications, I disagree with the idea of “pointing” the airplane in the direction of travel. By rotating the plane, you’re altering the icon (in a sense). The silhouette of an airplane pointing straight upward registers a certain signature in a viewer’s mind, and that same plane rotated 90° registers a slightly different signature. Sure, the viewer will figure it out after a second or two, but at 60-70+ MPH, those are a few seconds that shouldn’t be wasted.

And let’s take that concept further: Should the knife and fork on a FOOD services sign be rotated toward the location of restaurants? Should trailblazers approaching Washington state routes have George’s head rotated toward the corresponding direction of travel?

Personally, I don’t think so.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: J N Winkler on August 16, 2017, 06:43:29 PM
You mean the arrows on this kind of sign (from the UK) are called "planes"?

(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3ec192033be03350c2097f10541bb2a4-c)

Those are called stub arms in official documentation.  They were originally developed for motorway signs in 1958 and had a 60° chamfer.  When new signs for roads other than motorways were instituted in 1965 and design rules for motorway signs were adjusted to conform to the same visual language, a 90° chamfer became the norm.  The signs on which stub arms can be found are generally called map-type advance direction signs.

As a graphic designer who frequently deals with issues involving iconography and clarity of word-less communications, I disagree with the idea of “pointing” the airplane in the direction of travel. By rotating the plane, you’re altering the icon (in a sense). The silhouette of an airplane pointing straight upward registers a certain signature in a viewer’s mind, and that same plane rotated 90° registers a slightly different signature. Sure, the viewer will figure it out after a second or two, but at 60-70+ MPH, those are a few seconds that shouldn’t be wasted.

This approach does not create confusion the UK, where the airplane symbol is large, distinct, not framed by a bounding box, and is easily recognizable as a plane in plan view in any orientation in which it is used (which, if memory serves, is allowed to be varied in 15° increments).  I don't know, though, that anyone actually associates nose angle with direction of travel to the airport without actually looking in TSRGD or Chapter 7 of the UK Traffic Signs Manual.

I personally find the plane symbol in plan view--however oriented--much easier to recognize than the profile view of a plane taking off, which is used in Albuquerque, Milwaukee, etc. and is so poorly articulated that from a distance it looks like a slash of white on the sign.

I don't think BillPA's generalization (plane points in direction of travel to the airport) is necessarily correct as applied to all countries other than the US.  I know it is in the UK, and I will take others' word for it that it is in Québec though I can't remember specific language to that effect in the MTQ traffic manual.  I don't think the plane symbol rotates in France, however.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: empirestate on August 16, 2017, 11:47:28 PM
As a graphic designer who frequently deals with issues involving iconography and clarity of word-less communications, I disagree with the idea of “pointing” the airplane in the direction of travel. By rotating the plane, you’re altering the icon (in a sense). The silhouette of an airplane pointing straight upward registers a certain signature in a viewer’s mind, and that same plane rotated 90° registers a slightly different signature. Sure, the viewer will figure it out after a second or two, but at 60-70+ MPH, those are a few seconds that shouldn’t be wasted.

This is an important point. I was going to say rotating the symbol gives a subtle cue that can only enhance the communication, but for the reasons stated above, maybe that's not so. But the point is, whatever the answer may be, the question isn't what people will notice, but what is the best design. Indeed, a characteristic of good design is quite often that people don't notice it.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jemacedo9 on September 05, 2017, 02:11:42 PM
Sign Project Begins on Route 15 in Lycoming and Tioga Counties

Quote
This work includes the installation of new mile marker and exit signs on the highway

Curious to see what route's mileage they are going to use:  US 15 or I-99.  I'm also curious to see if they are going to add exit numbers as they did with US 220 in Clinton County. And many of the signs on this stretch are fairly new, so with a total cost of $130K, there can't be too many BGSs being replaced. 


I would assume I-99 exit numbers. It doesn't make much sense to use US 15 numbers now. There are already Future I-99 signs on the corridor and, as far as I know, they could extend I-99 to I-180 at Williamsport now.

SO...this sign contract DID involve assigning exit numbers from I-180 north.  So far...the mile markers are generic ones (non-enhanced/no shields) and only whole miles, no tenths.  Mile markers start at 136 and end at 196 and the NY border.

So far, all ground mounted signs (supplemental BGS and services signs) have greenout/blueout patches, including the signs with blank Exit tabs and including gore signs that had blank exit numbers.  At this point, no new gore signs have been installed, and no new exit tabs. 

The numbers, that I could see (I drove NB), are:

3rd St (NB only) - Exit 136
4th St (SB only) - couldn't tell (prob will be 136)
Foy Ave/Lycoming Creek Rd - nothing installed (prob will be 137)
Hepburnville - Exit 140
PA 973 Cogan Station/Perrryville (SB only) - Exit 143
PA 14 Trout Run / Canton - Exit 148
Cogan House - Exit 152
PA 184 Steam Valley - Exit 155
PA 284 English Center / Buttonwood - Exit 158
PA 414 Morris / Liberty - Exit 162
Sebring - no number yet (prob will be 163 or 164)
Blossburg - Exit 172
PA 660/Bus US 15 Canoe Camp / Covington - Exit 179
US 6 Mansfield / Wellsboro - Exit 182
Bus US 15 Main St (SB only) - Exit 183
PA 287 Tioga / Tioga Jct - Exit 191
PA 49 Lawrenceville / Elkland - Exit 196
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 10, 2017, 10:10:51 PM
Sign Project Begins on Route 15 in Lycoming and Tioga Counties

Quote
This work includes the installation of new mile marker and exit signs on the highway

Curious to see what route's mileage they are going to use:  US 15 or I-99.  I'm also curious to see if they are going to add exit numbers as they did with US 220 in Clinton County. And many of the signs on this stretch are fairly new, so with a total cost of $130K, there can't be too many BGSs being replaced. 


I would assume I-99 exit numbers. It doesn't make much sense to use US 15 numbers now. There are already Future I-99 signs on the corridor and, as far as I know, they could extend I-99 to I-180 at Williamsport now.

SO...this sign contract DID involve assigning exit numbers from I-180 north.  So far...the mile markers are generic ones (non-enhanced/no shields) and only whole miles, no tenths.  Mile markers start at 136 and end at 196 and the NY border.

So far, all ground mounted signs (supplemental BGS and services signs) have greenout/blueout patches, including the signs with blank Exit tabs and including gore signs that had blank exit numbers.  At this point, no new gore signs have been installed, and no new exit tabs. 

The numbers, that I could see (I drove NB), are:

3rd St (NB only) - Exit 136
4th St (SB only) - couldn't tell (prob will be 136)
Foy Ave/Lycoming Creek Rd - nothing installed (prob will be 137)
Hepburnville - Exit 140
PA 973 Cogan Station/Perrryville (SB only) - Exit 143
PA 14 Trout Run / Canton - Exit 148
Cogan House - Exit 152
PA 184 Steam Valley - Exit 155
PA 284 English Center / Buttonwood - Exit 158
PA 414 Morris / Liberty - Exit 162
Sebring - no number yet (prob will be 163 or 164)
Blossburg - Exit 172
PA 660/Bus US 15 Canoe Camp / Covington - Exit 179
US 6 Mansfield / Wellsboro - Exit 182
Bus US 15 Main St (SB only) - Exit 183
PA 287 Tioga / Tioga Jct - Exit 191
PA 49 Lawrenceville / Elkland - Exit 196

I'm going to guess they are I-99 numbers.  Exit 136 would be at about MP 132 for US 15.  For I-99, it's about 86.5 miles from the beginning to I-80, 17.5 miles duplexed with I-80, then about 31 miles on US 220 from I-80 to the I-180/US 15 junction.  Those numbers seem to add up to 136
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on September 24, 2017, 01:18:34 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/fznMX70.jpg)

New FYA signal in Pennsylvania, this one at the US 422/Ramona Road intersection near Myerstown. The picture turned out surprisingly well despite me only just barely pulling out my phone to get it after seeing it. (I wasn't driving.)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: MASTERNC on September 24, 2017, 01:38:58 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/fznMX70.jpg)

New FYA signal in Pennsylvania, this one at the US 422/Ramona Road intersection near Myerstown. The picture turned out surprisingly well despite me only just barely pulling out my phone to get it after seeing it. (I wasn't driving.)

