Pennsylvania

[74/171FAN]

PennDOT - District 4 News: PennDOT Invites Public to Comment on I-80 Nescopeck Creek Bridges Project

[74/171FAN]

(For PA 324) PennDOT - District 8 News: Long-term Closure Expected on Route 324 (Marticville Road) in Lancaster County

(For PA 324) PennDOT - District 8 News: Sinkhole Repair Completed on Route 324 (Marticville Road) in Lancaster County

[roadman65]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulSNRf4OC88
Some contractor screwed up here and created icy conditions on US 1 in Philadelphia.

[74/171FAN]

Wikipedia says that PA 235 has an unsigned concurrency with PA 17 and that they both end at US 11/15 in Liverpool

However when I pull the Perry County SLDs dated 12/31/20

Page 213 has SR 0235 ending at SR 0017.   I'd expect this anyway, since, for example, you'll see SR 0015 not really existing in these diagrams (as US 15 is entirely concurrent with US 11 in Perry County, so it will only be SR 0011).  In both cases, if PA 235 actually ended at PA 17, or if it didn't – the SR 0235 designation would end here, as PA 17 is a lower number of the same class, and so even a signed PA 17/235 concurrency would simply bear SR 0017.

Pages 253-254 have SR 0017 between SR 0235 and SR 0011 (US 11/15) but I can't tell how I would read if PA 235 is also existing (but not signed) along here.

Source:

https://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/Bureaus/BOMO/RM/RITS/Annual%20Electronic%20SLDs%20by%20County/District%208/Perry%20Without%20Pipes.pdf


On this note, are there any other weird hidden concurrencies in PA like this?   For the record, I am not talking about not-signed-but-obviously-implied ones like US 30/PA 23 along the Lancaster Bypass, but here – why would PA 235 be extended along PA 17 just to end and not continue after?

I emailed District 8 on this (thankfully because I added a reminder to my phone for an unrelated subject that led me to being reminded of it), and they indicated to me that the PA 17/PA 235 concurrency is a Type 10 Map Error meaning that it does not actually exist.  PA 235 ends at PA 17 as it should.

I emailed District 10 because PA 588 has the same issue.  I got the same answer in that it is a Type 10 Map Error meaning that PA 588 ends at PA 288 instead of being concurrent with PA 288 to US 19/PA 68 in Zelienople.

[74/171FAN]

PennDOT - District 5 News: PennDOT Invites Public to Comment on I-80 Nescopeck Creek Bridges Project

[famartin]

PennDOT - District 5 News: PennDOT Invites Public to Comment on I-80 Nescopeck Creek Bridges Project

PeNNDOT wants to toll everything now, it seems. How exactly is that legal? Seems like a loophole. And yet... they still won't fix Breezewood...

[74/171FAN]

PennDOT - District 10 News: PennDOT District 10 Requesting Construction Project Feedback

(For US 422)PennDOT - District 6 News: U.S. 422 Overnight Closures Begin November 29 for Bridge Construction in Lower Pottsgrove Township

(For PA 18)  PennDOT - District 11 News: PennDOT Announces Virtual Plans Presentation for Route 18 Rochester-Monaca Bridge Preservation Project

[74/171FAN]

(For I-80, US 220, and PA 26) PennDOT - District 2 News: Winter Shutdown on Local Interchange Project

[webny99]

Also in the State College area, but on a different note...

Does PennDOT have any plans to upgrade US 322 between Business 322 in State College and Potters Mills? It badly needs to be upgraded to four-lane divided or at least four lanes in some capacity. It seems to be a massive choke point for traffic on Penn State game days (like today) and with the completion of the Potters Mills project, I believe it's the only remaining two-lane section between State College and Harrisburg.

[famartin]

Also in the State College area, but on a different note...

Does PennDOT have any plans to upgrade US 322 between Business 322 in State College and Potters Mills? It badly needs to be upgraded to four-lane divided or at least four lanes in some capacity. It seems to be a massive choke point for traffic on Penn State game days (like today) and with the completion of the Potters Mills project, I believe it's the only remaining two-lane section between State College and Harrisburg.

https://www.statecollege.com/penndot-to-hold-public-meetings-for-state-college-area-connector-project/

[webny99]

https://www.statecollege.com/penndot-to-hold-public-meetings-for-state-college-area-connector-project/

Interesting! I hadn't thought about a freeway along the PA 144 corridor as an alternate, but I'm starting to like it for a few reasons...

