Maybe they can actually make I-70 a freeway by using that money to help build an I-70 interchange with I-76/Pennsylvania Turnpike(with no signals or shopping centers off it)
The idea of a direct connection was killed thanks in part to Bud Shuster.
Isn't he out of office now? :clap:
local opposition would put a quick stop to that
Now that's some detour!
The most logical alternate route to me seems to be US 30 between Breezewood and Chambersburg and I-81 between Chamberburg and Carlisle.
Personally, my opinion of PennDOT has improved hugely since they opened ECMS to guest users. It is now possible to see what they are actually doing in terms of construction. The PTC hasn't gotten to that point yet.
The PTC is once again debating what to do with the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09151/973812-147.stm (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09151/973812-147.stm).
The PTC is once again debating what to do with the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09151/973812-147.stm (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09151/973812-147.stm).
Some Pennsylvania Turnpike Curves Will be a Little Less Sharp (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/westmoreland/s_629794.html)
<sarcasm>The PTC is acutally using toll money to maintain and upgrade existing turnpike right-of-way. What a concept! :clap:</sarcasm>
<sarcasm>The PTC is acutally using toll money to maintain and upgrade existing turnpike right-of-way. What a concept! :clap:</sarcasm>
They've been doing that for about a decade now. When the section around Donegal was rebuilt a few years ago, the S-curves just east of Exit 91 were straightened.
And the people around I-80 want to bitch about "fair" every time someone talks about tolling I-80!?!
It can be argued that Act 44 was just an all around bad idea from the start, but the bottom line is that currently the system is extremely unfair to residents that use the turnpike.
The PTC is once again debating what to do with the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09151/973812-147.stm (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09151/973812-147.stm).
As the turnpike gradually widens to three lanes in each direction, and with traffic expected to increase, the two-lane tunnels will become a bottleneck.
I have a hunch that by the time the I-70 to Harrisburg section is six lanes all the way, whatever major widening that happens in the Wheeling - KC section of I-70 (truck lanes or 6+ lanes) will be done.
And instead of tolling I-80, they should toll that awful section of I-70 between the Turnpike and I-79 and bring it up to interstate standards.
I think the appropriate move on 70 might be to take out some of the ramps and make the stop-sign merges a better onramp. The medians suck, but you can deal with that - it's the off ramps/on ramps that are the bigger problem to me.No doubt, I drove that stretch in April and I feared for my life. I hope no partial realignments happen that force me to clinch it again :banghead:
I think the appropriate move on 70 might be to take out some of the ramps and make the stop-sign merges a better onramp. The medians suck, but you can deal with that - it's the off ramps/on ramps that are the bigger problem to me.No doubt, I drove that stretch in April and I feared for my life. I hope no partial realignments happen that force me to clinch it again :banghead:
Slowing an interstate down to 45mph is rather troublesome. Throw in that a lot of people don't follow it (which makes those that do a problem, afterall, where are cops going to sit at to watch that section?) and you wind up with big safety issues.
Maybe what SHOULD be done instead is to reroute I-70 to follow I-68 to I-79 and then northward on I-79, rejoining its current route via a re-engineered interchange at Washington, PA.I think the appropriate move on 70 might be to take out some of the ramps and make the stop-sign merges a better onramp. The medians suck, but you can deal with that - it's the off ramps/on ramps that are the bigger problem to me.No doubt, I drove that stretch in April and I feared for my life. I hope no partial realignments happen that force me to clinch it again :banghead:
Don't worry, PennDOT won't be realigning any sections.
Attorney general looking into Pennsylvania Turnpike (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09302/1009272-147.stm)
...and what should be done in New York.and what will never happen in Jersey
Personally I think the Thruway Authority does a good job.
That used to be the case in PA, back in the 70s and 80s the "free" interstates were rough and the Turnpike was smooth. But, according to my brother who traveled more of the PA Turnpike lately, the opposite is now true. (in his opinion and on the segments he's traveled.)
It's the alleged corruption and patronage at the PTC that is another reason for my opposition to tolling I-80. At the present time, I want PennDOT to maintain it. If you'd asked me back in 1980, I'd have said something different.
Personally I think the Thruway Authority does a good job. The portions I travel are at least as good as NYSDOT maintained roads (and usually better). Plus you can look up current conditions on the road, great for winter traveling.
US congressman Glenn `GT’ Thompson, (Republican, Howard, 5th District PA) is asking Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett to investigate claims in former financial manager Ralph Bailets’ lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC). His letter to the state Attorney General quotes a report of the lawsuit in TOLLROADSnews and includes a printout of our report as an attachment, together with a copy of the complaint and other legal references.
The charges against Rubin have no legal bearing on the Turnpike's application to the Feds to toll I-80 but they add to the political price they'd pay for a Yes decision.
Slightly off topic, but I agree that the NY Thruway Authority runs a good operation. Especially their radio dispatching system which is excellent. For any of you emergency dispatchers or scanner buffs out there, the frequencies are 453.425 and 453.525.
I'm less familiar with the PTC, but in general these toll-road agencies seem to me to pretty much have their act together, especially the NJ Turnpike authority. I'm talking about day-to-day operations, not politics and corruption.
The idea of a direct connection was killed thanks in part to Bud Shuster.
As Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, you can pretty much do what you want. He wanted Breezewood PA to look like Las Vegas only with gas stations, motels and fast food joints to provide jobs in what is a rather poor part of the country. Imagine what the us interstate system would look like if all congressmen had that kind of power.
I-70's dead end at a traffic signal at US 30.
Out of curiosity, what exactly did he have to do with it?
the question then is why dignify that disaster with I-70 signage? Just take the 70 signs down, or slap TO banners over them.
the question then is why dignify that disaster with I-70 signage? Just take the 70 signs down, or slap TO banners over them.
There are no I-70 trailblazers anywhere on 30 between the two limited-access sections.
the question then is why dignify that disaster with I-70 signage? Just take the 70 signs down, or slap TO banners over them.
There are no I-70 trailblazers anywhere on 30 between the two limited-access sections.
I think what Agentsteel may be referring to is this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=breezewood,+pa&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=27.976484,76.904297&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Breezewood,+Bedford,+Pennsylvania&ll=39.999093,-78.238803&spn=0.003296,0.009388&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.999183,-78.238769&panoid=FBx_gt_LDz-dAVYlt6etpQ&cbp=12,37.17,,0,1.81
and
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=breezewood,+pa&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=27.976484,76.904297&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Breezewood,+Bedford,+Pennsylvania&ll=39.999454,-78.238707&spn=0.003296,0.009388&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.99946,-78.238859&panoid=gQeKhPo2PjOHJZh50rMEIg&cbp=12,92.71,,0,6.23
and
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=breezewood,+pa&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=27.976484,76.904297&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Breezewood,+Bedford,+Pennsylvania&ll=39.999389,-78.236185&spn=0.003296,0.009388&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.999386,-78.236063&panoid=r8jmjH9DiobAR1T57pYfrw&cbp=12,107.73,,0,-2.1
There are no I-70 trailblazers anywhere on 30 between the two limited-access sections.
Breezewood will become a ghost town
Breezewood will become a ghost town
So if we're gonna have to live with Government Pork on this, how about paying the business to relocate that can't afford to. I'm not saying that we should, but it might be the only way to get this done.
oh Hell no - Breezewood should be paying for the bypass out of their own pockets. Every year since 1975 or so that they have been in business has been a gift. Literally every other town-by-the-interstate in America has adapted. Breezewood is nothing but an entitlement farm.
these green signs certainly indicate that I-70 is the mainline.
(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/misc/w23312.jpg)
They could add insult to injury and stick an Exit Tab on the US 30 BGS.
these green signs certainly indicate that I-70 is the mainline.
(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/misc/w23312.jpg)
What would probably happen if direct ramps were built and they bypassed Breezewood is that many of the businesses would relocate to a convenient exit on the new route say here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Breezewood,+PA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.424342,49.921875&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Breezewood,+Bedford,+Pennsylvania&ll=39.9786,-78.245444&spn=0.01202,0.012188&t=h&z=16
It's just a sign indicating which of the three lanes people should be in to make the turn onto 70, like there would be at any major junction.
Like I said, there are no 70 trailblazers along that section and as I've said many times, the SR designation for the Lincoln Highway is "SR 0030" not "SR 0070" which is what it would be using PennDOT's system of lowest number of highest classification to determine the SR.
well, that far back, it should be signed with a "to". The distant sign with the arrow left is fine without a "to", but the one in the immediate foreground, if it is to be interpreted as a trailblazer, should be signed as "to I-70", otherwise the implication is that - bizarrely enough - you are on I-70.
Are you saying PennDOT never screws up? I would assume that I-70 is not a discontiguous highway, therefore it must follow US 30. Because it's not up to Interstate standards, it doesn't surprise me that this segment would still be numbered 0030.
Could also go with the thought that it's numbered 30 because it was 30 before 70 was even around? Not sure when PA put in the "SR 0030" type numbers together.
It's criminal. I'm sick and tired of crybaby companies that want to maintain the status quo to maintain their bottom line.
Notice to crybaby companies: we live in a free market system (well, we're supposed to). You adapt to your environment. If you can't adapt, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DIE. Live with it.
"money is the mother's milk of politics"
My guess would be said businesses in Breezewood have the money.
As long as they have the money as well as power to control the local politics, no matter how much you rant, it will never change.
"money is the mother's milk of politics"
My guess would be said businesses in Breezewood have the money.
As long as they have the money as well as power to control the local politics, no matter how much you rant, it will never change.
That's why I made my suggestion of basically "bribing" the businesses in Breezewood to allow a better connection to be built. (A practical but not necessarily moral matter of getting things accomplished.)
It appears to be a simple matter. A flyover from "nb" I-70 to the tpk entrance and a simple ramp connection from the tpk entrance to "sb" I-70. Not really that expensive. My guess would be the row is either already owned by PENNDOT or the PTC.
QuoteIt appears to be a simple matter. A flyover from "nb" I-70 to the tpk entrance and a simple ramp connection from the tpk entrance to "sb" I-70. Not really that expensive. My guess would be the row is either already owned by PENNDOT or the PTC.
It's not that easy. While the right-of-way is there, the topography of the area would make building the connections as you suggest very difficult, and a lot more expensive than you'd think.
QuoteIt appears to be a simple matter. A flyover from "nb" I-70 to the tpk entrance and a simple ramp connection from the tpk entrance to "sb" I-70. Not really that expensive. My guess would be the row is either already owned by PENNDOT or the PTC.
