Pennsylvania

[74/171FAN]

You can add US 30 at PA 94 (both directions) north of Hanover as well.


In other news, the speed limit on the US 222 Trexlertown Bypass has been raised from 45 to 55.  It reduces back to 45 NB right at the Brookside Rd overpass.

[Roadsguy]

You can add US 30 at PA 94 (both directions) north of Hanover as well.

Huh, there's only one standard through signal for PA 94 in each direction. Northbound 94 has the right-turn doghouse, which is functionally a second through signal, but PennDOT typically adds right-turn doghouses in addition to the two through signals, not replacing one. Southbound 94 straight-up has just one standard signal.

Looking at the old Street View, this seems to have been due to blindly replacing the old doghouses with FYA signals, even though the left-turn doghouses on 94 were in place of one of the through signals as is standard in PA for having only one through lane.

[Crown Victoria]

In other news, the speed limit on the US 222 Trexlertown Bypass has been raised from 45 to 55.  It reduces back to 45 NB right at the Brookside Rd overpass.

That's a little closer to how fast everyone's actually driving on that road...

[Alps]

In other news, the speed limit on the US 222 Trexlertown Bypass has been raised from 45 to 55.  It reduces back to 45 NB right at the Brookside Rd overpass.

That's a little closer to how fast everyone's actually driving on that road...

I'd rather have it unenforced at 45 than enforced at 55.

[Roadsguy]

Was the two-lane PA 100 portion of the bypass left at 45 or was it also raised to 55? Also, does southbound 222 increase to 55 right after the Kressler Road light or only after the Brookside Road bridge?

[74/171FAN]

Was the two-lane PA 100 portion of the bypass left at 45 or was it also raised to 55? Also, does southbound 222 increase to 55 right after the Kressler Road light or only after the Brookside Road bridge?

The PA 100 portion was 45 south of Weilers Rd/Schaefer Run Rd, but the part from there to US 222 (basically the ramps) were 55.

I am pretty sure the US 222 SB speed limit increased to 55 at the Brookside Rd bridge as well.

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

I honestly wonder why 222 isn't just a full freeway between Lancaster and Allentown. It's a pretty high-priority corridor if I'm not mistaken. Maybe 176 could be extended along the 222 freeway if upgrades are ever done.

[PHLBOS]

I honestly wonder why 222 isn't just a full freeway between Lancaster and Allentown. It's a pretty high-priority corridor if I'm not mistaken.

As with one old-plan of the entire PA portion of US 202 being an expressway; similar may have been true for US 222 between Lancaster & Allentown was probably planned & proposed but didn't get off the ground due to either lack of funding and/or NIMBY opposition.

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

I honestly wonder why 222 isn't just a full freeway between Lancaster and Allentown. It's a pretty high-priority corridor if I'm not mistaken.

As with one old-plan of the entire PA portion of US 202 being an expressway; similar may have been true for US 222 between Lancaster & Allentown was probably planned & proposed but didn't get off the ground due to either lack of funding and/or NIMBY opposition.

It simply brings me shame that the 3rd and 5th-largest cities in Pennsylvania do not have an expressway connecting them. Someone else said on a thread about non-Interstates carrying Interstate-level traffic that 222 was a major choke-point. Why is a connection between Reading and the Turnpike necessary, but not the Turnpike and the Lehigh Valley?

I'm not that familiar with the Reading area, but Kutztown had enough traffic to warrant a freeway bypass. Why not upgrade it in Blandon or Breinigsville? Or plain old Allentown?

[Roadsguy]

Why is a connection between Reading and the Turnpike necessary, but not the Turnpike and the Lehigh Valley?

Because no one on the Turnpike would use 222 to get to Allentown even if it were all freeway. From Harrisburg and west, you'd use I-81 and I-78, and from the Philadelphia area, you'd use the Northeast Extension. Completing the 222 expressway is needed, but only because of its high traffic volumes as the only link to get from Lancaster and Reading to Allentown. Completing it would even be a shortcut for traffic from Baltimore to avoid Philadelphia or Harrisburg.

I don't know if there was any significant NIMBY opposition to completing 222, but it's definitely a funding issue, which was explicitly stated as the reason for why the most recent studies were dropped in favor or just widening the existing road (which is still going to take forever).

[Crown Victoria]

Why is a connection between Reading and the Turnpike necessary, but not the Turnpike and the Lehigh Valley?

Because no one on the Turnpike would use 222 to get to Allentown even if it were all freeway. From Harrisburg and west, you'd use I-81 and I-78, and from the Philadelphia area, you'd use the Northeast Extension. Completing the 222 expressway is needed, but only because of its high traffic volumes as the only link to get from Lancaster and Reading to Allentown. Completing it would even be a shortcut for traffic from Baltimore to avoid Philadelphia or Harrisburg.

