Pennsylvania

[jemacedo9]

PA is inconsistent at numbering exits on non-interstates:

Numbered Sequential:  PA 28 (District 11), PA 29 (District 4), PA 309 (District 4), US 6 (District 4), PA 581 (District 8), PA 378 (District 5).
Numbered Milepost*:  US 220 Lock-Haven to Jersey Shore only (District 4), US 15 north of Williamsport (District 3)
*I believe both use theoretical I-99 mileposts
A-B lettering:  US 40/PA 43 Brownstown cloverleaf (District 12), US 119/US 422 cloverleaf (District 10)

All of the other non-interstates are unnumbered.
All of the PA Turnpike extensions are numbered.

So even within Districts and/or on the same road, there are inconsistencies.

[74/171FAN]

A-B lettering:  US 40/PA 43 Brownstown cloverleaf (District 12), US 119/US 422 cloverleaf (District 10)

This applies to the US 422/PA 28/PA 66 interchange in Kittanning as well.

[ekt8750]

PA is inconsistent at numbering exits on non-interstates:

Numbered Sequential:  PA 28 (District 11), PA 29 (District 4), PA 309 (District 4), US 6 (District 4), PA 581 (District 8), PA 378 (District 5).
Numbered Milepost*:  US 220 Lock-Haven to Jersey Shore only (District 4), US 15 north of Williamsport (District 3)
*I believe both use theoretical I-99 mileposts
A-B lettering:  US 40/PA 43 Brownstown cloverleaf (District 12), US 119/US 422 cloverleaf (District 10)

All of the other non-interstates are unnumbered.
All of the PA Turnpike extensions are numbered.

So even within Districts and/or on the same road, there are inconsistencies.

It doesn't help that mileposts on non-interstates reset at county lines in PA.

[roadman65]

PA is inconsistent at numbering exits on non-interstates:

Numbered Sequential:  PA 28 (District 11), PA 29 (District 4), PA 309 (District 4), US 6 (District 4), PA 581 (District 8), PA 378 (District 5).
Numbered Milepost*:  US 220 Lock-Haven to Jersey Shore only (District 4), US 15 north of Williamsport (District 3)
*I believe both use theoretical I-99 mileposts
A-B lettering:  US 40/PA 43 Brownstown cloverleaf (District 12), US 119/US 422 cloverleaf (District 10)

All of the other non-interstates are unnumbered.
All of the PA Turnpike extensions are numbered.

So even within Districts and/or on the same road, there are inconsistencies.

It doesn't help that mileposts on non-interstates reset at county lines in PA.

Math comes in handy to figure that one out. Caltrans does it on I-5.  The exit numbers and mileposts do not match, but math helped them determine where the interchange is in distance from its south end at Tijuana.

[rickmastfan67]

PA is inconsistent at numbering exits on non-interstates:

Numbered Sequential:  PA 28 (District 11), PA 29 (District 4), PA 309 (District 4), US 6 (District 4), PA 581 (District 8), PA 378 (District 5).
Numbered Milepost*:  US 220 Lock-Haven to Jersey Shore only (District 4), US 15 north of Williamsport (District 3)
*I believe both use theoretical I-99 mileposts
A-B lettering:  US 40/PA 43 Brownstown cloverleaf (District 12), US 119/US 422 cloverleaf (District 10)

All of the other non-interstates are unnumbered.
All of the PA Turnpike extensions are numbered.

So even within Districts and/or on the same road, there are inconsistencies.

It doesn't help that mileposts on non-interstates reset at county lines in PA.

They don't on PA-28 expressway part.  They have the normal MM's all the way from the start to US-422 and don't reset leaving Allegheny County.

[Alps]

NCDOT uses mileage numbers on US Route freeways. I can see US 22 using mile based numbers on the Lehigh Valley Thruway and the freeway with US 322 and between Ebensburg and Duncansville.

It seems like some states don't milepost non-interstates the same as interstates. For example, in Nevada, the only statewide mileposted routes are Interstates (at least when I was last there in 2016). US and state highways had mileposts which reset at county lines.  Interstates actually did too, but they were very small compared to the standard size state-wide mile markers. I've seen MD have an odd milepost set for US 1 in Harford County which doesn't follow the state mileage.

Yeah that US 1 bypass is a weirdo. I think it was once considered for some other number but it's been 1 for decades and there's no reason not to repost it in line with the rest of the highway.