It's not that easy. While the right-of-way is there, the topography of the area would make building the connections as you suggest very difficult, and a lot more expensive than you'd think.
As an aside, I will not buy gas there as their gas prices are much higher then PGH or Hburg.
Turnpike to Become Nation's Costliest Toll Road (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10197/1073083-455.stm) - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
"It's a proud day for the Pennsylvania Turnpike," said CEO Joe Brimmeier, who noted that by next year, the entire stretch from Ohio to beyond the Allegheny Tunnel, 125 miles, will have been rebuilt.
Editorial Cartoonist Randy Bish's take on the impending toll increase (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/bish/e_1_2010-07-16.html) - Tribune-ReviewHA! How `bout this one? http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/bish/e_1_2010-07-18.html
Editorial Cartoonist Randy Bish's take on the impending toll increase (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/bish/e_1_2010-07-16.html) - Tribune-ReviewHA! How `bout this one? http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/bish/e_1_2010-07-18.html
A source at the Pennsylvania Turnpike reports a dramatic raid this morning at the Eastern Regional Office (ERO) of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. He says a team from the Office of the Turnpike Inspector General, Anthony Maniscola showed up during the morning.
Two directors, longtime staffers at the Turnpike - Melvin Shelton and John Trevolina (spelling needs confirmation) were told they were fired and escorted to their cars and sent away, according to the report we received. Meanwhile members of Maniscola's 'hit team' disconnected a number of computers and took them away. They also emptied filing cabinets, boxing their contents and carrying the boxes to their vehicles too.
We don't have any independent confirmation of this. A Turnpike spokesman missed our call but emailed us later: "I cannot confirm anything relating to personnel actions undertaken by the commission today."
The firings were first reported by TollRoadsNews, a transportation industry newsletter published out of Frederick, Md. Turnpike spokesman Carl DeFebo confirmed the firings of Melvin M. Shelton and John P. Travelina on Thursday.
My issue is that the guy is from Ohio. Ohio uses E-Z Pass.
And the article makes it sound like he's from Cincinnati (or at least that's where he works...); He may hardly ever (if ever) even use the Ohio Turnpike. (Or any toll road for that matter, so "E-Zpass" might be a foreign concept to him), so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there.
I guess I just thought, when I first read the article (before analyzing & over-analyzing it), Hey, I guess someone could interpret a sign that says "No Cash" to mean "This must be the lane to use if you have no cash", as opposed to the correct "Cash not accepted in this lane" meaning.
I also want to say that some of the newer plazas on the PTC expansion highways take cards (in addition to being automated for cash), but maybe my brain is just subconsciously making that up.
Also of note, I guess I've never mapped it out (and upon checking, a route via downtown & the Parkway East is Google's recommended route for a trip like that, and it seems about 10mi. shorter), but I'd probably default to avoiding downtown PGH and take that same route via New Stanton anyway (despite I-70's crappiness between Wash. & N.S.)
I'm surprised this guy didn't e-mail me complaining about the treatment he received, and not wanting a V-Toll, which I sometimes receive in my inbox.
Westbound on- and off-ramps at the Virginia Drive interchange north of Philadelphia are E-ZPass only, and a new eastbound interchange in Bucks County will open as E-ZPass only this month.
I was reading that article about the All-Electronic Tolls and I came across this line in it:The interchange is between Willow Grove (PA 611) and Ft. Washington (PA 309), not affiliated in any way with the I-95/I-276 interchange.QuoteWestbound on- and off-ramps at the Virginia Drive interchange north of Philadelphia are E-ZPass only, and a new eastbound interchange in Bucks County will open as E-ZPass only this month.
Does anybody know where this new interchange is in Bucks County? Is it part of the I-95/I-276 interchange or something else?
EDIT: Wait, never mind. Just found a mention in the Wiki article that it's a slip ramp for PA-132.
I was reading that article about the All-Electronic Tolls and I came across this line in it:The interchange is between Willow Grove (PA 611) and Ft. Washington (PA 309), not affiliated in any way with the I-95/I-276 interchange.QuoteWestbound on- and off-ramps at the Virginia Drive interchange north of Philadelphia are E-ZPass only, and a new eastbound interchange in Bucks County will open as E-ZPass only this month.
Does anybody know where this new interchange is in Bucks County? Is it part of the I-95/I-276 interchange or something else?
EDIT: Wait, never mind. Just found a mention in the Wiki article that it's a slip ramp for PA-132.
The PA 132 E-ZPass-only ramp (http://www.pennoni.com/portfolio/project.aspx?project=189) must not be close to the construction phase, as it is not listed on the projects section of the PTC's site unlike the ones for PA 29 (http://www.paturnpike.com/ConstructionProjects/Route29_SlipRamp/home.html) and PA 903 (http://www.paturnpike.com/constructionprojects/Route_903_Slip_Ramp/home.html).
It will probably be Exit 35#, as the Virginia Drive Exit is just 340 even though it only services the westbound side of 276. I wouldn't worry about updating the CHM until something is announced on the PTC site.
For Pennsylvania Turnpike Toll Collectors, The Bell May Toll (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10318/1103248-454.stm) - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Probably because any exit east of Downingtown you take will lead you to Philadelphia. Or Bensalem wanted the mention as what happened to old Exit 3 (now 28) being changed from Perry Highway to Cranberry.
But I think Bensalem Township had a population growth since 2 or 3 decades and now a more important municipality in Metro Philly.
Probably because any exit east of Downingtown you take will lead you to Philadelphia. Or Bensalem wanted the mention as what happened to old Exit 3 (now 28) being changed from Perry Highway to Cranberry.
Or another possibility, the future I-95 interchange will be the Philadelphia interchange. But I think Bensalem Township had a population growth since 2 or 3 decades and now a more important municipality in Metro Philly.
In fact, if we care about interchange names at all (I'm not clear why we do; this isn't Germany)...
Pennsylvania Turnpike Changes Mind About Not Printing Tolls on Tickets (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/12/pa_turnpike_changes_mind_about.html) - Harrisburg Patriot-News
Pennsylvania Turnpike Changes Mind About Not Printing Tolls on Tickets (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/12/pa_turnpike_changes_mind_about.html) - Harrisburg Patriot-NewsThat'll make the blank toll tickets a collectors' item. Jeff, you're PennDOT incarnate, can you get some for us?
Pennsylvania Turnpike Changes Mind About Not Printing Tolls on Tickets (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/12/pa_turnpike_changes_mind_about.html) - Harrisburg Patriot-NewsThat'll make the blank toll tickets a collectors' item. Jeff, you're PennDOT incarnate, can you get some for us?
Pennsylvania Turnpike Changes Mind About Not Printing Tolls on Tickets (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/12/pa_turnpike_changes_mind_about.html) - Harrisburg Patriot-NewsThat'll make the blank toll tickets a collectors' item. Jeff, you're PennDOT incarnate, can you get some for us?
I second that!
Pennsylvania Turnpike Changes Mind About Not Printing Tolls on Tickets (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/12/pa_turnpike_changes_mind_about.html) - Harrisburg Patriot-NewsThat'll make the blank toll tickets a collectors' item. Jeff, you're PennDOT incarnate, can you get some for us?
Prank signs on rest area drinking fountains target gas drilling (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11178/1156490-454.stm) - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Professionally done signs are being affixed to drinking fountains at service plazas along the Turnpike, but they aren't official.
Prank signs on rest area drinking fountains target gas drilling (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11178/1156490-454.stm) - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Professionally done signs are being affixed to drinking fountains at service plazas along the Turnpike, but they aren't official.
You know you pay attention to signs a bit too much when you see that, and before even reading it's "warning" you think "Gee... That DEP logo looks bogus."
Hate to say there are a lot of "special interest" groups that advertise on PA Turnpike billboards. I can think of AFSCME, anti puppy mill organizations, an association for juvenile justice officers, and clean coal.
Heartbeat Starts at [foo] Weeks
Pregnant? Your Child's Heart is Already Beating!Nice to know that pregnancy doesn't begin at conception :)
A colorful former officer of the Pennsylvania Turnpike George Hatalowich has been put on the payroll of Parsons Brinckerhoff in Camp Hill PA with the unusual title Director-Pennyslvania Strategic Operations. At the Turnpike Hatalowich, 46, was best known as a liaison with and fund raiser for politicians, and for drunken driving charges.
Motorists traveling the Turnpike eastbound from Exit 10/New Castle to Exit 48/Allegheny Valley found themselves in a rather sticky situation last night. A tanker carrying driveway sealant leaked its load between Toll I-376 and the Oakmont-Plum Service Plaza, with the majority of it falling west of the Warrendale Toll Plaza.
http://www.wtae.com/news/29837601/detail.html
Motorists traveling the Turnpike eastbound from Exit 10/New Castle to Exit 48/Allegheny Valley found themselves in a rather sticky situation last night. A tanker carrying driveway sealant leaked its load between Toll I-376 and the Oakmont-Plum Service Plaza, with the majority of it falling west of the Warrendale Toll Plaza.
http://www.wtae.com/news/29837601/detail.html
More Than 460 Cars Damaged in PA Turnpike Spill (http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/more-460-cars-damaged-pa-turnpike-spill) - WJAC-TV Johnstown
More Than 460 Cars Damaged in PA Turnpike Spill (http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/more-460-cars-damaged-pa-turnpike-spill) - WJAC-TV Johnstown
LOL, they have already killed that article. Guess they don't like hotlinking.
The consultants would keep the present organization of toll points which over most of the mainline of the Turnpike the toll is trip-based in which a vehicle is registered on entry at a side toll plaza and again on exit and a distance-based toll computed. The western end plus newer extension tollroads are the more conventional point tolling, with multiple tolls levied at mainline or ramp toll points.
In a point system, you can pay $2 to drive 1 mile or 10 miles depending if the setup is just right (or wrong).And if it's very wrong (Garden State Parkway) you can pay $2 for 10 miles and $0 for 20. (When they changed barrier tolls to one-way alternating they didn't touch the ramp tolls.)
You can pay $1.35 for 4 miles - on at 141, barrier toll, off at 145, ramp toll. (Or $1.25 for 3 miles.)In a point system, you can pay $2 to drive 1 mile or 10 miles depending if the setup is just right (or wrong).And if it's very wrong (Garden State Parkway) you can pay $2 for 10 miles and $0 for 20. (When they changed barrier tolls to one-way alternating they didn't touch the ramp tolls.)
