http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/roadwork/s_636269.html (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/roadwork/s_636269.html)
Apparently they're breaking ground today on the projects that will finally complete the W.V. section.
Still no design illustrations of how the interchange will look, and the closest thing to a description doesn't sound accurate:
QuoteThe expressway will connect with I-68 near Lakeview Resort. Construction will include a four-lane ramp and a small bridge, according to Walker.
I doubt there will be "a ramp" that is 4-lanes.
Tweaked title (x3). -rmf67
It's about bloody time.
Rand McNally has shown this stretch as under construction for years.
Mon-Fayette? Where do they come up with such dumb names? "Monsieur Lafayette" or whatever was too much to spell out? Why not just abbreviate it all the way to "Mofo" and be done with it?
Monongahela River. It's frequently called the "Mon" as in Mon Valley.
About time! This is the second time West Virginia took their sweet time connecting a limited access highway at the border.
Quote from: PAHighways on August 03, 2009, 09:08:08 PM
About time! This is the second time West Virginia took their sweet time connecting a limited access highway at the border.
What was the other highway? I-79?
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 03, 2009, 10:52:50 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on August 03, 2009, 09:08:08 PM
About time! This is the second time West Virginia took their sweet time connecting a limited access highway at the border.
What was the other highway? I-79?
It was 79.
Quote from: PAHighways on August 03, 2009, 11:03:07 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 03, 2009, 10:52:50 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on August 03, 2009, 09:08:08 PM
About time! This is the second time West Virginia took their sweet time connecting a limited access highway at the border.
What was the other highway? I-79?
It was 79.
Thought so.
Quote from: mightyace on August 03, 2009, 05:49:33 PM
It's about bloody time.
Rand McNally has shown this stretch as under construction for years.
Well it kinda has. West Virginia had been building it pretty much bridge by bridge as funding was available over the past decade.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 03, 2009, 07:52:20 PM
Mon-Fayette? Where do they come up with such dumb names? "Monsieur Lafayette" or whatever was too much to spell out? Why not just abbreviate it all the way to "Mofo" and be done with it?
Jake,
It was originally going to be called the Mon Valley Expressway (the highway plans date to the 1960s if not earlier). Steve correctly pointed out that Mon comes from Monongahela River. The "Fayette" portion of the name is relatively new, and it was politicians from Fayette County which wanted and successfully got the name changed.
A lot of people, like myself, still call it the Mon Valley Expressway though.
I can't say this surprises me. I don't know how it will work out though.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_636691.html (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_636691.html)
It will be interesting to hear what they think they should get.
Dear Fayette County,
You spent time and effort and taxpayer money on ... that?? Die in a fire.
- Jake
Quote from: Mr_Northside on August 04, 2009, 09:27:52 AM
I can't say this surprises me. I don't know how it will work out though.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_636691.html (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_636691.html)
It will be interesting to hear what they think they should get.
If WV want tolls, they should put a toll barrier on their portion. :crazy:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 04, 2009, 01:17:44 PM
Dear Fayette County,
You spent time and effort and taxpayer money on ... that?? Die in a fire.
- Jake
Enhance your calm, besides why do you care so much about the name change?
Of course politicians are going to steer a major highway into their district. So far, PA Turnpike 43 has brought an industrial park to the area near Exit 8. There was even an article a few weeks back in the Uniontown paper about townships having to confront the issue of growth near the highway, which for Fayette County, there isn't much to start from.
Quote from: mightyace on August 04, 2009, 01:27:59 PMIf WV want tolls, they should put a toll barrier on their portion. :crazy:
I always assumed that if it too WVDOT too long to build WV 43, that they'd do what PennDOT did and hand it over to the toll road authority to build and toll.
it's not that the road was steered into Fayette County. That makes sense. It's that they insisted on changing the name. That's just bloviation.
I just don't like names for highways in general. Numbers are infinitely more apolitical and easier to keep track of. (Well, until the Borg conquer us and Route 6 is suddenly named for Senator 6 of 11.)
Quote from: PAHighways on August 04, 2009, 03:34:54 PM
Quote from: mightyace on August 04, 2009, 01:27:59 PMIf WV want tolls, they should put a toll barrier on their portion. :crazy:
I always assumed that if it too WVDOT too long to build WV 43, that they'd do what PennDOT did and hand it over to the toll road authority to build and toll.
Please, let's let PA pull a PennDOT :cool:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 04, 2009, 03:46:07 PM
it's not that the road was steered into Fayette County. That makes sense. It's that they insisted on changing the name. That's just bloviation.
Why shouldn't it be acknowledged too? The original plan for the Mon Valley Expressway was to basically follow the valley, but it doesn't south of 40 and I wouldn't say Uniontown is a Mon Valley town.
Quote from: njroadhorse on August 04, 2009, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on August 04, 2009, 03:34:54 PM
I always assumed that if it too WVDOT too long to build WV 43, that they'd do what PennDOT did and hand it over to the toll road authority to build and toll.
Please, let's let PA pull a PennDOT :cool:
You mean West Virigina?
shall we acknowledge anyone and everyone that had anything to do with the highway? Where does it stop?
I say "PA turnpike 43" is sufficient.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 04, 2009, 07:18:24 PMshall we acknowledge anyone and everyone that had anything to do with the highway? Where does it stop?
OK, then it really should be the Mon Valley/Fayette County/James J. Manderino Memorial/J. Barry Stout/Medal of Honor Expressway.
I don't understand why changing from "Mon Valley Expressway" to "Mon-Fayette Expressway" has you so up in arms? It isn't like it cost any money to change the name and the new moniker represents more accurately the path of the expressway.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 04, 2009, 07:18:24 PMI say "PA turnpike 43" is sufficient.
Everyone calls it "43" anyway since there is a plain PA 43 part.
Actually... I don't even know that there are any
official signs that "name" it that anyway. I'm sure it's mostly the numbered shields and occaisonally the "memorial" or political names. (And if memory serves (and it doesn't always), numerous interchanges are dedicated to some people)
Quote from: mightyace on August 04, 2009, 01:27:59 PM
If WV want tolls, they should put a toll barrier on their portion.
That would seem extremely wasteful and redundant. Given that the only exits in WV are at the terminus, if it's decided that there should be some tolling reimbursement, something like this is more efficient than throwing up a separate collection system for 4 miles of road.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on August 05, 2009, 09:25:48 AM
Quote from: mightyace on August 04, 2009, 01:27:59 PM
If WV want tolls, they should put a toll barrier on their portion.
That would seem extremely wasteful and redundant. Given that the only exits in WV are at the terminus, if it's decided that there should be some tolling reimbursement, something like this is more efficient than throwing up a separate collection system for 4 miles of road.
That does make more sense Mr. N, but we're talking about state governments and turnpike commissions here. :pan:
If it would somehow come to pass, I would bet that the last mainline toll in PA would increase the toll amount to pay WV's "share!" :ded:
Quote from: Mr_Northside on August 05, 2009, 09:25:48 AM
Actually... I don't even know that there are any official signs that "name" it that anyway. I'm sure it's mostly the numbered shields and occaisonally the "memorial" or political names. (And if memory serves (and it doesn't always), numerous interchanges are dedicated to some people)
There is/was a sign for James J. Manderino on southbound 43 at the California Toll Plaza, and one for J. Barry Stout somewhere north of I-70.
As for the memorial interchanges, I have them listed on the exit guide (http://www.pahighways.com/exits/PATurnpike43exits.html).
Quote from: PAHighways on August 04, 2009, 04:16:51 PM
Quote from: njroadhorse on August 04, 2009, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on August 04, 2009, 03:34:54 PM
I always assumed that if it too WVDOT too long to build WV 43, that they'd do what PennDOT did and hand it over to the toll road authority to build and toll.
Please, let's let PA pull a PennDOT :cool:
You mean West Virigina?
Yeah :-D
Quote from: Mr_Northside on August 03, 2009, 10:02:23 AM
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/roadwork/s_636269.html (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/roadwork/s_636269.html)
Apparently they're breaking ground today on the projects that will finally complete the W.V. section.
Still no design illustrations of how the interchange will look, and the closest thing to a description doesn't sound accurate:
QuoteThe expressway will connect with I-68 near Lakeview Resort. Construction will include a four-lane ramp and a small bridge, according to Walker.
I doubt there will be "a ramp" that is 4-lanes.
Guess this might be something else to see next time there is a meet in the Uniontown, PA area.
Rendering of the future I-68/WV 43 Interchange (http://moncpc.org/Maps/MonFayette_I68_Interchange_Visual_Analysis.pdf)
Quote from: hbelkins on August 07, 2009, 01:11:40 PM
Quote from: Mr_Northside on August 03, 2009, 10:02:23 AM
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/roadwork/s_636269.html (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/roadwork/s_636269.html)
Apparently they're breaking ground today on the projects that will finally complete the W.V. section.
Still no design illustrations of how the interchange will look, and the closest thing to a description doesn't sound accurate:
QuoteThe expressway will connect with I-68 near Lakeview Resort. Construction will include a four-lane ramp and a small bridge, according to Walker.
I doubt there will be "a ramp" that is 4-lanes.
Guess this might be something else to see next time there is a meet in the Uniontown, PA area.
Aren't you getting a little bit ahead of yourself on that, HB?
Quote from: PAHighways on August 07, 2009, 03:23:09 PM
Rendering of the future I-68/WV 43 Interchange (http://moncpc.org/Maps/MonFayette_I68_Interchange_Visual_Analysis.pdf)
Nice.
Apparently, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and the State of West Virginia are talking about tolling WV's portion of the Mon-Fayette.
See http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4298 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4298)
Of course, as no agreements have been signed, it may come to nothing.
Hmmm...that picture with Governor Casey in it looks familiar.
The PTC can't fund construction of the 51 to 376 section, now they have to pay for West Virginia's section as well? That is a bigger travesty than changing the name!
If West Virginia can't pay their own costs, then they should do I was suggested earlier.
QuoteThe PTC can't fund construction of the 51 to 376 section, now they have to pay for West Virginia's section as well? That is a bigger travesty than changing the name!
Maybe they're planning on using the I-80 tolls. :-D :sombrero: :pan:
They had a story about the Mon-Fayette and the Southern Beltway earlier tonight on KDKA. Here's the video about it:
http://kdka.com/video/?id=64883@kdka.dayport.com (http://kdka.com/video/?id=64883@kdka.dayport.com)
This road has no WV purpose whatsoever. Of course WV should toll it. I cannot think of a reason any WVian would drive on it.
Quote from: HighwayMaster on November 29, 2009, 05:20:25 PM
I say, if RTE-43 is only a few miles away from I-68, then extend it!
Quite a bit of it is already done, but bridges and the I-68 connection are needed to complete it.
A WVDOH official indicated that the WV portion of the Mon-Fayette Expressway could be open by the end of the year.
The I-68/Bower's Lane interchange project should be completed by November. The northern half of the interchange which connects to Bower's Lane is 40 percent complete. The southern half of the interchange - a direct tie in to Interstate 68 - is 25 percent finished.
http://wvgazette.com/ap/ApTopStories/201001110176
http://www.wdtv.com/index.php/home/local-news/792-mon-fayette-expressway
So when's the Mon Valley roadmeet?
Quote from: AlpsROADS on January 13, 2010, 09:28:16 PM
So when's the Mon Valley roadmeet?
Jeff had one in Uniontown, Pa. back in December 2007.
They will really have to hustle to get the I-68 interchange finished by the end of the year. But I saw in the video that they were out working in the snow.
Back in December I had reason to drive that stretch of I-68... It was already dark when I was headed east, so I couldn't see anything off-highway, and was expecting to see a lot of "work-zone" related signs and such on the highway, but saw no real signs anything was happening [eastbound]
Heading back westbound it was daylight, but the crappy weather dictated that most all of my attention was focused on what was right in front of me. There were construction signs referencing construction for the ramp to Cheat Lake.
I certainly wouldn't bet money on the interchange with I-68 being done by the end of the year.
It's a shame that this project doesn't seem to have its own website.
AlpsROADS: fixed annoying apostrophe
With West Virginia nearing completion of their portion of the Mon-Fayette Expressway, PennDot is looking to moving US 119 onto it, once the Mon-Fayette is completed, to Interstate 68. According to the minutes of the August 20, 2009 meeting of the Morgantown Metropolitan Planning Organization, PennDot "...wishes to [ask] AASHTO to resign that section of the Mon-Fayette Expressway as U.S. 119. Pennsylvania wishes to immediately place U.S. 119 signage on the interstate and overlap from Exit 1 on I-68, across Cheat Lake."
