News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

PA Turnpike News

Started by mightyace, February 16, 2009, 05:29:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

cl94

Quote from: Mr_Northside on July 15, 2014, 02:16:44 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 15, 2014, 12:15:14 AM
Quote from: Gnutella on July 14, 2014, 10:50:23 PM
Apparently work has begun between MM 124 and MM 134, east of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel. They've replaced some overpasses already, and they're going to widen this segment from four lanes to six with full 12' shoulders on the insides and outsides. I'm betting the new Allegheny Mountain Tunnel will be six lanes when its built too.

If the tunnel replacement is to be 6 lanes, I would almost expect them to go with a non-tunnel cut.  Has the stretch between Summerset and the tunnel been rebuilt already?  There have been so many disjointed projects I have lost track.

Yeah... Time is mostly a blur, but I think the section from about the Somerset interchange to the tunnels has been done for possibly a decade now... before they made widening to 6-lanes a default part of the complete reconstructions.

If I were a betting man, I would also bet that the PTC ends up selecting a non-tunnel alternative.  There are groups that seem to be against it, but I think it's what the PTC really wants to do.

As to MM 124 and MM 134, in early June they had cleared most of the trees on the hillside where they're apparently doing "New Baltimore Slope Remediation".  I'm wondering if they're gonna cut into it to smooth out the curve there.

Agree. Building a tunnel is expensive and, with well-placed explosives, a cut could be constructed pretty easily and safely. Looking at a topographic map of the area, they could take advantage of what appears to be a small stream that cut a path up the side of the mountain immediately west of the S-curve at the eastern tunnel portal. Do a little cut and fill operation and send the Turnpike through there, cutting off two sharp curves in the process. At some places, such as Tuscarora, a tunnel would make a tad more sense, as the current tunnel passes 900 feet under the summit. Allegheny is 400 below, if that.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)


Duke87

I have to ask the most important question, though:

If the Allegheny Mountain tunnels are bypassed, will we be allowed to walk/bike through them? :hmmm:
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

briantroutman

Quote from: Duke87 on July 15, 2014, 09:46:40 PM
If the Allegheny Mountain tunnels are bypassed, will we be allowed to walk/bike through them?

I assume not, because unlike the Rays/Sideling section, which is accessible from numerous local roads, the maps I've seen suggest that the Allegheny Tunnel would be accessible only from the active Turnpike mainline itself. My guess is that it would be more like Laurel Hill, which has always officially been off-limits–and I get the impression that the PTC and the PSP have been less lenient about trespassing there.

ARMOURERERIC

Funny, this is now 2 projects that had no forewarning via the PTC design/construction website.  I wonder what other surprises may be in store?  With this 124-134 project and a 2017 officially listed project for MM 149-155, can the gap between and by extension, the US 220/I 99 interchange be very far behind?

Gnutella

Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 15, 2014, 10:36:05 PM
Funny, this is now 2 projects that had no forewarning via the PTC design/construction website.  I wonder what other surprises may be in store?  With this 124-134 project and a 2017 officially listed project for MM 149-155, can the gap between and by extension, the US 220/I 99 interchange be very far behind?

I figure that design work for the segment between MM 134 and MM 149 will begin later this decade, with reconstruction beginning around 2020.

On a similar note, the Turnpike Commission is currently doing preliminary design work for the segment between MM 57 and MM 67, and the western end of that segment is about half a mile east of the I-376 interchange, which leads me to believe that they might have a reconfigured interchange planned when they start doing design work for the segment between MM 49 and MM 57.

Chris19001

#730
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 15, 2014, 10:36:05 PM
Funny, this is now 2 projects that had no forewarning via the PTC design/construction website.  I wonder what other surprises may be in store? 
In scrolling through recent DVRPC (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission) documents, I saw reference to some more PTC projects that were new to me.
http://www.dvrpc.org/reports/14049A.pdf (page 28 of document)
In the I-276 section between Fort Washington and Willow Grove, there is discussion on how to make the Virginia Drive slip ramp a complete full movement interchange.  Also under study is if Welsh Road (PA-63) could have slip ramps built into a new bridge project over the turnpike. 
Both projects would be about 2 miles from my house, making a potential 4 turnpike interchanges within 5 miles of my house!  (Makes my personal commute considerably easier if I don't mind paying the tolls)  The downside I didn't see studied is how the mainline will handle additional traffic.  The westbound section backs up more mornings than not..

jeffandnicole

Personally, while the DVRPC's supposed mission is to "...foster regional cooperation in a nine-county, two state area. City, county and state representatives work together to address key issues, including transportation, land use, environmental protection and economic development", instead, it's turned into nothing more than a group where environmentalists, pedestrians and bicyclists can band together to encourage their viewpoints are accepted. 