QuoteThe consultants would keep the present organization of toll points which over most of the mainline of the Turnpike the toll is trip-based in which a vehicle is registered on entry at a side toll plaza and again on exit and a distance-based toll computed. The western end plus newer extension tollroads are the more conventional point tolling, with multiple tolls levied at mainline or ramp toll points.
A nitpick here. I would call point tolling more popular than conventional. When the turnpike was first built, there were few precedents on tolling modern highways and in those early days, the ticket system was popular on all the big projects. It is also a fairer way to toll as you pay the same rate for the miles you drive.
In a point system, you can pay $2 to drive 1 mile or 10 miles depending if the setup is just right (or wrong).
The E-tolling is going to be done here on Toll NC 147 and Toll NC 540. I seriously doubt that the Tollworkers Union will ever allow E-Tolling is PA, if they do, don't surprised if it shows up on I-80. Rendell may be gone but, unfortunately, his ideas cannot be destroyed.
If you've looked at Toronto's 407ETR road, it works like a ticket system. There are gantries on all exit ramps and gantries across the mainline only at both ends. And, their toll schedule reflects this.
PA Turnpike Reminds Motorists of 10% Cash-Only Toll Increase Next Year (http://www.paturnpike.com/Press/2011/20111216111152.htm)
Cash fares go up in accordance with the Act 44 legislation passed in 2007.
An idea whose time has not yet come...
The 'green' Penn Pike to have electric vehicle charging at 17 service plazas (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5660)
Given the current range of current electric vehicle and the recharging time, I doubt you'll see many people using this.
An idea whose time has not yet come...
The 'green' Penn Pike to have electric vehicle charging at 17 service plazas (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5660)
Given the current range of current electric vehicle and the recharging time, I doubt you'll see many people using this.
I agree, especially given how far it is between Pennsylvania Turnpike E-W mainline interchanges (heck, the range of at least some electric cars does not seem to allow travel between more than one or two interchanges).
They might get some Chevy Volt drivers to use it, but that's all I see at this time.
They might get some Chevy Volt drivers to use it, but that's all I see at this time.
Come to Pennsylvania, where our turnpike interchanges are spaced just far enough for you to recharge your Chevy Volt at.
More Than 460 Cars Damaged in PA Turnpike Spill (http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/more-460-cars-damaged-pa-turnpike-spill) - WJAC-TV Johnstown
Please do not forget the alignment of the Turnpike from Irwin to Harrisburg is over 70 years old. It is America's first attempt to copy the German AUTOBAHN, which there was a collaboration between Germany and Pennsylvania Engineers. We all know that the current alignment needs some tweaking but it will be done with Turnpike Money and Turnpike Engineers, not PennDOT money and not PennDOT Engineers.
I can remember a few years ago that they where seriously talking about disbanding the Turnpike Comission, which is seperate from PennDOT, and letting the Districts themselves service the Turnpike needs that are placed in their District. However there are some Districts that do not have any Turnpike Highways. I think that the cost savings would be minimal since PennDOT would have to seperate the Turnpike Highways from the PennDOT Highways.
Considering that most of the Interstate System of Pennsylvania was built after there were standards for Interstate construction, it isn't surprising. While the original Turnpike and Northeast Extension are antiquated by contemporary standards, the Turnpike extensions are built to modern limited-access standards.
I'll grant that it hasn't necessarily been "long-since", but the PTC has been improving the mainline for over a decade now. And the stretches they've done are pretty good.
And in the last couple of years they've decided to 6-lane the sections they've been completely rebuilding.
The recently completed Irwin to New Stanton section is now a very nice drive.
It -is- surprising ... toll-funded highway segments opened between 1940 and 1959 could and should have long-since been improved to at least 1970 Interstate standards.
It -is- surprising ... toll-funded highway segments opened between 1940 and 1959 could and should have long-since been improved to at least 1970 Interstate standards.
It is easier to build new than try to rebuild what already exists.
The now decade-long rehabilitation[/widening] of the original 50s expressway, rebuilding from the ground up rather than the resurfacing jobs that were the mainstay of PTC maintenance, is making for a much-improved ride. The Turnpike Commission planned "Super Turnpike" concept for the original Carlisle-to-Irwin section featuring 2/2/2/2 car/truck/truck/car ROW complete with holographic signage. Yes, what is currently happening is not a complete rebuild to full and true Interstate standards, but something is better than nothing. As the saying goes, "Beggars can't be choosers."
The Turnpike has a 200-foot-wide right-of-way, wider where cuts and fills and interchanges necessitate. In most places there is space for an Interstate cross-section with six 12-foot lanes, inside and outside 12-foot shoulders, and a 40-foot median. In mountainous terrain a 22-foot median (10-foot shouders and 2-foot concrete median barrier) will suffice.
I was wondering: Did they at least grade for an extra lane between the 70's
I was wondering: Did they at least grade for an extra lane between the 70's
Also, somewhat unrelated to the recent "conversation", but PTC related....
The Laurel Highlands Hiking Trail Facebook page has some pictures of the rebuild of the trail bridge over the Turnpike at the Somerset/Westmoreland County line:
https://www.facebook.com/laurelhighlandshikingtrail (https://www.facebook.com/laurelhighlandshikingtrail)
The tough question regarding six-laning is, what of the tunnels? Can't easily bypass the remaining ones. Simple inelegant solution would be to just have the road narrow to four lanes for the tunnels, but then you turn them into bottlenecks again. Could always bore a third (and fourth?) tube, I suppose.
I would imagine a bypass, if possible. Many of the former Turnpike tunnels have been bypassed and they have been toying on and off with bypassing the Allegheny Tunnel.
But achieving the same thing for the other tunnels (Blue, Kittatinny, Tuscarora, and Lehigh) would be either be extremely difficult (to the point of being not feasible) or impossible.
But achieving the same thing for the other tunnels (Blue, Kittatinny, Tuscarora, and Lehigh) would be either be extremely difficult (to the point of being not feasible) or impossible.
I'd have to agree with that. I imagine, even if all the sections around those tunnels are 6-laned, those will be still be 4 lanes for many years to come.
I wonder what would be involved with widening a tunnel to 3 lanes (other than the major traffic disruptions while construction is occurring)
But achieving the same thing for the other tunnels (Blue, Kittatinny, Tuscarora, and Lehigh) would be either be extremely difficult (to the point of being not feasible) or impossible.
I'd have to agree with that. I imagine, even if all the sections around those tunnels are 6-laned, those will be still be 4 lanes for many years to come.
I wonder what would be involved with widening a tunnel to 3 lanes (other than the major traffic disruptions while construction is occurring)
If the segments of the Penna. Turnpike leading up to the tunnel portals are widened to six (or more) lanes, then it might make operational (but maybe not fiscal) sense to bore two additional tubes through the mountains?
That would allow (relatively) easy maintenance of any given tube (consider that the Maryland Transportation Authority frequently closes one of the two lane tubes of the Fort McHenry Tunnel (which has a total of four two-lane tubes) for maintenance in the overnight hours).
But achieving the same thing for the other tunnels (Blue, Kittatinny, Tuscarora, and Lehigh) would be either be extremely difficult (to the point of being not feasible) or impossible.
I'd have to agree with that. I imagine, even if all the sections around those tunnels are 6-laned, those will be still be 4 lanes for many years to come.
I wonder what would be involved with widening a tunnel to 3 lanes (other than the major traffic disruptions while construction is occurring)
If the segments of the Penna. Turnpike leading up to the tunnel portals are widened to six (or more) lanes, then it might make operational (but maybe not fiscal) sense to bore two additional tubes through the mountains?
That would allow (relatively) easy maintenance of any given tube (consider that the Maryland Transportation Authority frequently closes one of the two lane tubes of the Fort McHenry Tunnel (which has a total of four two-lane tubes) for maintenance in the overnight hours).
The other potential advantage to the multiple-tube configuration is that it allows for shutting down one tube in the event of an accident or other problem. You still get traffic problems, but it's not as bad as when something happens halfway through a single-tube tunnel. If you've ever been stuck in the Allegheny Tunnel because someone has a flat tire (happened the last time I went through there), you know what I mean, but I'm thinking in terms of more severe stuff like crashes or an incident where the tunnel might be damaged. The extra tube allows them to maintain tunnel operations even if they have to shut down the affected tube. (I suppose again the Fort McHenry Tunnel is a fine example in that its opening allowed them to shut down portions of the Harbor Tunnel for extended periods for rehabilitation, and I suspect a 2-2-2-2 setup might allow the PTC to do the same thing with their existing tunnels.)
How about what the Lincoln Tunnel does, 2-2-2? The center tube would normally operate 1/1, but can be converted to 2/0 if one of the other tubes closes.
Auditor general says Turnpike Commission 'in jeopardy' (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12005/1201596-100.stm) - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Pa. Turnpike Chief Responds to Auditor General Wagner’s Claims of Financial Chaos (http://www.paturnpike.com/Press/2012/20120105171343.htm)
Perhaps it's time to end the generous subsidies that the PTC passes along to PennDOT (and I understand that much of the money ends up going to urban transit agencies like SEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County)?
I get that the way things are let that happen, as I-80 was built with federal money, and federal rules apply to it that do not with the Turnpike.... But I have to say that this current situation -- and I'll admit to bias since I use the TPK frequently and I-80 rarely -- right now is BULLSHIT.
And, with the latest PTC cash-only increases, the next time I have to go between Bloomsburg and say the Philly airport, I plan on shunpiking. Instead of I-476 to I-80, I'll likely take I-476 to US 422 (via I-76 and US 202) to Reading, take one of the Reading bypasses and PA 61 and PA 42 to Bloomsburg.Careful your tires don't melt! ;) :D
How about what the Lincoln Tunnel does, 2-2-2? The center tube would normally operate 1/1, but can be converted to 2/0 if one of the other tubes closes.
Does the Lincoln Tunnel operate that way?
I thought that the center tube runs with both lanes in the direction of peak traffic.
Yakra,Where there's heat there's light...
Thank you for pointing out Centralia but, as a native of NE PA, please don't make light of it.
The standard solutions are already being thrown about: raise gas tax, raise registration, raise driver license fees, etc.
Off-peak and on the weekend the Lincoln Tunnel and NJ 495 leading up to it operates with three lanes in each direction. During rush hours, one lane of the reverse-peak roadway is cannibalized for a contraflow bus lane, and this operation continues into the tunnel. So, you have the two outer tubes carrying two lanes of general traffic in their respective direction, and the center tube carrying a lane of general traffic plus a bus lane in the peak direction.