Was wondering when we'd start to see more than the 2 or 3 we know have been installed in the state (plus one in the York area forthcoming).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 26, 2017, 08:55:20 PM
I drove half way across the Commonwealth from Ohio today on the Keystone Shortway.  The only active construction project I encountered was at Snow Shoe.  All other eastbound projects appear to have been completed or are otherwise inactive.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on September 26, 2017, 11:31:00 PM
I drove half way across the Commonwealth from Ohio today on the Keystone Shortway.
My condolences.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on October 08, 2017, 08:46:46 PM
What exactly are the point of these (https://goo.gl/maps/kjHgfZzVC3G2) light-up Do Not Enter signs in Pittsburgh? They're installed above permanent signs, and there doesn't seem to be any purpose for allowing traffic to go the wrong way up that off ramp.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: thenetwork on October 08, 2017, 11:17:43 PM
What exactly are the point of these (https://goo.gl/maps/kjHgfZzVC3G2) light-up Do Not Enter signs in Pittsburgh? They're installed above permanent signs, and there doesn't seem to be any purpose for allowing traffic to go the wrong way up that off ramp.

My guess is there is an EXIT ONLY BGS overhead for PA-51 South right above those lit DNE signs.  That curved off-ramp looks like an on-ramp (and the angle is pretty much the same as the on-ramps on either side) and I'm sure there have been a fair share of people that mistook that wrong-way ramp for PA-51 over the years.

Chalk it up to poor intersection design.  But given the limited space, and the fact they were helping in smoothing out the left turns toward the Liberty Tunnels in order to get more traffic thru each green light cycle, they have done a pretty good job in saying "Hey dummy -- DON'T turn here".

Also looks like there are flashing red lights above the lit DNE signs as well.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: VTGoose on October 09, 2017, 11:22:21 AM
What exactly are the point of these (https://goo.gl/maps/kjHgfZzVC3G2) light-up Do Not Enter signs in Pittsburgh? They're installed above permanent signs, and there doesn't seem to be any purpose for allowing traffic to go the wrong way up that off ramp.

Given that the signs are in the dark under the bridge, they give an extra indication to not go that way. In an ensuing collision, the at-fault driver really can't say "I didn't see the 'Do Not Enter' sign" when it is lit up.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 09, 2017, 10:17:13 PM
What exactly are the point of these (https://goo.gl/maps/kjHgfZzVC3G2) light-up Do Not Enter signs in Pittsburgh? They're installed above permanent signs, and there doesn't seem to be any purpose for allowing traffic to go the wrong way up that off ramp.

Given that the signs are in the dark under the bridge, they give an extra indication to not go that way. In an ensuing collision, the at-fault driver really can't say "I didn't see the 'Do Not Enter' sign" when it is lit up.

Oh, the idiots out there will still try to say it.  But it will just make them look even stupider. lol.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on November 04, 2017, 04:10:55 PM
Got a better picture of the new FYA signal near Myerstown on US 422 at Ramona Road:

(https://i.imgur.com/WQdiGYl.jpg)

I also noticed they removed the 55 mph zone between Prescott Road/Drive and just east of this intersection. It's now all 45, but I think it could stand 50. They also didn't "center" 422 here where the directions used to split. There's now a weird jog as the whole road realigns along where the north shoulder always was.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 04, 2017, 11:37:29 PM
Got a better picture of the new FYA signal near Myerstown on US 422 at Ramona Road:

(https://i.imgur.com/WQdiGYl.jpg)

I also noticed they removed the 55 mph zone between Prescott Road/Drive and just east of this intersection. It's now all 45, but I think it could stand 50. They also didn't "center" 422 here where the directions used to split. There's now a weird jog as the whole road realigns along where the north shoulder always was.

PA likes x5 speed limits. There aren't a whole lot of 50 mph limits.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 05, 2017, 08:03:16 PM
It's PA, so I can believe it. No money for anything anywhere.

There's been some money for the PennDOT way of doing Interstate reconstruction, but not nearly enough.  There has even been some (modest) progress on remediating two of the most awful Interstates in the nation (I-70 west of New Stanton and I-83 around York).

Now, with the highest per-gallon state motor fuel tax rates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States) (both gasoline (58.2¢) and Diesel fuel (74.7¢)) in the coterminous 48 states plus D.C., PennDOT does have a pretty good bridge repair, redecking or replacement program up and running (but given how many (http://www.penndot.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/p3forpa/Pages/Rapid-Bridge-Replacement-Project.aspx) structurally deficient bridges there are in Penn's Woods, that is going to consume dollars for quite a few years).
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Beltway on November 05, 2017, 08:37:02 PM
It's PA, so I can believe it. No money for anything anywhere.
There's been some money for the PennDOT way of doing Interstate reconstruction, but not nearly enough.  There has even been some (modest) progress on remediating two of the most awful Interstates in the nation (I-70 west of New Stanton and I-83 around York).
Now, with the highest per-gallon state motor fuel tax rates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States) (both gasoline (58.2¢) and Diesel fuel (74.7¢)) in the coterminous 48 states plus D.C., PennDOT does have a pretty good bridge repair, redecking or replacement program up and running (but given how many (http://www.penndot.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/p3forpa/Pages/Rapid-Bridge-Replacement-Project.aspx) structurally deficient bridges there are in Penn's Woods, that is going to consume dollars for quite a few years).

PennDOT has a $5.7 billion annual budget for highways, including $2.9 billion for improvements and $1.7 billion for maintenance and $0.8 billion in transfers to local governments.  Their program funding is greatly improved from when I lived there in the 1970s.

They also annually allocate $2.2 billion to multimodal (transit, rail and aviation) and $1.1 billion to debt service and other agencies.

These were the figures for FY 2016.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on November 14, 2017, 09:26:02 PM
Something weird I noticed in the old Street View in Lancaster, particularly at the old US 222/Lititz Pike railroad bridge that was replaced a few years ago: https://goo.gl/maps/DdmJydPMWaF2

The sign for PA 72 North has a space missing that appears to be for an extra shield. Judging by the position of the "North" heading, it would likely also apply to the mystery route, meaning it's not a "To US 30" or "To PA 283". There's no other north-south routes in that direction, though. Did Fruitville Pike once have a number, or were they planning on giving it one? Or is this just a weird goof by whoever made the sign, which appears to be no more than 25 years old, depending on when exactly PennDOT stopped using button copy, since these signs are newer than that.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 15, 2017, 06:21:58 AM
Something weird I noticed in the old Street View in Lancaster, particularly at the old US 222/Lititz Pike railroad bridge that was replaced a few years ago: https://goo.gl/maps/DdmJydPMWaF2

The sign for PA 72 North has a space missing that appears to be for an extra shield. Judging by the position of the "North" heading, it would likely also apply to the mystery route, meaning it's not a "To US 30" or "To PA 283". There's no other north-south routes in that direction, though. Did Fruitville Pike once have a number, or were they planning on giving it one? Or is this just a weird goof by whoever made the sign, which appears to be no more than 25 years old, depending on when exactly PennDOT stopped using button copy, since these signs are newer than that.

They could've simply right-justified both the shield and the city, rather than centering the shield.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on November 20, 2017, 05:43:07 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3359135,-74.8422578,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spPbPsENf-OSEGuCaQqm2og!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 What is up with the orange Exit 44 sign?  I know from the photo PennDOT is got the WB Lanes closed due to construction and pavement rehabilitation as per usual PennDOT style by closing a whole carriageway and placing the other one in two way mode with jerseybarrier, but why the need for a temporary orange construction sign when the permanent one right behind it is still doing its job?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on November 21, 2017, 09:54:59 AM
That's nothing.  This temporary orange sign for Exits 9A-B off I-95 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8685897,-75.3127571,3a,75y,102h,73.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sluCoTbQPDmtSCLxX2SMVvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (the original overhead BGS was either damaged or vandalized) has been around for nearly 4 years.  No sign (no pun intended) of a permanent replacement as of yet.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on November 21, 2017, 05:27:40 PM
That's nothing.  This temporary orange sign for Exits 9A-B off I-95 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8685897,-75.3127571,3a,75y,102h,73.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sluCoTbQPDmtSCLxX2SMVvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (the original overhead BGS was either damaged or vandalized) has been around for nearly 4 years.  No sign (no pun intended) of a permanent replacement as of yet.
Not surprising as PennDOT took almost five years to add US 1 to the Oxford Valley Cloverleaf after the freeway was completed in 1987 to Morrisville.  In the same note US 1 Business was still signed as the mainline as well.

Remember we are talking about a state that has traffic lights on interstates too, so why should this MUTCD violation stop them as the signals are non interstate standards.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 21, 2017, 09:53:51 PM
That's nothing.  This temporary orange sign for Exits 9A-B off I-95 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8685897,-75.3127571,3a,75y,102h,73.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sluCoTbQPDmtSCLxX2SMVvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (the original overhead BGS was either damaged or vandalized) has been around for nearly 4 years.  No sign (no pun intended) of a permanent replacement as of yet.
Not surprising as PennDOT took almost five years to add US 1 to the Oxford Valley Cloverleaf after the freeway was completed in 1987 to Morrisville.  In the same note US 1 Business was still signed as the mainline as well.

Remember we are talking about a state that has traffic lights on interstates too, so why should this MUTCD violation stop them as the signals are non interstate standards.

