News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

PA Turnpike News

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

Previous topic - Next topic

cpzilliacus

Quote from: PAHighways on April 17, 2013, 05:32:35 PM
Plan Would Eliminate Pa. Turnpike Commission

Governor Thornburgh tried to do just that back in the mid-80s.

TOLLROADSnews: Bill to abolish Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission introduced by Republicans into state legislature

QuoteHB1197 introduced in the state legislature today by Republicans would abolish the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission turning its storied turnpike over to the state DOT. The bill's prime sponsor was state Representative and deputy Whip Donna Oberlander from Clarion in the northwest of the state. Taking to a microphone with about a dozen other Republican politicians in the state house she unleashed a scathing attack on the Turnpike saying it was "corruption infested" in a reference to a recent grand jury account of wrongdoing and criminal charges against a politicians two top Turnpike officials, a board member and two contractors.

QuoteHer bill would in its own wording set up a "Bureau of Toll Administration within the Department of Transportation; providing for the assumption by the Department of Transportation of the functions of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, for assumption by the Commonwealth of the financing functions of the commission, for transfer to the Department of Transportation and State Treasurer of land, buildings, personal property and employees of the commission, for the abolition of the commission and the offices of Turnpike Commissioner; and making an inconsistent repeal of various acts relating to the Pennsylvania Turnpike."
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.


Compulov

Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 18, 2013, 02:59:33 PM
QuoteHer bill would in its own wording set up a "Bureau of Toll Administration within the Department of Transportation; providing for the assumption by the Department of Transportation of the functions of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, for assumption by the Commonwealth of the financing functions of the commission, for transfer to the Department of Transportation and State Treasurer of land, buildings, personal property and employees of the commission, for the abolition of the commission and the offices of Turnpike Commissioner; and making an inconsistent repeal of various acts relating to the Pennsylvania Turnpike."

In other words, we want to replace one bureaucracy with another one (or expand the powers of an existing one, at any rate). Can't we just repeal ACT 44 without all this shuffling, which will save us absolutely zilch in the long run? It's not like they're going to really eliminate any of the high-paying positions which really cost us money during this process; rather, they'll just be redistributed to other parts of government.

hbelkins

I would be in favor of eliminating the PTC and merging it with PennDOT. I think having all highways in a state under control of one agency is a good idea. It also might result in some freeway-to-freeway interchanges being built.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

vdeane

Quote from: Compulov on April 18, 2013, 03:31:19 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 18, 2013, 02:59:33 PM
QuoteHer bill would in its own wording set up a "Bureau of Toll Administration within the Department of Transportation; providing for the assumption by the Department of Transportation of the functions of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, for assumption by the Commonwealth of the financing functions of the commission, for transfer to the Department of Transportation and State Treasurer of land, buildings, personal property and employees of the commission, for the abolition of the commission and the offices of Turnpike Commissioner; and making an inconsistent repeal of various acts relating to the Pennsylvania Turnpike."

In other words, we want to replace one bureaucracy with another one (or expand the powers of an existing one, at any rate). Can't we just repeal ACT 44 without all this shuffling, which will save us absolutely zilch in the long run? It's not like they're going to really eliminate any of the high-paying positions which really cost us money during this process; rather, they'll just be redistributed to other parts of government.
There's a non-monetary benefit to this too: elimination of all the breezewoods across the state.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Compulov

Quote from: vdeane on April 19, 2013, 11:40:19 AM
There's a non-monetary benefit to this too: elimination of all the breezewoods across the state.

Doesn't that assume that PennDOT actually has the desire and money to build it? They still won't get federal funding to do it, since I doubt they're going to eliminate the tolls on the Turnpike. If this does happen, I doubt anything is going to change in the short term. At best, they'll keep the status quo; at worst, more toll dollars will get redirected to the state's general fund, which will hurt the Turnpike even more in the end.

Mr_Northside

Quote from: Compulov on April 18, 2013, 03:31:19 PM
Can't we just repeal ACT 44 without all this shuffling, which will save us absolutely zilch in the long run? It's not like they're going to really eliminate any of the high-paying positions which really cost us money during this process; rather, they'll just be redistributed to other parts of government.