The Turnpike tunnels don't have directional peaking issues, nor is the Turnpike likely to be designed to have the contraflow setup NJ 495 has - so a three tube system would likely operate 2-1/1-2 all the time, with the option to close one tube at a time for maintenance or in case of emergency.
Routine 2-way traffic in a tube on an Interstate highway, would not meet Interstate standards, though.
Yakra,
Thank you for pointing out Centralia but, as a native of NE PA, please don't make light of it.
Yes, the mine fire is still burning and PA 61 goes through there but, it's not funny. I suggest you take that drive there and you'll see it.
Routine 2-way traffic in a tube on an Interstate highway, would not meet Interstate standards, though.
Why not?
Yakra,
Thank you for pointing out Centralia but, as a native of NE PA, please don't make light of it.
Yes, the mine fire is still burning and PA 61 goes through there but, it's not funny. I suggest you take that drive there and you'll see it.
Might be something worthy of a meet sometime.
Might be something worthy of a meet sometime.
It was back in 2003 and 2004.
Interstate standards include having opposing traffic divided by a median, and with at least 2 lanes each way.
Interstate standards include having opposing traffic divided by a median, and with at least 2 lanes each way.
The Thousand Islands Bridge begs to differ...
Are tunnels banned from having medians in them? I see no reason why the center tube couldn't have a jersey barrier in the center.
Are tunnels banned from having medians in them? I see no reason why the center tube couldn't have a jersey barrier in the center.
I doubt there is room in the tubes for wide enough lanes AND a median.
Are tunnels banned from having medians in them? I see no reason why the center tube couldn't have a jersey barrier in the center.You'd want to make sure to have what one might call "passing roadway width" on either side of the median barrier. Based on NYSDOT standards that would be about 21' or 22' - you can get it down to 19' if you ban trucks, but then you have trouble if one of the other tubes gets shut down. Not that it's a dealbreaker, but it makes it a lot costlier to construct, and might even be more than two smaller tubes. Quick math:
Perhaps it's time to end the generous subsidies that the PTC passes along to PennDOT (and I understand that much of the money ends up going to urban transit agencies like SEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County)?
I agree. Though I do believe the only way to to get that done is to repeal Act 44.
Ironically, one of the biggest (if not the biggest) components of Act 44, tolling I-80, was rejected because it would fund stuff other than I-80. Instead, the Turnpike, which was self-sufficient, now has to give the state (via higher tolls from TPK users) money (a generous amount, as you put it) for stuff other than the Turnpike.
I get that the way things are let that happen, as I-80 was built with federal money, and federal rules apply to it that do not with the Turnpike.... But I have to say that this current situation -- and I'll admit to bias since I use the TPK frequently and I-80 rarely -- right now is BULLSHIT.
At most interchanges they would have to retool the ramps for toll booths and also staff toll collectors as well. Start up cost would be tremendous and costly. In the long run it would generate money for roads, which what they want, but at what cost.
…what is worse that many of the states rely on the gas tax, which because of the price of gas less people have money to go places. I am not happy with the oil companies.
Pennsylvania has a lot of bridges from the rivers, creeks, lakes, and streams that the road has to cross, unfortunately here we own a lot of the bridges, there are a few here and there that are owned by the county and even fewer at the municipal level. They are not cheap to fix and also maintain.
At most interchanges they would have to retool the ramps for toll booths and also staff toll collectors as well. Start up cost would be tremendous and costly. In the long run it would generate money for roads, which what they want, but at what cost.
Didn't the I-80 tolling proposal involve only open-road tolling (ORT)?
Let us not forget that I-80 through Pennsylvania has the highest amount of truck traffic on any of the Interstates in PA. Many private truck operators will drive around the turnpike since I-80 is free.
PennDOT employee (District 6), I can vouch for that. If I recall correctly, PennDOT is responsible for more miles of local road than any other state DOT (as a percentage of total state road miles or whichever way one wishes to measure it). It's a crushing, both from a cost and a man-hours standpoint. I worked closely with the PennDOT maintenance units in each county. There isn't enough hours in the day to get everything done that they have responsibility for. I don't know how they accomplish as much as they do. (Contrary to the old days–and the old jokes–they actually work extremely hard.)
There are 3 state DOTs that are responsible for more miles of local road than PennDOT -- TxDOT, NCDOT and VDOT.
The other potential advantage to the multiple-tube configuration is that it allows for shutting down one tube in the event of an accident or other problem. You still get traffic problems, but it's not as bad as when something happens halfway through a single-tube tunnel. If you've ever been stuck in the Allegheny Tunnel because someone has a flat tire (happened the last time I went through there), you know what I mean, but I'm thinking in terms of more severe stuff like crashes or an incident where the tunnel might be damaged. The extra tube allows them to maintain tunnel operations even if they have to shut down the affected tube. (I suppose again the Fort McHenry Tunnel is a fine example in that its opening allowed them to shut down portions of the Harbor Tunnel for extended periods for rehabilitation, and I suspect a 2-2-2-2 setup might allow the PTC to do the same thing with their existing tunnels.)
Twin tube tunnels have the provision for temporarily closing a tube and maintaining 2-way traffic. The approach roadways have median crossovers so that 2-way traffic can be handled in one of the tubes.
I experienced this once in the original Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, back in the 1970s. It was late evening and it seemed odd, but with no real congestion. FYI, that was before the I-95 tunnel existed.
I will grant that closing a tube on a 2-2-2-2 tunnel would not be nearly as impacting to traffic as closing a tube on a 2-2 tunnel.
There are 3 state DOTs that are responsible for more miles of local road than PennDOT -- TxDOT, NCDOT and VDOT.
Thanks for the correction/clarification. I knew PennDOT was at least near the top in that metric.
Question: For the three states you list, is that in terms of absolute number of miles of state DOT-maintained local road, or state DOT-maintained local road miles as a percentage of total road miles in the state? IOW, is that an absolute number or a percentage number? I can certainly see TxDOT being responsible for more absolute local road miles than PennDOT, but as a percentage of total road miles, not so sure.
Anyway, I don't want to get to far in the weeds (and I certainly don't want to imply a my-Pop-can-beat-up-their-Pop attitude). Jes' wonderin'.
I can certainly see TxDOT being responsible for more absolute local road miles than PennDOT, but as a percentage of total road miles, not so sure.
Twin tube tunnels have the provision for temporarily closing a tube and maintaining 2-way traffic. The approach roadways have median crossovers so that 2-way traffic can be handled in one of the tubes.
I experienced this once in the original Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, back in the 1970s. It was late evening and it seemed odd, but with no real congestion. FYI, that was before the I-95 tunnel existed.
I will grant that closing a tube on a 2-2-2-2 tunnel would not be nearly as impacting to traffic as closing a tube on a 2-2 tunnel.
You're correct, although the point I was getting at was the one in your final sentence. Among other reasons, stopping the traffic in both directions in order to clear the lane that has to be reversed and to ensure that nobody drives into the other lane is a major hassle and causes massive delays. Being able to close one tube on a 2-2-2-2 (or similar design) at least eliminates the need to stop the traffic going the other way.
On the road tolling is working, they just implemented it here in NC.
What? You're not stopping any traffic if you need to reverse a lane. You close the third lane in the unaffected direction, then run a maintenance or police car through as the last car. Once you've verified the lane is clear, flip directions and open it to the affected traffic. That's really not a hassle.The other potential advantage to the multiple-tube configuration is that it allows for shutting down one tube in the event of an accident or other problem. You still get traffic problems, but it's not as bad as when something happens halfway through a single-tube tunnel. If you've ever been stuck in the Allegheny Tunnel because someone has a flat tire (happened the last time I went through there), you know what I mean, but I'm thinking in terms of more severe stuff like crashes or an incident where the tunnel might be damaged. The extra tube allows them to maintain tunnel operations even if they have to shut down the affected tube. (I suppose again the Fort McHenry Tunnel is a fine example in that its opening allowed them to shut down portions of the Harbor Tunnel for extended periods for rehabilitation, and I suspect a 2-2-2-2 setup might allow the PTC to do the same thing with their existing tunnels.)
Twin tube tunnels have the provision for temporarily closing a tube and maintaining 2-way traffic. The approach roadways have median crossovers so that 2-way traffic can be handled in one of the tubes.
I experienced this once in the original Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, back in the 1970s. It was late evening and it seemed odd, but with no real congestion. FYI, that was before the I-95 tunnel existed.
I will grant that closing a tube on a 2-2-2-2 tunnel would not be nearly as impacting to traffic as closing a tube on a 2-2 tunnel.
You're correct, although the point I was getting at was the one in your final sentence. Among other reasons, stopping the traffic in both directions in order to clear the lane that has to be reversed and to ensure that nobody drives into the other lane is a major hassle and causes massive delays. Being able to close one tube on a 2-2-2-2 (or similar design) at least eliminates the need to stop the traffic going the other way.
It's a lot simpler than that ... while traffic operates continually in the right lane, change the signals for the left lane to RED, wait for the lane to empty, then direct the opposing traffic to that lane. Each direction sees GREEN signals for the right lane and RED signals for the left lane.
What? You're not stopping any traffic if you need to reverse a lane. You close the third lane in the unaffected direction, then run a maintenance or police car through as the last car. Once you've verified the lane is clear, flip directions and open it to the affected traffic. That's really not a hassle.I will grant that closing a tube on a 2-2-2-2 tunnel would not be nearly as impacting to traffic as closing a tube on a 2-2 tunnel.
You're correct, although the point I was getting at was the one in your final sentence. Among other reasons, stopping the traffic in both directions in order to clear the lane that has to be reversed and to ensure that nobody drives into the other lane is a major hassle and causes massive delays. Being able to close one tube on a 2-2-2-2 (or similar design) at least eliminates the need to stop the traffic going the other way.
EDIT: Yeah, what he said, but still run your own car through first.It's a lot simpler than that ... while traffic operates continually in the right lane, change the signals for the left lane to RED, wait for the lane to empty, then direct the opposing traffic to that lane. Each direction sees GREEN signals for the right lane and RED signals for the left lane.
I assumed that a tunnel today would have enough CCTV cameras to view the entire tunnel area, and provide the ability to verify that the lane was clear.
The original surveilance method was to have patrol officers stationed throughout the tunnel, at least enough to visually cover the tunnel area, and the ability to report what they see by telephone or radio.
TOLLROADSnews: Some law enforcement drama reported at toll plazas on Penn Pike (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5715)
TOLLROADSnews: Some law enforcement drama reported at toll plazas on Penn Pike (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5715)
No confirmation yet, or official comment.