1) The interchange with I-99 already exists.
2) It would provide MUCH better connectivity to I-80 not just from Lewistown and Harrisburg, but also the entire I-83 corridor down to Baltimore.
3) An upgraded US 322 would be great for traffic to/from State College, but in the bigger picture, it just shifts the traffic issues downstream and ensures that US 322 through Philipsburg/Clearfield is going to eventually need upgrades. You can avoid that by having traffic bypass State College entirely and use the PA 144 corridor/I-99 to access I-80.

[Roadsguy]

https://www.statecollege.com/penndot-to-hold-public-meetings-for-state-college-area-connector-project/

Interesting! I hadn't thought about a freeway along the PA 144 corridor as an alternate, but I'm starting to like it for a few reasons...

1) The interchange with I-99 already exists.
2) It would provide MUCH better connectivity to I-80 not just from Lewistown and Harrisburg, but also the entire I-83 corridor down to Baltimore.
3) An upgraded US 322 would be great for traffic to/from State College, but in the bigger picture, it just shifts the traffic issues downstream and ensures that US 322 through Philipsburg/Clearfield is going to eventually need upgrades. You can avoid that by having traffic bypass State College entirely and use the PA 144 corridor/I-99 to access I-80.

On the other hand, the Corridor O-1 proposal, while not currently active, is intended to provide a freeway link from Port Matilda northwest to I-80 for US 322, and the two-lane US 322 is still the quickest way to State College even if the freeway is completed up PA 144, due to that being so far out of the way.

[Bitmapped]

https://www.statecollege.com/penndot-to-hold-public-meetings-for-state-college-area-connector-project/

Interesting! I hadn't thought about a freeway along the PA 144 corridor as an alternate, but I'm starting to like it for a few reasons...

1) The interchange with I-99 already exists.
2) It would provide MUCH better connectivity to I-80 not just from Lewistown and Harrisburg, but also the entire I-83 corridor down to Baltimore.
3) An upgraded US 322 would be great for traffic to/from State College, but in the bigger picture, it just shifts the traffic issues downstream and ensures that US 322 through Philipsburg/Clearfield is going to eventually need upgrades. You can avoid that by having traffic bypass State College entirely and use the PA 144 corridor/I-99 to access I-80.

On the other hand, the Corridor O-1 proposal, while not currently active, is intended to provide a freeway link from Port Matilda northwest to I-80 for US 322, and the two-lane US 322 is still the quickest way to State College even if the freeway is completed up PA 144, due to that being so far out of the way.

US 322 already needs to be upgraded from Philipsburg to Clearfield. I'm not sure that a PA 144 alignment would divert enough traffic to really change that. Vehicles from State College and Altoona are still going to be using that Corridor O-1 part of US 322 in getting to I-80.

I'd love to see an origin-destination study for the corridor, but my gut feeling says that upgrading along the existing US 322 corridor is the best option. It ties State College to Harrisburg and avoids the expense/environmental concerns of going across Mount Nittany.

[74/171FAN]

So it looks like PennDOT is switching to one-way tolling for the I-80 bridges...

[webny99]

On the other hand, the Corridor O-1 proposal, while not currently active, is intended to provide a freeway link from Port Matilda northwest to I-80 for US 322, and the two-lane US 322 is still the quickest way to State College even if the freeway is completed up PA 144, due to that being so far out of the way.

Absolutely. I am not disputing that, my only point is that a freeway along the PA 144 corridor would divert some of the truck traffic and reduce some of the burden along that part of the US 322 corridor. It would likely still need to be upgraded at some point anyways, but at least it would reduce the burden instead of adding to it in the short and medium term.

US 322 already needs to be upgraded from Philipsburg to Clearfield. I'm not sure that a PA 144 alignment would divert enough traffic to really change that. Vehicles from State College and Altoona are still going to be using that Corridor O-1 part of US 322 in getting to I-80.

I'd love to see an origin-destination study for the corridor, but my gut feeling says that upgrading along the existing US 322 corridor is the best option. It ties State College to Harrisburg and avoids the expense/environmental concerns of going across Mount Nittany.

I'd be interested in an origin/destination study as well. I could be wrong but my thought is that much of the truck traffic on US 322 is headed for the I-80 corridor. Any trucks headed for Clearfield or beyond could use I-80 to get to their destination instead of US 322. I'm also not sure how much truck traffic currently uses PA 144, although interestingly, trucks seem to be instructed NOT to use the new Potters Mills interchange. I'm not sure what route they're supposed to use instead.