There's no real "regional" planning going on, which results in things like the Blue Route (I-476) becoming a parking lot because points north and south of the highway (like I-95) weren't considered for expansion to deal with the extra traffic.  And with the Blue Route brought a new way for people to get to the Jersey Shore - via the single lane per direction US 322 in NJ to Rt. 55, not to mention the additional suburban sprawl that would come with the ability to access jobs from a new location  A real regional planning commission would've been saying - OK, we know 476 needs to be built, but we're going to have to work with NJDOT regarding upgrading 322.  Instead, the regional planning commission acts as if PA & NJ are on different planets, with no interconnectivity whatsoever.

Or take the forever-to-get-built 95/PA Turnpike connection - a regional planning commission should be busting balls to get the state and agency to move faster on that. Instead, the PA Turnpike spends millions on projects with questionable benefits while pushing back projects like this interchange which will improve traffic flow, especially in that area.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 16, 2014, 08:49:44 AM
Or take the forever-to-get-built 95/PA Turnpike connection - a regional planning commission should be busting balls to get the state and agency to move faster on that. Instead, the PA Turnpike spends millions on projects with questionable benefits while pushing back projects like this interchange which will improve traffic flow, especially in that area.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations like DVRPC do not usually have any authority to tell state agencies like PennDOT and PTC to speed-up construction of projects once they are in the short-range and long-range plans for funding. 
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

PHLBOS

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 16, 2014, 08:49:44 AMThere's no real "regional" planning going on, which results in things like the Blue Route (I-476) becoming a parking lot because points north and south of the highway (like I-95) weren't considered for expansion to deal with the extra traffic.  And with the Blue Route brought a new way for people to get to the Jersey Shore - via the single lane per direction US 322 in NJ to Rt. 55, not to mention the additional suburban sprawl that would come with the ability to access jobs from a new location  A real regional planning commission would've been saying - OK, we know 476 needs to be built, but we're going to have to work with NJDOT regarding upgrading 322.  Instead, the regional planning commission acts as if PA & NJ are on different planets, with no interconnectivity whatsoever.
One has to wonder if an earlier but never executed plan to have I-476 and US 322 cross & interchange w/I-95 at the same location was ever considered when the Blue Route & Commodore Barry Bridge was only sketches circa the 1960s.  Such an alignement would've eliminated those particular bottlenecks along I-95.  Although I have to wonder whether PennDOT was either on crack or PCP when they designed the through-I-95 ramps at I-476 to be only 4 lanes total rather than 6 circa the early 70s.

The other issue w/I-476, at least south of PA 3, is that it was scaled down from its original 6-lane configuration (although there is room to place 2-additional lanes in the middle of the corridor) to placate the money-rich NIMBYs in Swarthmore.  Never mind the fact that these NIMBYs probably use the road to get to/from KOP, Plymouth Meeting, Lehigh Valley, Poconos etc.; can we say hypocrites?

On your side of the river, it was probably a combination of NIMBY & environmental activists that stalled any freeway upgrades/bypass for US 322 indefinitely.

The DVRPC has not yet mastered to to overcome NIMBYs who will block any transportation project (even transit-themed ones - there was some serious NIMBY whining over NJTransit's River Line when it was being proposed & Built) they possibly can.  Plus, as CP mentioned, they don't have the authority to tell agencies to speed up construction projects.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 16, 2014, 08:49:44 AM
Or take the forever-to-get-built 95/PA Turnpike connection - a regional planning commission should be busting balls to get the state and agency to move faster on that. Instead, the PA Turnpike spends millions on projects with questionable benefits while pushing back projects like this interchange which will improve traffic flow, especially in that area.
I hear you on that one; but see CP's reply as towards why such can't legally happen.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jeffandnicole

When funding is approved, there is a schedule that the projects adhere to regarding funding.  If the schedule calls for a project to be worked on from 2015-2017, the funds are allocated in a manner to adhere to that schedule. 