Under the Pennsylvania proposal, US 119 would no longer leave the freeway at Morgantown Road (un-numbered exit; mile 12), but it would now continue on the toll road south into West Virginia and then west on Interstate 68 until Exit 1.
However, West Virginia prefers that US 119 leave I-68 at Exit 7 and continue to run through downtown Morgantown.
For some more details (including a map scan) head to the blog:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/02/pennsylvania-wants-to-move-us-119-onto.html
If any route changes should take place, PA 857 should be decommissioned. US 119 should just remain on its current alignment as it deviates farther from the MFE than 857 which parallels it all the way.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 14, 2010, 04:30:16 PM
Under the Pennsylvania proposal, US 119 would no longer leave the freeway at Morgantown Road (un-numbered exit; mile 12), but it would now continue on the toll road south into West Virginia and then west on Interstate 68 until Exit 1.
However, West Virginia prefers that US 119 leave I-68 at Exit 7 and continue to run through downtown Morgantown.
For some more details (including a map scan) head to the blog:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/02/pennsylvania-wants-to-move-us-119-onto.html
As noted on the blog, how likely is AASHTO to approve a US Highway on a toll road? Otherwise, it would be the most direct route, keeping with AASHTO dictates. Current 119 could become ALT 119.
Per AASHTO policy, US routes can follow a toll road if a toll-free alternative exists and remains on the U.S. route system. So there's a pretty good chance AASHTO will approve US 119 along the Mon-Fayette, as long as existing US 119 (or a comparable toll-free route) remains on the system.....ALT US 119 anyone?
Quote from: froggie on February 15, 2010, 07:01:26 AM
Per AASHTO policy, US routes can follow a toll road if a toll-free alternative exists and remains on the U.S. route system. So there's a pretty good chance AASHTO will approve US 119 along the Mon-Fayette, as long as existing US 119 (or a comparable toll-free route) remains on the system.....ALT US 119 anyone?
Yes, this is what was done in NE Oklahoma when the US-412 was routed along the tolled Cherokee Turnpike...the old alignment was signed as 'US-412 Scenic'.
Quote from: froggie on February 15, 2010, 07:01:26 AM
Per AASHTO policy, US routes can follow a toll road if a toll-free alternative exists and remains on the U.S. route system. So there's a pretty good chance AASHTO will approve US 119 along the Mon-Fayette, as long as existing US 119 (or a comparable toll-free route) remains on the system.....ALT US 119 anyone?
West Virginia has already said it wants to keep US 119 through downtown Morgantown. Here's a compromise: route US 119 along County 857, which is the new route (Pierpont Rd.) connecting US 119 to I-68, then run US 119 concurrently with I-68 down the hill and across Cheat Lake, then onto the new route. This allows US 119 to stay in Morgantown yet satisfies PennDOT's desire to put it on the new route. I have only driven US 119 from Morgantown to the state line and not on up to Uniontown, but if it's as crappy a road in PA as it is in WV, it ought to be downgraded from a primary through route. I think most through traffic takes County 857 from I-68 north into Pennsylvania as it is now, not US 119.
HB,
That's pretty much what the Morgantown MPO has suggested.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 15, 2010, 10:10:59 AM
West Virginia has already said it wants to keep US 119 through downtown Morgantown. Here's a compromise: route US 119 along County 857, which is the new route (Pierpont Rd.) connecting US 119 to I-68, then run US 119 concurrently with I-68 down the hill and across Cheat Lake, then onto the new route. This allows US 119 to stay in Morgantown yet satisfies PennDOT's desire to put it on the new route. I have only driven US 119 from Morgantown to the state line and not on up to Uniontown, but if it's as crappy a road in PA as it is in WV, it ought to be downgraded from a primary through route. I think most through traffic takes County 857 from I-68 north into Pennsylvania as it is now, not US 119.
I'd imagine if they do anything with this idea, that this will be what happens. Except for the real cheapskates, I'm sure this will be what the majority of Morgantown <-> Uniontown traffic will do anyhow. (And the cheapskates will probably use 857 anyway)
Though, I'll admit, even though I don't think it's ever been considered as a serious option (or at all), I always liked the idea of an I-x68 spur to Uniontown (and possibly the rest of the highway if it never makes it north of Jefferson Hills). I figure it would be I-68's best chance at having a useful "child" route. That said, it's not something I'm gonna lose any sleep over.
I'm also fine with this idea, it will extend US-119's 4-lane nature further southward from Uniontown. PA could get real crazy, and if they're gonna put a US route over a toll Rd anyway, they could replace/duplex it up the Hutchinson bypass with PA Tpk-66 to US-22 (and extend that duplex), creating a 4-lane US-119 corridor (with a couple of 1-lane ramp exceptions) from north of Indiana (PA), to Morgantown.
Here's what AASHTO says regarding tolled US highways:
http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/USRN_Checklist_Dec2009.pdf
Quote15. Any toll highway facility may be included in the U.S. Numbered System
when it meets all the criteria for inclusion, and when the request
for the marking originates with the official authority having
jurisdiction over the toll facility and the request is directed to
AASHTO and supported by the appropriate Member Department. The word
"Toll" shall appear over the official U.S. Route Marker and a toll-free
routing between the same termini shall continue to be retained and
marked as a part of the U.S. Numbered System.
Though next I saw here
http://us-highways.com/tollus.htm
that all present Toll US Highways are "not signed as TOLL", and the free alternatives don't need to have the same number as the toll road.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 15, 2010, 10:10:59 AMI have only driven US 119 from Morgantown to the state line and not on up to Uniontown, but if it's as crappy a road in PA as it is in WV, it ought to be downgraded from a primary through route.
It is about the same. You can see it on the VidLog; however, it could keep the original US 119 designation and let the toll road get the first green-on-white US PA Turnpike 119 shield.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 15, 2010, 10:10:59 AMI think most through traffic takes County 857 from I-68 north into Pennsylvania as it is now, not US 119.
Definitely since it is a quick jaunt up 68 to CR 857 then a short ride to the Mason-Dixon Line and then onto either 43 or PA 857. WVDOT recognized the heavy usage of the route by installing warning signage for the curves to alert truckers even before the MFE opened but it became even more important after wards.
Specter Promises Support to Finish Mon-Fay Expressway (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10061/1039613-147.stm)
He can promise all he wants. But delivery is another story entirely. Especially in his case since there's a pretty good chance he won't be around come next year...
A Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1428&What=&strArea=;&strTime=0) released today shows Specter leading over Republican challenger Pat Toomey 49% to 42%. Of course that's still months from the general election, and the primary has yet to occur (though Specter leads his primary challenger Joe Sestak by around twenty percent), but a 7-point lead certainly doesn't foretell certain doom for Specter.
how dare you cast a Specter over this thread
Federal money for a toll road? This one kinda confuses me...
There's precedent....DE 1. Though that was a pilot project.
A recent story in the Uniontown Herald-Standard reports that the completion of WV 43 to Bower's Lane is scheduled for August 20th. Wow, that's fast!
A reminder that this will not tie the freeway directly to Interstate 68 as motorists will need to make about a 1/2 mile detour on local roads to get to I-68. However, when this phase is completed and open sometime after August, it will eliminate nearly seven miles of travel on a narrow and sometimes twisty Highway 857.
WVDOH will build a direct high-speed connection between WV 43 and I-68 when traffic volumes warrant it. That could be years if not decades away.
Story:
http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1253/2010/april/06/bmoving-right-along-b.html
Not surprising that it'd be ready to go since WV 43 has basically been sitting completed as we saw during the 2007 SWPA tour.
http://ee.dominionpost.com/Olive/ODE/DominionPost/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=RFBvc3QvMjAxMC8wNi8yNA..&pageno=MQ..&entity=QXIwMDEwMw..&view=ZW50aXR5 (http://ee.dominionpost.com/Olive/ODE/DominionPost/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=RFBvc3QvMjAxMC8wNi8yNA..&pageno=MQ..&entity=QXIwMDEwMw..&view=ZW50aXR5)
Opening delayed to an unnamed date in "Spring 2011".
WV and PA could not come to an agreement on the idea of having the southernmost toll in PA split between the two states. WV will now put up its own toll booths one mile north of I-68. Tolls will be collected "under contract" with the WVDOH by the WVEDPTA (AKA the Turnpike Commission) whose only other operation is the WV Turnpike over 150 miles away. However the WVDOH owns the road and there is no requirement that the money taken in be spent on that highway's upkeep, it will just be ordinary income to the state and deposited in the state treasury, and the road will be maintained by regular DOH facilities (the Turnpike maintains its own seperate operation of pavers, snow plowers, etc). I really do not see the road as revenue positive if it were in a traditional bonding situation anyway.
No word on what the WV toll will be (50 or 75 c would seem about right) or if WV will develop special signage (I would advocate for mirroring PA's deal, with a green square "Toll 43".
Quote from: SP Cook on June 25, 2010, 08:47:35 PM
http://ee.dominionpost.com/Olive/ODE/DominionPost/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=RFBvc3QvMjAxMC8wNi8yNA..&pageno=MQ..&entity=QXIwMDEwMw..&view=ZW50aXR5 (http://ee.dominionpost.com/Olive/ODE/DominionPost/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=RFBvc3QvMjAxMC8wNi8yNA..&pageno=MQ..&entity=QXIwMDEwMw..&view=ZW50aXR5)
Opening delayed to an unnamed date in "Spring 2011".
WV and PA could not come to an agreement on the idea of having the southernmost toll in PA split between the two states. WV will now put up its own toll booths one mile north of I-68. Tolls will be collected "under contract" with the WVDOH by the WVEDPTA (AKA the Turnpike Commission) whose only other operation is the WV Turnpike over 150 miles away. However the WVDOH owns the road and there is no requirement that the money taken in be spent on that highway's upkeep, it will just be ordinary income to the state and deposited in the state treasury, and the road will be maintained by regular DOH facilities (the Turnpike maintains its own seperate operation of pavers, snow plowers, etc). I really do not see the road as revenue positive if it were in a traditional bonding situation anyway.
No word on what the WV toll will be (50 or 75 c would seem about right) or if WV will develop special signage (I would advocate for mirroring PA's deal, with a green square "Toll 43".
Heard about this elsewhere. Why was WV so gung-ho on tolling this road if the toll revenues aren't going to be used to maintain it? With no exits in WV, the road really serves no local purpose and is just a conduit for traffic to get to Pennsylvania, but WV's original intent was to build it as a free highway and connect it to PA's toll facility. Which seems silly to me; WV should have planned to toll it all along if this was the decision that they eventually were going to arrive at.
It makes sense to toll the road, as it serves no WV purpose. It will be inconvient for motorists to have two tolls with 8 miles, a similar situation to the consecutive tolls in the various jurisdicitons at the Delaware Memorial Bridge, but we are talking about tiny traffic volumes. I doubt a night shift toll worker would take in her salary in a shift. However, it is correct that WV should have just set up a traditional toll authority, borrowed the money and gotten the road finished contemporanously with PA.
When the Turnpike tolls were (illegally) extended in 1989 for another 30 years, many politicians were told that a system similar to NY's of statewide "cross-pledged" toll roads. This was the reason for renaming the Turnpike Commisions the "Economic Development (state already had and has a regular economic development office) Tourism (state already has a tourist authority) and Parkways (note the plural) Authority". Of course the money was then spent on buying penny stocks and then on the loss making curio shop system.
Looking at a map, it would seem that toll funding could easily finish the 13 mile gap in US 35 and the unbuilt part of Corridor H. Both could easily be fully limited access highways.
I just hope they're not going to be stupid enough to put up only booths and no "express lanes"....
It would be a shame for WV to look like a backwards redneck-run state by installing tolling facilities, IN 2010 (or maybe 2011) that, at best, would require slowing to 5 M.P.H.
I'm curious as to why some arrangement couldn't be found for this. While the merits of "tolling" the WV portion can be debated, This booth does seem wasteful. I agree with the post above, that a toll worker (assuming it's not totally automated) probably won't even cover their expenses in a night.
Couldn't they just give the road to PA? That would seem to be the most efficient solution, given that it serves no purpose to WV, is so small, and PA doesn't want to share toll revenue.
There would likely be legal issues with a road within one state being given to another.
Quote from: froggie on June 26, 2010, 03:22:05 PM
There would likely be legal issues with a road within one state being given to another.