[jemacedo9]

PA is inconsistent at numbering exits on non-interstates:

Numbered Sequential:  PA 28 (District 11), PA 29 (District 4), PA 309 (District 4), US 6 (District 4), PA 581 (District 8), PA 378 (District 5).
Numbered Milepost*:  US 220 Lock-Haven to Jersey Shore only (District 4), US 15 north of Williamsport (District 3)
*I believe both use theoretical I-99 mileposts
A-B lettering:  US 40/PA 43 Brownstown cloverleaf (District 12), US 119/US 422 cloverleaf (District 10)

All of the other non-interstates are unnumbered.
All of the PA Turnpike extensions are numbered.

So even within Districts and/or on the same road, there are inconsistencies.

It doesn't help that mileposts on non-interstates reset at county lines in PA.

Incorrect.  PA only puts mileposts on freeways...and maybe not even all of them. But the ones where they do, the mileposts to not reset at county lines.

If you're thinking about the LWSs, those are segment markers, and segments are not exactly 1/2 mile.  They are varying length and are generally arbitrary.  They generally are around 1/2 mile but not exactly and can be much shorter or longer.

[ixnay]

What are PennDOT's color coded detour signs all about?

[MASTERNC]

What are PennDOT's color coded detour signs all about?

If the road is closed, you would see these signs on the exit ramp.  Some are just small detour signs with the color.  Others will say the route number and then to follow the colored detour signs.

Example of the large route specific signs (some of which are folded over when not in use):



Example of the smaller guide signs:



There is actually a guide I found that explains the placement and even the color (color is normally based on direction).

https://studylib.net/doc/18682220/penndot-detour-signs-color-coded-signs-implementing-the

[jeffandnicole]

What are PennDOT's color coded detour signs all about?

While they're impressive and located throughout the state, THEY ARE NEVER USED. The amount of sign pollution and waste is obscene.  I've yet to hear about a road closure that indicates one should follow specific detour signage. More often that not, once someone has left the highway, there's no additional signage to guide them back to the highway.

[74/171FAN]

What are PennDOT's color coded detour signs all about?

While they're impressive and located throughout the state, THEY ARE NEVER USED. The amount of sign pollution and waste is obscene.  I've yet to hear about a road closure that indicates one should follow specific detour signage. More often that not, once someone has left the highway, there's no additional signage to guide them back to the highway.

In 2015, I was directed to follow them due to an accident closing I-81 south of PA 233.  I think I went over to US 11 instead.

[bwana39]

Bridge collapse into Pittsburgh's Frick Park.  200' (more or less) steel stringer bridge has TOTAL FAILURE AND COLLAPSE into ravine.

https://www.wtae.com/article/bridge-colla/38922716

https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2022/01/28/frick-park-bridge-collapse-latest-updates/

[74/171FAN]

Please post about the Pittsburgh bridge collapse in this thread.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30935.0)

[roadman65]

NCDOT uses mileage numbers on US Route freeways. I can see US 22 using mile based numbers on the Lehigh Valley Thruway and the freeway with US 322 and between Ebensburg and Duncansville.

NJDOT does for pretty much all freeway segments that use exit numbering whether they're interstate, US route, or state route. They'll even just go with the on the books mileages in the case of a road like Route 18 which still starts at milepost 6 even though the plans to build south of 138 are basically dead and buried. Same for 21 even though the first 4ish miles of it are urban multilane arterial and it doesn't become freeway grade until the northern end of Newark.

NJ 55 too for that matter. It's zero mile marker is implied to be at its proposed connection to the GSP in Cape May County.

[famartin]

NCDOT uses mileage numbers on US Route freeways. I can see US 22 using mile based numbers on the Lehigh Valley Thruway and the freeway with US 322 and between Ebensburg and Duncansville.

NJDOT does for pretty much all freeway segments that use exit numbering whether they're interstate, US route, or state route. They'll even just go with the on the books mileages in the case of a road like Route 18 which still starts at milepost 6 even though the plans to build south of 138 are basically dead and buried. Same for 21 even though the first 4ish miles of it are urban multilane arterial and it doesn't become freeway grade until the northern end of Newark.

NJ 55 too for that matter. It's zero mile marker is implied to be at its proposed connection to the GSP in Cape May County.

We're getting a little ot but NJDOT should just give up on 55 and 18 and reset their ends to 0. They're never building the rest of either road.

[storm2k]

NCDOT uses mileage numbers on US Route freeways. I can see US 22 using mile based numbers on the Lehigh Valley Thruway and the freeway with US 322 and between Ebensburg and Duncansville.