Whenever there is a change in funding for a project - say, an agency wants to push back a project because more money is required on another project, they need to go thru the DVRPC for approval.

Generally, the DVRPC simply rubberstamps their approval of these funding requests.  But the DVRPC definitely has the authority to say "No, you can't delay Project 10355.  Project 10355 has too many benefits to the area, so we will not permit you to delay the project.  You can find other projects which have less of an impact to the overall region".  But instead, the DVRPC says "All in Favor?  Yea.  Opposed?  (no one).  Approved".

Take a look under Action Item #2 here is this month's TIP actions: http://www.dvrpc.org/ASP/committee/agenda.aspx?p=6107  . In this month's case, there are 2 issues, both pertaining to NJ: One relates to a project that's been pushed ahead of it's original schedule and the other pertains to utilzing funds from projects that appear to have been delayed.  The supporting documents should state how the money will be found.  That's what the purpose of the DVRPC is - to make sure those projects are adhering to a schedule that works for the benefit of the region.  As it is, the winning bid for Contract #2 of the 295/76/42 project came in $40 million under budget, so there's some money NJDOT can play with at this point.


Mr_Northside

Quote from: Gnutella on July 16, 2014, 04:08:21 AM
On a similar note, the Turnpike Commission is currently doing preliminary design work for the segment between MM 57 and MM 67, and the western end of that segment is about half a mile east of the I-376 interchange, which leads me to believe that they might have a reconfigured interchange planned when they start doing design work for the segment between MM 49 and MM 57.

It was mentioned, most likely in this thread, that the PTC has a plan for a reconfigured Monroeville ("Pittsburgh") interchange... I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being it's own project, and not directly related to any adjacent widening.  (Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if it was associated with an I-376 to PA-28 widening too)

Quote from: briantroutman on July 15, 2014, 10:08:05 PM
My guess is that it would be more like Laurel Hill, which has always officially been off-limits–and I get the impression that the PTC and the PSP have been less lenient about trespassing there.

It's now been a dozen years, but back in 2000 I made two trips to the Laurel Hill tunnel - the second with about 8 or 9 people, where we traversed the whole tunnel (climbing over the salt piles in the western end was "fun") and back.  Thankfully, we didn't encounter any law enforcement.  (It would have made for an especially "bad trip" for many of us).  We parked at the Laurel Hill trail parking lot at PA-31, camped out along the trail (at a site between PA-31 and the TPK), and hiked there the next day.  Good times.


I don't have opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything

ARMOURERERIC

I have read from several sources that the 28 to 376 project will be in 2 parts due tot he expense and complexity of replacing a long bridge near the halfway point.  I can see the long bridge going with the northern half and the 376 interchange going with the southern half.

qguy

Quote from: Chris19001 on July 16, 2014, 08:01:40 AM
In scrolling through recent DVRPC (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission) documents, I saw reference to some more PTC projects that were new to me.
http://www.dvrpc.org/reports/14049A.pdf (page 28 of document)
In the I-276 section between Fort Washington and Willow Grove, there is discussion on how to make the Virginia Drive slip ramp a complete full movement interchange.  Also under study is if Welsh Road (PA-63) could have slip ramps built into a new bridge project over the turnpike. 
Both projects would be about 2 miles from my house, making a potential 4 turnpike interchanges within 5 miles of my house!  (Makes my personal commute considerably easier if I don't mind paying the tolls)  The downside I didn't see studied is how the mainline will handle additional traffic.  The westbound section backs up more mornings than not..

For 10 years I commuted via the Turnpike (first between Fort Washington and Valley Forge, later between US 1 and Valley Forge) when I worked for PennDOT District 6. The need for adding access points to the Turnpike in the Philadelphia metro area was a perennial topic of discussion. The general consensus (informally at PennDOT) was that adding entry and exit points may result in a slight increase in ADT due to induced use, but spreading that traffic over a greater number of access points would result in a dramatic reduction in congestion at the toll plazas.

Myself, I think that that there are far to few access points on the Turnpike in the Philadelphia area. I realize that this is because the road was originally designed as a long-distance facility, not a commuter facility. But users are currently crammed into a ridiculously few number of access points. Constructability and cost issues aside, from an operational standpoint there should be twice the current number.