The closest thing I can think of to this is NYSDOT maintaining NY 17/I-86 where it meets up with US 220 (in Pennsylvania) and I-684 in that brief stretch through Connecticut. Obviously, those two segments are shorter than the segment of the Mon-Fayette in question...
They are also both cases where the road begins in one state, dips into the second state, then shortly returns to the first state. Plus I-684 lacks interchanges on its Connecticut dip. Neither case exists with the Mon-Fayette.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on June 26, 2010, 11:36:52 AM
I'm curious as to why some arrangement couldn't be found for this. While the merits of "tolling" the WV portion can be debated, This booth does seem wasteful. I agree with the post above, that a toll worker (assuming it's not totally automated) probably won't even cover their expenses in a night.
Remember, one of the involved parties is the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. They haven't been able to come to an accommodation with PennDOT in over 40 years over Breezewood. Why should we expect that they can come to an agreement with an out of state agency? :sombrero:
Quote from: froggie on June 26, 2010, 03:22:05 PM
There would likely be legal issues with a road within one state being given to another.
Just north of Williamson, US 119 & 52 (Corridor G) dips into Kentucky from WV for two brief segments of a few hundred yards each. The old road was on the WV side only. The new road was buit by the WV contractor in the 1990s using 100% WV money (actually, of course, that means mostly federal money given to WV). Kentucky right of way division purchased the property, with WV money, in the name of the Commonwealth, but did nothing else. Repairs, upkeep and snow removal is done by WV DOH. You do see the occasional KY cop on the road.
Getting away from highways, I can think of several airports that are owned by a core city, such as San Francisco, but which are located outside of the city. Does not LA own its entire water system, which reached 100s of miles inland? And the University of California, IIRC, owns a property used for research in New Mexico.
Not saying they're insurmountable. Just saying that the legal issues would have to be addressed before such an agreement could be pursued.
I'm thinking the real reason that WV decided to build their own toll booths is because there are no toll booths @ Exit #2 in PA. People would just get off there to avoid paying any toll to either state.
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.737167,-79.811447&spn=0.006039,0.013937&t=k&z=17
Quote from: mightyace on June 28, 2010, 04:57:07 AMRemember, one of the involved parties is the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. They haven't been able to come to an accommodation with PennDOT in over 40 years over Breezewood. Why should we expect that they can come to an agreement with an out of state agency? :sombrero:
This has been covered ad nauseam. Those ramps have about as good a chance of being built as I-99 being decommissioned.
^^^
I wasn't trying to beat that dead horse. It is simply the most glaring example of how the PTC doesn't play well with others. (If they can't work well with their own state DOT, how can we expect them to work with an out of state agency.)
Quote from: mightyace on June 29, 2010, 03:11:34 AM
^^^
I wasn't trying to beat that dead horse. It is simply the most glaring example of how the PTC doesn't play well with others. (If they can't work well with their own state DOT, how can we expect them to work with an out of state agency.)
Is it the PTC that's being difficult, or do the local business interests exert undue influence?
To me, it's ridiculous to have a toll road commission in any state separate from the DOT. When Kentucky had toll roads, they were under control of the Transportation Cabinet.
As for Breezewood, it's not thriving like it once may have been. I spent two nights there a couple of weeks ago and there are several closed motels, restaurants, etc. Outside the section of US 30 that I-70 traffic has to use, there isn't much to the place.
I'd love to see a history of Breezewood ... when I-70 was built northward out of Maryland, why no direct connection was made to the turnpike at the time, etc. Is there a good one available online anywhere? Jeff K., do you have anything definitive?
Quote from: hbelkins on June 29, 2010, 09:59:14 AM
Quote from: mightyace on June 29, 2010, 03:11:34 AM
^^^
I wasn't trying to beat that dead horse. It is simply the most glaring example of how the PTC doesn't play well with others. (If they can't work well with their own state DOT, how can we expect them to work with an out of state agency.)
Is it the PTC that's being difficult, or do the local business interests exert undue influence?
To me, it's ridiculous to have a toll road commission in any state separate from the DOT. When Kentucky had toll roads, they were under control of the Transportation Cabinet.
As for Breezewood, it's not thriving like it once may have been. I spent two nights there a couple of weeks ago and there are several closed motels, restaurants, etc. Outside the section of US 30 that I-70 traffic has to use, there isn't much to the place.
I'd love to see a history of Breezewood ... when I-70 was built northward out of Maryland, why no direct connection was made to the turnpike at the time, etc. Is there a good one available online anywhere? Jeff K., do you have anything definitive?
There's a description of why no direct connection was made at the time at the bottom of this page. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm) The gist of it is that I-70 was built with Federal funding and if that were used to build the interchange, the rules at the time would have required the PTC to stop collecting tolls when their bonds were retired.
Why couldn't I-70 have been given an interchange at Breezewood as well as a direct connection? That way, motorists would have had a choice, and a direct connection would still have been made.
What about all the direct connections with interstates in NY? Surely the same policy was in effect here!
Quote from: deanej on June 29, 2010, 12:41:24 PMWhy couldn't I-70 have been given an interchange at Breezewood as well as a direct connection?
Basically the business owners protested any ramp connection because they felt that revenue would dry up in proportion to traffic on 30 (yes, I know that is ridiculous and 80-85% of traffic using 70 does not stop at any establishment).
Quote from: hbelkins on June 29, 2010, 09:59:14 AM
Is it the PTC that's being difficult, or do the local business interests exert undue influence?
The only way I could see this being an issue that is the fault of the PTC is if they couldn't agree on a "split" or perhaps a "collection fee". Otherwise, you'd think the PTC would like the opportunity to make a little extra coin doing "work" for WV. It could just be that they wanted too much $$$. On the other hand, I could also see some in WV not wanting to "outsource" whatever jobs they think doing their own tolling would create. Some politician can now tout at least a little "job creation".
(EDIT: I was assuming the question was in relation to the Mon-Fayette tolling business, not the Breezewood situation)
Quote from: algorerhythms on June 29, 2010, 10:16:02 AM
There's a description of why no direct connection was made at the time at the bottom of this page. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm) The gist of it is that I-70 was built with Federal funding and if that were used to build the interchange, the rules at the time would have required the PTC to stop collecting tolls when their bonds were retired.
Because the PTC was unwilling to use its own revenues for an interchange at Breezewood, State highway officials used Federal-aid highway funds to extend I-70 north beyond the turnpike to a terminus with U.S. 30. Consistent with Section 113(b), this configuration allowed motorists to use a toll-free route (U.S. 30) or the turnpike to travel east or west of Breezewood.Direct ramps wouldn't change that. Westbound I-70 motorists could still use US 30 without being tolled.
Breezewood is different than the other Turnpike-Interstate crossings because it's a continuation of I-70 that's involved. And there was no issue about connecting the Turnpike to I-83.
I still say it's ridiculous not to include a state's turnpike commission inside the larger transportation agency. The two bureaus should play nice with one another. During the SEPA meet tour of the Philly traffic center, it was mentioned that the Turnpike's traffic cam system isn't compatible with what the traffic management system is using.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 30, 2010, 12:06:21 PMAnd there was no issue about connecting the Turnpike to I-83.
Interstate 83, or US 111 as it was known then, was being built at the same time as the Philadelphia Extension. The former Perry Highway interchange was built when the Western Extension was under construction at the same time US 19 was being relocated.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 30, 2010, 12:06:21 PMDuring the SEPA meet tour of the Philly traffic center, it was mentioned that the Turnpike's traffic cam system isn't compatible with what the traffic management system is using.
They also use different radio systems. PTC is still using analog VHF while PennDOT has gone to the trunked 800 MHz "OpenSky" network, and the PTC is to use that but for whatever reason has remained on the old system.
Quote from: PAHighways on June 29, 2010, 01:04:57 PM
Quote from: deanej on June 29, 2010, 12:41:24 PMWhy couldn't I-70 have been given an interchange at Breezewood as well as a direct connection?
Basically the business owners protested any ramp connection because they felt that revenue would dry up in proportion to traffic on 30 (yes, I know that is ridiculous and 80-85% of traffic using 70 does not stop at any establishment).
I meant when it
was first built.
Quote from: deanej on June 30, 2010, 02:48:37 PM
I meant when it was first built.
there were businesses on US-30 that far back!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 30, 2010, 03:17:08 PM
Quote from: deanej on June 30, 2010, 02:48:37 PM
I meant when it was first built.
there were businesses on US-30 that far back!
The Gateway Truck Stop started it all, as it has been in business practically since the Turnpike interchange opened.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 30, 2010, 03:17:08 PM
there were businesses on US-30 that far back!
But they weren't getting traffic from I-70 that they could complain about losing. You can't lose something you don't have, no matter how much the crybabies in Breezewood might have claimed at the time.
Quote from: deanej on July 01, 2010, 12:31:45 PM
But they weren't getting traffic from I-70 that they could complain about losing. You can't lose something you don't have, no matter how much the crybabies in Breezewood might have claimed at the time.
there was traffic on US-30. Furthermore, in Politician Space (any resemblance to actual reality is purely coincidental), you
can cry over losing something you never actually had. How do you think the Democratic party stays viable all these years??
Going back to deanej's post from 6/26 and my reply, looks like I was right. According to this Charleston Gazette article (http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201008160707), the original plan was to have PTC run the toll booth on the WV side, but PTC wanted to use video tolling, and such video equipment is illegal in WV under a 2006 law. So this is why WV is handling the tolling on their side of the border and not PTC.
Quote from: froggie on August 17, 2010, 07:23:46 AM
Going back to deanej's post from 6/26 and my reply, looks like I was right. According to this Charleston Gazette article (http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201008160707), the original plan was to have PTC run the toll booth on the WV side, but PTC wanted to use video tolling, and such video equipment is illegal in WV under a 2006 law. So this is why WV is handling the tolling on their side of the border and not PTC.
Seems like it would have been easier, and cheaper, to change the law.
Cheaper, perhaps. Not necessarily easier, given the vagaries of lawmaking and legislative bodies...
Wow... so even when the plan was for the PTC to collect the tolls, they were still going to put ANOTHER mainline barrier between on the road between I-68 & Uniontown!?! It's just my opinion, but the psychological effect of 2 toll plazas in a not-that-far distance is more of a deterrent to the use of the road than the toll amount itself (It "feels" worse opening your wallet (so to speak) twice for $1 than just once for $2 in the same amount of distance.) They'd have to put up some north-off / south-on booths at that first exit in PA, but I suppose it's all a moot point anyway, as their plan seems pretty set.
Also, from the article:
QuoteWest Virginia's plaza will probably resemble the first toll plaza on Pennsylvania's side of the expressway, which features one E-ZPass only lane, and two lanes that will accept E-ZPass or cash payments
Sounds like all traffic, even EZ-Pass, will have to slow to at least 5mph (a stop for cash customers) at some point in WV; as the first plaza in PA doesn't have "express lanes" (being built over a decade ago, and prior to EZ-Pass even coming to the PTC mainline). If this is the type of plaza (no "express lanes) WV is building here in 2010/2011... Well, way to reinforce that "Backwards Thinking" stereotype that WV gets sometimes.
That all being said, I do like that WV has a law banning the use of red-light cameras. Not only are they being considered here in PA, but there was an article that had Rendell suggesting cameras to catch license plates to "bust" people driving without insurance. I certainly don't think people should drive without insurance, but I just can't support where this traffic enforcement by automation & surveillance is headed... but all that is getting off-topic.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on August 17, 2010, 03:06:55 PM
Wow... so even when the plan was for the PTC to collect the tolls, they were still going to put ANOTHER mainline barrier between on the road between I-68 & Uniontown!?! It's just my opinion, but the psychological effect of 2 toll plazas in a not-that-far distance is more of a deterrent to the use of the road than the toll amount itself (It "feels" worse opening your wallet (so to speak) twice for $1 than just once for $2 in the same amount of distance.) They'd have to put up some north-off / south-on booths at that first exit in PA, but I suppose it's all a moot point anyway, as their plan seems pretty set.
This point is moot as well, but if WV would have let the tolls be collected in PA, the WV video tolling law wouldn't apply, would it? Or, would WV been against the concept regardless of where the toll was collected?
No, the video tolling law wouldn't apply there as it wouldn't be within the state of West Virginia.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on August 17, 2010, 03:06:55 PM
Sounds like all traffic, even EZ-Pass, will have to slow to at least 5mph (a stop for cash customers) at some point in WV; as the first plaza in PA doesn't have "express lanes" (being built over a decade ago, and prior to EZ-Pass even coming to the PTC mainline). If this is the type of plaza (no "express lanes) WV is building here in 2010/2011... Well, way to reinforce that "Backwards Thinking" stereotype that WV gets sometimes.