Tollroadsblog.TOLLROADSnews: Some law enforcement drama reported at toll plazas on Penn Pike (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5715)
That's news to me as I haven't heard anything in the news about any crackdown, unless they are sweeping from east to west.QuoteNo confirmation yet, or official comment.
If the writer is typing this (and obviously thinking this), then the article should not be posted otherwise it isn't news, it is hearsay.
Pa. Turnpike Announces Completion of All-Electronic Tolling Feasibility Report (http://www.paturnpike.com/Press/2012/20120306101700.htm)
Pa. Turnpike Announces Completion of All-Electronic Tolling Feasibility Report (http://www.paturnpike.com/Press/2012/20120306101700.htm)
Additional interchanges would be much more feasible with AET due to the lower costs and reduced right-of-way requirements. New interchanges could be constructed to provide Turnpike access at interstates and other major highways which now lack a direct connection.
If they already have the ROW, what is stopping them? Surely a handful of business owners in an otherwise insignificant wide spot in the road can't have THAT much clout in Harrisburg or DC.
If they already have the ROW, what is stopping them? Surely a handful of business owners in an otherwise insignificant wide spot in the road can't have THAT much clout in Harrisburg or DC.
If they already have the ROW, what is stopping them? Surely a handful of business owners in an otherwise insignificant wide spot in the road can't have THAT much clout in Harrisburg or DC.
As a driver who has to navigate Breezewood on a regular basis I've always been interested in it. I was told years ago that it was written into the Defense Highway act that a direct connection there was forbidden. Maybe it is just an urban legend.
By the way when I was through there last week it wassurprising how deteriorated and run down the Breezewood area is. many of the longtime 'fueling stops' appear to be closed, some even abandoned
If they already have the ROW, what is stopping them? Surely a handful of business owners in an otherwise insignificant wide spot in the road can't have THAT much clout in Harrisburg or DC.
As a driver who has to navigate Breezewood on a regular basis I've always been interested in it. I was told years ago that it was written into the Defense Highway act that a direct connection there was forbidden. Maybe it is just an urban legend.
No, the original Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 (a/k/a National Interstate and Defense Highways Act (Public Law 84-627)) did not fund "direct" connections between already-built toll roads like the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the then-new "free" Interstates like I-70 east (really south) of Breezewood. That is why there were breezewoods along many of the toll roads in the East and Midwest, including the N.Y. State Thruway (a breezewood at I-84/Newburgh was only recently remediated), the N.J. Turnpike (there's a breezewood between Turnpike Exits 2 and 3 where there is no connection to I-76/N.J. 42 (and the ACE)) and the Ohio Turnpike (several breezewoods along the Ohio Turnpike were remediated over the past 10 or 20 years).
....
QuoteBy the way when I was through there last week it wassurprising how deteriorated and run down the Breezewood area is. many of the longtime 'fueling stops' appear to be closed, some even abandoned
Last time I was through there, I noticed that as well. Maybe more people have decided to not patronize businesses at Breezewood? I never, ever stop to patronize any businesses there - instead, I stop on the Turnpike or, even better, in Hancock, Maryland, so Pennsylvania gets less of my dollars.
Your username is very apt.
I patronize businesses in Breezewood every time I go through there, because it's an Interstate oddity. Unfortunately, I don't live anywhere near there, so I've only been able to do this three times thus far.
I happened to notice a bill in PA's legislative system that would permit the PA Turnpike to increase its speed limit to 70 MPH. No action on it yet.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2011&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=2119&pn=2949
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Joseph Preston, D-Allegheny, said that he wanted to give authorities an option to raise the speed limit in certain areas, should they choose. He pointed to similar systems in Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia.
Preston said that vehicles and turnpike facilities had improved since the legislature raised the speed limit to 65 miles an hour in 1995, and a further increase could only be a benefit.
Transportation Committee Chairman Richard Geist, R-Blair, said that though three legislators on the committee voted against it, the bill will likely pass.
He also said the increased speed limit might make the roadway more attractive to motorists. As it stands, he said, there is little difference now compared with the increased limit.
“If you go 65 on the turnpike, you’ll get run over,” Geist said.
Update on the 70 MPH bill. It has passed the House Transportation Committee. AAA supports the bill and the Turnpike Commission is neutral.All that, and one more note on "little difference" - compare time across the state on 76 versus 80.
http://blogs.mcall.com/capitol_ideas/2012/05/bill-boosting-turnpike-speed-limit-to-70-mph-advances.htmlQuoteThe bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Joseph Preston, D-Allegheny, said that he wanted to give authorities an option to raise the speed limit in certain areas, should they choose. He pointed to similar systems in Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia.
Preston said that vehicles and turnpike facilities had improved since the legislature raised the speed limit to 65 miles an hour in 1995, and a further increase could only be a benefit.
Transportation Committee Chairman Richard Geist, R-Blair, said that though three legislators on the committee voted against it, the bill will likely pass.
He also said the increased speed limit might make the roadway more attractive to motorists. As it stands, he said, there is little difference now compared with the increased limit.
“If you go 65 on the turnpike, you’ll get run over,” Geist said.
If you go 65 on the turnpike, you'll get run over, Geist said.
Baloney. That is about the prevailing speed, and nobody has ever "run over" me while at that speed.
Update on the 70 MPH bill. It has passed the House Transportation Committee. AAA supports the bill and the Turnpike Commission is neutral.
shouldn't everyone driving closer in speed be safer?
What this proves is that the standards a road was built to have nothing to do with what speed limit the state decides to set it to.
Baloney. That is about the prevailing speed, and nobody has ever "run over" me while at that speed.
in my experience, that is the prevailing speed only on the highly substandard sections of I-70. on I-76, it is more like 72-75mph.
Baloney. That is about the prevailing speed, and nobody has ever "run over" me while at that speed.
in my experience, that is the prevailing speed only on the highly substandard sections of I-70. on I-76, it is more like 72-75mph.
In my experience, few vehicles travel over 70 mph on the east-west Turnpike or the NE Extension.
Baloney. That is about the prevailing speed, and nobody has ever "run over" me while at that speed.
in my experience, that is the prevailing speed only on the highly substandard sections of I-70. on I-76, it is more like 72-75mph.
In my experience, few vehicles travel over 70 mph on the east-west Turnpike or the NE Extension.
I'd agree that along the east-west Mainline most are traveling 70-75. On the NE Extension, however, it's been my experience that people move. I've had my doors blown off many times on the NE Extension while I was going 80. Was even passed once near the Lehighton exit when I was going 95.
The thing I do like on the Pennsylvania Turnpike is that I feel like people keep to the right better on that road than on most roads I frequent, and they also seem more willing to move to the right to let faster traffic past. Of course there's not 100% good behavior in that respect, but I think on the whole it's far better than it is in Virginia or Maryland, for example.Pennsylvania interstates are generally well disciplined in that regard. There's left lane bandits from every state, but Pennsylvanians aren't too bad in this dept. Of course, I drive mostly in NJ and so Pennsylvania seems like a breeze to me compared to what I'm used to.
Agreed, most of the "free" interstates are built to much better standards than the turnpike yet will still be 65.Or worse... 55, like I-95. Seriously, the road is significantly higher grade than US-1 and US-13 (or hell, the Newtown Bypass, which has traffic lights!), yet all are 55? Thankfully, it's been my experience that the Troopers treat it like a 65 zone in their enforcement. I've had a radar gun pointed at me doing 75+ and haven't been bothered (at least north of 413, which I drive every day).
I'd agree that along the east-west Mainline most are traveling 70-75. On the NE Extension, however, it's been my experience that people move. I've had my doors blown off many times on the NE Extension while I was going 80. Was even passed once near the Lehighton exit when I was going 95.
Snipped and quarantined all of the ranting about left lane driving. Let's get back on topic here.
Snipped and quarantined all of the ranting about left lane driving. Let's get back on topic here.
While I agree that we got a bit far afield, how were my earlier posts about the PA keep-right-pass-left law, signing of such on the Turnpike, and the MIT web page with a state-by-state comparison off-topic? Did they not directly relate to the PA Turnpike?
On my last couple of trips on the Pennsylvania Turnpike I've felt like traffic isn't as fast as it was 20 years ago. But I also don't think that's unique to that road, either; the New Jersey Turnpike is another where traffic seems to have slowed (and not due to the roadwork, either, as I haven't used it since they began the widening project). I think I-95 in Virginia has slowed considerably, as the drive between the Beltway and Richmond used to be a raceway in the 1990s. No doubt part of it is due to ever-increasing volumes of traffic. On the Jersey Turnpike I think increased enforcement is part of it, as I almost never saw a cop on there until the mid-1990s (and I made it from Fairfax, VA, to Brooklyn in under 3.5 hours a couple of times in the early 1990s).
The thing I do like on the Pennsylvania Turnpike is that I feel like people keep to the right better on that road than on most roads I frequent, and they also seem more willing to move to the right to let faster traffic past. Of course there's not 100% good behavior in that respect, but I think on the whole it's far better than it is in Virginia or Maryland, for example.
(My comments refer to the mainline, BTW. I've never driven on the Northeast Extension, although I've been a passenger over a short segment near the southern end. Other than roadgeeking I can't see a lot of reason why I'd ever be likely to use that road.)
QuoteThe thing I do like on the Pennsylvania Turnpike is that I feel like people keep to the right better on that road than on most roads I frequent, and they also seem more willing to move to the right to let faster traffic past. Of course there's not 100% good behavior in that respect, but I think on the whole it's far better than it is in Virginia or Maryland, for example.
Or I-95 in North Carolina.
Agreed regarding the Pennsylvania Turnpike. May be due in part to the relatively steep grades on the Turnpike East-West mainline, though the really curving and steep grades east of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel are all relatively straightened now.
QuoteThe thing I do like on the Pennsylvania Turnpike is that I feel like people keep to the right better on that road than on most roads I frequent, and they also seem more willing to move to the right to let faster traffic past. Of course there's not 100% good behavior in that respect, but I think on the whole it's far better than it is in Virginia or Maryland, for example.
Or I-95 in North Carolina.
Agreed regarding the Pennsylvania Turnpike. May be due in part to the relatively steep grades on the Turnpike East-West mainline, though the really curving and steep grades east of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel are all relatively straightened now.
This may due to a small effect resulting from new keep-right-pass-left signage posted on the PA Turnpike (and throughout PA) about 10 years ago.
PA had a keep-right-pass-left law for a long time but repealed it (sometime 80s perhaps?). Sometime in the early 00s, I believe it was, PA enacted a new keep-right-pass-left law. The PTC posted keep-right-pass-left signs throughout the Turnpike system (and PennDOT did likewise on other PA freeways).