Since the Feds funded that project, they approved the traffic lights.  More like an exception in this case.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 22, 2017, 07:32:02 AM
(Link from PennLIVE) I-81 is now three lanes from PA 114 (Exit 57) to PA 581 (Exit 59) in Cumberland County. (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/11/traffic_now_open_to_3_lanes_fo.html#incart_river_index)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 22, 2017, 07:45:41 AM
In addition to Breezewood, we also have I-676 in Philadelphia.  Westbound, there are two traffic signals between the Ben Franklin Bridge and Vine Street Expressway portions of the Interstate; eastbound there is one.

A simple, albeit inadequate, solution would be to close off the local cross-streets and eliminate the traffic signals.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on November 23, 2017, 11:08:04 PM
I noticed a mystery ramp from I-79 north of Mt. Morris. It appears to have been a temporary connection to Davistown Rd, with all movements except a southbound exit from 79. It even featured an at-grade left turn onto 79 south. From Historic Aerials, it appears to have been upgraded from some local driveway between 2004 and 2006. It sat there for years, blocked off at both ends from traffic, until the part directly connecting to 79 was removed in 2010 or 2011. The bulk of it still remains. What was this for?

Coming back to this, apparently the abandoned northern counterparts (https://goo.gl/maps/c9ZbpD3Yw1U2) to these ramps are still in PennDOT's records as SR 9400, which can be seen on their Type 10 map for Greene County. However, while these ramps are still mostly present and striped, any of those tiny LRS markers are long gone judging by the Street View.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 24, 2017, 11:34:19 PM
What's the link for the PENN DOT project list where you can see upcoming plans?  I saw the "public" page where the average joe can look.


I'm taking my first trip to Breezewood sometime this month or next. I'm hoping to snap pics of the button copy signs when I go.

I'll be going I-80-I-81 to I-76 to I-70 from CT.

Any non-reflective button copy anywhere along the corridor?
Any button copy signs left on the Doylestown bypass area (a different trip I plan on taking)?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Bitmapped on November 25, 2017, 01:07:32 AM
I noticed a mystery ramp from I-79 north of Mt. Morris. It appears to have been a temporary connection to Davistown Rd, with all movements except a southbound exit from 79. It even featured an at-grade left turn onto 79 south. From Historic Aerials, it appears to have been upgraded from some local driveway between 2004 and 2006. It sat there for years, blocked off at both ends from traffic, until the part directly connecting to 79 was removed in 2010 or 2011. The bulk of it still remains. What was this for?

Coming back to this, apparently the abandoned northern counterparts (https://goo.gl/maps/c9ZbpD3Yw1U2) to these ramps are still in PennDOT's records as SR 9400, which can be seen on their Type 10 map for Greene County. However, while these ramps are still mostly present and striped, any of those tiny LRS markers are long gone judging by the Street View.

For both ramps, they removed the pavement from the ramps that was within the I-79 ROW and abandoned the rest in-place as-is. I don't recall there ever being little white signs posted along either I-79 or the side roads.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2017, 08:44:58 AM
What's the link for the PENN DOT project list where you can see upcoming plans?  I saw the "public" page where the average joe can look.


I'm taking my first trip to Breezewood sometime this month or next. I'm hoping to snap pics of the button copy signs when I go.

I'll be going I-80-I-81 to I-76 to I-70 from CT.

Any non-reflective button copy anywhere along the corridor?
Any button copy signs left on the Doylestown bypass area (a different trip I plan on taking)?


You can look on bidx where they may have posted some plans, usually in supplemental adgenda postings, but the full plans aren't usual found online anywhere. Even contractors have to actually purchase them.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on November 25, 2017, 09:24:36 PM
When exactly did PennDOT and the PTC stop using button copy, and were they at the same time or separate dates?

Also, PennDOT seems to have decisively switched back to FHWA series from Clearview, but has the PTC shown any sign (no pun intended) of doing so?

PENN DOT
*PennDOT
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2017, 09:40:27 PM
When exactly did PennDOT and the PTC stop using button copy, and were they at the same time or separate dates?

Also, PennDOT seems to have decisively switched back to FHWA series from Clearview, but has the PTC shown any sign (no pun intended) of doing so?

PENN DOT
*PennDOT

All around the 95/Tpk connection project.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: J N Winkler on November 25, 2017, 10:01:24 PM
What's the link for the PennDOT project list where you can see upcoming plans?  I saw the "public" page where the average joe can look.

You can look on bidx where they may have posted some plans, usually in supplemental addenda postings, but the full plans aren't usually found online anywhere. Even contractors have to actually purchase them.

Nope.  Not true for PennDOT.

http://www.dot14.state.pa.us/ECMS/

If a project has been advertised, you can view and download the construction plans through ECMS even with the guest login.  After you log in, the bread crumb trail is Solicitation (top menu) --> Contractors --> Bid Packages.  "Advanced Search" does what it says, or alternatively you can just go directly to "New Postings."  In addition to the plans, the documentation associated with a bid package that is available for viewing or download includes special provisions, attachments, reports, etc.

PennDOT also posts "Unofficial Plans and Specifications" and you can click through to see what is available, but the guest login does not have viewing or downloading rights.  These are basically advance plans for projects intended to be advertised in the near future.  When a given project is advertised, the finished plans become part of a bid package and thus can be accessed through the guest login, so basically all guests lose is the sneak preview.

What Jeffandnicole is saying is basically true for NJDOT and the NJTA.  Both agencies are backward and rely on BidX as their advertising and plan distribution vehicle.  As a result, you get addenda and supplemental documentation (including as-builts and plans for concurrent work on the same facility, which with NJDOT are typically not complete, but have been for the Pulaski Skyway and Wittpenn Bridge) for free, but have to pay $135/month for the combination of subscriptions that allows you to download as-advertised plans.

Returning to Pennsylvania, the PTC also has its own contractor portal, but plans and specifications are not on guest access and require business partner registration.  This is a complex process that includes both online signup and mailing of a hardcopy form (with attestation) that lays out the particulars of your firm.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: J N Winkler on November 25, 2017, 10:15:55 PM
In regard to PennDOT and Clearview, the last few signing plans I have extracted date back to September 2016, and show that PennDOT was starting to go back to the FHWA alphabet series.

There was a large package in connection with the I-95/Turnpike project that went to bid around June 2015 and had the PennDOT ECMS number 95444.  It had 106 pattern-accurate sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets, all of which used Clearview for primary destination legend only.  If these signs are now being erected with Series E Modified for primary destination legend, then a change order (or functional equivalent) must have been issued sometime after award.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: BigRedDog on November 25, 2017, 11:51:09 PM
I noticed a mystery ramp from I-79 north of Mt. Morris. It appears to have been a temporary connection to Davistown Rd, with all movements except a southbound exit from 79. It even featured an at-grade left turn onto 79 south. From Historic Aerials, it appears to have been upgraded from some local driveway between 2004 and 2006. It sat there for years, blocked off at both ends from traffic, until the part directly connecting to 79 was removed in 2010 or 2011. The bulk of it still remains. What was this for?

Coming back to this, apparently the abandoned northern counterparts (https://goo.gl/maps/c9ZbpD3Yw1U2) to these ramps are still in PennDOT's records as SR 9400, which can be seen on their Type 10 map for Greene County. However, while these ramps are still mostly present and striped, any of those tiny LRS markers are long gone judging by the Street View.

The link given in the reply is not Davidstown Rd, as mentioned in the first post. I say this because there are ghost ramp(s) at Davidstown Rd. (see here (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7431242,-80.0640576,575m/data=!3m1!1e3)), as well as at Rolling Meadows Rd. (see link in reply), which is farther north, closer to Waynesburg.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: mrsman on November 26, 2017, 02:48:45 PM
*Case in point: I had a discussion with someone about a roundabout in my area. She despised roundabouts altogether, and when she explained why, I immediately saw the problem. She was frustrated because, when the circle is empty, and there's a line of traffic approaching the circle just to her left as she's entering from another approach, that line of traffic would just stream into the circle without stopping, leaving her no opening to get in. She was unhappy because they weren't "taking their yield" and making space for her and other downstream traffic to enter. She seemed to think that a "yield" is a slowing or stopping movement, and didn't seem to realize that it only applies when there's traffic to yield to—which, when the circle is empty, of course there isn't.

So, no wonder she's always frustrated at that circle: she has an expectation of the other drivers that isn't met by their behavior; and in this case, the rules are on their side. (And she's probably doubly frustrated by all the vehicles behind her honking and gesticulating, whenever she approaches an empty circle and decides to stop anyhow!)

The other side of this story is that it is a well-known empirical finding that roundabouts are highly likely to fail when traffic on one approach is well out of balance with traffic on the others.  However, when the state in question has a policy that roundabouts will be installed unless an alternative--such as a traffic signal--can meet stringent criteria, then roundabouts will be built that are especially likely not to operate satisfactorily under high-demand conditions.  I'm presuming the roundabout in question is in New York, which does have such a roundabouts-first policy.