The main WV Turnpike has huge toll backups, because the WVEDTPA is corrupt and does not care, but the road we are talking about will be lucky to see a few cars per hour now, and even if it is ever finished up at its north end in PA, will have traffic volumes that would make buying into "open road tolling" and such a great waste of money.
The Washington (PA) Herald-Standard has some new reports on the progress of the Mon-Fayette Expressway in both Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
First, West Virginia has approved the plans on the toll plaza for WV 43 and construction is underway. WVDOH plans to open the highway in the Spring of 2011. As a result, PA 43 will now have a straight shot from Uniontown to Interstate 68.
On the Pennsylvania side, construction on the highway sections of the remainder of the Uniontown-to-Brownsville Link are well underway and ahead of schedule. The Mon-Fayette highway bridge over the Monongahela River near Brownsville is schedule to be completed in 2012.
If the fast pace of the highway work continues, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission may consider opening parts of the highway prior to the Mon River bridge completion in the Spring of 2012. This would most likely include: the opening of the high speed interchange with US 119 in Uniontown - creating a continuous freeway link in the area - and continuing the highway north another four miles beyond US 40 (Exit 22) to Bull Run Road (Exit 26) south of Brownsville.
Story: http://www.heraldstandard.com/news_detail/article/1631/2010/october/25/wva-expressway-toll-plaza-approved.html
Actually, the PTC had originally planned on opening the Uniontown interchange in Fall of this year.
The article you posted had one guy quoted as "set for completion by late November", but then also used the phrase "by the end of the year".
It will be interesting to see what or if they open anything on the other end prior to the Mon-River bridge opening.
http://www.mfe-union-to-brown.com/photos.htm (http://www.mfe-union-to-brown.com/photos.htm)
There are some updating traffic cameras that show the current shape of either the Uniontown Interchange and also the Mon-River Bridge.
(They also do a decent job of updating still photos of the stretch of highway as well)
Got a brief glimpse of the highway @ I-68 this weekend. It's been said here for a while the interchange won't be any sort of freeway-freeway thing, but I couldn't even tell if they're doing anything of importance (looked like they were putting in traffic lights on the southeast part). Though extending north, the highway itself looks pretty done.
Though I didn't really have the chance to get off 68 and check it out, as I stayed with a bunch of friends at a resort in WV on the MD border this weekend. Unfortunately it was already dark on the way there, and on the way home I was part of a "convoy" stopping for lunch in Morgantown (If you're in that area and looking for Mexican food, I highly recommend "Los Mariachis" on WV-705)
Best I can tell, from doing some exploring in the area back in October and driving by it on I-68 westbound this weekend, is that the interchange is being reconfigured to tie directly into the new route, with an auxiliary interchange a bit north to connect to CR 857. Looks like the ramp from WB 68 to NB 43 will lead directly into the new four-lane. Best I could tell, paving on the new four-lane is almost complete.
Yeah... that's how it looked from the glimpse I got going down the hill and around the bend.
Basically PA/WV 43 is going to funnel into the existing diamond interchange that CR 857 has with 68. If you are coming south from Uniontown. Not a total freeway to freeway interchange... but it should be able to handle the traffic volume, so it makes sense why West Virginia did not opt to build the full interchange.
Quote from: PAHighways on August 07, 2009, 03:23:09 PM
Rendering of the future I-68/WV 43 Interchange (http://moncpc.org/Maps/MonFayette_I68_Interchange_Visual_Analysis.pdf)
So, this rendering is no longer accurate? The one at the link certainly looks like a freeway to freeway.
It's accurate for when they build the full interchange...which may be decades away. No idea if there will be stub ramps for the eventual interchange, I guess when we go home for Christmas I may get a chance to look (depending if they've changed any traffic patterns by then).
http://www.postgazette.com/pg/10344/1109785-147.stm (http://www.postgazette.com/pg/10344/1109785-147.stm)
The Uniontown-Brownsville section of Mon-Fayette will be easier to "get to" on Monday.
I wonder if all the ramps are 1-lane, or if the Mon-Fayette "mainline" ramps are 2-lane.
This is a bonus for the SWPA XMAS Meet.
They already had most of the overhead signage in place, and covered up, on northbound US 119 when I was there back in June.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 10, 2010, 09:11:26 PM
They already had most of the overhead signage in place, and covered up, on northbound US 119 when I was there back in June.
I have some pictures of them from back in March that I haven't posted. I also noticed back then that they were planning on co-signing PA-Turnpike-43 on US-119/US-40.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv645%2Frickmastfan67%2FInterstates%2FPA%2FPA-43%2FP1070196s.jpg&hash=9bfa0ce9e80cccfa3f44d97956c2e2ab351a82fa)
My guess is that the PA 43 designation will be extended north from the end of the Chadville Demonstration Project to the new 119/51 interchange with Turnpike 43 taking over from there.
Well, that picture of mine was on the PA-51 bridge over US-119. That honsetly leads me to think they will post it as PA Turnpike 43 instead of PA-43 along US-119. Of course, they could have changed that sign since I was there in March.
Anyways Jeff, make sure you or anybody else that attends the meet there gets pictures. :P Especially if they have added exit numbers along US-119 to match PA Turnpike 43's mileage. ;)
They might have replaced the plain PA 43 shields on the Chadville Demonstration Project with Turnpike 43 ones. It just seems odd for there to be Turnpike shields on a PennDOT owned and maintained route.
No need to worry about the pictures, besides also needing the exit information.
As of this past July it was still regular PA 43 on the Chadville section.
James,
You are close by why not head down and get photos and verify yourself?
Trust me, I would love to. However the car isn't in good shape right now for me to go farther than 10 miles from home. It badly needs an oil change. Plus I have other stuff that I need to get done around town before Christmas and a planned trip. Jeff as of right now is the closest to it, so I have no problem waiting for him or anybody else to get pictures at the roadmeet. I was mostly only asking because of helping out Tim @ CHM. Need to know if we need to merge two of the PA-43 files into one or not depending on the signage on US-119. ;)
Don't worry about the exits, because I need them too. I'll just post a link my 43 exit guide on the CHM message board when I get them.
I'd say merge the Chadville and Brownsville files together, since there will be a complete route whether it is posted PA 43 or PA Turnpike 43.
Quote from: PAHighways on December 17, 2010, 10:44:09 PM
Don't worry about the exits, because I need them too. I'll just post a link my 43 exit guide on the CHM message board when I get them.
I'd say merge the Chadville and Brownsville files together, since there will be a complete route whether it is posted PA 43 or PA Turnpike 43.
Well, you know Tim, he will not add anything till he has confirmation of a multiplex (doesn't matter what type of route, just as long as it's "43"). :spin:
And Jeff, here's the link to that thread (http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php?t=1026&mforum=clinched). ;)
I took a trip to Uniontown today and posted my observations on the Pennsylvania Highways Moblog (http://pahighways.tumblr.com/).
Quote from: PAHighways on December 19, 2010, 10:29:29 PM
Pennsylvania Highways Moblog (http://pahighways.tumblr.com/).
Link doesn't work. :(
EDIT: I just found the proper link: http://pahighways.tumblr.com/
I was through the area heading north on Christmas Eve - On I-68 eastbound, the BGSs for Exit 10 have been changed, with WV 43 replacing CR 857 and control cities of Cheat Lake and Uniontown. You can see the BGSs posted on the unopened road, which was snow-covered but appears to be just about ready to open.
Continuing into PA on 857, I turned left onto Gans Road to get onto 43 - the signs at the interchange looked just like regular PA route signs but were green and white instead of black and white, with no "turnpike" wording on them.
The Chadville part still has the black and white PA 43 signs, and the END 43 assembly is still there where it meets 119 and 40. There are no more 43 signs until you get to that PA Turnpike 43 sign that Jeff mentions in his blog (just south of the West 40/Business 40 interchange).
Coming home, I returned via MD on I-68. Approaching Exit 10, the first BGS still had CR 857 but the next two had been changed to WV 43.
Though I didn't take a photo of them, the non-TPK 43 shields are similar to the shortlived inverser PA TPK 43 shields that were present on 43 south of Uniontown in 1999-2000 - http://www.gribblenation.com/papics/various/green43.jpg
There is one like that at the future PA 88 interchange at the end of the expressway south of US 40.
WV section to open next month, without tolls for now:
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5357
It was said at the meet that they have to work on the mainline BGS and a couple of the entry ones to cover up "TOLL ROAD" because you can get to PA for free.
Re: earlier threads: The southern PA Tpk 43 shields are all correct, but there's one inverse one I spied on Gans Rd. Further up 857 they're all plain PA 43 shields.
The black and white 43s denote the Chadville Demonstration Project which PennDOT built and maintains.
Quote from: dave19 on June 20, 2011, 02:57:47 PM
WV section to open next month, without tolls for now:
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5357
Interesting... Prior articles posted about WV's plans to toll their section of 43 said that it would be a more obsolete-style toll plaza (quite possibly even without any "express" EZ-Pass lanes), staffed and everything.
This tollroadsnews article states the plan was for All-Electronic tolling, and they're not doing it yet because of issues with "license plate imaging and billing".
Quote from: Mr_Northside on June 21, 2011, 01:00:21 PM
This tollroadsnews article states the plan was for All-Electronic tolling, and they're not doing it yet because of issues with "license plate imaging and billing".
Legal issues with laws that prevent video enforcement of traffic laws - they also may prevent video tolls.
The history on the "open road tolling" in WV is interesting. The only other toll road in the state is the Turnpike, located at the opposite end of the state. My views on its accounting and spending practices have been posted, and I will not repeat them here.
The DOH was going to have two contracts with the Turnpike to toll roads that the DOH would build and maintain. One was a plan to toll all 38 miles of US 35 to pay for finishing the 12 mile gap in it, which the legislature killed when the Turnpike overplayed its hand and outlined its plans to toll existing freeway, already fully paid for by regular appropriations, and the level of the tolls, which were far too high for the alledged purpose; and to toll 43. The Turnpike people figured out that 43 really is going to have quite low traffic counts. So low that the actual costs of physical toll collection costs would not be covered in many, if not most, dayparts. So they came up with this "open road tolling" deal. The current Turnpike employees, seeing their jobs threatened, balked, and motorist advocates, seeing that the bill was unlimited and could form the basis of placing tolls on any road the state wished without further authorization, balked and the deal colapsed.
The current plan is to wait a while and see if something like mandatory EZ-Pass ever develops.
Really, with state benefits and the pay levels, I agree that a physical toll taker workforce is not going to cover their costs on 43.
About a mile of the road opened yesterday:
http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=101911
QuoteTravelers beware, the Temporary road leading from leading from 1-68 to Fairchance Road will be closed permanently.
West Virginia apparently likes route designations that are math problems. :D
No, it's because they hate route designations that are math problems. The rest of the country uses complex numbers (i is the imaginary unit).
Mon-Fayette Expressway to Open July 11 (http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=102088) - The State Journal
There will be two ribbon-cutting ceremonies: one north of the Mason-Dixon Line and one south.
http://www.wvmetronews.com/news.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=46525
The West Virginia portion of the Mon-Fayette Expressway is now open. The long anticipated four lane highway that will one day link Morgantown and Pittsburgh officially opened Monday.
Several miles of the road, which in Pennsylvania is called Route 43, has been open in Pennsylvania since 2000, but Monday marked the opening of the 3.9 mile stretch in West Virginia that runs from the state line to I-68 in Cheat Lake. Work continues on the I-68/Mon-Fayette interchange on the eastern side of Cheat Lake.
The 3.9 miles of roadway and bridges in West Virginia cost a total of $148.4 million with the final $13.4 million coming from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, enabling the highway to open a year earlier than scheduled. That includes two large bridges that make up the bulk of the cost–Morgans Run Bridge ($22.5 M) and Rubles Run Bridge ($19.7 M).
U.S. Senator Joe Manchin was the governor when the state received those federal stimulus dollars. He, along with WV Transportation Secretary Paul Mattox, made the completion of the Mon-Fayette Expressway one of the top road priorities in the state.