The PA State Police don't typically directly enforce the law since it's extremely difficult, but simply having new signage appear probably had some effect on those driving at the time they appeared; some residual effect may still be seen, I suppose. It's been a long while since I used to drive extensively in other-than-NE states, so I'll take the word of other observers.
QuoteThe thing I do like on the Pennsylvania Turnpike is that I feel like people keep to the right better on that road than on most roads I frequent, and they also seem more willing to move to the right to let faster traffic past. Of course there's not 100% good behavior in that respect, but I think on the whole it's far better than it is in Virginia or Maryland, for example.
Or I-95 in North Carolina.
Agreed regarding the Pennsylvania Turnpike. May be due in part to the relatively steep grades on the Turnpike East-West mainline, though the really curving and steep grades east of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel are all relatively straightened now.
This may due to a small effect resulting from new keep-right-pass-left signage posted on the PA Turnpike (and throughout PA) about 10 years ago.
PA had a keep-right-pass-left law for a long time but repealed it (sometime 80s perhaps?). Sometime in the early 00s, I believe it was, PA enacted a new keep-right-pass-left law. The PTC posted keep-right-pass-left signs throughout the Turnpike system (and PennDOT did likewise on other PA freeways).
The PA State Police don't typically directly enforce the law since it's extremely difficult, but simply having new signage appear probably had some effect on those driving at the time they appeared; some residual effect may still be seen, I suppose. It's been a long while since I used to drive extensively in other-than-NE states, so I'll take the word of other observers.
A moderator told us to cease talking about "left lane driving".
Hey, as long as it's relevant to the PA Turnpike, fine by me. Pennsylvania's KRETP law and its enforcement on the Turnpike are fine.https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6692.0
P.S. Your prior discussions are saved, and mods are inclined to bring them back as a separate thread elsewhere. Keep an eye peeled.
Drove to Somerset yesterday and noticed some road work going on and did some research. PTC is redesigning the access road at the Somerset interchange. I would say this is something that needed done as the area in front of the toll plazas near Waterworks and Laurel Crest Roads was not the safest intersection.
Apparently, this is somewhat old news, but it was new to me and I didn't see anything on the forum about it.
More information from the (Somerset) Daily American: http://articles.dailyamerican.com/2012-04-10/news/31321550_1_turnpike-traffic-turnpike-access-road-somerset-turnpike-interchange (http://articles.dailyamerican.com/2012-04-10/news/31321550_1_turnpike-traffic-turnpike-access-road-somerset-turnpike-interchange)
Just another unusual incident along this section of the Turnpike over the past year.
The Turnpike recommends the following detour for eastbound traffic exiting at Pittsburgh, exit 57: Route 22 east to Turnpike 66 south to Route 30 west. Drivers can re-enter the Turnpike at the Irwin interchange and follow signs for Harrisburg and east.Westbound is just the reverse of that
The biggest contrast between the old and new service plaza buildings are that the new ones are a lot more spacious than the old ones. Some of the old ones were downright claustrophobia-inducing. But the new ones don't have much charm, that's for sure. They look nice from the outside, but kind of clunky from the inside.
I kinda hope they leave the Midway south service plaza building alone.
Widening the NE Extension was needed 20 years ago. It's long past needing it. The PTC is so far behind the power curve on adding capacity there (especially from Mid-County to I-78) that it's practically a crime. And at the current pace, it's not getting ahead of the curve, that's fur shur.
TOLLROADSnews: IC sign name in contention in PA (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6050)
Edit: Or the turnpike could just get rid of the interchange names entirely... which would drive my girlfriend insane. I'll say something about the 611 or 309 interchange and she's like huh? Hasn't a clue unless I say Willow Grove or Fort Washington.
I agree.Edit: Or the turnpike could just get rid of the interchange names entirely... which would drive my girlfriend insane. I'll say something about the 611 or 309 interchange and she's like huh? Hasn't a clue unless I say Willow Grove or Fort Washington.
I hope not.
There are many things about the Pennsylvania Turnpike that are deficient, but naming of interchanges is one thing that I like and respect about the (mainline) Turnpike system
(I don't think that interchanges on the PTC's branches and spurs in Southwest Pennsylvania have names).
Quick note about this interchange...this was Exit 31 back when PA exit numbers were sequential, and this happens to be MP 31 on I-476, so the number didn't change. When the exit numbers changed, the added signs stating OLD EXIT ##.
They actually created and installed an OLD EXIT 31 sign at EXIT 31. One of the BGS to the south may still have one...
It's not like they haven't done this before... the current Bensalem interchange was once the Philadelphia interchange.Guess on my part; the reasoning behind that renaming is probably in anticipation of the I-95 interchange being called the Philadelphia interchange when it's completed.
That's the one! AND...They have replaced some of the BGSs of that exit with Clearview. I don't remember if they've replaced that one and/or removed the OLD EXIT 31 sign below.I believe one of the BGS' still has the Old Exit tab; meaning that any the BGS panel was replaced and not its supports. Similar was done at the with PA 72 interchange (Exit 266) BGS' w/its OLD EXIT 20 signs left on.
But this reminds me of another question - that sign has always left a blank space for another destination. I know that decades ago, there was a proposed North Penn Expwy that was either going to be part of a US 202 expressway, or just an expressway connecting the NE Ext to PA 309 towards the northwest.My thinking is that it might've been Green Lane, PA 63's western terminus at PA 29. If that was the case, the lettering should have been placed on the BGS from the get-go and if a new highwway link warranted a control destination change, do it then. With the old 60s(?) era porcelain BGS' w/button-copy lettering (which also spoted a blank space above the Lansdale listing); it would've been an easy fix.
They are now building a couple of short two-lane roads, and rebuilding a couple of others, to build a connection from PA 309 near Souderton to PA 63 just west of this exit. http://www.pa309connector.com/ (http://www.pa309connector.com/)
Anyone know what the blank destination was supposed to be? Souderton?
Quick note about this interchange...this was Exit 31 back when PA exit numbers were sequential, and this happens to be MP 31 on I-476, so the number didn't change. When the exit numbers changed, the added signs stating OLD EXIT ##.
They actually created and installed an OLD EXIT 31 sign at EXIT 31. One of the BGS to the south may still have one...
Reading this, I had to go back and look at my 2004/2005 photos of I-476 and sure enough, I found one with what you remembered.
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-476_nb_exit_031_01.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-476_nb_exit_031_01.jpg)
Sign posted along I-476 northbound, photo taken May 7, 2005.
Quick note about this interchange...this was Exit 31 back when PA exit numbers were sequential, and this happens to be MP 31 on I-476, so the number didn't change. When the exit numbers changed, the added signs stating OLD EXIT ##.
They actually created and installed an OLD EXIT 31 sign at EXIT 31. One of the BGS to the south may still have one...
Reading this, I had to go back and look at my 2004/2005 photos of I-476 and sure enough, I found one with what you remembered.
Sign posted along I-476 northbound, photo taken May 7, 2005.
You took all the fun out of my going out today to check this out :) . . . It is about an hour's ride from my house.
I can at least ride through the construction (which I have never done) and get an update photo if it is still there!
Nice. Double redundancy.
What are the proper interchange names in the Harrisburg area? I noticed that the I-83 interchange is Harrisburg Westshore, but the I-283 interchange is Harrisburg East. Someone want to clarify why there is inconsistency with I-283 not being Harrisburg Eastshore or from the other standpoint why the I-83 interchange is not called Harrisburg West?With regards to the interchange names for I-83 and I-283/PA 283; they're signed as Harrisburg West and Harrisburg East respectively and have been signed as such for as long as I've been on that stretch of the PA Turnpike (my first trip on that stretch was on April of 1992).
I'm thinking that maybe they are both the same (either E & W or both shores), but common usage has come into play and one is still called by the original name spite that the toll tickets say Harrisburg E and Harrisburg W. and if I am not mistaken the guide signs for I-83 read below the exit number as Harrisburg West. Personally, I've never heard of those Eastshore/Westshore terms for those interchanges unless it's term used by the locals.
Also the usage of Gettysburg Pike seems to only be used on PA Turnpike signs and not seen anywhere else along US 15 in the area. I am aware that long before route designations were used, that might of been the original name for US 15's roadway, but what in modern times other than the PTC is concerned is that name used?
It's not like they haven't done this before... the current Bensalem interchange was once the Philadelphia interchange.Guess on my part; the reasoning behind that renaming is probably in anticipation of the I-95 interchange being called the Philadelphia interchange when it's completed.
....
Alas . . . they are no more. Must have disappeared with the sign replacement. Not affected by current construction.Quick note about this interchange...this was Exit 31 back when PA exit numbers were sequential, and this happens to be MP 31 on I-476, so the number didn't change. When the exit numbers changed, the added signs stating OLD EXIT ##.
They actually created and installed an OLD EXIT 31 sign at EXIT 31. One of the BGS to the south may still have one...
Reading this, I had to go back and look at my 2004/2005 photos of I-476 and sure enough, I found one with what you remembered.
Sign posted along I-476 northbound, photo taken May 7, 2005.
You took all the fun out of my going out today to check this out :) . . . It is about an hour's ride from my house.
I can at least ride through the construction (which I have never done) and get an update photo if it is still there!
Heh, sorry about that. :-P I photographed northbound twice in 2005 and had not looked at those photos in years. PA-9 was a regular ride to visit family in Upstate NY when I was growing up, and I remember well those old button copy signs that PHLBOS referenced at Exit 31, and the one of the old Norristown Exit reference in the other thread with the removed US 422 shield and the "slapped-on" I-476 shield.
Although anyone heading to Philadelphia from the west who stays on the Turnpike all the way to Bensalem ought to be recognized by the PTC as a donor....
Although anyone heading to Philadelphia from the west who stays on the Turnpike all the way to Bensalem ought to be recognized by the PTC as a donor....
Seriously, anyone getting onto the Turnpike in Pittsburgh or Harrisburg wanting to see the LIberty Bell or do business at Comcast headquarters who looks at his toll ticket - if anyone does that anymore - and figures the "Philadelphia" exit is where he wants to get off is going to be going well out of his way. That's all I'm saying. Call the US 1 or (when it's built) I-95 interchange it "Philadelphia-Northeast" and Valley Forge "Philadelphia-King of Prussia" or something.