I agree with the repealing Act 44, regardless of how this proposal goes down (and if it does, I hope the line "making an inconsistent repeal of various acts relating to the Pennsylvania Turnpike." includes Act 44. 
That being said, I disagree that this proposal will save "absolutely zilch".  While I'm sure pretty much all aspects/levels/departments of government have inefficiencies and corruption, it really does seem like the PTC takes the cake.  And while merging it with PennDOT won't be some kind of magic bullet, it does seem like it would remove a good bit of redundancy.

Though, to give the PTC a little credit, it does seem they're better with winter maintenance, maintaining 4 lanes of traffic even during pretty massive reconstruction projects, while many PennDOT projects will see freeways down to one lane in each direction sharing a carriageway (The nature of the design of the Turnpike does make it easier, being one "ribbon" of pavement, as opposed to 2 separated by a bunch of grass)... And I'd hate to see the 3-laning projects in jeopardy.

Quote from: Compulov on April 19, 2013, 12:38:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 19, 2013, 11:40:19 AM
There's a non-monetary benefit to this too: elimination of all the breezewoods across the state.
Doesn't that assume that PennDOT actually has the desire and money to build it? They still won't get federal funding to do it, since I doubt they're going to eliminate the tolls on the Turnpike.

I also wouldn't assume there would be an elimination of all the "Breezewoods" either just because PennDOT starts running the PTC.  It would be nice though.
Actually, not counting local opposition, Breezewood would probably be the easiest.  For sake of federal funding concerns, PennDOT could just transfer the "Original Turnpike" connector route to it's general non-toll supported rolls, with the current toll booths being the line of demarcation, and build the 2 simple ramps from "free" I-70. 

Of course, this is all "cart-before-the-horse" stuff.  There always seems to be some kind of plans to do something drastic with the PTC every couple of years (kind of like attempts to toll I-80), and yet the status quo remains.
I don't have opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything

vdeane

I never said anything about immediacy, but my understanding is that the core reason for the breezewoods (other than, well, breezewood itself) is the inability for PennDOT and the PTC to work together on anything.  I'm surprised the feds haven't started withholding funding for NOT having them fixed, actually.  This doesn't seem to be an issue for any other state that has toll roads.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Flyer78

All things being equal, in a perfect world, it would be nice to have the Breezewoods fixed. In this state, however, there are more than 4,000 deficient bridges that I would really rather PennDOT prioritize with any funding it has...

I've always heard that Breezewood businesses used their "power" to block the direct connect. Eliminating PTC for PennDOT will hardly change that...

deathtopumpkins

Quote from: vdeane on April 20, 2013, 12:05:14 PM
This doesn't seem to be an issue for any other state that has toll roads.

Oh but it is.

Florida has some pretty egregious examples:

  • Turnpike at 417 has no interchange whatsoever.
  • Turnpike at 528 has 2 direct ramps, but movements such as Turnpike north to 528 west (a very logical route for people to want to take given that SeaWorld and the huge Orange County Convention Center, not to mention an abundance of hotels, are located to the west along 528) requires you to take the loop ramp at the US 17/92/441 end of the double trumpet, then a right turn, then a left turn. 2.4 miles from exiting the Turnpike to merging onto 528.
  • Turnpike at 95 has no direct ramps any of the 3 times they meet except at Golden Glades (connection can be made at Fort Pierce using ¾ mi of FL 70).

New Jersey has the classic NJTP/NJ 42 crossing, along with I-295 and I-276, but that's not too bad.

New York has only a few that I consider a problem:

  • Thruway at US 209 (all movements must be made via NY 28 at the same interchange as I-587, which is a subject of its own.
  • Thruway at NY 23 (not a freeway, but still quite a nuisance of an interchange - all movements must be made via exiting onto a county road)

Ohio has:

  • Turnpike at OH 11
  • Turnpike at I-271
  • Turnpike at I-475

I know there are a fair few more in Illinois, and maybe some others in Texas, Oklahoma, California, and elsewhere, plus many more interchanges that are incredibly screwed up or outdated, and by no means is this a comprehensive list.
But while yes, Pennsylvania takes the cake, there are plenty of other egregious missing interchanges in other states
Disclaimer: All posts represent my personal opinions and not those of my employer.

Clinched Highways | Counties Visited

NE2

How many are there between non-tolled freeways? Texas probably has a bunch where they haven't yet built flyovers. And don't forget I-40 east to I-27 south.