That's precisely what I explained to her. In this case, I've never observed the lopsided traffic flow she describes, so it must be a very limited occurrence, possibly restricted to certain short periods of the day. Overall, the roundabout seems to work perfectly well.


iPhone

With regard to roundabouts, I had always thought that metering lights, similar to what you sometimes see at busy freeway entrances, would be really helpful at making sure that there is always a steady stream of traffic entering the roundabout at heavy traffic periods.  Unfortunately, there are very few applications of this that I have seen.

Here's an example in MD that uses red lights and flashing yellow, but I think red-green lights like at most metered onramp would be superior.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2122182,-76.795529,3a,75y,44.99h,94.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQeHysOzBFfKzkjiBcB5d_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2017, 03:25:29 PM

With regard to roundabouts, I had always thought that metering lights, similar to what you sometimes see at busy freeway entrances, would be really helpful at making sure that there is always a steady stream of traffic entering the roundabout at heavy traffic periods.  Unfortunately, there are very few applications of this that I have seen.

Here's an example in MD that uses red lights and flashing yellow, but I think red-green lights like at most metered onramp would be superior.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2122182,-76.795529,3a,75y,44.99h,94.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQeHysOzBFfKzkjiBcB5d_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

NJ has used regular traffic lights as meters for traffic approaching their busier traffic circles in the past. This allows a group of traffic to enter the circle at one time, or it can be left on steady green for hours at a time during lighter traffic periods.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: storm2k on November 27, 2017, 03:10:16 PM

With regard to roundabouts, I had always thought that metering lights, similar to what you sometimes see at busy freeway entrances, would be really helpful at making sure that there is always a steady stream of traffic entering the roundabout at heavy traffic periods.  Unfortunately, there are very few applications of this that I have seen.

Here's an example in MD that uses red lights and flashing yellow, but I think red-green lights like at most metered onramp would be superior.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2122182,-76.795529,3a,75y,44.99h,94.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQeHysOzBFfKzkjiBcB5d_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

NJ has used regular traffic lights as meters for traffic approaching their busier traffic circles in the past. This allows a group of traffic to enter the circle at one time, or it can be left on steady green for hours at a time during lighter traffic periods.

Or they do what they did with the Somerville Circle, and make changes that only leave lights on 3 of the 5 arms of the circle itself so traffic is no better controlled than without the lights.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on December 02, 2017, 02:00:05 PM
I noticed this old (but at the time, new) button copy guide sign on a 1965 PennDOT PSA about littering (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X8ljPNZz2Q). My best guess is that this footage was taken here (https://goo.gl/maps/Q8WeCNe8kNt), on modern-day PA 581, one mile west of the I-83 interchange.

If my guess about the location is correct, “York” would be both more correct and more informative here than “Junction”.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4578/37903994275_e8ae3c1672_o.png)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 02, 2017, 11:07:00 PM
I noticed this old (but at the time, new) button copy guide sign on a 1965 PennDOT PSA about littering (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X8ljPNZz2Q). My best guess is that this footage was taken here (https://goo.gl/maps/Q8WeCNe8kNt), on modern-day PA 581, one mile west of the I-83 interchange.

If my guess about the location is correct, “York” would be both more correct and more informative here than “Junction”.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4578/37903994275_e8ae3c1672_o.png)

JUNCTION signs like this were quite common on Interstates in the 1960's, and not just in Pennsylvania either.

Maryland and other states used them too.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: PHLBOS on December 03, 2017, 05:04:13 PM
I noticed this old (but at the time, new) button copy guide sign on a 1965 PennDOT PSA about littering (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X8ljPNZz2Q). My best guess is that this footage was taken here (https://goo.gl/maps/Q8WeCNe8kNt), on modern-day PA 581, one mile west of the I-83 interchange.

If my guess about the location is correct, “York” would be both more correct and more informative here than “Junction”.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4578/37903994275_e8ae3c1672_o.png)

JUNCTION signs like this were quite common on Interstates in the 1960's, and not just in Pennsylvania either.

Maryland and other states used them too.
Massachusetts typically had signs that read:
JUNCTION
    XXX
  1 MILE

Such was phased out in the Bay State by the 1980s.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on December 03, 2017, 05:22:30 PM
I noticed this old (but at the time, new) button copy guide sign on a 1965 PennDOT PSA about littering (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X8ljPNZz2Q). My best guess is that this footage was taken here (https://goo.gl/maps/Q8WeCNe8kNt), on modern-day PA 581, one mile west of the I-83 interchange.

If my guess about the location is correct, “York” would be both more correct and more informative here than “Junction”.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4578/37903994275_e8ae3c1672_o.png)

I like how the PDH put "Junction" in a control city size font.  Note the buttons too.  I imagine the first buttons (in any state) were used in the '50s.

I wonder when that sign was replaced.

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jpi on December 03, 2017, 07:38:13 PM
I wanna say this was replaced in the early 80's and yes this is on present day PA 581, back then it was a "connecter" expressway from 83 to 11/15 I vaugly remember this sign when I was a little kid and yes this was common practice for interstate junctions in Pennsylvania, the Turnpike interchange 4 miles south of this pic was another example, it did not get an exit # until the big change over to mile marker based exit #'s in the early 2000's
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Rothman on December 03, 2017, 09:52:40 PM
I noticed this old (but at the time, new) button copy guide sign on a 1965 PennDOT PSA about littering (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X8ljPNZz2Q). My best guess is that this footage was taken here (https://goo.gl/maps/Q8WeCNe8kNt), on modern-day PA 581, one mile west of the I-83 interchange.

If my guess about the location is correct, “York” would be both more correct and more informative here than “Junction”.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4578/37903994275_e8ae3c1672_o.png)

JUNCTION signs like this were quite common on Interstates in the 1960's, and not just in Pennsylvania either.

Maryland and other states used them too.
Massachusetts typically had signs that read:
JUNCTION
    XXX
  1 MILE

Such was phased out in the Bay State by the 1980s.
Ayup.  I remember them.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on December 07, 2017, 10:14:50 PM
Does this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/6u1U68yz9JC2) actually date back to when current US 22 in Harrisburg was US 22 Bypass? It doesn't look old, so it might have been replaced in kind by a lazy contractor or something.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: qguy on December 08, 2017, 06:35:46 AM
Don't know about the sign, but just ahead on the left is a truly great diner. Originally called the By-Pass Diner, it's now the American Dream Diner. Original details, typical diner culture. They have a unique sandwich called The Rope, basically a length of sausage coiled in a long roll with onions, etc.

Actually, there are quite a few classic diners in the Harrisburg area: http://www.pennlive.com/food/index.ssf/2017/02/diners_harrisburg.html
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on December 08, 2017, 09:18:23 PM
Does this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/6u1U68yz9JC2) actually date back to when current US 22 in Harrisburg was US 22 Bypass? It doesn't look old, so it might have been replaced in kind by a lazy contractor or something.
It doesn't look that new either. City job.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: sbeaver44 on December 26, 2017, 01:26:43 PM
What is going on with construction on PA 283 in Dauphin County?  Looks like they're putting random left shoulders and crossovers in, and also redoing some of the loop ramps to be wider radii?

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jpi on December 27, 2017, 01:51:54 PM
I think it is part of a rebuild of 283 from I-283 to near Tollhouse Rd exit, they have been doing "prep" work ever since the fall, this may co-inside with some work getting done at the 283/ I-283 cloverleaf to make that interchange safer, what they need is a 2 lane fly-over from south I-283 to east PA 283 but doubt that will ever happen. (roll eyes)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on December 28, 2017, 09:16:27 PM
Is the Lafayette Street extension open to Conshohocken Road near Norristown? It looks like it was finished (albeit barricaded off) in August (https://goo.gl/maps/vJztuzV3seA2), but I can't find any news articles of it opening. Are they waiting for Phase 3 to finish before opening the new segment?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Beltway on December 28, 2017, 11:02:26 PM
Is the Lafayette Street extension open to Conshohocken Road near Norristown? It looks like it was finished (albeit barricaded off) in August (https://goo.gl/maps/vJztuzV3seA2), but I can't find any news articles of it opening. Are they waiting for Phase 3 to finish before opening the new segment?

What is the latest schedule for building the extension and interchange with the Turnpike?
Title: New PA Welcome Signs
Post by: Flyer78 on January 03, 2018, 03:41:32 PM
I thought it was mentioned somewhere in this thread, but PA has replaced the "State of Independence" tourism brand with "Pursue your happiness" -- Welcomes signs are being updated to match the branding. They were installed on I-81 sometime after Thanksgiving, per the linked article below goal is to have 37 installed by spring. It's a little more eye catching than the previous edition; I always liked the old banner sign -- will check soon to see if this one on US202 N is still standing (https://goo.gl/maps/Z929UG2zEn32).