With the Turnpike's move to AET happening in a few years, constructability and cost will become a lot more flexible and manageable; I think we'll see various combinations of slip ramps in a variety of locations proposed–some of which will actually get built.

PHLBOS

Quote from: qguy on July 17, 2014, 10:30:46 AMMyself, I think that that there are far to few access points on the Turnpike in the Philadelphia area. I realize that this is because the road was originally designed as a long-distance facility, not a commuter facility. But users are currently crammed into a ridiculously few number of access points. Constructability and cost issues aside, from an operational standpoint there should be twice the current number.

With the Turnpike's move to AET happening in a few years, constructability and cost will become a lot more flexible and manageable; I think we'll see various combinations of slip ramps in a variety of locations proposed–some of which will actually get built.
A couple things to consider:

1.  During most of the PA Turnpike's lifespan, electronic tolling (I'm primarily referring to EZ-Pass) did not exist so building new interchanges in the toll-ticket road like the Turnpike back then generally required a lot more land aquistition (for a dual-trumpet set-up & connector road for the toll plaza) than a conventional SPUI/diamond/cloverleaf interchange on either a toll-barrier road like the GSP & one-time CT Turnpike or a non-tolled highway.

2.  At one time, there were plans for a 10-Mile Loop Expressway (it would ran from I-95 at Exit 32 to I-76 at Exit 332) that would've likely served as a local free highway alternative to I-276 just like I-295 in NJ is to the parallel the southern section of the NJTP.  Sadly, that proposed highway fell victim to the great future highway plan purge that hit Greater Philadelphia circa 1977.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

MASTERNC

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 14, 2014, 01:05:30 PM
En route to/from Carlisle this past Saturday, I noticed some recently-erected curve warning & speed advisory signs along the way.  The ones located east of Lebannon-Lancaster (Exit 266/PA 72) had 60 MPH advisory panels but the ones west of there had 65 MPH panels. 

One has to wonder if the latter 65 MPH advisories could give hint to the speed limit(s) on those particular stretches of the Turnpike increasing to 70 mph down the road.

A 60 MPH advisory speed?  Has to be a first in the state.

vdeane

Quote from: qguy on July 17, 2014, 10:30:46 AM
With the Turnpike's move to AET happening in a few years, constructability and cost will become a lot more flexible and manageable; I think we'll see various combinations of slip ramps in a variety of locations proposed–some of which will actually get built.
Why just slip ramps?  Full interchanges are more useful.  With a slip ramp, once you get off, you have to drive miles out of your way to get back on.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

MASTERNC

Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 15, 2014, 12:12:35 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on July 06, 2014, 09:21:15 PM
I was traveling east on the Turnpike today between Blue Mountain and Carlisle.  The current widening project has entered stage 2 for eastbound traffic (i.e. traffic has been moved over to the newly widened road section).  I almost did a double take when we started to travel on concrete pavement instead of asphalt.  I thought maybe the road would be paved when the center portion was constructed, but the concrete had grooves to channel water, making me think the Turnpike may have done its first project using concrete pavement as the riding surface.

Also, the Turnpike has done a true "crossover" between Donegal and Somerset, where both sides are sharing the old eastbound lanes and the entire westbound side has been dug up down to the dirt (instead of just part of the road at a time).

Is this part of the MP 206-210 project or the 220-226 project?

MP 206-210

qguy

Quote from: vdeane on July 17, 2014, 10:04:35 PM
Quote from: qguy on July 17, 2014, 10:30:46 AM
With the Turnpike's move to AET happening in a few years, constructability and cost will become a lot more flexible and manageable; I think we'll see various combinations of slip ramps in a variety of locations proposed–some of which will actually get built.
Why just slip ramps?  Full interchanges are more useful.  With a slip ramp, once you get off, you have to drive miles out of your way to get back on.

Because there is intense development throughout the area that the PA Turnpike traverses through the Phila metro area. A full interchange in one spot will always be tough to get approved by all concerned stakeholders. Slip ramps can be salted all along the alignment. Locate them in pairs and convenience isn't sacrificed that much.