There's also I-76/I-376, where both roads are PTC-maintained. But it's not a strict 'breezewood' in that there are no businesses on the connection - it's more like a three-level diamond where everything is access-controlled but there's a light along the way.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Mr_Northside

Quote from: NE2 on April 20, 2013, 02:13:23 PM
There's also I-76/I-376, where both roads are PTC-maintained. But it's not a strict 'breezewood' in that there are no businesses on the connection - it's more like a three-level diamond where everything is access-controlled but there's a light along the way.

Unless they've changed it in the last two years, there's only a STOP sign that traffic from I-76 to WB (actual NB) I-376 has to deal with, no signal.

But that interchange is just an example how the PTC apparently values "local access".  And in the [west] I-76/376 JCT, there was never even any prior access to PA 351.  The "Cranberry Connector" could have been a simple double trumpet between I-76 & I-79, but since they wanted their direct connection to US-19 as well (which is a good idea), the end result is a jumble of ramps in a fairly tight space.  When they rebuilt the interchange with the US-222 freeway, they still maintained a connection with the old road.
I don't have opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything

vdeane

Quote from: Flyer78 on April 20, 2013, 12:25:29 PM
I've always heard that Breezewood businesses used their "power" to block the direct connect. Eliminating PTC for PennDOT will hardly change that...
That is true of the I-70 breezewood that the term comes from, but none of the others.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 20, 2013, 01:51:03 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 20, 2013, 12:05:14 PM
This doesn't seem to be an issue for any other state that has toll roads.

Oh but it is.

Florida has some pretty egregious examples:

  • Turnpike at 417 has no interchange whatsoever.
  • Turnpike at 528 has 2 direct ramps, but movements such as Turnpike north to 528 west (a very logical route for people to want to take given that SeaWorld and the huge Orange County Convention Center, not to mention an abundance of hotels, are located to the west along 528) requires you to take the loop ramp at the US 17/92/441 end of the double trumpet, then a right turn, then a left turn. 2.4 miles from exiting the Turnpike to merging onto 528.
  • Turnpike at 95 has no direct ramps any of the 3 times they meet except at Golden Glades (connection can be made at Fort Pierce using ¾ mi of FL 70).

New Jersey has the classic NJTP/NJ 42 crossing, along with I-295 and I-276, but that's not too bad.

New York has only a few that I consider a problem:

  • Thruway at US 209 (all movements must be made via NY 28 at the same interchange as I-587, which is a subject of its own.
  • Thruway at NY 23 (not a freeway, but still quite a nuisance of an interchange - all movements must be made via exiting onto a county road)

Ohio has:

  • Turnpike at OH 11
  • Turnpike at I-271
  • Turnpike at I-475

I know there are a fair few more in Illinois, and maybe some others in Texas, Oklahoma, California, and elsewhere, plus many more interchanges that are incredibly screwed up or outdated, and by no means is this a comprehensive list.
But while yes, Pennsylvania takes the cake, there are plenty of other egregious missing interchanges in other states
With the exception of two in Ohio and I-95/295 on the NJ Turnpike Extension, NONE of these are interstate-interstate connections.  Some comments:
-I've never considered either of those Thruway mentions to be a problem.  Neither is a major freeway in any case.  I can think of plenty of examples of getting from a freeway to another state route the exit is for by way of a lower classified road that don't involve toll roads, so it's hardly unique to toll agencies.
-OH Turnpike at I-271 isn't really a major connection with the interstate connections on either side within a couple mines and would be difficult to build due to the terrain
-OH Turnpike at OH 11 is only an issue westbound; eastbound, just hop on I-80.
-NJ Turnpike Extension at I-295 is unfortunate but understandable, and I-195 serves in that capacity anyways
-NJ Turnpike at AC Expressway will be less of an issue when the missing movements are I-295 are built; note that neither of these freeways are interstates.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Sammer

Quote from: vdeane on April 20, 2013, 12:05:14 PM
I'm surprised the feds haven't started withholding funding for NOT having them fixed, actually. 
Actually former federal law was the core reason why the "Breezewoods" happened in the first place so the feds wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they tried to withhold PA's highway funds because of them.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Sammer on April 23, 2013, 03:05:36 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 20, 2013, 12:05:14 PM
I'm surprised the feds haven't started withholding funding for NOT having them fixed, actually. 
Actually former federal law was the core reason why the "Breezewoods" happened in the first place so the feds wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they tried to withhold PA's highway funds because of them.

