PA Turnpike News

[MASTERNC]

Looks like the Turnpike might be taking preliminary steps for AET on the main road.  In the past, the E-ZPass Express lanes and slip ramps have just had tag readers and not cameras taking photos of license plates (that was just at the exits).  However, passing through the northbound E-ZPass Express lanes at Mid-County, I noticed that there are now license plate cameras that flash just like in the exit lanes.  I guess theoretically someone could enter & exit without an E-ZPass and they could then be charged the correct toll plus the penalty (rather than the max toll).

The express lanes at the Gateway toll plaza at the Ohio state line have had cameras since the get-go over a decade ago.

The difference there is that is a fixed toll point, where a toll is due. Mid-County is an entrance into the ticket system, so normally the cameras have only been located in exit lanes where a toll is paid. This was entering, where a ticket is normally pulled.

[PHLBOS]

PA Turnpike Commission Approves Toll Increase for 2019.  Six percent increase for all vehicles will start Jan. 6 next year.

Bold emphasis added in the below-quote:

The toll increase will apply to all PA Turnpike sections and extensions, including the westbound Delaware River Bridge cashless tolling point (#359) in Bucks County, where tolls have not changed since January 2016.

Because of today's action, the most-common toll for a passenger vehicle will increase next year from $1.30 to $1.38 for E-ZPass customers and from $2.10 to $2.25 for cash customers. The cashless toll at the westbound Delaware River Bridge will increase from $5.00 to $5.30 for E-ZPass customers and from $6.75 to $7.20 for those who use PA Turnpike TOLL-BY-PLATE. The most common toll for a Class-5 tractor-trailer truck will increase from $3.45 to $3.66 for E-ZPass and from $15.35 to $16.30 for cash. (Note, truckers in this class who use E-ZPass tend to take shorter trips than those who pay with cash or PA Turnpike TOLL-BY-PLATE).

With the above-increase, that PA-bound Delaware River Bridge will be the most expensive Delaware River crossing for all users.

[02 Park Ave]

Regarding the toll on the connector bridge, for those accessing it from US Route 130 there is also a NJTP toll.

[PHLBOS]

Regarding the toll on the connector bridge, for those accessing it from US Route 130 there is also a NJTP toll.

Correct, but that particular toll will not increase (for obvious reasons).  I stated similar many posts back and will repeat such again, the PA toll hits those that commute between US 130 and US 13 the hardest.

[jeffandnicole]

The toll, technically speaking, is a PA Turnpike toll.  It has nothing to do with the bridge specifically.  The westbound toll is intended to cover the use of the road both ways between mid-span of the bridge and the I-95 interchange.    When any work occurs on the bridge, to build a new bridge, etc, they aren't taking money from tolls paid at the bridge. It comes out of the Turnpike's general budgets for roadwork.

[ekt8750]

PA Turnpike Commission Approves Toll Increase for 2019.  Six percent increase for all vehicles will start Jan. 6 next year.

Bold emphasis added in the below-quote:

The toll increase will apply to all PA Turnpike sections and extensions, including the westbound Delaware River Bridge cashless tolling point (#359) in Bucks County, where tolls have not changed since January 2016.

Because of today's action, the most-common toll for a passenger vehicle will increase next year from $1.30 to $1.38 for E-ZPass customers and from $2.10 to $2.25 for cash customers. The cashless toll at the westbound Delaware River Bridge will increase from $5.00 to $5.30 for E-ZPass customers and from $6.75 to $7.20 for those who use PA Turnpike TOLL-BY-PLATE. The most common toll for a Class-5 tractor-trailer truck will increase from $3.45 to $3.66 for E-ZPass and from $15.35 to $16.30 for cash. (Note, truckers in this class who use E-ZPass tend to take shorter trips than those who pay with cash or PA Turnpike TOLL-BY-PLATE).

With the above-increase, that PA-bound Delaware River Bridge will be the most expensive Delaware River crossing for all users.

At this rate, you'll need to take out a mortgage to drive the Turnpike.

[Beltway]

At this rate, you'll need to take out a mortgage to drive the Turnpike.

Or at least, a home equity line of credit (HELOC).

[PHLBOS]

The toll, technically speaking, is a PA Turnpike toll.  It has nothing to do with the bridge specifically.

While true, maybe it should be just for the bridge (especially for the new parallel span); especially given its exorbitant toll & the PTC's misguided Act 44 revenue allocations elsewhere in the system.  If memory serves, the elimination of the tolls between the bridge (or at least US 13) and the I-95 interchange was part of the federal mandate related to the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange... especially given that the Scudder Falls Bridge (New I-295/Old I-95) has no toll (yes, I know that the replacement one will be tolled but such will probably be cheaper).