NJDOT does for pretty much all freeway segments that use exit numbering whether they're interstate, US route, or state route. They'll even just go with the on the books mileages in the case of a road like Route 18 which still starts at milepost 6 even though the plans to build south of 138 are basically dead and buried. Same for 21 even though the first 4ish miles of it are urban multilane arterial and it doesn't become freeway grade until the northern end of Newark.

NJ 55 too for that matter. It's zero mile marker is implied to be at its proposed connection to the GSP in Cape May County.

We're getting a little ot but NJDOT should just give up on 55 and 18 and reset their ends to 0. They're never building the rest of either road.

I believe that would require changes to actual state law as those original ends still exist on the books in legislation. It's fine as is, no sense in NJDOT having to pay to redo all the exit numbering and EMMs and etc just to move the zero mile points for either road.

[Alps]

NCDOT uses mileage numbers on US Route freeways. I can see US 22 using mile based numbers on the Lehigh Valley Thruway and the freeway with US 322 and between Ebensburg and Duncansville.

NJDOT does for pretty much all freeway segments that use exit numbering whether they're interstate, US route, or state route. They'll even just go with the on the books mileages in the case of a road like Route 18 which still starts at milepost 6 even though the plans to build south of 138 are basically dead and buried. Same for 21 even though the first 4ish miles of it are urban multilane arterial and it doesn't become freeway grade until the northern end of Newark.

NJ 55 too for that matter. It's zero mile marker is implied to be at its proposed connection to the GSP in Cape May County.

We're getting a little ot but NJDOT should just give up on 55 and 18 and reset their ends to 0. They're never building the rest of either road.

I believe that would require changes to actual state law as those original ends still exist on the books in legislation. It's fine as is, no sense in NJDOT having to pay to redo all the exit numbering and EMMs and etc just to move the zero mile points for either road.

I don't think the state law requires them to set zero in any one place. The thing is all structures (including signs, utilities, etc.) are indexed to a particular milepost, so if you're not making any actual changes to the roadway alignment, it's in your interest not to touch the numbering that screws up all the historical indexing.

[storm2k]

NCDOT uses mileage numbers on US Route freeways. I can see US 22 using mile based numbers on the Lehigh Valley Thruway and the freeway with US 322 and between Ebensburg and Duncansville.

NJDOT does for pretty much all freeway segments that use exit numbering whether they're interstate, US route, or state route. They'll even just go with the on the books mileages in the case of a road like Route 18 which still starts at milepost 6 even though the plans to build south of 138 are basically dead and buried. Same for 21 even though the first 4ish miles of it are urban multilane arterial and it doesn't become freeway grade until the northern end of Newark.

NJ 55 too for that matter. It's zero mile marker is implied to be at its proposed connection to the GSP in Cape May County.

We're getting a little ot but NJDOT should just give up on 55 and 18 and reset their ends to 0. They're never building the rest of either road.

I believe that would require changes to actual state law as those original ends still exist on the books in legislation. It's fine as is, no sense in NJDOT having to pay to redo all the exit numbering and EMMs and etc just to move the zero mile points for either road.

I don't think the state law requires them to set zero in any one place. The thing is all structures (including signs, utilities, etc.) are indexed to a particular milepost, so if you're not making any actual changes to the roadway alignment, it's in your interest not to touch the numbering that screws up all the historical indexing.

Oh, I was just talking in terms that most of the unbuilt portions of some of those roads are still on the books legislatively even though in practicality they will never be built (and NJDOT has long since acknowledged this for 18 since they built the newer trumpet ramps at 138 that went over the mainline roadway). Either way, there is not really a practical reason in my mind to change this at this point. Then again, my thoughts don't always match up with many people here, because I also don't see the practical need for a red, white, and blue shield on every piece of interstate-grade freeway that's built everywhere.

[jeffandnicole]

NJ 55 too for that matter. It's zero mile marker is implied to be at its proposed connection to the GSP in Cape May County.

We're getting a little ot but NJDOT should just give up on 55 and 18 and reset their ends to 0. They're never building the rest of either road.

I believe that would require changes to actual state law as those original ends still exist on the books in legislation. It's fine as is, no sense in NJDOT having to pay to redo all the exit numbering and EMMs and etc just to move the zero mile points for either road.

I don't think the state law requires them to set zero in any one place. The thing is all structures (including signs, utilities, etc.) are indexed to a particular milepost, so if you're not making any actual changes to the roadway alignment, it's in your interest not to touch the numbering that screws up all the historical indexing.