IMO, what Congress should do is:

(1) Deny federal tax advantages to the bonds issued by any state, county or municipal toll road authority that:  (a) fails to remediate all breezewoods; (b) fails to accept the prevailing electronic toll payment method for the state in which it is located; and (c) has a discriminatory toll rate schedule that charges higher tolls for out-of-state or out-of-region transponders (with exceptions for places like Staten Island, N.Y. where drivers must cross a toll bridge to get on  or off their island).

(2) Since the feds are at least in part to blame for breezewoods, Congress should offer 100% federal funding for all breezewood remediation projects.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Compulov

Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 23, 2013, 05:34:56 PM
(2) Since the feds are at least in part to blame for breezewoods, Congress should offer 100% federal funding for all breezewood remediation projects.

Are the toll facilities still on the hook (by law) for interchanges with federally funded highways? I thought that was the way it currently was. If so, then maybe offering to do the usual 90/10 split for Interstates would be incentive enough.

Speaking of funding, isn't the I-95/Turnpike interchange project being at least partially funded by the feds? I realize that's a special case (the completion of 95 being written into law, I believe), but it's not like it's unprecedented for "free" Interstate tax dollars to be used for toll roads. I suppose you could say they cheated since that interchange will occur in an untolled no-mans-land once they move the barrier tolls further west (the only remaining toll being the one way bridge toll, which has plenty of precedence on the "free" Interstate system).

deathtopumpkins

Quote from: vdeane on April 21, 2013, 11:00:56 AM
With the exception of two in Ohio and I-95/295 on the NJ Turnpike Extension, NONE of these are interstate-interstate connections.

Ah, see, I don't see it as any more egregious for an interstate to have a missing interchange than a state/US/unnumbered freeway. The only difference in the roads is the color of the shield on it.
Disclaimer: All posts represent my personal opinions and not those of my employer.

Clinched Highways | Counties Visited

Sammer

Quote from: Compulov on April 23, 2013, 05:59:49 PM
Are the toll facilities still on the hook (by law) for interchanges with federally funded highways? I thought that was the way it currently was. If so, then maybe offering to do the usual 90/10 split for Interstates would be incentive enough.
No the toll facilities aren't necessarily still on the hook anymore (Congress now encourages toll roads) and the usual 90/10 split ended a couple decades ago.

vdeane

Quote from: Sammer on April 23, 2013, 03:05:36 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 20, 2013, 12:05:14 PM
I'm surprised the feds haven't started withholding funding for NOT having them fixed, actually. 
Actually former federal law was the core reason why the "Breezewoods" happened in the first place so the feds wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they tried to withhold PA's highway funds because of them.
Said "federal law" appears to apply only to PA; in any case, from what I've read about it, that law is possible to comply with without creating a bunch of breezewoods (just look at the I-84/I-87 interchange to see how it's done).  They're just lazy.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 23, 2013, 07:49:48 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 21, 2013, 11:00:56 AM
With the exception of two in Ohio and I-95/295 on the NJ Turnpike Extension, NONE of these are interstate-interstate connections.

Ah, see, I don't see it as any more egregious for an interstate to have a missing interchange than a state/US/unnumbered freeway. The only difference in the roads is the color of the shield on it.
I tend to think of the interstates as a coherent system rather than just a brand name.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

mtantillo

Quote from: vdeane on April 24, 2013, 11:53:54 AM
Quote from: Sammer on April 23, 2013, 03:05:36 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 20, 2013, 12:05:14 PM
I'm surprised the feds haven't started withholding funding for NOT having them fixed, actually. 
Actually former federal law was the core reason why the "Breezewoods" happened in the first place so the feds wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they tried to withhold PA's highway funds because of them.
Said "federal law" appears to apply only to PA; in any case, from what I've read about it, that law is possible to comply with without creating a bunch of breezewoods (just look at the I-84/I-87 interchange to see how it's done).  They're just lazy.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 23, 2013, 07:49:48 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 21, 2013, 11:00:56 AM
With the exception of two in Ohio and I-95/295 on the NJ Turnpike Extension, NONE of these are interstate-interstate connections.

Ah, see, I don't see it as any more egregious for an interstate to have a missing interchange than a state/US/unnumbered freeway. The only difference in the roads is the color of the shield on it.
I tend to think of the interstates as a coherent system rather than just a brand name.