The westbound toll is intended to cover the use of the road both ways between mid-span of the bridge and the I-95 interchange.

Such could be open for debate based on what was actually in the federal mandate regarding how much of I-95 along the PA Turnpike would be toll-free.  Plus it's a reasonable assumption to assume that nearly everybody here already knows the purpose/concept of how one-way tolls work here.  Additionally, I believe that every other tolled Delaware River crossing has been one-way for at least two decades now; so directly comparing the Turnpike tolls at this crossing compared to tolls at other crossings is valid.  Prior to this particular AET being erected, yes, one would have to take into account of the one-way vs. two-way toll scenario when doing a toll cost comparison.

When any work occurs on the bridge, to build a new bridge, etc, they aren't taking money from tolls paid at the bridge. It comes out of the Turnpike's general budgets for roadwork.

IMHO, that's probably a liability in terms of getting funds from the PA side to build the new parallel in a timely manner (i.e. sooner rather than later).

[Beltway]

IMHO, that's probably a liability in terms of getting funds from the PA side to build the new parallel in a timely manner (i.e. sooner rather than later).

Current AADT on the bridge is about 47,000.  Is there a current congestion problem at peak times?  What sort of increase is projected after the completion of the I-95 connection?

[jeffandnicole]

The toll, technically speaking, is a PA Turnpike toll.  It has nothing to do with the bridge specifically.

While true, maybe it should be just for the bridge (especially for the new parallel span); especially given its exorbitant toll & the PTC's misguided Act 44 revenue allocations elsewhere in the system.  If memory serves, the elimination of the tolls between the bridge (or at least US 13) and the I-95 interchange was part of the federal mandate related to the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange... especially given that the Scudder Falls Bridge (New I-295/Old I-95) has no toll (yes, I know that the replacement one will be tolled but such will probably be cheaper).

The westbound toll is intended to cover the use of the road both ways between mid-span of the bridge and the I-95 interchange.

Such could be open for debate based on what was actually in the federal mandate regarding how much of I-95 along the PA Turnpike would be toll-free.  Plus it's a reasonable assumption to assume that nearly everybody here already knows the purpose/concept of how one-way tolls work here.  Additionally, I believe that every other tolled Delaware River crossing has been one-way for at least two decades now; so directly comparing the Turnpike tolls at this crossing compared to tolls at other crossings is valid.  Prior to this particular AET being erected, yes, one would have to take into account of the one-way vs. two-way toll scenario when doing a toll cost comparison.

When any work occurs on the bridge, to build a new bridge, etc, they aren't taking money from tolls paid at the bridge. It comes out of the Turnpike's general budgets for roadwork.

IMHO, that's probably a liability in terms of getting funds from the PA side to build the new parallel in a timely manner (i.e. sooner rather than later).

When the federal mandate was first issued back in the 1980's, it was well before any electronic toll collection was envisioned.  One of the original designs included a double trumpet from mainline 95 to the PA Turnpike.  Traffic going from I-95 East towards the NJ Turnpike bridge, and west from the NJ Turnpike to I-95, would need to stop and get a ticket, and then pay the toll a few miles later.

Thus, based on such a concept, I don't believe there was ever any mandate that this stretch of highway was supposed to be toll free.

In most cases, the tolling works to provide funds to the bridge agency/authority that has jurisdiction over the bridge, and they figured out that one-way tolling is just as effective as two-way tolling.  But, that's not how this toll point works.  It's simply a toll collection point for the PA Turnpike Commission, and the toll money raised can go to any funding needs along the entire turnpike.  This is exactly how the one-way tolling works on the western side of the PA Turnpike, which is far removed from any significant structure other than the Turnpike itself.

The NJ Turnpike gets no revenue from this particular toll on the PA side of the bridge.  However, all tolling points from the NJ Turnpike to Interchange 6, along with the Interchange 6A, incorporate a higher toll (compared to going further on the mainline NJ Turnpike).

IMHO, that's probably a liability in terms of getting funds from the PA side to build the new parallel in a timely manner (i.e. sooner rather than later).

Current AADT on the bridge is about 47,000.  Is there a current congestion problem at peak times?  What sort of increase is projected after the completion of the I-95 connection?

There's no congestion to speak of on a normal basis, and there's no true peak hour on this bridge. The worst of it would be on a very heavily traveled weekend or holiday period, and it generally isn't significant. I don't know what the increase is projected to be, but being they've pushed back the timeline of a parallel span to at least 2025, I'm guessing they believe increases in traffic won't be significant enough to warrant such a span until that time.

Of course, this is the northeast.  What they allow in terms of congestion is probably much greater than in other areas of the country.  If they believe the bridge will have some congestion starting after the 95 interchange is completed, they're willing to live with that for some time.  If it turns out a higher than expected number of vehicles follow the 95 signage, they may have to take a look to see if they can do anything faster.  The permitting process, especially related to the EPA, will probably take up much of the next several years anyway.