"When I became governor I kept asking for a six year master plan and we went through two or three different versions," said Manchin before Monday morning's ribbon-cutting ceremony. "Paul Mattox finally said these are the projects that have begun that should be completed. They would help our citizens, they would help the commerce of our area and improve safety. These are things that were needed. So, we looked at them very pragmatically and said these are the things we're going to do. We put together a six year plan and almost six years to the day it's finished."
Several miles of the roadway is still being planned and constructed in Pennsylvania, mostly in and around Pittsburgh. Right now the four lane is open all the way from Cheat Lake to U.S. Route 51 just south of Pittsburgh.
------
Note there is a nice photo taken about 2 miles north of I-68 as the northbound side descends from a hill.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wvmetronews.com%2Fimages%2FMonFayette2.jpg&hash=b226a57c18af78168377157894efbf1d9d203efc)
Quote from: MASTERNC on July 11, 2011, 09:28:39 PM
U.S. Route 51 just south of Pittsburgh.
I didn't know that PA-51 was upgraded to be part of US-51. [/sarcasm]
Isn't there still a piece under construction west of Uniontown?
Quote from: NE2 on July 11, 2011, 10:10:18 PM
Isn't there still a piece under construction west of Uniontown?
Yep. The Brownsville bypass which I put in the correct alignment awhile ago in OSM. ;)
Someone did post Youtube videos of the new section of road
Southbound
Northbound
Sadly, I guess either WV law doesn't allow for non-Interstate limited access highways to be signed for 70 MPH or the road was too short to qualify.
Probably to match up with Pennsylvania's 65 mph limit. I can't think of any other non-interstate freeway in West Virginia other than US 22, and I can't remember what the speed limit is on it.
Wish the YouTube videographer above had driven on down to I-68.
The videographer should have waited a day for the front to move through as the southbound clip looks more like storm chasing footage.
I'm curious, has anybody been along the PA-88 (currently) segment of the Mon-Fayette recently? I want to know if I have the correct traffic pattern in OSM right now.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.02798&lon=-79.92901&zoom=15&layers=M
From the looks of the pictures on the PTC website (http://www.mfe-union-to-brown.com/51Jphotos.htm), it seems the traffic pattens are back to "normal" on the mainline, but I'd prefer somebody who's been down there recently to comment on this before I go and fix up the area in OSM.
The rehab project on the PA 88 section is still taking place from the cloverleaf south and traffic is back to using both sides but with single lane closures in each direction.
There are no signals on 40 anymore nor a crossover on 43 at the cloverleaf, and the southeast loop is now reopened along with the ramp that carries 88 northbound, but the ramp from 40 westbound to 43 northbound is closed.
Quote from: MASTERNC on July 14, 2011, 10:07:04 PM
Someone did post Youtube videos of the new section of road
*referencing the signs at the state line*
I get that (in PA) it's a Pa Turnpike road.
And the PA TPK mainline is considered "America's First Superhighway".
But the signs on 43 have no business having "America's First Superhighway" on them.
The PTC likes to use the "Pennsylvania Turnpike" branding, even if the road isn't actually the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
There are white-on-green "PENNA TURNPIKE" shields along 376 and "PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE" is on the mainline toll plaza building (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Greensburg,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.289257,-79.611461&spn=0.004157,0.009645&sll=40.771052,-80.359025&sspn=0.004168,0.013733&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.289156,-79.611463&panoid=xJKuP-rsovv9fGz8u-qjWw&cbp=12,93.17,,0,12.21) on 66.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 15, 2011, 12:49:50 AM
Wish the YouTube videographer above had driven on down to I-68.
Agreed. However, if you search on Flickr, there are some photos of the section between the Cheat Lake exit and I-68 in both directions.
Quote from: PAHighways on July 15, 2011, 10:53:26 AM
The rehab project on the PA 88 section is still taking place from the cloverleaf south and traffic is back to using both sides but with single lane closures in each direction.
There are no signals on 40 anymore nor a crossover on 43 at the cloverleaf, and the southeast loop is now reopened along with the ramp that carries 88 northbound, but the ramp from 40 westbound to 43 northbound is closed.
Alright, thanks for letting me know. :) But I'll hold off on making the changes till Monday if possible since right now there is a bug in the MapQuest Open directions (http://mapq.st/nXajmj) that they are trying to figure out (http://developer.mapquest.com/web/products/open/forums/-/message_boards/view_message/213469) why it's happening.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 15, 2011, 09:58:48 PM
Alright, thanks for letting me know. :) But I'll hold off on making the changes till Monday if possible since right now there is a bug in the MapQuest Open directions (http://mapq.st/nXajmj) that they are trying to figure out (http://developer.mapquest.com/web/products/open/forums/-/message_boards/view_message/213469) why it's happening.
I bet it assumes a short piece of non-motorway between two motorways is a bug, since this usually happens when a median crossover is not tagged access=*.
Motorway? This is Pennsylvania, not Kensington
Quote from: NE2 on July 15, 2011, 10:43:21 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 15, 2011, 09:58:48 PM
Alright, thanks for letting me know. :) But I'll hold off on making the changes till Monday if possible since right now there is a bug in the MapQuest Open directions (http://mapq.st/nXajmj) that they are trying to figure out (http://developer.mapquest.com/web/products/open/forums/-/message_boards/view_message/213469) why it's happening.
I bet it assumes a short piece of non-motorway between two motorways is a bug, since this usually happens when a median crossover is not tagged access=*.
If that was the case, it wouldn't work in the other direction (http://mapq.st/nna9yS).
Oh hmmm. However it won't let you turn left onto the ramp to 43 north, so somehow that intersection is a no-man's land.
Could it be that their directions database has a different date from their rendering database? See here: http://mapq.st/oDLLgy
(By the way, how do you move an endpoint? In Firefox when I drag it, a black line appears between the new location and the old one, but nothing changes in the route.)
Quote from: NE2 on July 15, 2011, 10:51:37 PM
Could it be that their directions database has a different date from their rendering database?
I asked them that on Twitter and they said that the directions are still updating. :-/
Quote from: NE2 on July 15, 2011, 10:51:37 PM
(By the way, how do you move an endpoint? In Firefox when I drag it, a black line appears between the new location and the old one, but nothing changes in the route.)
You have to hit the "X" in the directions area and delete one point and then add a new point. This is one thing Google does better I have to admit.
QuoteNote there is a nice photo taken about 2 miles north of I-68 as the northbound side descends from a hill.
(also at 3:38 in the southbound video) The road on the far right was a vantage point during last month's Morgantown road meet.
QuoteThe videographer should have waited a day for the front to move through as the southbound clip looks more like storm chasing footage.
Not really. Just looks like someone driving through rain.
So when are they gonna finish that final piece in the Pittsburgh metro area? Never?
Note to PennDOT: Don't start something you can't finish. Ending at PA 51 blows.
Quote from: DeaconG on July 16, 2011, 03:47:42 PM
Note to PennDOT: Don't start something you can't finish. Ending at PA 51 blows.
Note to DeaconG: Don't look at us. PennDOT is not building the Mon-Fayette Expressway; the PA Turnpike Commission is. :biggrin: --PennDOT
Fixed quote. - rmf67
Quote from: qguy on July 16, 2011, 04:59:30 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on July 16, 2011, 03:47:42 PM
Note to PennDOT: Don't start something you can't finish. Ending at PA 51 blows.
Note to DeaconG: Don't look at us. PennDOT is not building the Mon-Fayette Expressway; the PA Turnpike Commission is. :biggrin: --PennDOT
Fixed quote. - rmf67
Somebody still needs to be slapped. Hard. "Oh, dearie, maybe some enterprising private company will come along with
600 million1.5 billion to help us finish this thing!" Maybe if they were to get off their fixation on slip ramps everywhere and get this done (along with the I-95 interchange) I might have some more respect for 'em.
Sigh. Who am I kidding? :pan:
QuoteQuoteThe videographer should have waited a day for the front to move through as the southbound clip looks more like storm chasing footage.
Not really. Just looks like someone driving through rain.
Precisely why I said they should have waited a day, then the footage wouldn't have been marred by raindrops on the windshield.
Mon-Fayette Road Project Slowed by Lack of Funds (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11198/1161010-147.stm) - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Quote from: PAHighways on July 15, 2011, 10:53:26 AM
The rehab project on the PA 88 section is still taking place from the cloverleaf south and traffic is back to using both sides but with single lane closures in each direction.
There are no signals on 40 anymore nor a crossover on 43 at the cloverleaf, and the southeast loop is now reopened along with the ramp that carries 88 northbound, but the ramp from 40 westbound to 43 northbound is closed.
Just updated OSM (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8765183). ;) (Is the PA-88 alignment after leaving the Mon-Fayette correct? And has PA Turnpike 43 been co-signed with it on that section yet?)
One more question Jeff. Did they get permission to add toll booths on the PA-88 ramps, or will that section (US-40 > PA-88) remain toll free?
PA Turnpike 43 hasn't been signed on the former PA 88 expressway as of yet, but with the project winding down, they'll be sure to appear.
The PTC wants to put toll plazas on the southbound off/northbound on ramps at the former end of the expressway, but only dependent on an agreement between the PTC, PennDOT, and FHWA. There was no indication of plaza construction back in December when we stopped down there during SWPA Meet tour.
If the plazas are agreed upon, I would not be surprised if PA 88 goes back to its original route through West Brownsville.
I had written an entry (http://www.pahighways.com/blog/archives/48-Turnpike-43-FINALLY-Opens-to-the-Mason-Dixon-Line.html) about the event, but finally got around to uploading the picture of the ribbon-cutting on our side of the Mason-Dixon Line for my website's blog.
It would be nice to see the street view for new highways like these uploaded to Google Maps faster.
Yet they do street views of Los Angeles and other big places like 10 times a day? I guess they're just being cost-effective.
Last Section of Expressway, Bridge Set to Open in July (http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/last-section-of-expressway-bridge-set-to-open-in-july/article_a4040700-7592-5cd0-a57e-ed9d4ba6689b.html) - Uniontown Herald-Standard
One year after the Mason-Dixon Line section opened to traffic, the last piece between West Virginia and PA 51 will open.
Most likely will get to drive it the weekend of the 21st when we are up for a family reunion. Looking forward to it.
And maybe someday, our great-great-grandchildren will get to drive the whole thing all the way up to the airport.
Any chance at all that the PTC will move on to the 22/79 segment?
There was no mention of a "Community Day" in the article, so I have doubts they'll have a day for pedestrians/bikes before it opens to vehicular traffic (like other sections).
Also, the last few lines in the article:
Quote
Kasunic said the the Findlay Connector should be built
"It's very doable and should be done," Kasunic, noting that it would provide faster access to Pittsburgh International Airport
The other two sections may never receive funding. "Probably not in our lifetime," Kasunic said.
The "Findlay Connector" has been built for a while. I wonder if it's an old quote, or was actually in reference to another section....
*EDIT*:I re-read those last paragraphs, and apparently he (or the writer) refers to I-79 <-> US 22 as the "Findlay Connector", which is what they called US-22 <-> Airport. I suppose it would be the Findlay Connector Connector.
And I also agree that if nothing else, that section should be built in the near future. It's further along, and more rural. However, we might just be "
THAT broke".
The PTC already held a "Community Day" for this section when Phase I opened in 2008.
Mon/Fayette Expressway's Uniontown to Brownsville Phase 2 Section Opens July 16 (http://www.paturnpike.com/press/2012/20120712104023.htm)
I re-certified Turnpike 43 today by picking up the newly opened miles.
The PTC decided to make the PA 88 interchange at the former end of the old expressway toll-free one, keeping 88 a free route and allowing those who live south of Exit 28 from having to pay a toll. The southbound guide signs at that interchange have "LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL" banners.
Also, from the Bureau of Redundancy Bureau, I spotted a TOLL SOUTH PA TURNPIKE 43 (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150920509097352&set=a.10150507369662352.372239.80652462351&type=3&theater) assembly just south of Exit 26.
Did they co-sign PA-88 officially with PA-43?
There are no 43/88 assemblies along the route, just the guide signs at the interchanges at either end with the cardinal directions next to the 88 shields.
Quote from: PAHighways on July 16, 2012, 11:20:08 PM
There are no 43/88 assemblies along the route, just the guide signs at the interchanges at either end with the cardinal directions next to the 88 shields.
Got any pictures of this? ;) So, it's just 43 assemblies along there in other words?
It might be no assemblies. I don't know if PA makes an effort to put in a reassurance shield after each exit or not, but that's only a mile long, so I could see assemblies being made for it.