Via WNEP-TV, here is an image of the new sign: (https://localtvwnep.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/pa-sign.jpeg?quality=85&strip=all&w=500)

Related article: http://wnep.com/2017/11/03/new-welcome-to-pa-signs-in-the-poconos/

Now if we could see a new license plate design (beyond the state outline where the outmoded registration stickers went)...
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: MASTERNC on January 03, 2018, 08:30:40 PM
I thought it was mentioned somewhere in this thread, but PA has replaced the "State of Independence" tourism brand with "Pursue your happiness" -- Welcomes signs are being updated to match the branding. They were installed on I-81 sometime after Thanksgiving, per the linked article below goal is to have 37 installed by spring. It's a little more eye catching than the previous edition; I always liked the old banner sign -- will check soon to see if this one on US202 N is still standing (https://goo.gl/maps/Z929UG2zEn32).

The one on 202 is still standing.  The signs on US 1 (and supposedly I-95) have been replaced.

Via WNEP-TV, here is an image of the new sign: (https://localtvwnep.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/pa-sign.jpeg?quality=85&strip=all&w=500)

Related article: http://wnep.com/2017/11/03/new-welcome-to-pa-signs-in-the-poconos/

Now if we could see a new license plate design (beyond the state outline where the outmoded registration stickers went)...
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on January 03, 2018, 10:04:56 PM
Southbound I-95 is the brand new sign.
Title: Re: New PA Welcome Signs
Post by: ekt8750 on January 05, 2018, 10:14:01 AM
I thought it was mentioned somewhere in this thread, but PA has replaced the "State of Independence" tourism brand with "Pursue your happiness" -- Welcomes signs are being updated to match the branding. They were installed on I-81 sometime after Thanksgiving, per the linked article below goal is to have 37 installed by spring. It's a little more eye catching than the previous edition; I always liked the old banner sign -- will check soon to see if this one on US202 N is still standing (https://goo.gl/maps/Z929UG2zEn32).

Via WNEP-TV, here is an image of the new sign: (https://localtvwnep.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/pa-sign.jpeg?quality=85&strip=all&w=500)

Related article: http://wnep.com/2017/11/03/new-welcome-to-pa-signs-in-the-poconos/

Now if we could see a new license plate design (beyond the state outline where the outmoded registration stickers went)...

I saw that coming back from Delaware the other day. Whoever came up with that crap needs to be fired imo.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman on January 05, 2018, 10:35:23 AM
I noticed this old (but at the time, new) button copy guide sign on a 1965 PennDOT PSA about littering (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X8ljPNZz2Q). My best guess is that this footage was taken here (https://goo.gl/maps/Q8WeCNe8kNt), on modern-day PA 581, one mile west of the I-83 interchange.

If my guess about the location is correct, “York” would be both more correct and more informative here than “Junction”.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4578/37903994275_e8ae3c1672_o.png)

JUNCTION signs like this were quite common on Interstates in the 1960's, and not just in Pennsylvania either.

Maryland and other states used them too.
Massachusetts typically had signs that read:
JUNCTION
    XXX
  1 MILE

Such was phased out in the Bay State by the 1980s.
Ayup.  I remember them.
  To clarify, most of the 'junction' BGS signs on MA freeways were replaced with standard advance signs in the early to mid-1990s during sign replacement projects.  IIRC, the last holdout was the 'JUNCTION 93 2 miles" sign on I-95/128 NB in Woburn, which was actually installed as part of the 1990 Lexington to Reading sign project, and was just replaced with a conventional advance sign as part of the 2012 Lexington to Reading sign project.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 03, 2018, 10:56:42 PM
Quite possibly one of the most unique traffic hazard and rock feature within the entire state of Pennsylvania, Overhanging Rock along PA 320 in Gulph Mills has a story that dates back to the Revolutionary War and battles in the 20th century to save it from the dynamite stick.

http://quintessentialpa.blogspot.com/2018/02/overhanging-rock.html
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Beltway on February 03, 2018, 11:48:03 PM
Quite possibly one of the most unique traffic hazard and rock feature within the entire state of Pennsylvania, Overhanging Rock along PA 320 in Gulph Mills has a story that dates back to the Revolutionary War and battles in the 20th century to save it from the dynamite stick.
http://quintessentialpa.blogspot.com/2018/02/overhanging-rock.html

PennDOT had a plan in the 1970s with a design to "resculpt" the rock back and upward, out of the traffic lane, and to retain the same basic shape as the pre-existing rock, but it never was performed.  Too much opposition.  This is only about 2 miles from where the District 6-0 office used to be in Radnor.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: MASTERNC on February 04, 2018, 02:26:09 PM
Quite possibly one of the most unique traffic hazard and rock feature within the entire state of Pennsylvania, Overhanging Rock along PA 320 in Gulph Mills has a story that dates back to the Revolutionary War and battles in the 20th century to save it from the dynamite stick.
http://quintessentialpa.blogspot.com/2018/02/overhanging-rock.html

PennDOT had a plan in the 1970s with a design to "resculpt" the rock back and upward, out of the traffic lane, and to retain the same basic shape as the pre-existing rock, but it never was performed.  Too much opposition.  This is only about 2 miles from where the District 6-0 office used to be in Radnor.

They're supposed to be doing something around there in the next few years - it's listed in planned projects.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on February 13, 2018, 08:38:08 PM
The I-95/PATP thread digressed to the South St. interchange on the Surekill and its flawed design (entrances into and exits out of the left lane in both directions).

Reading has a similar interchange on U.S. 422 at Lancaster Av. (U.S. Business 222).  What's the latest on the proposed rebuild of that interchange (http://www.422westshorebypass.com/improvement-concepts/) and of the West Shore Bypass in general?

ixnay

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Beltway on February 13, 2018, 09:36:07 PM
The I-95/PATP thread digressed to the South St. interchange on the Surekill and its flawed design (entrances into and exits out of the left lane in both directions.

Plus almost non-existent accell/decell lanes.  They ought to close all of those ramps permanently.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ekt8750 on February 14, 2018, 10:09:22 AM
The I-95/PATP thread digressed to the South St. interchange on the Surekill and its flawed design (entrances into and exits out of the left lane in both directions.

Plus almost non-existent accell/decell lanes.  They ought to close all of those ramps permanently.

I actually wouldn't be opposed to that. With the Walnut St and University City interchanges literally feet away from the South St ramps, there's really no need for direct access to it as both interchanges easily can get you to South.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Beltway on February 14, 2018, 10:44:18 AM
The I-95/PATP thread digressed to the South St. interchange on the Surekill and its flawed design (entrances into and exits out of the left lane in both directions.
Plus almost non-existent accell/decell lanes.  They ought to close all of those ramps permanently.
I actually wouldn't be opposed to that. With the Walnut St and University City interchanges literally feet away from the South St ramps, there's really no need for direct access to it as both interchanges easily can get you to South.

That is the problem, though, they are really not all that close to South Street, and the other routes are circuitous and low capacity, and you have to go all the way down to Vare Avenue to connect with the southerly Surekill.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on February 23, 2018, 11:37:10 AM
Somebody once told me that I-78 in Lebanon County has its own alignment awy from US 22 cause of different engineer interests.

So the fact that the western split of I-78 and US 22 take place at the county line is no coincidence then.  Berks County (along with all counties east of it) wished to just upgrade existing US 22 to interstate quality while Lebanon wanted a new freeway altogether.

My real question is was that done at the county level or is both Berks and Lebanon in two separate PennDOT districts with the politics of the district at play at why I-78 was decided separately on both sides of the line?

Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 23, 2018, 05:34:21 PM
Somebody once told me that I-78 in Lebanon County has its own alignment awy from US 22 cause of different engineer interests.

So the fact that the western split of I-78 and US 22 take place at the county line is no coincidence then.  Berks County (along with all counties east of it) wished to just upgrade existing US 22 to interstate quality while Lebanon wanted a new freeway altogether.

My real question is was that done at the county level or is both Berks and Lebanon in two separate PennDOT districts with the politics of the district at play at why I-78 was decided separately on both sides of the line?

Berks is in District 5 while Lebanon is in District 8 so there are separate PennDOT districts involved in this.  For the sake of I-81 traffic, it ended up working out that both remained separate roads. 