Seriously, anyone getting onto the Turnpike in Pittsburgh or Harrisburg wanting to see the LIberty Bell or do business at Comcast headquarters who looks at his toll ticket - if anyone does that anymore - and figures the "Philadelphia" exit is where he wants to get off is going to be going well out of his way. That's all I'm saying. Call the US 1 or (when it's built) I-95 interchange it "Philadelphia-Northeast" and Valley Forge "Philadelphia-King of Prussia" or something.
Ohio Turnpike used to (still does?) have names for its exits.
Ohio Turnpike used to (still does?) have names for its exits. Did the Indiana Toll-Road or New York Thruway name their exits?
Almost $40 in car toll on the full east-west turnpike ?? Back in the 1970s it was about $6.
Toll-free alternate, Philadelphia-Pittsburgh, not that much longer, nearly all 4 lanes.
Toll -- I-76 --
305 mi, 5 hours 25 mins
No toll -- US-202, US-30, PA-283, I-283, I-83, I-81, US-322, I-99, US-22
334 mi, 6 hours 16 mins
[per Google Maps]
Almost $40 in car toll on the full east-west turnpike ?? Back in the 1970s it was about $6.Not to mention that I would probably just use US 22 from I-81 rather than up to State College and back. 22 is a pretty good road nowadays. Also, US 30 can get hairy - ignore the time that Google Maps gives you, it's often faster (and never much slower) to take PA 10 to 340. The only slowdown is in Intercourse, vs. the constant slowness of 30. (At least on weekends.)
Toll-free alternate, Philadelphia-Pittsburgh, not that much longer, nearly all 4 lanes.
Toll -- I-76 --
305 mi, 5 hours 25 mins
No toll -- US-202, US-30, PA-283, I-283, I-83, I-81, US-322, I-99, US-22
334 mi, 6 hours 16 mins
[per Google Maps]
Any idea where these are listed? Even the toll tickets don't use those!Ohio Turnpike used to (still does?) have names for its exits. Did the Indiana Toll-Road or New York Thruway name their exits?
The Thruway exits are officially named but they are not shown on any public facing signs or documents. I believe Exit 26 is "Schenectady West" and Exit 25 is "Schenectady East". Exit 34A is "Collamer". Exit 39 is "State Fair". Exit 38 is "Electronics Park". I believe many of the others are named by control destination.
Almost $40 in car toll on the full east-west turnpike ?? Back in the 1970s it was about $6.
Almost $40 in car toll on the full east-west turnpike ?? Back in the 1970s it was about $6.
That is fairly close to even with inflation over that time. $6 end-to-end in 1973 or 1974 was likely looked upon the same way then that we look upon that $40 now.
:-o
Mike
Truth. The 576, 43, and 66 tollways, and improvements to Turnpike 60, all seem to be solutions to a non-existent problem. The Turnpike should have been widened to 6 lanes entirely by now, and I-476/PA 9 should have been four lanes with full shoulders by now. At that point, tolls should have been retired if that was in the original agreement (this I do not know), and only the new roads should have been tolled. Fun factoid: I bet none of the other roads can support themselves on the tolls they generate.Almost $40 in car toll on the full east-west turnpike ?? Back in the 1970s it was about $6.
That is fairly close to even with inflation over that time. $6 end-to-end in 1973 or 1974 was likely looked upon the same way then that we look upon that $40 now.
:-o
Mike
Yeahbut the level of investment in upgrades to the east-west turnpike don't really justify any increase at all, given that the original toll revenue bonds were long since paid off, and the new bonds for the east-west turnpike upgrades don't justify it. The problem is that the bulk of the toll receipts are spent elsewhere from the east-west turnpike.
Truth. The 576, 43, and 66 tollways, and improvements to Turnpike 60, all seem to be solutions to a non-existent problem. The Turnpike should have been widened to 6 lanes entirely by now, and I-476/PA 9 should have been four lanes with full shoulders by now. At that point, tolls should have been retired if that was in the original agreement (this I do not know), and only the new roads should have been tolled. Fun factoid: I bet none of the other roads can support themselves on the tolls they generate.
At this link
www.paturnpike.com/geninfo/Final%20PTC_CAFR_11-10.pdf
is a PDF of the latest available annual financial report for the Turnpike. The revenues and expenses balance sheet summary is on page 28 of 137 of the PDF (page 22 of the document). It shows that in FY11 the Turnpike operated at a loss of over $523 million. The most galling aspect of that, though, is that $450 million of that is a transfer to PennDOT mandated by so-called Act 44, passed by the PA legislature and signed by then-Gov. Rendell in 2007.
IOW, not only is the E-W mainline possibly supporting the outlying toll roads, but the entire system is definitely supporting the non-toll, non-Turnpike road system Commonwealth-wide.
Truth. The 576, 43, and 66 tollways, and improvements to Turnpike 60, all seem to be solutions to a non-existent problem. The Turnpike should have been widened to 6 lanes entirely by now, and I-476/PA 9 should have been four lanes with full shoulders by now. At that point, tolls should have been retired if that was in the original agreement (this I do not know), and only the new roads should have been tolled. Fun factoid: I bet none of the other roads can support themselves on the tolls they generate.
IMHO, the 576, 43, and 66 tollways, and improvements to Turnpike 60, were very worthwhile projects, but should not have been funded by revenues from the mainline turnpike (E-W and NE Ext) that should have been spent for upgrades and maintenance on the mainline turnpike.
Truth. The 576, 43, and 66 tollways, and improvements to Turnpike 60, all seem to be solutions to a non-existent problem. The Turnpike should have been widened to 6 lanes entirely by now, and I-476/PA 9 should have been four lanes with full shoulders by now. At that point, tolls should have been retired if that was in the original agreement (this I do not know), and only the new roads should have been tolled. Fun factoid: I bet none of the other roads can support themselves on the tolls they generate.
IMHO, the 576, 43, and 66 tollways, and improvements to Turnpike 60, were very worthwhile projects, but should not have been funded by revenues from the mainline turnpike (E-W and NE Ext) that should have been spent for upgrades and maintenance on the mainline turnpike.
In Oklahoma, OTA calls this practice "cross-pledging". A few of Oklahoma's 10 turnpikes cannot sustain themselves, and instead leach money from the more popular turnpikes (mostly the Will Rogers and the Turner, which both carry I-44). Cross-pledging has come in handy to build badly needed but unprofitable ventures when ODOT was too broke to do it, like the Cherokee Turnpike, which bypasses a dangerous winding section of old SH 33 (this highway is now Scenic US 412). Since it's a rural area that doesn't really have much thru traffic (other than maybe Tulsa—NW AR traffic), the Cherokee probably wouldn't have justified itself on revenue alone. Unfortunately cross-pledging has also led to stupid pork projects like the Chickasaw Turnpike.
So whether cross-pledging is a good idea or not depends on whether you think the means justify the ends of getting some expensive projects done on the toll authority's dime instead of the taxpayer's.
IOW, not only is the E-W mainline possibly supporting the outlying toll roads, but the entire system is definitely supporting the non-toll, non-Turnpike road system Commonwealth-wide.
Remember that in NJ, the New Jersey Highway Authority (ran Garden State Parkway) couldn't support itself. Not because it didn't have enough volume, but because raising tolls was politically unpopular. So they merged it with the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which happened to have a toll road that could subsidize the low Parkway tolls.That explains why the NJHA was so shoddy - the NJTA is still trying to bring the Parkway up to speed with the Turnpike over 10 years later. Anyway, now the NJTA seems to have figured out how to raise Parkway tolls. And if 75-cent directional tolls ($1.50 every other plaza) seems like a jump from 35 cents, well the tolls started at 25 cents in the 50s. Suddenly, not so bad?
The Thruway exits are officially named but they are not shown on any public facing signs or documents. I believe Exit 26 is "Schenectady West" and Exit 25 is "Schenectady East". Exit 34A is "Collamer". Exit 39 is "State Fair". Exit 38 is "Electronics Park". I believe many of the others are named by control destination.Any idea where these are listed? Even the toll tickets don't use those!
I would have also thought that Electronics Park would be exit 37.
Any idea where these are listed? Even the toll tickets don't use those!Ohio Turnpike used to (still does?) have names for its exits. Did the Indiana Toll-Road or New York Thruway name their exits?
The Thruway exits are officially named but they are not shown on any public facing signs or documents. I believe Exit 26 is "Schenectady West" and Exit 25 is "Schenectady East". Exit 34A is "Collamer". Exit 39 is "State Fair". Exit 38 is "Electronics Park". I believe many of the others are named by control destination.
I would have also thought that Electronics Park would be exit 37.
2012-07-20: The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission announced today that HNTB had been selected after a competitive procurement to manage conversion of the Turnpike system to all-electronic tolling (AET.)
The Turnpike in a statement today said that AET "offers numerous advantages to motorists and the agency, including enhanced safety, a cleaner environment, improved customer convenience and operational efficiencies."
I guess that we can't take that news seriously, then?
:spin:
OTOH, even a duffer will nail one every now and then.
:cool:
Mike
Isn't the NJ Turnpike planning to go all-electronic in a decade?
The problem with all-electronic is that non-locals are effectively barred from the toll roads, especially if you're driving a car registered to someone else or don't want to pay the bill-by-plate "fee" (it's high enough to be extortion of non-locals in every jurisdiction that has it).
Isn't the NJ Turnpike planning to go all-electronic in a decade?
The problem with all-electronic is that non-locals are effectively barred from the toll roads, especially if you're driving a car registered to someone else or don't want to pay the bill-by-plate "fee" (it's high enough to be extortion of non-locals in every jurisdiction that has it).
Isn't the NJ Turnpike planning to go all-electronic in a decade?
The problem with all-electronic is that non-locals are effectively barred from the toll roads, especially if you're driving a car registered to someone else or don't want to pay the bill-by-plate "fee" (it's high enough to be extortion of non-locals in every jurisdiction that has it).
Isn't the NJ Turnpike planning to go all-electronic in a decade?
The problem with all-electronic is that non-locals are effectively barred from the toll roads, especially if you're driving a car registered to someone else or don't want to pay the bill-by-plate "fee" (it's high enough to be extortion of non-locals in every jurisdiction that has it).
Also, for a truly all-electronic toll system, you'd have to actually prevent cash payers from using the road. As we know, cash is legal tender for all debts; anyone who finds his way onto the toll road thereby incurs a debt to the tolling authority, and therefore has the option to satisfy that debt with cash. But if there were, say, a gate that only opens upon receipt of an electronic payment, you would prevent cash payers from getting onto the road in the first place and prevent that debt from being incurred.