The Virginia Drive and Bensalem slip ramps are two examples. These do provide immediate re-entry right at the point of exit. What they don't allow is easy re-entry in the opposite direction. A different type of slip ramp is the onramp from a shopping center/office park directly into the toll plaza at US 1. This is an onramp only, but it does provide access to both the east- and west-bound sides.

With all that being said, however, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is looking to build additional full interchanges in this area. A good source of info and maps for proposed access points within Montgomery County can be found here and here.

PHLBOS

Quote from: qguy on July 18, 2014, 02:33:52 PMWith all that being said, however, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is looking to build additional full interchanges in this area. A good source of info and maps for proposed access points within Montgomery County can be found here and here.
Interesting stuff.

Personally, the current and altered Valley Forge interchange is the one I have issue with the most because it still has through I-76 westbound traffic funneling down into a single-lane cloverleaf ramp.  IMHO, this interchange (without the added connections) should be either reconfigured to either a mirrored trumpet (cloverleaf ramp would be for the I-276 West to I-76 East movements) interchange or a full-blown directional interchange w/fly-over ramps.

If I had it my way (and I know this is fantasy/fiction but I'll throw it out there) I would move the eastern toll barrier in Bristol to just west of the *Morgantown (I-176) interchange and make the East-West Turnpike east of there toll-free and move the Mid-County Plaza a mile or two north of its current location along the NE Extension (I-476).

*Such a move would encourage more Reading-bound traffic from the Greater Philly area to utilize I-76 to I-176 vs. US 422.

If that stretch of Turnpike (I-76/276) were toll free; construction costs for additional interchanges would be reduced because toll-gantry/plaza related structures & utilities would no longer be needed/required.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

qguy

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 18, 2014, 03:03:06 PMPersonally, the current and altered Valley Forge interchange is the one I have issue with the most because it still has through I-76 westbound traffic funneling down into a single-lane cloverleaf ramp.  IMHO, this interchange (without the added connections) should be either reconfigured to either a mirrored trumpet (cloverleaf ramp would be for the I-276 West to I-76 East movements) interchange or a full-blown directional interchange w/fly-over ramps.

That ramp is currently striped for two lanes narrowing to one before it becomes the westbound acceleration lane. (If you look at Google or Bing maps, you can see the two lanes become one lane under the bridge carrying the main line.) When the Turnpike is widened from two to three lanes (directionally) from Valley Forge to Great Valley (PA 29), this ramp will be restriped to two lanes along its entire length. The bridge carrying the main line was engineered for three through lanes, the two-lane onramp, and a shoulder. And the concrete for the full two-lane onramp is already in place.

From my work at PennDOT, I know that the PTC intends to carry westbound I-76 through the interchange with two lanes when the widening to the west is accomplished. I don't know what the merge point (which will be slightly west of the current end of the three-through-lane configuration) will look like, however, but I-76 will still be on a loop ramp.

rickmastfan67

#745
Pa. Turnpike to Raise Speed Limit to 70 mph on Stretch of Toll Highway Next Week

This will be between Exits #201 (Blue Mountain) and #298 (Morgantown).

jeffandnicole

So the 100 mile stretch of highway will go 97 miles.  Interesting.  And how many construction zones are in this area, wiping out the higher limit?

In other trivia...who wants to take a guess how many days the 100 day war lasted...

rickmastfan67

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 18, 2014, 10:27:04 PM
So the 100 mile stretch of highway will go 97 miles.  Interesting.  And how many construction zones are in this area, wiping out the higher limit?

Well, they might post the 70 all the way to Blue Mountain Tunnel on the West side of Exit #201.  That would get them another 2.1 miles, and practically to 100 miles.

Alps


cpzilliacus

Philly.com: Work to begin on connecting Pa. Turnpike and I-95

QuoteConstruction is to start late next month or in early October on the long-awaited direct connection between Interstate 95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, after the award of a $142.9 million contract to a Bucks County firm.

QuotePKF-Mark III Inc., of Newtown, won the contract from the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to build the first section of the $420 million Stage 1 of the new interchange that will finally provide an unbroken I-95 between Maine and Florida.

QuoteFor decades, I-95 has been incomplete in New Jersey near Trenton.

QuoteThe $142.9 million will pay for widening and reconstructing about four miles of the turnpike in Bristol Township, where the connection with I-95 will be built. It will also pay for building three new turnpike bridges and installing the piers for the flyover ramps for the connection.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.