I have wondered about this knowing that US 22 has interchanges at both PA 934 and PA 72 in Lebanon County.  US 22 has no interchanges in Dauphin County east of I-83. 
In theory, you might think that I-81 would have connected back to its current alignment somewhere between Mountain Rd (Exit 72) and PA 39 (Exit 77) had it followed US 22 west of I-78.
I am obviously just speculating since I have not done any true research on this.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: BrianP on February 23, 2018, 07:04:32 PM
It looks like after WWII US 22 was being replaced with a new location 4 lane highway from Paxtonia to the east. AFAICT Jonestown Road is the original US 22.  The 1951 historical aerial shows this new highway ending at today's exit 15.  The thing I saw to note was that at the location where US 22 and I-78 split is where the width of the ROW changes.  East of there the ROW is larger.  I think the narrow ROW west of the split is why I-78 was routed on a new alignment.  The question as to why the ROW changes still goes back to the original question.  Was that due to the change in county / district? Or was it due to something else like new highway standards? But were districts allowed to have different standards?  I would have thought the state would have standards that would be used in the construction of a state road.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on February 23, 2018, 08:29:15 PM
Building on what has already been observed above...

Yes, from what I can tell, US 22 followed Jonestown Road from the split with Allentown Boulevard at Paxtonia eastward through borough of Jonestown. Jonestown Road is a rather narrow two-laner with numerous homes and barns along its length—with buildings sometimes five feet from the edge (https://goo.gl/maps/JUyZPUySeaD2) of its almost shoulderless pavement. I can easily imagine it being a fairly dangerous stretch as the primary artery linking Harrisburg and Allentown—and by extension, New York and Pittsburgh.

With the Lebanon County section of US 22 having been constructed in 1946, so soon after the end of WWII, it could have been a badly needed project that had been deferred and deferred over a decade of depression and war. And it appears that the PDH, dealing with what resources it had at the time, basically aimed to satisfy the immediate need and built a divided highway with occasional grade separations—without considering that the road would eventually be part of a Interstate corridor on which complete grade separation and control of access would be mandatory.

The Berks County sections were built later—in some cases a decade or more (mostly ’55-’59). The PDH was able to either plan for complete control of access and grade separation from the beginning—or—since the Berks sections were typically even more sparsely populated and less developed, have an easier task cutting off access or converting an intersection into a RIRO (at Grimes).

Aerial photos show that the Dauphin and Lebanon County sections of then-new US 22 already had a fair amount of development along their length by 1955. At that point, it made more sense to use a new alignment for I-81 (and I-78 by extension). And with the existing US 22 passing very close to the village of Fredericksburg with multiple at-grades there, that made a logical “jumping off point”.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: qguy on February 24, 2018, 02:02:55 PM
I believe I was one of those who earlier explained the reason for the I-78 dichotomy on either side of the Lebanon/Berks County line (but I don't feel like looking through my posts).

Like others a saying, it was a PennDOT district thing, not a county thing. The difference in design approach occurred/occurs at the district level within PennDOT, not at the political county level. Local municipalities and counties have input, of course, but the two different districts made different design decisions based on (among other things) the different levels of development which had occurred up to that time in the two different areas.

The immediate vicinity along the ROW of US 22 in District 5-0 (east of the line) was not very developed, but US 22 in District 8-0 (west of the line) was even then heavily developed. I-78 could be "superimposed" upon I-22 in District 5-0, but that was out of the question in District 8-0 and it had to be located on a separate alignment to the north.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on February 24, 2018, 03:46:54 PM
One thing I will say PDH and later PennDOT did a great job in keeping signals off of Allentown Blvd for the longest time.  IT may be why PA 934 and PA 72 have interchanges as those two were major arteries intersecting.  Up until 1980 or 1981, there were absolutely no signals east of Paxtonia and Linglestown Road had a warning flasher going WB into the intersection as the previous signal was way back in New Jersey.  Then about 80 -81 a traffic signal got installed at PA 39 near Manada Hill.   Then for the longest time, that signal remained US 22's easternmost signal in PA as even PA 743 had just two flour way single section beacons suspended from a span wire, but no operational signal. 

I believe the signal at PA 743 was installed in the mid 90's, or maybe even early 90's.  The same goes for PA 343 which now has a signal.

Also most of US 22 in both Dauphin and Lebanon Counties had a posted speed limit of 55 mph.  It was at PA 39 it dropped down to 50 going toward Harrisburg, and even in Fredericksburg it was 55 when I used it in 1985.   The 40 zone could have been added anytime in the last 30 years, but when exactly I do not know.   it was basically 55 from Wilson all the way to PA 39.  The last time I drove it I saw 50 mph almost on all of it from the 40 drop to Paxtonia and then lower west into Harrisburg.

So it really was an expressway to start with built with minimal intersections and no lights east of the Harrisburg metro area.  I assume that US 22 in Berks had no signals either and that cloverleaf at PA 61 always was there as well.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 24, 2018, 04:12:37 PM
Also most of US 22 in both Dauphin and Lebanon Counties had a posted speed limit of 55 mph.  It was at PA 39 it dropped down to 50 going toward Harrisburg, and even in Fredericksburg it was 55 when I used it in 1985.   The 40 zone could have been added anytime in the last 30 years, but when exactly I do not know.   it was basically 55 from Wilson all the way to PA 39.  The last time I drove it I saw 50 mph almost on all of it from the 40 drop to Paxtonia and then lower west into Harrisburg.

Actually last I remember US 22 was raised back to 50 in the Fredericksburg area.  I know that it may be reduced at the moment due to a bridge project going on at the eastern PA 343 intersection that may be complete now.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on February 26, 2018, 03:00:26 PM
I saw an old map of PA and noticed that prior to both I-78 and I-81, PA 343 went further and connected to PA 443 near Fort Indiantown Gap.  In addition PA 72 went further north of Lickdale and even used what is now PA 272 south of Lancaster. 

Also PA 183, was originally PA 83 and it went further south of Reading.   Even PA 61 and part of PA 10 was US 122 as there was plenty of route numbered differently prior to the interstate system.  Although PA 83 and I-83 both coexisted as the York- Harrisburg Expressway was both the interstate of today and US 111 concurrent.  I-83 between the Eisenhower interchange and US 22 was Bypass US 230 and through Camp Hill there was also and ALT US 11 that is no longer commissioned.

Interesting to see PA in the 1950's.
Title: PA-401
Post by: wilbur_the_goose on February 27, 2018, 02:09:23 PM
I think I've discovered the Pennsylvania state highway with the worst road surface:  PA-401 in western Chester County.

This stretch of road has a junction with PA-345.   It has many very deep potholes and the entire center/middle of the roadway is destroyed because some genius decided to carve in rumble strips 3-4 years ago.    Those rumble strips have become foot-wide linear potholes.

PennDot doesn't really do anything to maintain this road - concerns go unresolved and the road gets worse and worse.   The real issue is overgrown trees near the highway that results in a situation where little sun hits the road surface.   That results in a bad freeze/thaw cycle that destroys the road.

Any suggestion on how we can get PennDOT to actually pay attention to this dangerous highway?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: briantroutman on February 27, 2018, 02:53:47 PM
^ I’m surprised to read that assessment because PA 401—with its very low traffic volumes and occasional sudden bends and dips—was one of my reliable “fun drives” when I lived in West Chester several years ago. It was remarkably smooth then. I was on it again last fall, and while not as smooth as it used to be, it was very far from being “the worst road surface in Pennsylvania”. Perhaps the 2017-2018 winter season has taken a considerable toll on the pavement—I’ll have to check it out.

And as to “some genius” carving rumble strips in the center—it’s not as if this was the work of some over-zealous PennDOT peon with a milling machine and too much time on his hands. It’s part of a concerted statewide program to mill rumble strips onto the centerlines of roads that have a history of head-on collisions. FHWA testing has demonstrated a significant reduction in serious accidents as a result of this practice—as much as a 50% reduction in serious collisions on rural roads. While I’ll admit that it can be annoying on narrow roads where you’re frequently rubbing against either the center or edge line, I think it’s a relatively minor price to pay if lives are saved.

But as to getting action—that area is a part of District 6, and you could contact the district office in King of Prussia directly. On the District 6 website (http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-6/Pages/default.aspx), they suggest reporting pothole and road repair issues to the statewide hotline (1-800-FIX-ROAD), and you could do that as well. I don’t think it would do any harm to contact the district office directly, though.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Beltway on February 27, 2018, 02:56:20 PM
I think I've discovered the Pennsylvania state highway with the worst road surface:  PA-401 in western Chester County.
PennDOT to actually pay attention to this dangerous highway?

That road was a disaster back when I lived in the KoP area back in the 1970s.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: vdeane on February 27, 2018, 08:17:08 PM
I imagine that the very low traffic volumes makes it a low priority for PennDOT to repair, which would explain the poor condition.  The description of the center makes it sound like PennDOT installed the CARDS without a resurfacing, which doesn't work well and can cause that kind of damage.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on February 27, 2018, 08:35:46 PM
US 22 in Lebanon County could have probably been upgraded if they really wanted to, but even if they did, that section of 22 was always narrower than the section in Berks County. The reason the median is such a good width on a road that old is because that part of 22 originally had a narrow grass median. If they had upgraded 22 in Lebanon County, it would be as bad as I-70 from Washington to New Stanton.