I don't know if there was any significant NIMBY opposition to completing 222, but it's definitely a funding issue, which was explicitly stated as the reason for why the most recent studies were dropped in favor or just widening the existing road (which is still going to take forever).

I honestly wonder why 222 isn't just a full freeway between Lancaster and Allentown. It's a pretty high-priority corridor if I'm not mistaken.

As with one old-plan of the entire PA portion of US 202 being an expressway; similar may have been true for US 222 between Lancaster & Allentown was probably planned & proposed but didn't get off the ground due to either lack of funding and/or NIMBY opposition.

It simply brings me shame that the 3rd and 5th-largest cities in Pennsylvania do not have an expressway connecting them. Someone else said on a thread about non-Interstates carrying Interstate-level traffic that 222 was a major choke-point. Why is a connection between Reading and the Turnpike necessary, but not the Turnpike and the Lehigh Valley?

I'm not that familiar with the Reading area, but Kutztown had enough traffic to warrant a freeway bypass. Why not upgrade it in Blandon or Breinigsville? Or plain old Allentown?

Believe me, a lot of us in Berks County and the Lehigh Valley would like no less than a 222 freeway. There's plenty of traffic to support that.  However, that's not happening anytime soon, and neither is the widening that was planned.  PennDOT is shifting funding from non-Interstate projects to the Interstates. The only improvements that will still happen are roundabouts at the major intersections (except at Route 73 which keeps traffic lights).  I can say that the roundabout at PA 662 has helped, but the entire road needs widening ASAP.

[jemacedo9]

Why is a connection between Reading and the Turnpike necessary, but not the Turnpike and the Lehigh Valley?

Because no one on the Turnpike would use 222 to get to Allentown even if it were all freeway. From Harrisburg and west, you'd use I-81 and I-78, and from the Philadelphia area, you'd use the Northeast Extension. Completing the 222 expressway is needed, but only because of its high traffic volumes as the only link to get from Lancaster and Reading to Allentown. Completing it would even be a shortcut for traffic from Baltimore to avoid Philadelphia or Harrisburg.

I don't know if there was any significant NIMBY opposition to completing 222, but it's definitely a funding issue, which was explicitly stated as the reason for why the most recent studies were dropped in favor or just widening the existing road (which is still going to take forever).

I honestly wonder why 222 isn't just a full freeway between Lancaster and Allentown. It's a pretty high-priority corridor if I'm not mistaken.

As with one old-plan of the entire PA portion of US 202 being an expressway; similar may have been true for US 222 between Lancaster & Allentown was probably planned & proposed but didn't get off the ground due to either lack of funding and/or NIMBY opposition.

It simply brings me shame that the 3rd and 5th-largest cities in Pennsylvania do not have an expressway connecting them. Someone else said on a thread about non-Interstates carrying Interstate-level traffic that 222 was a major choke-point. Why is a connection between Reading and the Turnpike necessary, but not the Turnpike and the Lehigh Valley?

I'm not that familiar with the Reading area, but Kutztown had enough traffic to warrant a freeway bypass. Why not upgrade it in Blandon or Breinigsville? Or plain old Allentown?

Believe me, a lot of us in Berks County and the Lehigh Valley would like no less than a 222 freeway. There's plenty of traffic to support that.  However, that's not happening anytime soon, and neither is the widening that was planned.  PennDOT is shifting funding from non-Interstate projects to the Interstates. The only improvements that will still happen are roundabouts at the major intersections (except at Route 73 which keeps traffic lights).  I can say that the roundabout at PA 662 has helped, but the entire road needs widening ASAP.

If I remember correctly, US 222 in that section (PA 73 to PA 100) has the highest AADT of any 2-lane road in the state, peaking at 27K.  There are a lot of commuters in that section of Berks County who work in the Lehigh Valley. Something needs to be done for sure.

[Beltway]

If I remember correctly, US 222 in that section (PA 73 to PA 100) has the highest AADT of any 2-lane road in the state, peaking at 27K.  There are a lot of commuters in that section of Berks County who work in the Lehigh Valley. Something needs to be done for sure.

The 2-lane parts should at least be a 4-lane arterial highway.

A freeway bypass would be a lot more expensive to build.

[roadman65]

If I remember correctly, US 222 in that section (PA 73 to PA 100) has the highest AADT of any 2-lane road in the state, peaking at 27K.  There are a lot of commuters in that section of Berks County who work in the Lehigh Valley. Something needs to be done for sure.