[02 Park Ave]

The NJ Turnpike toll from Exit 6A to cross the connector bridge is $3.00 ($2.00 off peak EZPass).  So the total toll to cross the bridge is actually $8.00 or $7.00, accordingly.  That is by far the most expensive toll across the Delaware River

[PHLBOS]

When the federal mandate was first issued back in the 1980's, it was well before any electronic toll collection was envisioned.  One of the original designs included a double trumpet from mainline 95 to the PA Turnpike.  Traffic going from I-95 East towards the NJ Turnpike bridge, and west from the NJ Turnpike to I-95, would need to stop and get a ticket, and then pay the toll a few miles later.

If memory serves, the originally-planned dual-trumpet interchange w/a toll plaza for that area was designed years before the Somerset Freeway portion of I-95 was scrapped.  The design was based on the assumption that I-95 was still going to follow its originally-planned corridor via the then-proposed Somerset Freeway.

That interchange design was scrapped circa 1982 in favor of the current design once it became official that the original Somerset Freeway section of I-95 in NJ wasn't going to happen.  At a minimum, the feds did not want the through-I-95 movements at the proposed interchange to have a choke-point at the toll plaza.

[MASTERNC]

Interesting.  Just noticed on one of the PA Turnpike website maps that the Willow Hill interchange (Exit 189) is now AET.  They used to have a machine that accepted cash and credit.  Now you scan your ticket and a bill is sent by mail.

https://www.paturnpike.com/toll/cash.aspx

[vdeane]

That's odd.  Wouldn't it be easier to convert the ticket system all at once, rather than spend money on converting interchanges piecemeal only to throw out the new equipment when they go fully AET?

[jeffandnicole]

That's odd.  Wouldn't it be easier to convert the ticket system all at once, rather than spend money on converting interchanges piecemeal only to throw out the new equipment when they go fully AET?

You would think that if the PA Turnpike has all of this money available, they should be able to give out a bunch of it to the rest of the state for non-turnpike related funding needs!   

[MASTERNC]

That's odd.  Wouldn't it be easier to convert the ticket system all at once, rather than spend money on converting interchanges piecemeal only to throw out the new equipment when they go fully AET?

To be fair, that is one of the lowest volume interchanges on the entire Turnpike, and the machine they had there generated multiple comments on Twitter about how bad it was to use.

[Bitmapped]

That's odd.  Wouldn't it be easier to convert the ticket system all at once, rather than spend money on converting interchanges piecemeal only to throw out the new equipment when they go fully AET?

To be fair, that is one of the lowest volume interchanges on the entire Turnpike, and the machine they had there generated multiple comments on Twitter about how bad it was to use.

Had Willow Hill been unstaffed? It's about a decade since I've used that interchange.

[MASTERNC]

That's odd.  Wouldn't it be easier to convert the ticket system all at once, rather than spend money on converting interchanges piecemeal only to throw out the new equipment when they go fully AET?

To be fair, that is one of the lowest volume interchanges on the entire Turnpike, and the machine they had there generated multiple comments on Twitter about how bad it was to use.

Had Willow Hill been unstaffed? It's about a decade since I've used that interchange.

Think so.  Haven't exited but have glanced over on the highway and only saw two lanes - one automated and the other E-ZPass only.  They were supposed to do the same with Blue Mountain and Fort Littleton, but never did.

By the way, I also saw flash cameras in the entry lanes at the Willow Grove interchange that weren't there before but were functioning.  These were not reversible lanes in the middle of the plaza.  A poor soul from Quebec drove through an E-ZPass lane and tried taking a ticket.  He kept going after I honked.  Hopefully the cameras help calculate the correct toll.

[qguy]

In the summer of 2002 I had an incident on the Turnpike that made me glad the Willow Hill toll plaza was still attended.

I was driving eastbound on the Turnpike with my wife, 3-year-old son, and 4-month-old daughter. As we emerged from the eastern end of the Tuscarora Tunnel, and rounded the bend driving in the left lane, I hit debris on the roadway just after the center barrier resumed. I couldn't avoid the debris because the left shoulder is nonexistent and there was a truck beside us in the right lane.

The debris hit the undercarriage of the car hard enough and made a "clunk" loud enough that I thought it prudent to pull over. The Willow Hill exit presented itself at that moment, so I exited, drove to the administrative building and pulled over onto a gravel area beside the small paved parking area.

Sure enough, when I got out and examined the car, there was a finger-width stream of gasoline pouring down onto the ground from the tank. I got the family out of the car and headed to the administrative office. I think there were three people on duty. They were very accommodating. Being in the middle of nowhere they often saw drivers exit with problems.