Obviously some truck traffic - and plenty of vehicle traffic - is headed for State College, so it's likely that US 322 is going to need improvements/widening at some point anyways. I think you could argue for the PA 144 connector freeway AND a widening of US 322 along its current alignment. There seems to be enough ROW for a widening along most of it. Certainly adding a lane eastbound for the first few miles after the Boal Ave interchange would provide immediate relief for some of the current issues.

[famartin]

On the other hand, the Corridor O-1 proposal, while not currently active, is intended to provide a freeway link from Port Matilda northwest to I-80 for US 322, and the two-lane US 322 is still the quickest way to State College even if the freeway is completed up PA 144, due to that being so far out of the way.

Absolutely. I am not disputing that, my only point is that a freeway along the PA 144 corridor would divert some of the truck traffic and reduce some of the burden along that part of the US 322 corridor. It would likely still need to be upgraded at some point anyways, but at least it would reduce the burden instead of adding to it in the short and medium term.

US 322 already needs to be upgraded from Philipsburg to Clearfield. I'm not sure that a PA 144 alignment would divert enough traffic to really change that. Vehicles from State College and Altoona are still going to be using that Corridor O-1 part of US 322 in getting to I-80.

I'd love to see an origin-destination study for the corridor, but my gut feeling says that upgrading along the existing US 322 corridor is the best option. It ties State College to Harrisburg and avoids the expense/environmental concerns of going across Mount Nittany.

I'd be interested in an origin/destination study as well. I could be wrong but my thought is that much of the truck traffic on US 322 is headed for the I-80 corridor. Any trucks headed for Clearfield or beyond could use I-80 to get to their destination instead of US 322. I'm also not sure how much truck traffic currently uses PA 144, although interestingly, trucks seem to be instructed NOT to use the new Potters Mills interchange. I'm not sure what route they're supposed to use instead.

Obviously some truck traffic - and plenty of vehicle traffic - is headed for State College, so it's likely that US 322 is going to need improvements/widening at some point anyways. I think you could argue for the PA 144 connector freeway AND a widening of US 322 along its current alignment. There seems to be enough ROW for a widening along most of it. Certainly adding a lane eastbound for the first few miles after the Boal Ave interchange would provide immediate relief for some of the current issues.

I wouldn't be surprised if the study for PA 144 was just to say "we looked at it" for Harris Township's many concerns (see article linked above). I haven't driven on the US 322 freeway section north of State College in a while, but I don't recall heavy truck traffic being a major issue, and I certainly didn't see trucks trying to use PA 144 when I drove it last month. So, I would expect that the US 322 portion is what will get bypassed with a new freeway alignment (which I'm sure is what both State College borough and PennDOT desire), and the PA 144 idea will be tossed at some point.

[jemacedo9]

I'm also not sure how much truck traffic currently uses PA 144, although interestingly, trucks seem to be instructed NOT to use the new Potters Mills interchange. I'm not sure what route they're supposed to use instead.

Trucks were prohibited from PA 144 north of PA 45, over the ridge/mountain there; that has been in place for years, long before this new Potters Mills interchange.

Also...before I-99 was completed, the freeway portion north of the PA 26/PA 64 interchange had existed, and there was a stub ending at PA 64 facing south.  The freeway was originally supposed to continue south from there, over the ridge, and connect to US 322.  When I-99 was built, the flyovers were added and the freeway was reconfigured to swing southwest towards State College.   

That being years ago...I'm studies need to be redone...but the idea was always there and far enough to originally have a stub.

[74/171FAN]

PennDOT - District 10 News: PennDOT Invites Public to Comment on I-80 North Fork Bridge Replacement

PennDOT - District 8 News: Lane Restrictions Scheduled for Tomorrow on I-83 at Exit 18 (Mount Rose Avenue) in Springettsbury Township, York County

[Bitmapped]

So it looks like PennDOT is switching to one-way tolling for the I-80 bridges...

It's interesting that the article suggests one-way tolling will lower shunpike diversions. Given the relatively low tolls ($1 to $2, for cars at least), I would think diversions would be fairly minimal given the cost-to-benefit ratio with the extra time and hassle. Doubling the toll in one direction would, at least for me, make it a lot more likely that I would shunpike in that direction.

[Mr_Northside]

So it looks like PennDOT is switching to one-way tolling for the I-80 bridges...