According to Street View, it seems the 55 mph zones were brought back with the recent reconstructions from PA 39 to I-78. It drops to 50 around Fredericksburg. It is, or at least was in 2012, still 40 mph from 343 to I-78 even after it was reconstructed a decade ago. Is this section now 50 mph as well?

Also, does anyone know of any plans to reconstruct any more of 22 west of 39? It's been upgraded well enough over the years west of Blue Ribbon Ave, but east of there it still has a narrow guard rail median, and even some places where turning lanes were added by simply removing the median and striping one in. This is definitely the worst section remaining between 83 and 78 in terms of design standards.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: roadman65 on March 03, 2018, 11:23:20 PM
I remember when US 22 had the old concrete rumble strip median as that was common on many PA multilane highways.  Even though its really an undivided roadway, Rand McNally and other map makers drew it all as a divided highway though.

I also remember US 22 through Fredericksburg had a concrete surface just as it did in Berks County before the stretch from the I-78/ US 22 split to the Schuykill River did before it was upgraded to interstate quality in 1978.  Of course the section east of Hamburg all the way to Easton still has many concrete surface areas, so I imagine before I-78 it was all concrete from Fredericksburg to Easton.

In fact many PA highways and even in New Jersey were concrete back in the 50's, 60's. and 70's including the PA Turnpike.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on March 04, 2018, 08:37:08 AM
Why does this pedestrian bridge stairway leading down to PA 51 have a security checkpoint?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4593643,-80.0469888,3a,60y,275.99h,94.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stH9wzuu8cgxCk-rAFHSaNA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Is it strictly for employees to access the power station on Brunot Island out there in the Ohio River?

ixnay


Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Mr_Northside on March 06, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Why does this pedestrian bridge stairway leading down to PA 51 have a security checkpoint?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4593643,-80.0469888,3a,60y,275.99h,94.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stH9wzuu8cgxCk-rAFHSaNA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Is it strictly for employees to access the power station on Brunot Island out there in the Ohio River?

ixnay

Yup.  Walking across the railroad bridge (which is restricted), or by boat  (I know the north banks has a ramp they can use to ferry vehicles via boat to the island)  are the only way on the island (home to just a big Duquesne Light substation, and a Power generation facility that's only active during real high-demand times) - and unused land.   
I live less than a mile from the island (though on the other side of the Ohio than Rt. 51), and have wondered if being on ANY of the island would be considered trespassing (obviously the substation & plant are private property) -  but as I have no boat or raft, or plans to get one, the point seems moot.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: J N Winkler on March 06, 2018, 10:26:30 PM
Yup.  Walking across the railroad bridge (which is restricted), or by boat  (I know the north banks has a ramp they can use to ferry vehicles via boat to the island)  are the only way on the island (home to just a big Duquesne Light substation, and a Power generation facility that's only active during real high-demand times) - and unused land.   I live less than a mile from the island (though on the other side of the Ohio than Rt. 51), and have wondered if being on ANY of the island would be considered trespassing (obviously the substation & plant are private property) -  but as I have no boat or raft, or plans to get one, the point seems moot.

A 2003 piece in a local alternative paper (https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/we-take-brunot-in-the-morning/Content?oid=1335250) says that it was not then posted against trespassers, but Reliant Energy owned nearly the entire island and was not interested in accommodating visitors except on an ad hoc basis.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: VTGoose on March 07, 2018, 10:22:36 AM

Yup.  Walking across the railroad bridge (which is restricted), or by boat  (I know the north banks has a ramp they can use to ferry vehicles via boat to the island)  are the only way on the island (home to just a big Duquesne Light substation, and a Power generation facility that's only active during real high-demand times) - and unused land.   
I live less than a mile from the island (though on the other side of the Ohio than Rt. 51), and have wondered if being on ANY of the island would be considered trespassing (obviously the substation & plant are private property) -  but as I have no boat or raft, or plans to get one, the point seems moot.

Straying a little bit away from roads, but there used to be a major coal-fired generating plant on the island operated by Duquesne Light (companion to the one that used to exist down the river in South Heights). Both were fueled by coal delivered by river barge. If one looks in McKees Rocks at River Avenue, next to Sue's Bait is the remnant of the ramp that was used to move vehicles to the island (https://goo.gl/maps/j8WCp9ewGgD2). It's also interesting to look at the Google view of the island and see "Brunots Island Trail" tags on remnants of roads around where the power plant once stood.

Bruce in Blacksburg (but a native of the 'Burgh -- Moon Township)
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Nanis on March 11, 2018, 09:53:23 PM
I wish 63 was rerouted to extend it.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Nanis on March 11, 2018, 10:42:29 PM
I wish 63 was rerouted to extend it.
Although now that I think about it, that might not be a good idea. Also on the list of shit ideas: bringing back the original alignment of PA 167 as a different state route
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 12, 2018, 02:43:45 PM
N.Y. Times: In Erie, One City Block Is a Trek of Disrespect - A decaying bridge has ignited a debate over how a struggling city treats some of its poorer residents. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/us/erie-mcbride-viaduct.html)

Quote
When the viaduct opened in the late 1930s, the city was growing. The bridge, renovated in the 1970s, was an emblem of local pride and progress. It funneled traffic through what were at the time thriving neighborhoods.

Quote
Then the factories started disappearing. The viaduct’s largely German, Polish and Irish district became home to increasing numbers of blacks, Latinos and refugees from Africa and the Middle East, whose arrivals have slowed the city’s population decline.

Quote
On one level, the story of the bridge is a microcosm of America’s crumbling infrastructure. Questions about where to spend the city’s limited resources touch on familiar themes about the failures of urban renewal and today’s widening income gap.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on March 12, 2018, 06:07:59 PM
N.Y. Times: In Erie, One City Block Is a Trek of Disrespect - A decaying bridge has ignited a debate over how a struggling city treats some of its poorer residents. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/us/erie-mcbride-viaduct.html)

Quote
When the viaduct opened in the late 1930s, the city was growing. The bridge, renovated in the 1970s, was an emblem of local pride and progress. It funneled traffic through what were at the time thriving neighborhoods.

Quote
Then the factories started disappearing. The viaduct’s largely German, Polish and Irish district became home to increasing numbers of blacks, Latinos and refugees from Africa and the Middle East, whose arrivals have slowed the city’s population decline.

Quote
On one level, the story of the bridge is a microcosm of America’s crumbling infrastructure. Questions about where to spend the city’s limited resources touch on familiar themes about the failures of urban renewal and today’s widening income gap.
Umm.. the Bayfront Connector was specifically designed to replace this viaduct. You have the same neighborhood access. even for bikes/peds, a block away. The solution here is to demolish the old bridge. It doesn't merit a story. Pure agenda.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Beltway on March 12, 2018, 07:06:54 PM
Umm.. the Bayfront Connector was specifically designed to replace this viaduct. You have the same neighborhood access. even for bikes/peds, a block away. The solution here is to demolish the old bridge. It doesn't merit a story. Pure agenda.

Are there any plans to widen the Bayfront Parkway to 4 lanes divided throughout?
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: seicer on March 13, 2018, 02:09:17 PM
I'm not sure there is that much demand for four lanes divided. And with recent developments along the waterfront abutting the roadway, it's not likely that any widening can realistically occur.

And I do agree with Steve. This article is fluff. A replacement was built literally to the immediate west and it was just a matter of time before this bridge would cease to exist - like countless others across the nation. These types of hit pieces is why I have grown distrustful of media. It's not news reporting but opinion pieces.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on March 14, 2018, 10:45:53 AM
But... feels!
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on March 18, 2018, 08:20:20 AM
These button copies were at the Blvd. of the Allies feeder into the Parkway East in July 2017.  Are they still there?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4365378,-79.9738156,3a,30y,83.4h,94.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDpadbUqr9iSsok3VP4N6_g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Roadsguy on March 19, 2018, 12:00:41 PM
Spotted this (https://goo.gl/maps/CGoiBpLLKy52) old signage near the Lehigh Valley Airport, featuring button copy as well as an ancient, peeling PA 987 shield that likely originally sat next to an I-78 shield rather than the current, much newer "To US 22" assembly.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Nanis on March 25, 2018, 11:31:54 PM
Spotted this (https://goo.gl/maps/CGoiBpLLKy52) old signage near the Lehigh Valley Airport, featuring button copy as well as an ancient, peeling PA 987 shield that likely originally sat next to an I-78 shield rather than the current, much newer "To US 22" assembly.
reminds me of the old PA 132 Street road sign I always see near Roosevelt Boulevard and the turnpike.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1280828,-74.9693603,3a,75y,61.27h,112.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so3q5czo66H6SAstFmqMOlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It still says racetrack.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: BrianP on March 26, 2018, 05:53:46 PM
The state no longer owns Centralia's 'Graffiti Highway.' Who does? (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2018/02/centralias_graffiti_highway_no.html)
Quote
The pavement and graffiti are still there, but a section of what was state Route 61 in the Centralia area no longer belongs to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.

