Pennsylvania

[davewiecking]

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)

[VTGoose]

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)

[74/171FAN]

ABC 27:Pa. Senate votes for work-zone speed cameras

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.

[noelbotevera]

ABC 27:Pa. Senate votes for work-zone speed cameras

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"?

[iBallasticwolf2]

ABC 27:Pa. Senate votes for work-zone speed cameras

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.

[VTGoose]

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

[jeffandnicole]

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

[PHLBOS]

Actually; the Baby Boomer generation, as a whole, was the first of the Me First generation.

[qguy]

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.

[Bitmapped]

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.

[Bitmapped]

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.

[seicer]

The Waynesburg ramps shown when they were intact: https://goo.gl/maps/PHkGUNvKL1B2

[CanesFan27]

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. 

[briantroutman]

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)?

[VTGoose]

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):

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[jp the roadgeek]

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.

[Bitmapped]

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

[Mr_Northside]

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.

[CanesFan27]

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.

[davewiecking]

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.

[empirestate]

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!)

[jemacedo9]

...and so, frustrations arise when other drivers constantly fail to meet your expectation of their behavior.

THIS.  All day long THIS.

[J N Winkler]

*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.

[empirestate]

*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