It's interesting that the article suggests one-way tolling will lower shunpike diversions. Given the relatively low tolls ($1 to $2, for cars at least), I would think diversions would be fairly minimal given the cost-to-benefit ratio with the extra time and hassle. Doubling the toll in one direction would, at least for me, make it a lot more likely that I would shunpike in that direction.

I pretty much thought the same thing when I read that.

[vdeane]

It's hard to tell because the article isn't very good about listing where the tolling points would be in terms that non-locals can understand (just googling Lehigh and Nescopeck yields places far away from the bridge the article appears to be talking about), but it sounds like the original plan was to have two tolling points each direction and this would consolidate those down to one each direction, such that the toll for each direction would be the same, just collected all at once instead of over two gantries.

[jeffandnicole]

So it looks like PennDOT is switching to one-way tolling for the I-80 bridges...

It's interesting that the article suggests one-way tolling will lower shunpike diversions. Given the relatively low tolls ($1 to $2, for cars at least), I would think diversions would be fairly minimal given the cost-to-benefit ratio with the extra time and hassle. Doubling the toll in one direction would, at least for me, make it a lot more likely that I would shunpike in that direction.

I can't imagine that the public's biggest concern was paying $1 each way versus $2 one way (or whatever the half vs full toll amounts would be).

But the article did hint at what I think PennDOT's actual concern was:  The infrastructure needed for 2 way tolling.  Basically, every cost would be doubled - twice as many gantries, cameras, transponder readers, no-read lookups, bills, mailings, etc, etc.  And they would be chasing $1 tolls vs. $2 tolls (or whatever the amount will be), so it would be quite a bit of money spent for not much in return. 

Could someone shunpike the toll...especially the one way toll?  Of course.  But the majority aren't going to bother.  Even as popular as bypassing the DE I-95 toll is, the actual number of people that bypass it is extremely low.  And when people see motorists exiting 95 before the plaza, there's often an incorrect assumption that everyone is doing so to avoid the toll plaza. There are actually people that live and shop in the area, and a reasonably large school people go to, that doesn't involve going thru the toll plaza!

[jemacedo9]

So it looks like PennDOT is switching to one-way tolling for the I-80 bridges...

It's interesting that the article suggests one-way tolling will lower shunpike diversions. Given the relatively low tolls ($1 to $2, for cars at least), I would think diversions would be fairly minimal given the cost-to-benefit ratio with the extra time and hassle. Doubling the toll in one direction would, at least for me, make it a lot more likely that I would shunpike in that direction.

I can't imagine that the public's biggest concern was paying $1 each way versus $2 one way (or whatever the half vs full toll amounts would be).

But the article did hint at what I think PennDOT's actual concern was:  The infrastructure needed for 2 way tolling.  Basically, every cost would be doubled - twice as many gantries, cameras, transponder readers, no-read lookups, bills, mailings, etc, etc.  And they would be chasing $1 tolls vs. $2 tolls (or whatever the amount will be), so it would be quite a bit of money spent for not much in return. 

Could someone shunpike the toll...especially the one way toll?  Of course.  But the majority aren't going to bother.  Even as popular as bypassing the DE I-95 toll is, the actual number of people that bypass it is extremely low.  And when people see motorists exiting 95 before the plaza, there's often an incorrect assumption that everyone is doing so to avoid the toll plaza. There are actually people that live and shop in the area, and a reasonably large school people go to, that doesn't involve going thru the toll plaza!

And to add...truck shunpiking opportunities are just about non-existent or long/slow. 
For the Lehigh River bridge, there is a low underclearance warning for PA 940 in White Haven.
For the Nescopeck Creek bridge, it would be a somewhat long and slow detour on PA 93 and US 11.

[74/171FAN]

(For US 22/US 322 at PA 34)  PennDOT - District 8 News: Traffic Shift, Lane Restriction Planned for Route 22 Bridge Project at Route 34 in Perry County

PennDOT - District 8 News: In-Person Open House for Route 3012 Market Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project Rescheduled

[ixnay]

And to add...truck shunpiking opportunities are just about non-existent or long/slow. 
For the Lehigh River bridge, there is a low underclearance warning for PA 940 in White Haven.
For the Nescopeck Creek bridge, it would be a somewhat long and slow detour on PA 93 and US 11.

Are you referring to this?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0610325,-75.7728081,3a,41.7y,320.68h,86.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s44QlXszqqxTbdBHRL_zl9g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656