The agency this week vacated what is known as the "Graffiti Highway," most of which is in Conyngham Twp., allowing ownership to revert to adjacent property owners.

When PennDOT vacates a right-of-way, ownership of a property goes to owners of adjoining properties. In this case, that is mostly the Pitreal Corp., a subsidiary of Pagnotti Enterprises of Wilkes-Barre, Wenner said.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: MNHighwayMan on March 26, 2018, 06:19:53 PM
Hope that doesn't mean access to the old roadway will be closed off.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: BrianP on March 26, 2018, 06:47:12 PM
Accessing the old road was considered tresspassing:
Quote
PennDOT, concerned about safety because of large cracks in the surface caused by the fire, posted no trespass signs. When they were ignored, state police last year began issuing citations and warnings.
Now it is up to the owners of the land to decide. 
Quote
With the change in ownership, state police will no longer issue citations and warnings for trespassing, unless that's sought by the new owners, PennDOT said.
With the danger of cracks and possible collapses it would be legally foolish to allow access to the old highway.  There would probably not need to be enforcement of the no trespassing since the owner would probably not be liable if someone was injured while trespassing on the land.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: seicer on March 26, 2018, 10:27:13 PM
Eh, it's been an overblown tourist trap for years. The entire roadway isn't dangerous and is practically covered in graffiti, hence the nickname. The cracks in the roadway are decades old at this point and are no longer smoking. The underground fire has moved considerably far away and I'm not sure how much of it is burning anymore. The smoke that used to be so evident over the area is barely even noticeable anymore.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2018, 10:39:18 PM
Eh, it's been an overblown tourist trap for years. The entire roadway isn't dangerous and is practically covered in graffiti, hence the nickname. The cracks in the roadway are decades old at this point and are no longer smoking. The underground fire has moved considerably far away and I'm not sure how much of it is burning anymore. The smoke that used to be so evident over the area is barely even noticeable anymore.

Cheapest tourist trap ever. Where's the gift shop??
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: seicer on March 26, 2018, 10:39:52 PM
Look down in the crack hard enough and you'll find out :D
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Alps on March 27, 2018, 12:32:10 AM
Eh, it's been an overblown tourist trap for years. The entire roadway isn't dangerous and is practically covered in graffiti, hence the nickname. The cracks in the roadway are decades old at this point and are no longer smoking. The underground fire has moved considerably far away and I'm not sure how much of it is burning anymore. The smoke that used to be so evident over the area is barely even noticeable anymore.
There are wisps of smoke, but yeah, it's moved on. In 20 years Ashland may need to relocate back up to Centralia.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 27, 2018, 06:05:09 AM
Last time I was in Centralia - 5 years ago or so - I was amazed at how much of a forest it had became.  Unlike my first trip many years prior, there were no noticeable scents and smells.  It was like driving thru an eerie landscape of a city-like street grid system with barely any houses, cars or anything else.  The streets were narrowed a bit by the new brush.  Some were completely undriveable. The few homeowners that remained had nice lush lawns.  The fire has clearly moved on, and left in its wake an abandoned land that nature quickly reclaimed.

Anytime someone sees a story about Centralia today is being told that via an author that is taking pictures and descriptions of Centralia from 20 or 25 years ago, and who hasn't set foot out of their bedroom, much less actually visit the place on their own. 
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 07, 2018, 08:13:16 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/boqNl6L.jpg)

US Route 30 (Lincoln Highway) collapsing in a landslide near East Pittsburgh & North Braddock, Pennsylvania. View from John Smallwood. (April 7, 2018)

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018/04/07/apartment-collapses-near-route-30-landslide/
http://www.wtae.com/article/residents-being-evacuated-after-apartment-building-collapse-near-route-30/19709050
https://www.wpxi.com/news/top-stories/residents-evacuated-after-apartment-building-collapses-near-route-30/728635034
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Nanis on April 14, 2018, 11:34:39 PM
oh no
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 14, 2018, 11:49:14 PM
oh no

Oh yes. Mother Nature has decided you're no longer deserving of US-30. Now go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on April 15, 2018, 04:44:09 AM
What a lot of people don't realize is that many of the "hills" in the Pittsburgh area aren't actually hills. They're escarpments, which are much steeper and more unstable geologically. Landslides are a major problem in the Pittsburgh area because of them.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on April 15, 2018, 08:07:05 AM
What a lot of people don't realize is that many of the "hills" in the Pittsburgh area aren't actually hills. They're escarpments, which are much steeper and more unstable geologically. Landslides are a major problem in the Pittsburgh area because of them.

IOW the PGH area has the North and South Escarpments, not Hills. :) As for landslides, I remember hearing about them in the wake of winter snow and rain storms this past winter, via KDKA, which I can get in my car during the winter in the region where I live, due in part to my evening commuting schedule most nights.

How frequent are Pittsburgh area landslides?  And are they a common occurrence in, say, West Virginia or anyplace else east of the Great Plains?

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: ixnay on April 15, 2018, 08:10:08 AM
oh no

Oh yes. Mother Nature has decided you're no longer deserving of US-30. Now go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

What's the over/under on days/weeks/months before http://www.pahighways.com/us/US30.html is updated to mention this near tragedy?  That page was last updated on 11.27.2015.

ixnay
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Bitmapped on April 15, 2018, 11:32:45 AM
What a lot of people don't realize is that many of the "hills" in the Pittsburgh area aren't actually hills. They're escarpments, which are much steeper and more unstable geologically. Landslides are a major problem in the Pittsburgh area because of them.

IOW the PGH area has the North and South Escarpments, not Hills. :) As for landslides, I remember hearing about them in the wake of winter snow and rain storms this past winter, via KDKA, which I can get in my car during the winter in the region where I live, due in part to my evening commuting schedule most nights.

How frequent are Pittsburgh area landslides?  And are they a common occurrence in, say, West Virginia or anyplace else east of the Great Plains?

ixnay

The US 30 case is much larger than normal, but slips are very common in terrain like what is found in WV or most of PA. If you get soil on a steep enough grade wet enough, it's going to want to slide.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 15, 2018, 11:37:04 AM
oh no
Oh yes. Mother Nature has decided you're no longer deserving of US-30. Now go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.
What's the over/under on days/weeks/months before http://www.pahighways.com/us/US30.html is updated to mention this near tragedy?  That page was last updated on 11.27.2015.

My god, that is a webpage straight out of the late 90s. I'm surprised that its last update was only 2½ years ago.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: Gnutella on April 16, 2018, 04:05:07 AM
What a lot of people don't realize is that many of the "hills" in the Pittsburgh area aren't actually hills. They're escarpments, which are much steeper and more unstable geologically. Landslides are a major problem in the Pittsburgh area because of them.

IOW the PGH area has the North and South Escarpments, not Hills. :) As for landslides, I remember hearing about them in the wake of winter snow and rain storms this past winter, via KDKA, which I can get in my car during the winter in the region where I live, due in part to my evening commuting schedule most nights.

How frequent are Pittsburgh area landslides?  And are they a common occurrence in, say, West Virginia or anyplace else east of the Great Plains?

ixnay

They're frequent enough to be a pain in the ass. It seems like a major non-Interstate highway gets buried by them every five years or so. When I was looking up the various landslides on PA 28 over the years, these were the search results I got (https://www.bing.com/search?q=pa%2028%20pittsburgh%20landslide%20rockslide&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=pa%2028%20pittsburgh%20landslide%20rockslide&sc=0-30&sk=&cvid=BDF946CE9FF84E3786DFB39298B906A1). To get another idea, here's a look at PA 28 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5195775,-79.8531239,3a,75y,335.53h,82.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAseQMktCsc0bVoCng2Wbcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) passing near the Allegheny River in Harmar Township. What makes the U.S. 30 landslide different is that the land fell out from under it, and the highway collapsed. That doesn't seem to happen as often as a landslide coming down on top of a highway.

I imagine that the worst-case scenario in the Pittsburgh area would be if there was a landslide that collapses the Boulevard of the Allies down onto I-376 east of downtown Pittsburgh. Getting into Pittsburgh from the east would only be possible via PA 28 or various surface streets like Penn Avenue, Liberty Avenue, Bigelow Boulevard, Fifth Avenue and Forbes Avenue. I would say that a landslide over the Fort Pitt Tunnel on the Fort Pitt Bridge side would be even worse, but the tunnel appears to protrude on that side, so it seems less susceptible.
Title: Re: Pennsylvania
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 16, 2018, 06:19:05 AM