Correct, and FHWA wants all movements present at interchanges, even movements that "don't make sense" from the perspective of long distance traffic, but would be used by local traffic. 

jeffandnicole

Quote from: vdeane on April 24, 2013, 11:53:54 AM
Quote from: Sammer on April 23, 2013, 03:05:36 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 20, 2013, 12:05:14 PM
I'm surprised the feds haven't started withholding funding for NOT having them fixed, actually. 
Actually former federal law was the core reason why the "Breezewoods" happened in the first place so the feds wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they tried to withhold PA's highway funds because of them.
Said "federal law" appears to apply only to PA; in any case, from what I've read about it, that law is possible to comply with without creating a bunch of breezewoods (just look at the I-84/I-87 interchange to see how it's done).  They're just lazy.

In general, the law is just going to apply to the Northeast.  That area of the country was first with limited access highways, which were in the form of toll roads.  Other than Kansas, the rest of the country didn't have toll roads, so there wasn't an issue of providing an interchange with an existing toll road.

Because of the interstate highway layout, there aren't a whole lot of interstate highways that crossed an existing toll road in the Northeast. (Please don't point out every instance where it does)  PA just happens to be a state where the existing toll road intersected some of the new interstate highways back at the onset of the interstate highway system, and created the few situations where an interstate highway does not have a direct interchange with the toll road, which at the time was proper. 

Besides, the feds are probably not going to want to put themselves in a position where they would withhold money if a direct interchange wasn't provided, because the state would be permitted to ask the feds for money to help pay for the interchange...money which the feds simply don't have available to hand out.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Compulov on April 23, 2013, 05:59:49 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 23, 2013, 05:34:56 PM
(2) Since the feds are at least in part to blame for breezewoods, Congress should offer 100% federal funding for all breezewood remediation projects.

Are the toll facilities still on the hook (by law) for interchanges with federally funded highways? I thought that was the way it currently was. If so, then maybe offering to do the usual 90/10 split for Interstates would be incentive enough.

They used to be.  But a law mandating remediation of breezewoods could be written in such a way as to waive most federal requirements associated with federal  funding of highways from applying in the case of closing these gaps in the highway network.

Quote from: Compulov on April 23, 2013, 05:59:49 PM
Speaking of funding, isn't the I-95/Turnpike interchange project being at least partially funded by the feds? I realize that's a special case (the completion of 95 being written into law, I believe), but it's not like it's unprecedented for "free" Interstate tax dollars to be used for toll roads. I suppose you could say they cheated since that interchange will occur in an untolled no-mans-land once they move the barrier tolls further west (the only remaining toll being the one way bridge toll, which has plenty of precedence on the "free" Interstate system).

I believe the I-95 to the E-W mainline interchange project is getting some federal dollars.

That is not without precedent either.  The federal government funded most of the cost of building the Fort McHenry Tunnel, yet Maryland is allowed to collect tolls from traffic using it.

The land under the Dulles Toll Road (Va. 267) was purchased by the Federal Aviation Administration in the late 1950's or early 1960's, yet Virginia was allowed to build a toll road on that land.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

ARMOURERERIC

I viewed the PTC Construction Projects page tonight and noted 2 new project sites.  Both are a bit far in the future, with 2017 starts, but at least show they are moving forward.  Both are full rebuilds to 6 lanes with wide median.  They are:

MP 57-76 (Monroeville to Irwin)
MP 149-155 (Looks to be just east of Midway to just south of Everett)


ARMOURERERIC

There is also some good progress pics of bridge demolition on the MP 41-48 reconstruction site.
Middle Road (that I drove over frequently last June) and the  PA 910 eastern bridge gone.

PAHighways

PA Turnpike Will Continue Spending Thousands on Outdated Call Boxes

Not all segments of the Turnpike System have them.  The newest segments, Turnpike 576 and Turnpike 43 from Uniontown to Brownsville, do not have them.

Compulov

Quote from: PAHighways on May 09, 2013, 07:29:36 PM
PA Turnpike Will Continue Spending Thousands on Outdated Call Boxes

Not all segments of the Turnpike System have them.  The newest segments, Turnpike 576 and Turnpike 43 from Uniontown to Brownsville, do not have them.

They're required by law? Did law require any PennDOT freeways to have them? Either way, other states have been phasing them out of late, so I wouldn't be against the PTC following suit, assuming they were allowed to do so.



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