The 2-lane parts should at least be a 4-lane arterial highway.
A freeway bypass would be a lot more expensive to build.

Back in 1980 I remember a house with a clipped corner along the route.  Rather than tear the house down when a part of it was widened they just tore a piece of it off instead.  It looked weird.  Is that house still there 40 years later?

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

Does it bug anyone that I-376 isn't signed N-S, despite that being its general direction? The opposite goes for PA 60, which I-376 supplanted.

In addition, the continuation of 376 north of I-80 should be PA 376, not PA 760.

[sbeaver44]

Does it bug anyone that I-376 isn't signed N-S, despite that being its general direction? The opposite goes for PA 60, which I-376 supplanted.

yes, actually.

[Alps]

Does it bug anyone that I-376 isn't signed N-S, despite that being its general direction? The opposite goes for PA 60, which I-376 supplanted.

In addition, the continuation of 376 north of I-80 should be PA 376, not PA 760.

In addition, since I-376 is now a loop from I-80 to I-76, it should be renumbered I-876, 280, or 880.

[Beltway]

Does it bug anyone that I-376 isn't signed N-S, despite that being its general direction? The opposite goes for PA 60, which I-376 supplanted.
In addition, the continuation of 376 north of I-80 should be PA 376, not PA 760.

In addition, since I-376 is now a loop from I-80 to I-76, it should be renumbered I-876, 280, or 880.

It ends at I-80 at the northern end, crosses I-76 south of there, and ends at I-76 at the southern/eastern end.

I have suggested utilizing I-480 for the whole route.

[ixnay]

Does it bug anyone that I-376 isn't signed N-S, despite that being its general direction? The opposite goes for PA 60, which I-376 supplanted.
In addition, the continuation of 376 north of I-80 should be PA 376, not PA 760.

In addition, since I-376 is now a loop from I-80 to I-76, it should be renumbered I-876, 280, or 880.

It ends at I-80 at the northern end, crosses I-76 south of there, and ends at I-76 at the southern/eastern end.

I have suggested utilizing I-480 for the whole route.

And confuse Allegheny Countians even more?      East of (current) I-79 that part alone has been I-70, 76, 79, 279, as well as 376 at various times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_376

ixnay

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

Does it bug anyone that I-376 isn't signed N-S, despite that being its general direction? The opposite goes for PA 60, which I-376 supplanted.
In addition, the continuation of 376 north of I-80 should be PA 376, not PA 760.

In addition, since I-376 is now a loop from I-80 to I-76, it should be renumbered I-876, 280, or 880.

It ends at I-80 at the northern end, crosses I-76 south of there, and ends at I-76 at the southern/eastern end.

I have suggested utilizing I-480 for the whole route.

And confuse Allegheny Countians even more?      East of (current) I-79 that part alone has been I-70, 76, 79, 279, as well as 376 at various times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_376

ixnay

So yeah, 376 should be 376. No doubt. Just flip the direction of signage and you'll be fine.
Also, for some reason I think that 576 should be N-S upon completion too, although it does travel more NW-SE. What would 43 be as an Interstate designation? 776? 168?

[PAHighways]

And confuse Allegheny Countians even more?      East of (current) I-79 that part alone has been I-70, 76, 79, 279, as well as 376 at various times.

Pittsburghers just call it "the Parkway" no matter its route designations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_376

I'm partial to this page.

[PHLBOS]

Does it bug anyone that I-376 isn't signed N-S, despite that being its general direction? The opposite goes for PA 60, which I-376 supplanted.

In addition, the continuation of 376 north of I-80 should be PA 376, not PA 760.

In addition, since I-376 is now a loop from I-80 to I-76, it should be renumbered I-876, 280, or 880.

As most of us here know, one reason why I-376 is signed E-W was because such was how the original 1972-segment of I-376 from I-279 and eastward was signed.  I-376 taking over the southern leg of I-279 and most of PA 60 has only been a thing of the past decade(?).  Another reason was probably due to the mile markers/interchange numbers along I-376 starting at the northern end and increasing in the southeasterly direction.

That said, PennDOT/PTC could've either made the entire I-376 N-S with those additional miles or simply sign the added stretch N-S and keep the eastern portion E-W.  3-digit interstates changing direction cardinals within a state are indeed allowed in certain instances. 

As far as using a different, even 3-di number for I-376; I agree.  Although I would either choose I-280 or reassign I-276 to that stretch and redesignate the current I-276 as I-876.  Heck, had all the movements of the I-95/276/295 interchange been fully built; I-276 could've become an western extension of I-295 and such would indirectly resolve the awkward E-W signing of I-295 in PA.

