Pennsylvania

[Roadsguy]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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?

[vdeane]

NY also does that with one and two digit state routes, but again, there are a zillion exceptions.

[Roadsguy]

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.

[empirestate]

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.

[jemacedo9]

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

[vdeane]

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.

[empirestate]

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.

[briantroutman]

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.

[jemacedo9]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

[Ian]

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!

[briantroutman]

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.

[Ian]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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. 

[briantroutman]

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?

[74/171FAN]

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 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.  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.

[qguy]

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!

[jemacedo9]

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.

[briantroutman]

...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, 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.

[74/171FAN]

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.

[thenetwork]

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'..

[jemacedo9]

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. 

[jemacedo9]

...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, 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.

[Bitmapped]

...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, 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.