Quote from: PAHighways on July 16, 2012, 09:36:17 PM
Also, from the Bureau of Redundancy Bureau, I spotted a TOLL SOUTH PA TURNPIKE 43 (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150920509097352&set=a.10150507369662352.372239.80652462351&type=3&theater) assembly just south of Exit 26.
Not redundant, since there are free portions of the Turnpike routes. Though it's not necessary on reassurance.
Quote from: NE2 on July 17, 2012, 02:06:03 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on July 16, 2012, 09:36:17 PM
Also, from the Bureau of Redundancy Bureau, I spotted a TOLL SOUTH PA TURNPIKE 43 (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150920509097352&set=a.10150507369662352.372239.80652462351&type=3&theater) assembly just south of Exit 26.
Though it's not necessary on reassurance.
Precisely.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 16, 2012, 11:44:24 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on July 16, 2012, 11:20:08 PM
There are no 43/88 assemblies along the route, just the guide signs at the interchanges at either end with the cardinal directions next to the 88 shields.
Got any pictures of this? ;) So, it's just 43 assemblies along there in other words?
I do have pictures of the guide signage; however, there were no Turnpike 43 assemblies within the multiplex.
Quote from: NE2 on July 17, 2012, 02:06:03 PMNot redundant, since there are free portions of the Turnpike routes.
I know, but with the exception of the PennDOT-built Chadville Demonstration Project, all portions of the extensions use the Turnpike ### shields. Even the Uniontown Bypass has Turnpike 43 shields.
Quote from: PAHighways on July 17, 2012, 10:44:11 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 17, 2012, 02:06:03 PMNot redundant, since there are free portions of the Turnpike routes.
I know, but with the exception of the PennDOT-built Chadville Demonstration Project, all portions of the extensions use the Turnpike ### shields. Even the Uniontown Bypass has Turnpike 43 shields.
That's my point. Putting Turnpike in the shield doesn't mean it's a toll road.
Quote from: NE2 on July 17, 2012, 11:32:25 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on July 17, 2012, 10:44:11 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 17, 2012, 02:06:03 PMNot redundant, since there are free portions of the Turnpike routes.
I know, but with the exception of the PennDOT-built Chadville Demonstration Project, all portions of the extensions use the Turnpike ### shields. Even the Uniontown Bypass has Turnpike 43 shields.
That's my point. Putting Turnpike in the shield doesn't mean it's a toll road.
Not Turnpike, but "PA Turnpike" should be an indication that it is considering the namesake.
Quote from: PAHighways on July 17, 2012, 11:55:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 17, 2012, 11:32:25 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on July 17, 2012, 10:44:11 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 17, 2012, 02:06:03 PMNot redundant, since there are free portions of the Turnpike routes.
I know, but with the exception of the PennDOT-built Chadville Demonstration Project, all portions of the extensions use the Turnpike ### shields. Even the Uniontown Bypass has Turnpike 43 shields.
That's my point. Putting Turnpike in the shield doesn't mean it's a toll road.
Not Turnpike, but "PA Turnpike" should be an indication that it is considering the namesake.
So someone should assume the Uniontown Bypass is a toll road?
Quote from: NE2 on July 18, 2012, 12:03:04 AM
Quote from: PAHighways on July 17, 2012, 11:55:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 17, 2012, 11:32:25 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on July 17, 2012, 10:44:11 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 17, 2012, 02:06:03 PMNot redundant, since there are free portions of the Turnpike routes.
I know, but with the exception of the PennDOT-built Chadville Demonstration Project, all portions of the extensions use the Turnpike ### shields. Even the Uniontown Bypass has Turnpike 43 shields.
That's my point. Putting Turnpike in the shield doesn't mean it's a toll road.
Not Turnpike, but "PA Turnpike" should be an indication that it is considering the namesake.
So someone should assume the Uniontown Bypass is a toll road?
No, but those should just be plain PA 43 shields.
So, it has to be said...
Pics or ban.
Also, this is timely from the Mon-Fayette discussion. They are in fact dropping the leg into Pittsburgh and keeping the leg that goes more east towards Monroeville.
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2015/06/18/Turnpike-officials-revive-Mon-Fayette-Expressway-extension/stories/201506180044
Quote from: MASTERNC on June 18, 2015, 08:47:16 AM
Also, this is timely from the Mon-Fayette discussion. They are in fact dropping the leg into Pittsburgh and keeping the leg that goes more east towards Monroeville.
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2015/06/18/Turnpike-officials-revive-Mon-Fayette-Expressway-extension/stories/201506180044
Maybe we can finally have a freeway going to I-376. AET would be great for such a freeway. What bridge design would be used for the Mon's bridge over the Monongahela River?
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on June 18, 2015, 09:01:00 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on June 18, 2015, 08:47:16 AM
Also, this is timely from the Mon-Fayette discussion. They are in fact dropping the leg into Pittsburgh and keeping the leg that goes more east towards Monroeville.
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2015/06/18/Turnpike-officials-revive-Mon-Fayette-Expressway-extension/stories/201506180044
Maybe we can finally have a freeway going to I-376. AET would be great for such a freeway. What bridge design would be used for the Mon's bridge over the Monongahela River?
That's a poor decision choice. An alternate way to get directly south of Pittsburgh and a connector between downtown Pittsburgh and I-68 would have been much more better. I-79 between I-376 and the WV line can be congested, but nope! They decided with Pittsburgh's suburbs.
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 18, 2015, 10:10:12 AM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on June 18, 2015, 09:01:00 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on June 18, 2015, 08:47:16 AM
Also, this is timely from the Mon-Fayette discussion. They are in fact dropping the leg into Pittsburgh and keeping the leg that goes more east towards Monroeville.
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2015/06/18/Turnpike-officials-revive-Mon-Fayette-Expressway-extension/stories/201506180044
Maybe we can finally have a freeway going to I-376. AET would be great for such a freeway. What bridge design would be used for the Mon's bridge over the Monongahela River?
That's a poor decision choice. An alternate way to get directly south of Pittsburgh and a connector between downtown Pittsburgh and I-68 would have been much more better. I-79 between I-376 and the WV line can be congested, but nope! They decided with Pittsburgh's suburbs.
There was oppostion with going into downtown Pittsburgh.
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on June 18, 2015, 11:00:40 AM
There was NIMBY opposition with going into downtown Pittsburgh.
FTFY.
Hey building the freeway in East Pittsburgh is better than no freeway extension. Plus it has AET! If the freeway was built earlier AET might not have been used.
The Monroeville segment needs to be extended up Thompson Run past I-376 to the Pennsylvania Turnpike. That way eastbound Turnpike traffic heading for the Mon-Fayette Expressway southbound won't have to use I-376, and neither will northbound Mon-Fayette traffic heading for the Turnpike westbound. Also, it'd create a continuous three-quarters beltway from Cranberry around to Pittsburgh International Airport. I doubt it'll ever be a full beltway, though, because there are a lot of rich suburbs between the airport and Cranberry, and the real estate is some of the most expensive in western Pennsylvania.
Quote from: Gnutella on June 19, 2015, 06:41:45 AM
The Monroeville segment needs to be extended up Thompson Run past I-376 to the Pennsylvania Turnpike. That way eastbound Turnpike traffic heading for the Mon-Fayette Expressway southbound won't have to use I-376, and neither will northbound Mon-Fayette traffic heading for the Turnpike westbound. Also, it'd create a continuous three-quarters beltway from Cranberry around to Pittsburgh International Airport. I doubt it'll ever be a full beltway, though, because there are a lot of rich suburbs between the airport and Cranberry, and the real estate is some of the most expensive in western Pennsylvania.
Also remember I-576 to add on to the beltway aspect. I do think the Mon-Fayette should go to the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 18, 2015, 02:34:50 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on June 18, 2015, 11:00:40 AM
There was NIMBY opposition with going into downtown Pittsburgh.
FTFY.
It would have been quite difficult to forge a direct connection between Downtown and the MFE without cutting through large swaths of already-developed land. The proposed arm between East Pittsburgh and 376 in Oakland that was nixed would also have been highly destructive for Braddock and Hazelwood, which are struggling enough to come back as it is, not to mention problematic for a couple of major planned brownfield developments along the Mon. Cry NIMBYism all you want, but the only reasonable and realistic option is the one they're trying to go ahead with now.
Like I suggested: Make the Mifflin Road corridor a parkway facility from 43 to the Glenwood bridge with a 3 lane reversible HOT lane from the bridge to the Parkway
Well, at least there's an initiative to complete it now, even without the PGH leg.
Will this require a total rework of the EIS?
IMO, building one half is better than just ending it in the middle of nowhere like it does now. And I'm in favor of building the eastern leg to Monroeville, because the western leg into downtown would be a colossal waste of money when you factor in the expense that comes with plowing through dense residential and commercial areas.
Quote from: Henry on June 24, 2015, 01:17:51 PM
the western leg into downtown would be a colossal waste of money when you factor in the expense that comes with plowing through dense residential and commercial areas.
And carving it into the riverbank in the places that aren't as dense and commercial. Even then, I don't know that I would call it a colossal waste.... it's just too damned expensive.
Is there a concomitant upgrade of Parkway East in this plan?
Aside: is it "Parkway East" or "the Parkway East" in common usage?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 24, 2015, 07:28:07 PM
Is there a concomitant upgrade of Parkway East in this plan?
Aside: is it "Parkway East" or "the Parkway East" in common usage?
PennDOT District 11 doesn't have the balls to properly correct the Parkway West, let alone the Parkway East. If I'm the head honcho in Harrisburg, I'm allocating ZERO to District 11 for "improvements" to the Parkways East and West until they put together an actual plan to widen them to six lanes (not including truck lanes on the long ascents) and upgrade them to proper Interstate standards. Even if the improvements can only be done incrementally, District 11 needs to actually have a fucking plan, instead of this band-aid bullshit they've been doing for the last 10 years.
As I recall, there's some pretty tight ROW confines along there, especially Parkway West. ROW costs alone are likely keeping any meaningful widening or standard upgrade dormant...
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 24, 2015, 07:28:07 PM
Aside: is it "Parkway East" or "the Parkway East" in common usage?
With article.
Quote from: Gnutella on June 24, 2015, 07:50:02 PM
PennDOT District 11 doesn't have the balls to properly correct the Parkway West, let alone the Parkway East.
I've never heard the word "balls" used as slang for "Money" before...
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 24, 2015, 07:28:07 PM
PennDOT District 11 doesn't have the Money to properly correct the Parkway West, let alone the Parkway East. Also NIMBYs would ruin the plans
FTFY
Why do I have the feeling the Mon-Fayette Expressway will never go further north than State Highway 51?
^^^Why do I have the feeling you are correct?
Why do I have a feeling ROW acqusistion will be complete but construction will halt?
Quote from: Henry on June 24, 2015, 01:17:51 PM
IMO, building one half is better than just ending it in the middle of nowhere like it does now. And I'm in favor of building the eastern leg to Monroeville, because the western leg into downtown would be a colossal waste of money when you factor in the expense that comes with plowing through dense residential and commercial areas.
Looks like the eastern leg is no cakewalk either. Some (although perhaps not as much) old growth development will have to be plowed through to make even that happen.
I've always wondered looking at the north end of the highway how they intended to extend it to a more useful terminus, since there's obviously no way to extend it much further than it currently goes without substantial use of eminent domain. And while it pleases me to see signs that doing that might still be possible, I have to question PA's priorities here given the already low traffic counts on PA 43. If the road were to be extended directly to downtown Pittsburgh from its current end, that *might* have some use, but the current plan has it heading on a completely perpendicular alignment to that, thus rendering it useless for anyone looking to get downtown from near it.
Frankly, doing anything at this point seems somewhat porkish to me. Of course, the proposed section which has been saved for last is the least porkish section of the whole road. Ah well, at least it's being tolled to help pay for it.
On that note, what percent of PA 43's costs are being covered by the tolls on it? Is it anything significant?
I was sent a link about 10 days ago and cannot find it now or via search but the article indicated that the City of Pittsburgh may embark on a plan to slowly buy up properties along Saw Mill Run Blvd and create a real parkway, obviously this would take years to accomplish, but it would help.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on November 07, 2015, 09:54:48 PM
I was sent a link about 10 days ago and cannot find it now or via search but the article indicated that the City of Pittsburgh may embark on a plan to slowly buy up properties along Saw Mill Run Blvd and create a real parkway, obviously this would take years to accomplish, but it would help.
The Levitske's won't sell.
There's a lot of discussion and "plans" over the Saw Mill Run corridor.....