I know, the above is fictional territory; so I'll stop here.

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

Does it bug anyone that I-376 isn't signed N-S, despite that being its general direction? The opposite goes for PA 60, which I-376 supplanted.

In addition, the continuation of 376 north of I-80 should be PA 376, not PA 760.

In addition, since I-376 is now a loop from I-80 to I-76, it should be renumbered I-876, 280, or 880.

As most of us here know, one reason why I-376 is signed E-W was because such was how the original 1972-segment of I-376 from I-279 and eastward was signed.  I-376 taking over the southern leg of I-279 and most of PA 60 has only been a thing of the past decade(?).  Another reason was probably due to the mile markers/interchange numbers along I-376 starting at the northern end and increasing in the southeasterly direction.

That said, PennDOT/PTC could've either made the entire I-376 N-S with those additional miles or simply sign the added stretch N-S and keep the eastern portion E-W.  3-digit interstates changing direction cardinals within a state are indeed allowed in certain instances. 

As far as using a different, even 3-di number for I-376; I agree.  Although I would either choose I-280 or reassign I-276 to that stretch and redesignate the current I-276 as I-876.  Heck, had all the movements of the I-95/276/295 interchange been fully built; I-276 could've become an western extension of I-295 and such would indirectly resolved the awkward E-W signing of I-295 in PA.

I know, the above is fictional territory; so I'll stop here.

I'd say I-79 should be the dividing line since EB 376 from there to 279 was former NB 279.

[Alps]

Does it bug anyone that I-376 isn't signed N-S, despite that being its general direction? The opposite goes for PA 60, which I-376 supplanted.

In addition, the continuation of 376 north of I-80 should be PA 376, not PA 760.

In addition, since I-376 is now a loop from I-80 to I-76, it should be renumbered I-876, 280, or 880.

As most of us here know, one reason why I-376 is signed E-W was because such was how the original 1972-segment of I-376 from I-279 and eastward was signed.  I-376 taking over the southern leg of I-279 and most of PA 60 has only been a thing of the past decade(?).  Another reason was probably due to the mile markers/interchange numbers along I-376 starting at the northern end and increasing in the southeasterly direction.

That said, PennDOT/PTC could've either made the entire I-376 N-S with those additional miles or simply sign the added stretch N-S and keep the eastern portion E-W.  3-digit interstates changing direction cardinals within a state are indeed allowed in certain instances. 

As far as using a different, even 3-di number for I-376; I agree.  Although I would either choose I-280 or reassign I-276 to that stretch and redesignate the current I-276 as I-876.  Heck, had all the movements of the I-95/276/295 interchange been fully built; I-276 could've become an western extension of I-295 and such would indirectly resolved the awkward E-W signing of I-295 in PA.

I know, the above is fictional territory; so I'll stop here.

I'd say I-79 should be the dividing line since EB 376 from there to 279 was former NB 279.

I doubt you're going to see this happen because W-E and S-N are both the "zero" direction, so it would be violating exit number convention one way or the other.

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

Does it bug anyone that I-376 isn't signed N-S, despite that being its general direction? The opposite goes for PA 60, which I-376 supplanted.

In addition, the continuation of 376 north of I-80 should be PA 376, not PA 760.

In addition, since I-376 is now a loop from I-80 to I-76, it should be renumbered I-876, 280, or 880.

As most of us here know, one reason why I-376 is signed E-W was because such was how the original 1972-segment of I-376 from I-279 and eastward was signed.  I-376 taking over the southern leg of I-279 and most of PA 60 has only been a thing of the past decade(?).  Another reason was probably due to the mile markers/interchange numbers along I-376 starting at the northern end and increasing in the southeasterly direction.

That said, PennDOT/PTC could've either made the entire I-376 N-S with those additional miles or simply sign the added stretch N-S and keep the eastern portion E-W.  3-digit interstates changing direction cardinals within a state are indeed allowed in certain instances. 

As far as using a different, even 3-di number for I-376; I agree.  Although I would either choose I-280 or reassign I-276 to that stretch and redesignate the current I-276 as I-876.  Heck, had all the movements of the I-95/276/295 interchange been fully built; I-276 could've become an western extension of I-295 and such would indirectly resolved the awkward E-W signing of I-295 in PA.

I know, the above is fictional territory; so I'll stop here.

I'd say I-79 should be the dividing line since EB 376 from there to 279 was former NB 279.

I doubt you're going to see this happen because W-E and S-N are both the "zero" direction, so it would be violating exit number convention one way or the other.

Then let's make it completely S-N. That way, its exit numbers can increase from its parent instead of decreasing to it.