The Turnpike staff entertained my kids and provided me with the number of a local garage to call. At the foot of the exit ramp there was a pizzeria. We ate dinner there and the owners referred us to the Willow Hill Motel about a hundred yards down the road. They even gave us food for breakfast for the next morning and packed it in a tub of ice because they wouldn't be open in the morning. Very nice folks. We wondered to ourselves how they stayed in business way out there with hardly any supporting population. In fact, the pizzeria would close within a few years (although I think it's open again under new owners).

We got the gas tank replaced (it was a plastic tank) and were on our way by the afternoon of the following day.

Nice people at the Turnpike toll plaza, nice folks at the pizzeria, and nice folks at the motel. All in all, a pleasant if unwanted delay.

[Edited for typo correction.]

[SignBridge]

Yeah some days you win, or sometimes you can turn something bad into something good. I've heard similar good stories about toll-plaza staffs on the NJ Turnpike as well. I think all the big toll roads are kind of like that. They consider you a paying customer and treat you as such. That's a good thing in an otherwise messed up world. Too bad that in the coming era of all-electronic tolling, these toll plaza staffs may not exist anymore. 

[theroadwayone]

In regards to Willow Hill, what you do is you scan your ticket, then push a button for your transaction record. You keep both, and wait for a bill in the mail.

[ipeters61]

Figured I'd post this here, just in case anybody's interested.

This is the PTC Status Board that was likely taken out of commission between 1970-1973, based on a conversation from another thread (NY Thruway).  I took the picture at the State Museum of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg, in March 2017, if you'd like to check it out.  I figured I should mention it here if anybody wants to see a picture of it later!

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13527.msg2346554#msg2346554

[briantroutman]

Another thing that dates it is the use of I-81E instead of I-380, which Wikipedia tells me changed in 1973.

The map shown depicts an odd hodgepodge of routes and designations that didn't all exist at one time. The Turnpike mainline is depicted as I-76 from Ohio to Monroeville, but that section was still designated I-80S until 1973. And I-81E had been redesigned I-380 the same year. (I'm not sure exactly when during that year, though.)

It's hard to tell, but it appears that the map attempts to show the through I-79 alignment bypassing Pittsburgh as complete and designated as I-279, but the 79 and 279 designations had been swapped in 1971, and the road itself wasn't actually complete until 1976.

I-78 is shown passing through the Lehigh Valley on the US 22 alignment, which would fit with the early '70s timeframe, but I-476 is also shown, and it obviously wasn't completed until well over a decade later. I can only assume that it was was shown in anticipation of its completion.

And there's no mention of the PA 9 designation on the NE Extension that was added in 1974.

I drove thru there in 1972 and 1973 (actually was on a bus) and observed the tunnel bypasses with interest, but I can't recall whether the tie-ins between old and new were still traffic usable then.

Until the pavement condition deteriorated to the point where the old alignment became unusable, I think it would have been fairly easy for the PTC to reroute traffic over the Rays/Sideling section in an emergency. Until whenever it was (about 2006-07 if I recall correctly) that the US 30, Pump Station Rd, and Little Egypt Rd. overpasses were removed, it was still possible (though illegal) to simply veer right onto the old alignment at Breezewood, drive through both tunnels nonstop, then merge onto the active lanes of the Turnpike approaching Willow Hill. There would have been bottlenecks at both ends as State Police would have had to set up cones or other channelizing devices to route vehicles through a crossover and onto the old alignment–as well as at the two-lane tunnels–but the pavement was still continuous and traversable. If a longer term detour was necessary, the PTC could have easily set up barriers and temporary striping to allow non-stop four-lane access at both ends with almost no reduction in speed.

[ipeters61]

And there's no mention of the PA 9 designation on the NE Extension that was added in 1974.

I'm wondering if PA-9 isn't mentioned simply because it's not an interstate.  I didn't notice any non-interstate routes mentioned at all on this map.

[briantroutman]

Perhaps that's the case. They don't have keystone shields on any of the western extensions either (43, 60, 66), although clearly, the overall execution in adding them to the board was rather amateur (a spin-and-squeeze label maker–really?). Given the attention to execution that was given to some of the other early/mid '70s changes (redesignation of I-80S, redesignation of Parkway East as I-376) and also given the PTC's general tendency to emphasize its own route numbers in signage and promotional materials, I am still a bit surprised it wasn't added.

Based on the extent of those western extensions shown on the board, we can assume it was still in use until about 1993 at least.

Also noted: I'm a bit surprised that there's no indication of I-176 either–being both an Interstate and a sort of "step child"  of the Turnpike, existing almost solely to connect the Turnpike with Reading.