Beyond the roadway, a major issue is also Saw Mill Run - the creek itself- and flooding issues.
Personally, I classify it all as "I'll believe it when I see it".
Though they are almost done with the 51-88 Jughandle / intersection project - so what you see (or about to see) is what you get for the southernmost portion of Rt. 51 in the City [limits] for the next couple of decades.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on November 08, 2015, 09:48:25 PM
There's a lot of discussion and "plans" over the Saw Mill Run corridor.....
Beyond the roadway, a major issue is also Saw Mill Run - the creek itself- and flooding issues.
Personally, I classify it all as "I'll believe it when I see it".
Though they are almost done with the 51-88 Jughandle / intersection project - so what you see (or about to see) is what you get for the southernmost portion of Rt. 51 in the City [limits] for the next couple of decades.
It's worth noting this project is doing nothing to alleviate storm water issues in the one area that's plagued the most by them. I agree any tangible improvements aside from a traffic related project here or there is a long way off, the best we can hope for it incremental improvements going forward. A big mistake IMO to not at least do something to address the chronic flooding problem here.
I still think Highway 43 will never go any further north than it already does. I could be wrong, however.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2015, 04:24:16 PM
I still think Highway 43 will never go any further north than it already does. I could be wrong, however.
That's where the smart money is
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2015, 04:24:16 PM
I still think Highway 43 will never go any further north than it already does. I could be wrong, however.
What you're saying is that it won't matter if the rest of the highway into Pittsburgh is completed? They'd be better off continuing it all the way to I-376, if and when the road actually makes it there.
I never said I didn't want the highway to go to 376. I merely believe that opposition will prevent PA 43 from going beyond where it ends now.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 20, 2015, 05:03:17 PM
I never said I didn't want the highway to go to 376. I merely believe that opposition will prevent PA 43 from going beyond where it ends now.
I think they still might get it to Kennywood, but after that, it will be very hard.
They could simply truncate it to I-70 and call it a day. PA 43 looks like a good connector from I-68 to I-70 rather than I-79 farther west.
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 20, 2015, 10:16:56 PM
They could simply truncate it to I-70 and call it a day. PA 43 looks like a good connector from I-68 to I-70 rather than I-79 farther west.
Huh? How can you truncate a road already built?
Quote from: CanesFan27 on November 21, 2015, 09:53:54 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 20, 2015, 10:16:56 PM
They could simply truncate it to I-70 and call it a day. PA 43 looks like a good connector from I-68 to I-70 rather than I-79 farther west.
Huh? How can you truncate a road already built?
Remove all of the signs of PA 43 north of I-70, then either leave it as a long stub of it, or call it PA 43 Spur.
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 21, 2015, 11:30:26 AM
Remove all of the signs of PA 43 north of I-70, then either leave it as a long stub of it, or call it PA 43 Spur.
Just my opinion, but that seems to serve no useful purpose, and would just be more confusing.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 20, 2015, 08:58:28 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 20, 2015, 05:03:17 PM
I never said I didn't want the highway to go to 376. I merely believe that opposition will prevent PA 43 from going beyond where it ends now.
I think they still might get it to Kennywood, but after that, it will be very hard.
Still has a chance to finish before I-95/I-276 interchange is complete.
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2016/01/25/Turpike-commision-chief-promotes-Mon-Fay-plan-as-boost-for-economy/stories/201601250007
"Construction on the expressway began in 1973 in northern West Virginia and 60 miles have been completed. . ."
This would put the Mon-Fayette at a 43-years-and-counting project. Wonder how many other highways can claim a longer timeline?
How about ones that have spanned decades from first conception until actual construction.
What the hell was built in 1973 in northern West Virginia? The interchange (non freeway-freeway) with I-68? I can't think of anything else that was built that early in WV.
Quote"It's in our sights," Mr. Logan said last week. "This is the first time we've had the money in place. Absolutely we will be able to do this."
Maybe.... but as always, I'll believe it when I see it.
I wish they could study taking the money they save and extending the southern beltway due east from the MFE to the PA Turnpike Irwin exit.
What route would it take? Answer the question in Fictional Highways.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on January 25, 2016, 06:50:16 PM
What the hell was built in 1973 in northern West Virginia? The interchange (non freeway-freeway) with I-68? I can't think of anything else that was built that early in WV.
That would be it. That was about the time I-68 (then US 48) was built. All of WV 43 north of the interchange is new alignment built since about 2000.
Turnpike Commission presented revised plans for the MFE 51 --> Monroeville segment.
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2016/08/10/South-Hills-residents-shown-updated-Mon-Fayette-Expressway-plans/stories/201608100122
A long ways off yet but looks like it might actually happen. Still not sure this will provide nearly enough benefit to justify the expenditure, though Kennywood ought to be thrilled.
I see that it would be narrower, and no spur into downtown Pittsburgh will be built. Which makes sense, because isn't that what I-376 is for anyway?
Despite my many visits to and longtime affection for the City of Pittsburgh, I've never lived there–so please excuse me if my comments are underinformed.
If the Mon-Fayette doesn't go to Pittsburgh, I don't really get the point of it existing. Sure, there's some benefit in allowing residents to get from one Mon Valley town to another more quickly, and connections to I-70 (and eventually the Turnpike via Monroeville) may make the area a little more attractive to industry. But I thought the underlying purpose of the expressway was to help alleviate the isolation and stagnation the Mon Valley suffers by connecting it more directly with Pittsburgh.
There's another major benefit to Pittsburgh itself that's being lost in the cancellation of the Pittsburgh segment. All of the Mon-Fayette plans I've ever seen include a Y split near Duquesne to allow traffic to head either to Pittsburgh or Monroeville, and through I-376 traffic could have used the upper two arms of this Y as a toll bypass of the perpetually congested Squirrel Hill Tunnel. I don't have hard data, but my instinct is that this one segment used as a bypass by locals might be the most profitable (or least money-losing) of the entire Mon-Fayette–even accounting for its much higher construction cost.
If they end up building this, and they just split it to make a Y interchange to bypass Squirrel Hill Tunnel, I don't understand why they don't just bypass the tunnel and put I 376 EB lanes on the Bypass. Making a big highway that connects both sides of the tunnel to PA 43 doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Does anyone know what number would've been given to the Pittsburgh spur, if any? Perhaps PA 43 Spur?
Quote from: Henry on August 18, 2016, 12:42:51 PM
Does anyone know what number would've been given to the Pittsburgh spur, if any? Perhaps PA 43 Spur?
I thought I remember reading (although I can't remember where) that the two legs of the Y that form the Squirrel Hill bypass would have been given an even x76–it would have to be I-876–to more clearly designate it as an alternate to I-376.
My recollection was that the 576 designation from the southern beltway was going to cosign up the MFE to the split in turtle creek. 576 went on to Monroeville, 43 went into Pittsburgh
Quote from: briantroutman on August 17, 2016, 02:01:10 PM
Despite my many visits to and longtime affection for the City of Pittsburgh, I've never lived there–so please excuse me if my comments are underinformed.
If the Mon-Fayette doesn't go to Pittsburgh, I don't really get the point of it existing. Sure, there's some benefit in allowing residents to get from one Mon Valley town to another more quickly, and connections to I-70 (and eventually the Turnpike via Monroeville) may make the area a little more attractive to industry. But I thought the underlying purpose of the expressway was to help alleviate the isolation and stagnation the Mon Valley suffers by connecting it more directly with Pittsburgh.
There's another major benefit to Pittsburgh itself that's being lost in the cancellation of the Pittsburgh segment. All of the Mon-Fayette plans I've ever seen include a Y split near Duquesne to allow traffic to head either to Pittsburgh or Monroeville, and through I-376 traffic could have used the upper two arms of this Y as a toll bypass of the perpetually congested Squirrel Hill Tunnel. I don't have hard data, but my instinct is that this one segment used as a bypass by locals might be the most profitable (or least money-losing) of the entire Mon-Fayette–even accounting for its much higher construction cost.
Completely agree with this. Routing this freeway in the opposite direction of downtown Pittsburgh really makes little sense.
It would have been nice if the Mon-Fayette Expressway had a spur into the city of Pittsburgh, but not having one doesn't make the highway completely useless. The Mon-Fayette Expressway and South Beltway will give the brownfields in the Mon Valley direct highway access. The existing road network in southern Allegheny County is a total clusterfuck, comprised mostly of curvy, narrow, two-lane arterial roads that can barely handle any truck traffic, which doesn't help when it comes to industrial site selection these days. Industry likes to be near highways, because it produces a lot of truck traffic. As it is right now, U.S. 30 and PA 51 are only useful for eastbound trucks. Any trucks that want to go west without having to go through the city of Pittsburgh have to go far out of their ways to do so. And there's literally no way to get from the Mon Valley to Pittsburgh International Airport without going through the city. The South Beltway will provide a direct shot from the Mon Valley to the airport, as well as the emerging cluster of employment at Southpointe.
General east/west mobility is also an issue. In a county of 1,230,459 people, I-376 and PA 910 are the only true east/west routes, and the former is the only one with more than two lanes. And there's literally nothing in the southern suburbs. Lebanon Church Road doesn't count either, because it's not nearly long enough. On a good day, it'll still take an hour to get from North Versailles to Canonsburg. A completed Mon-Fayette Expressway and South Beltway will cut that time in half. It'll also give people in the eastern and western suburbs an option to access critical transportation infrastructure without going through the city. People in the eastern suburbs will have another way to get to Pittsburgh International Airport, and people in the western suburbs will have another way to get to the Pennsylvania Turnpike eastbound.
Quote from: compdude787 on August 18, 2016, 11:46:54 PM
Completely agree with this. Routing this freeway in the opposite direction of downtown Pittsburgh really makes little sense.
Building a connection to the west side of the Sq. Hill Tunnel is just a non-starter for a variety of reasons.
QuoteIt would have been nice if the Mon-Fayette Expressway had a spur into the city of Pittsburgh, but not having one doesn't make the highway completely useless. The Mon-Fayette Expressway and South Beltway will give the brownfields in the Mon Valley direct highway access. The existing road network in southern Allegheny County is a total clusterfuck, comprised mostly of curvy, narrow, two-lane arterial roads that can barely handle any truck traffic, which doesn't help when it comes to industrial site selection these days. Industry likes to be near highways, because it produces a lot of truck traffic. As it is right now, U.S. 30 and PA 51 are only useful for eastbound trucks. Any trucks that want to go west without having to go through the city of Pittsburgh have to go far out of their ways to do so. And there's literally no way to get from the Mon Valley to Pittsburgh International Airport without going through the city. The South Beltway will provide a direct shot from the Mon Valley to the airport, as well as the emerging cluster of employment at Southpointe.
General east/west mobility is also an issue. In a county of 1,230,459 people, I-376 and PA 910 are the only true east/west routes, and the former is the only one with more than two lanes. And there's literally nothing in the southern suburbs. Lebanon Church Road doesn't count either, because it's not nearly long enough. On a good day, it'll still take an hour to get from North Versailles to Canonsburg. A completed Mon-Fayette Expressway and South Beltway will cut that time in half. It'll also give people in the eastern and western suburbs an option to access critical transportation infrastructure without going through the city. People in the eastern suburbs will have another way to get to Pittsburgh International Airport, and people in the western suburbs will have another way to get to the Pennsylvania Turnpike eastbound.
I lose track of this stuff; where are we at with the 79-to-43 section? Much of what you're saying doesn't apply unless that happens.
Does anyone think a 2021 start date towards extending Hwy. 43 towards Monroeville seem optimistic?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2016, 05:45:02 PM
Does anyone think a 2021 start date towards extending Hwy. 43 towards Monroeville seem optimistic?
Well too optimistic, in fact. We all know PennDOT has the construction speed of cement.
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 23, 2016, 10:11:22 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2016, 05:45:02 PM
Does anyone think a 2021 start date towards extending Hwy. 43 towards Monroeville seem optimistic?
Well too optimistic, in fact. We all know PennDOT has the construction speed of cement.
PA Turnpike Commission, actually, which is far worse. Whenever the Turnpike publicizes any project, you can always add 2 to 5 years minimum to their projected start date.
If I ever put something off, my teen-age son (who posts here from time to time) will say, "Dad, you're being a total Turnpike!"
Quote from: wphiii on August 22, 2016, 05:30:59 PMI lose track of this stuff; where are we at with the 79-to-43 section? Much of what you're saying doesn't apply unless that happens.