Oh, I was just talking in terms that most of the unbuilt portions of some of those roads are still on the books legislatively even though in practicality they will never be built (and NJDOT has long since acknowledged this for 18 since they built the newer trumpet ramps at 138 that went over the mainline roadway). Either way, there is not really a practical reason in my mind to change this at this point. Then again, my thoughts don't always match up with many people here, because I also don't see the practical need for a red, white, and blue shield on every piece of interstate-grade freeway that's built everywhere.

There has been one slight renumbering of NJ's Route 55 already, which if I remember correctly took place sometime in the later 80's, as or after the northern section was built.  It didn't affect all exits, but I recall a few exits in the Millville area were raised or lowered by 1. 

It may have something to do with that legislation mentioned.  Here's the original law that created Route 55...

27:6-1.  State highway routes set forth

The state highway system shall consist of the following routes...

ROUTE NO. 55 .  Beginning at a point in Route U.S. 130 in the vicinity of Westville in the county of Gloucester, thence in a general southeasterly direction passing west of Vineland in the county of Cumberland and east of Millville in the county of Cumberland to a point in Route U.S. 9 in the vicinity of Cape May Court House in the county of Cape May.  The route shall traverse the counties of Gloucester, Salem, Cumberland and Cape May.

L.1964, c. 16, s. 1

This shows a few things... It's original Milepost 0 starting point would've been on US 9, about 1/4 - 1/2 mile away from the Garden State Parkway.  At some point, it became decided on that, if built, it would continue the short additional distance to the Parkway. 

It also shows something more interesting - that its northern point with NJ 42 wasn't its originally proposed ending point either.

Its original northern terminus would've been at US 130 in Westville is in this general area:  https://goo.gl/maps/2jijKXy49Ji9bpqA8 .  Depending how that map appears on your screen, it should show Route 55's actual northern terminus with NJ 42. 

I've never seen an actual proposal of where Route 55 would've veered from its ultimate path and met up with US 130.  The legislation is nondescriptive regarding its route in the 30 or so miles between Vineland and US 130. While we're talking nearly 60 years later, there's nothing in the aerial views that dictates a reasonably clear pathway that would've been reserved to be used for this highway.  In the 1960's, it was fairly common for a state to rip thru existing housing to build what it wanted, so there may not have been any ROW reserved to begin with.

Going back to that renumbering - in the 1980's, while there was hope Route 55 would be constructed to the shore, it was fading hope even back then.  Its northern completion was mostly envisioned to be a commuter highway towards Philly, getting people off of 2 lane roadways that were already becoming congested with not much hope of being widened. 

The cheaper land would've been to the south towards the shore, which could've been the next phase, but was never pursued. 

It makes a little sense, in hindsight, that NJDOT could've decided that Route 55's fate was that a random rural town in the middle of South Jersey would ultimately become its southern terminus.  A complete renumbering at that time with the 19 miles of existing highway between NJ 47 in Maurice River and US 40 in Malaga would've been of little disruption for a "highway in the middle of nowhere", before it determined the exit numbering for the exits from US 40 to NJ 42.

But since it was still on the books, there was an assumption that, if built, it would be built to the Parkway.  NJDOT probably reset Route 55's then and still current ending point to MP 20.0, and did a minor milepost change and exit renumbering to compensate for the additional distance to the Parkway.

[Ted$8roadFan]

From the news that's not really news department:

https://www.governing.com/now/bridge-collapse-highlights-pennsylvanias-infrastructure-problems

[jeffandnicole]

From the news that's not really news department:

https://www.governing.com/now/bridge-collapse-highlights-pennsylvanias-infrastructure-problems

Um, did the reporter prematurely blame the collapse on snow?

As a storm swept the region, the bridge collapsed due to heavy snowfall.

[MATraveler128]

From the news that's not really news department:

https://www.governing.com/now/bridge-collapse-highlights-pennsylvanias-infrastructure-problems

Um, did the reporter prematurely blame the collapse on snow?

As a storm swept the region, the bridge collapsed due to heavy snowfall.

It looks like it. Pennsylvania has too many flaws with their bridges and they need to do some serious spending to get their bridges in proper shape.

[74/171FAN]

PennDOT - District 9 News: North Bound I-70 Welcome Center to be Temporarily Closed

[famartin]

PennDOT - District 9 News: North Bound I-70 Welcome Center to be Temporarily Closed

"northbound"? 
I get what they mean, but they obviously don't really look at their own signs...

[roadman65]

The bridge in Pittsburgh was built even poorly as it it had no concrete piers but angled cross beams that held it up. Beams that were obviously not inspected regularly and subject to rust and corrosion to add to that meant trouble. IMO built cheaply and for a four lane heavily used artery was a bad design choice to be even remotely considered.