They made the record of decision many years ago, and
the path of the highway (https://www.patpconstruction.com/southern_beltway/pdf/I_79toMFSelectedAlternative_join.pdf) is official. The record of decision is considered Step 9 of 10 in the process of building a highway. Expect final design and property acquisition to begin in the next year or two, and construction to begin after the segment from U.S. 22 to I-79 is completed in 2019.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2016, 05:45:02 PM
Does anyone think a 2021 start date towards extending Hwy. 43 towards Monroeville seem optimistic?
Maybe, but unlike before, there's finally some willpower to get the project completed, and an actual timetable for completion that they want to adhere to. Neither used to be the case.
ROW acquisition for the section from PA 51 to PA 885 has commenced with construction to start in 2021.
Question: has there been any indication as to what type of bridge structure for the Monongahela River crossing is planned for the extension?
Quote from: sparker on September 30, 2018, 05:09:51 AM
Question: has there been any indication as to what type of bridge structure for the Monongahela River crossing is planned for the extension?
Good question, but that segment isn't even in design yet.
"The project from PA Route 51 to I-376 is the largest and most expensive of the four Mon/Fayette projects. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project was approved in December, 2004. Design was started in 2004 but halted in 2009 due to lack of funding."
https://www.patpconstruction.com/monfaysb/
If any of the other bridges along 43 are any indication, then it will just be a girder bridge.
Quote from: PAHighways on September 30, 2018, 11:21:38 PM
If any of the other bridges along 43 are any indication, then it will just be a girder bridge.
Concrete box girder at the one near Brownsville -- https://tinyurl.com/yd7pw3qy
Looks like cast-in-place segmental post-tensioned construction method.
Quote from: Beltway on September 30, 2018, 11:45:03 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on September 30, 2018, 11:21:38 PM
If any of the other bridges along 43 are any indication, then it will just be a girder bridge.
Concrete box girder at the one near Brownsville -- https://tinyurl.com/yd7pw3qy
Looks like cast-in-place segmental post-tensioned construction method.
Considering the fact that the future bridge will have to span a river valley roughly the size of the one pictured -- not to mention numerous rail lines flanking that river -- and this is the type of structure favored for this facility, it's entirely possible that it will bear some semblance to the bridge pictured. Guess we'll find out down the line.
Quote from: sparker on October 01, 2018, 01:38:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 30, 2018, 11:45:03 PM
Concrete box girder at the one near Brownsville -- https://tinyurl.com/yd7pw3qy
Looks like cast-in-place segmental post-tensioned construction method.
Considering the fact that the future bridge will have to span a river valley roughly the size of the one pictured -- not to mention numerous rail lines flanking that river -- and this is the type of structure favored for this facility, it's entirely possible that it will bear some semblance to the bridge pictured. Guess we'll find out down the line.
The Turnpike replacement bridges over the Allegheny and Susquehanna rivers are of the similar concrete box girder designs.
I have received word that Highway 43 is now planned to be extended north to Duquesne starting in 2024. Is this accurate?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 30, 2020, 07:42:15 PM
I have received word that Highway 43 is now planned to be extended north to Duquesne starting in 2024. Is this accurate?
The PA Turnpike's website (https://www.patpconstruction.com/monfaysb/) has the following on this at the moment:
QuoteThe PA Turnpike Commission (PTC) is still acquiring the property interests needed to construct the southern section of the PA Route 51 to I-376 Project. This is a lengthy process that will take multiple years. This Right-of-Way acquisition process must be complete before construction can begin. Due to the size and scope of the project, construction has been broken into multiple sections. It is anticipated that construction of the first section could begin in 2023. Construction costs for the entire southern section are estimated to be approximately $900 million.
I read several months ago, in a totally unrelated article about the local electrical utility already actively moving high tension lines to accommodate the row.
New construction starts next year (maybe?)...
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2021/03/07/Mon-Fayette-Expressway-Jefferson-Hills-Duquesne-West-Mifflin-Kennywood-Park-Pennsylvania-Turnpike/stories/202103070091
Quote from: Crown Victoria on March 21, 2021, 11:57:58 PM
New construction starts next year (maybe?)...
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2021/03/07/Mon-Fayette-Expressway-Jefferson-Hills-Duquesne-West-Mifflin-Kennywood-Park-Pennsylvania-Turnpike/stories/202103070091
What they need to do is extend the Mon-Fayette Expressway up Thompson Run north of I-376 to the Turnpike. Ending it at I-376 means that traffic going between the Turnpike and the Mon-Fayette Expressway will need to use I-376 and exit twice in the span of two miles. Just connect it directly with the Turnpike, and then Pittsburgh will have a three-quarters beltway. (Good luck building the missing link between Cranberry and Pittsburgh International Airport, which would pass through some of the most expensive real estate in western Pennsylvania.)
If PA 43 is completed to Interstate 376, around what exit on 376 would 43 terminate at in Monroeville?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 26, 2021, 02:04:21 PM
If PA 43 is completed to Interstate 376, around what exit on 376 would 43 terminate at in Monroeville?
It will end at a semi-directional T interchange directly north of the Monroeville Mall, about halfway between the PA 791/Rodi Road and PA 48/Haymaker Road interchanges.
Post Gazette reporting that first contract being advertised on October 26. 3 mile mainline extention north of 51
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on August 06, 2022, 08:32:53 PM
Post Gazette reporting that first contract being advertised on October 26. 3 mile mainline extention north of 51
That extension would end near Kennywood Park, right?
Ultimately, this is for the first contract out to Coal Hollow? I would figure the balance of contracts to Kennywood to be staggered out.
The PA 43 Mon-Fayette Expressway will be extended about 7.4 miles northward to an interchange that leads to PA 837 (there will also be interchanges at Camp Hollow Rd. and Pittsburgh McKeesport Blvd.) That should be completed by 2027. I wonder how long it will take to construct the remainder of the MFE across the future Monongahela River Bridge all the way to Interstate 376?
Any updates on the progress of the U-C section or the proposed sections? Sure wish they still would extend a spur of this highway off west to Downtown Pittsburgh.
Quote from: ski-man on September 30, 2022, 02:55:13 PM
Any updates on the progress of the U-C section or the proposed sections? Sure wish they still would extend a spur of this highway off west to Downtown Pittsburgh.
.....
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on August 06, 2022, 08:32:53 PM
Post Gazette reporting that first contract being advertised on October 26. 3 mile mainline extention north of 51
Just 4 posts above you.
The PA Turnpike contract lettings page shows a date of December 21 for opening bids for Mon Fayette section 53 A-1
I'm 30 years old. Will I ever be able to use the section to Monroeville in my lifetime? :spin:
Quote from: tylert120 on November 01, 2022, 08:02:22 AM
I'm 30 years old. Will I ever be able to use the section to Monroeville in my lifetime? :spin:
I wouldn't bet much on that......
And the trek to Kennywood begins:. Trumbull was the low bidder for the contract to extend the Money Fayette from PA 51 to Coal Hollow Road....$231 M
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on December 21, 2022, 01:38:38 PM
And the trek to Kennywood begins:. Trumbull was the low bidder for the contract to extend the Money Fayette from PA 51 to Coal Hollow Road....$231 M
Contract awarded today
I find this factoid rather amusing:
The Mon-Fayette Expressway was once proposed to be I-97 (though not contiguous with the Baltimore-Annapolis Interstate). At least in PA's twisted scheme, it would've fit right in the grid, being west of the current I-99 corridor.
Quote from: Henry on January 18, 2023, 07:44:45 PM
I find this factoid rather amusing:
The Mon-Fayette Expressway was once proposed to be I-97 (though not contiguous with the Baltimore-Annapolis Interstate). At least in PA's twisted scheme, it would've fit right in the grid, being west of the current I-99 corridor.
All part of the plan to delete New Jersey.
Which would be worse? Designating PA 43 as Interstate 97, or designating US 219 as Interstate 67?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 07, 2023, 03:36:51 PM
Which would be worse? Designating PA 43 as Interstate 97, or designating US 219 as Interstate 67?
Definitely the former, because there's already an existing I-97 but no hope that it would ever connect to PA 43. At least US 219 is a reasonable long distance corridor for I-67, and there's a legitimate case for an interstate on that corridor, even if it's an extreme long shot.
Quote from: ski-man on November 01, 2022, 02:36:38 PM
Quote from: tylert120 on November 01, 2022, 08:02:22 AM
I'm 30 years old. Will I ever be able to use the section to Monroeville in my lifetime? :spin:
I wouldn't bet much on that......
I would think the section to Monroeville could be done in 25 years, or is that too optimistic?
A better bet would be the Southern Beltway between I-79 and PA 51 which probably won't even be started until the Mon-Fayette is finished.
Quote from: webny99 on February 07, 2023, 06:27:52 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 07, 2023, 03:36:51 PM
Which would be worse? Designating PA 43 as Interstate 97, or designating US 219 as Interstate 67?
Definitely the former, because there's already an existing I-97 but no hope that it would ever connect to PA 43. At least US 219 is a reasonable long distance corridor for I-67, and there's a legitimate case for an interstate on that corridor, even if it's an extreme long shot.
I say the latter, because although US 219 could one day become a full-fledged Interstate-quality freeway, I wouldn't dare propose any numbers for it because none of the possibilities are a good fit for it (my apologies to the late John Murtha), and all hopes of designating the corridor as one have apparently died off. Save I-67 for the US 31 upgrades north of Indianapolis.
Quote from: Henry on February 07, 2023, 06:51:27 PM
Quote from: webny99 on February 07, 2023, 06:27:52 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 07, 2023, 03:36:51 PM
Which would be worse? Designating PA 43 as Interstate 97, or designating US 219 as Interstate 67?
Definitely the former, because there's already an existing I-97 but no hope that it would ever connect to PA 43. At least US 219 is a reasonable long distance corridor for I-67, and there's a legitimate case for an interstate on that corridor, even if it's an extreme long shot.
I say the latter, because although US 219 could one day become a full-fledged Interstate-quality freeway, I wouldn't dare propose any numbers for it because none of the possibilities are a good fit for it (my apologies to the late John Murtha), and all hopes of designating the corridor as one have apparently died off. Save I-67 for the US 31 upgrades north of Indianapolis.
U.S. 219 north of Johnstown is one of four highway corridors in western Pennsylvania that I think should be upgraded to four lanes, but not necessarily controlled-access. Upgrading U.S. 219 would better connect Johnstown to the I-80 corridor, and Bradford to the rest of Pennsylvania. Another U.S. highway that I think should be upgraded is U.S. 322 from the Ohio state line to State College. It'd better connect Erie and Meadville to the rest of Pennsylvania, and State College to areas northwest. Upgrading U.S. 219 and U.S. 322 would also give DuBois a boost, being the crossroads of three major highways. I also think it'd be a good idea to run U.S. 322 concurrent with I-80 from east of Clarion to east of Clearfield, and the existing U.S. 322 upgraded and designated U.S. 322 Alternate or U.S. 322 Business.
The other two four-lane upgrades I'd like to see are U.S. 30 from the West Virginia state line to Pittsburgh International Airport, and PA 28 from Kittanning to I-80 near Brookville. Upgrading U.S. 30 would create a high-speed highway corridor from Canton, OH to Pittsburgh, and I think realigning U.S. 30 to begin its concurrency with I-376 at Pittsburgh International Airport would be a good idea too. Upgrading PA 28 would provide another option for traffic traveling between Pittsburgh and New York City/New England. For that matter, PA 66 can become an enhanced two-lane highway with wider shoulders and higher design standards north to Clarion.
Next section goes to bid 9/27, Section 53A2
More details on 53A2 were released
https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/pa-route-51-to-i-376-of-the-mon-fayette-expressway/mon-fayette-section-53A2/design-construction-details
Quote from: MASTERNC on February 22, 2024, 03:57:04 PM
More details on 53A2 were released
https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/pa-route-51-to-i-376-of-the-mon-fayette-expressway/mon-fayette-section-53A2/design-construction-details
If I am looking at this correctly, this section appears to be "floating". Is the section that would connect this to existing PA 43 already underway?
Quote from: webny99 on February 23, 2024, 03:40:59 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on February 22, 2024, 03:57:04 PM
More details on 53A2 were released
https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/pa-route-51-to-i-376-of-the-mon-fayette-expressway/mon-fayette-section-53A2/design-construction-details
If I am looking at this correctly, this section appears to be "floating". Is the section that would connect this to existing PA 43 already underway?
Yes, has been for over a year.