(It's the same as buying something from a web site that only accepts credit cards. If you don't have a credit card, you don't get to have the item, and therefore you have no debt. But on the other hand–and this has happened to a friend of mine–say you try to check out of a hotel and are told they don't accept cash. They would thus waive their right to collect on the debt, because you have already used the service and can expect to pay for it using cash.
Hence E-ZPass, which is issued by a lot of states in the East, and will be expanding south to include North Carolina in the near future.E-ZPass wouldn't help me in Texas, Kansas, California, Ontario, Quebec, or anywhere else outside of the E-ZPass system.
Hence E-ZPass, which is issued by a lot of states in the East, and will be expanding south to include North Carolina in the near future.E-ZPass wouldn't help me in Texas, Kansas, California, Ontario, Quebec, or anywhere else outside of the E-ZPass system.
Isn't the NJ Turnpike planning to go all-electronic in a decade?
The problem with all-electronic is that non-locals are effectively barred from the toll roads, especially if you're driving a car registered to someone else or don't want to pay the bill-by-plate "fee" (it's high enough to be extortion of non-locals in every jurisdiction that has it).
Also, for a truly all-electronic toll system, you'd have to actually prevent cash payers from using the road. As we know, cash is legal tender for all debts; anyone who finds his way onto the toll road thereby incurs a debt to the tolling authority, and therefore has the option to satisfy that debt with cash. But if there were, say, a gate that only opens upon receipt of an electronic payment, you would prevent cash payers from getting onto the road in the first place and prevent that debt from being incurred.
(It's the same as buying something from a web site that only accepts credit cards. If you don't have a credit card, you don't get to have the item, and therefore you have no debt. But on the other hand–and this has happened to a friend of mine–say you try to check out of a hotel and are told they don't accept cash. They would thus waive their right to collect on the debt, because you have already used the service and can expect to pay for it using cash.
You are certainly permitted to pay your toll with cash. When you receive your bill, you can go to the authority's headquarters and pay with cash at that time. You are also not required to use the toll way. If you don't want to pay the toll, you are welcome to find another route. It may not be as fast, and it may take you 3 times as long, but no one is forcing you to use a toll road.
....
Hence E-ZPass, which is issued by a lot of states in the East, and will be expanding south to include North Carolina in the near future.E-ZPass wouldn't help me in Texas, Kansas, California, Ontario, Quebec, or anywhere else outside of the E-ZPass system.
Wasn't there some talk about using high speed cameras and some sort of cross-collection system to allow for interoperability? That is, you don't need to be able to use the same tag everywhere; instead, there'd be a centralized db which would send the charge back to the home agency for payment. Yes, I do realize this means trying to get very political agencies to work together, but seeing how this would (could?) be a mutually beneficial arrangement, I think it'd be best. Beats having to track down and collect cash tolls from vehicles not in the system (and ideally, would allow the agencies to avoid a service fee).
"mtantillo" of this forum mentioned a couple of months ago that Florida was ready to allow E-ZPass users to use the SunPass lanes via an arrangement where the SunPass video enforcement would read your license plate number and then before the "toll-by-plate" bill goes out it would query the E-ZPass database for that plate number, find that you have an E-ZPass, and bill your account (meaning you wouldn't even need to have your E-ZPass transponder with you). The problem is that it's not as easy for the E-ZPass agencies to turn around and do the same thing. The issue is that some of the E-ZPass members—the one that comes to my mind immediately is the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (or whatever its new name is)—persist in using the old toll machine gates in the "E-ZPass Only" lanes, such that when you go through those lanes you have to come to a crawl until the arm goes up to clear the way. The arm won't go up if you don't have an E-ZPass. I know this is not totally unique to those facilities in New York City, as last summer (2011) the Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami had a similar setup on their "C-Pass Only" lane ("C-Pass" being their proprietary transponder that was being phased out this year in favor of SunPass). So because SunPass, for example, is not compatible with E-ZPass, the SunPass won't activate the arm in the E-ZPass lane and you get a tailback, which is precisely what automated toll collection is supposed to eliminate.
I have no idea whether this problem can be overcome in a way that allows those agencies to maintain the old toll machine arms if they insist on doing so as a means of fighting against toll cheats. Obviously the better solution is to remove the arms and use video enforcement in the same manner Florida proposes to do, but perhaps some of the agencies feel that they'd wind up dealing with non-transponder drivers going through those lanes (which is exactly why they persist in using the annoying arms) and I guess they don't want to go to the expense of sending bills to one-time users and the like.
You are certainly permitted to pay your toll with cash. When you receive your bill, you can go to the authority's headquarters and pay with cash at that time. You are also not required to use the toll way. If you don't want to pay the toll, you are welcome to find another route. It may not be as fast, and it may take you 3 times as long, but no one is forcing you to use a toll road.
....
You can also mail in a cash payment if you wish. I think most people would agree that it's foolish to do that, but nothing's stopping anyone from paying that way. The "NO CASH" signs simply mean that there are no tollbooths anywhere along the route accepting cash payments (compare to some toll roads where the booths are unmanned at certain hours such that an E-ZPass, exact coins, or a credit card is required).
-I agree that nobody is forced to use a toll road, but the issue isn't that, but rather than nobody's preventing you from using it either (and thereby incurring a debt).
-Taking, for example, the CA 91 toll lanes, they seem to consider any use of the facility without an electronic payment method as a "violation"; i.e., a toll evasion. If I have only cash, and have every intention of paying my debt, how have I committed a violation by using the road, if I haven't been prevented from doing so? Yet they charge a fee for this "violation"; I'm a bit curious about the legality of this, and I suspect that under some amount of scrutiny it might be found improper to charge a fee or penalty for selecting a perfectly permissible means of settling a debt.
-There is the argument that motorists are indeed prevented from using the road by the erection of signs, i.e., official traffic control devices. Only problem there is that if I violate an official traffic sign, my debt then is with law enforcement, on behalf of the state, not the tolling agency, which me be a quasi-public non-governmental organization, or even a private entity. I wonder if they funnel the violation fees to the appropriate governmental agencies in those cases? The line has always been fuzzy between governmental units and public authorities.
-All of this is mostly a theoretical exercise; I'm not suggesting that cashless systems can't exist (after all, they're already all around us). I'm just saying that it would involve a level of complexity slightly beyond your typical "all-electronic" system as they exist now.
(Question:) I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
(Answer:) The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
nobody is forced to use a toll road
The United States Treasury disagrees with those of you who argue that anyone is REQUIRED to accept cash in payment of a debt (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx):Quote(Question:) I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?
(Answer:) The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
I think the legality of this is settled by the fact that the road gives you ample warning that you cannot pay by cash, usually even announcing that there will be a fee if you don't have a transponder. If there's a sign that says you need a transponder or you will be charged a fee, then that's the case and you know if you don't have a transponder not to take the road.
nobody is forced to use a toll road
certainly not forced, but it is a hell of a lot more ornery to get from, say, Oakland to San Mateo, without a toll than with one.
nobody is forced to use a toll road
certainly not forced, but it is a hell of a lot more ornery to get from, say, Oakland to San Mateo, without a toll than with one.
Imagine if that toll road wasn't there. In fact, it wasn't before the road was built. So that other road was the only option.
2012-08-28: Preliminary $-numbers for fiscal year 2012 show the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's (PTC) debt now standing at close to $8 billion, a near threefold increase over the past five years. In FY2007 total debt was $2.71b, while at end FY2012 it was $7.95b - 2.95-fold higher.
In that time toll revenues - the commission's major source of revenue - went from $593m to $779m, a 31% increase. These are unaudited numbers that the commission says should be regarded as preliminary.
The good news seems to be that America's oldest automobile era pike has managed to cut operating expenses considerably - from $363m in FY2007 to $303m in FY2012.
Tolls minus op exp then go from $230m in FY2007 to $476m in FY2012, a better than two fold increase. In our extremely simplified version of the Penn Pike's accounts their net - before debt service, depreciation and capital spending - was improved substantially by strong toll increases on the one hand and and economies in operation costs on the other.
2012-09-25: The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission will face bankruptcy in "no more than a couple of years" according to the state's Auditor General Jack Wagner speaking to a joint hearing of the transportation committees of the state legislature in Harrisburg Tuesday. Wagner called for an immediate repeal of Act 44 - the 2007 law that committed the Turnpike to $450m/year payments to the state department of transportation, PennDOT.
Following Wagner the Turnpike's CEO Roger Nutt said the Turnpike faced no crisis and has a sound financial plan for funding the $450m/year payments over the 50 years to 2057 as provided by Act 44. Rating agencies had not downrated the Turnpike's bonds in three years.
The state auditor general Wagner began by calling the Turnpike Commission's approach to paying $450m/year to the state DOT "film flam financing."
Without the toll revenues from I-80 envisaged by its primary sponsor state senate leader Vincent Fumo the Turnpike was only managing to make the PennDOT payouts by adding substantially to debt each year. With the addition of its own debt financing this was adding a "crushing debt" burden on the Turnpike books, Wagner insisted.
He drew an analogy with a householder who was able to meet his own mortgage payments on his house but is suddenly required to take on servicing his his neighbor's mortgage as well. And only does so by taking out new loans each year.
Pennsylvania Turnpike officials are using "flim-flam finance" to cover the turnpike's increasing debt, and the toll road could be bankrupt in "a couple of years," state auditor general Jack Wagner told legislators Tuesday.
But turnpike chief executive Roger Nutt said toll increases on motorists and truckers every year will provide enough money to prevent financial calamity.
State lawmakers are considering whether to rewrite a 2007 law that requires the turnpike to provide $450 million a year for public transit and road and bridge projects around Pennsylvania, in addition to paying for the costs of operating the 545-mile turnpike system.
Is there a total that the PTC has paid via act44 and what fraction of PTC debt does that represent?
In five years of Act 44 payouts to PennDOT by the Turnpike its debt has risen from $2.6 billion to $7.3b. And it has gone from having a balance sheet of net assets of $156m to having negative net worth of $1.4b.
2012-09-26: Barry Schoch the Pennsylvania secretary of transportation said toward the end of a long hearing in the state legislature this week that it would be the "safer" course to repeal Act 44 and lift the burden of debt on the Turnpike and get alternative funding for PennDOT. Schoch disagreed with Jack Wagner the state auditor-general who said the Turnpike's use of new debt to fund the legislated payments of $450m/ year could cause a financial crisis within as little as "a couple of years."
Wagner urged the immediate repeal of the law requiring the $450m/year payments. We reported yesterday Turnpike CEO Roger Nutt's all-out defense of Act 44 and his complete rejection of the Auditor General's alarms.
By contrast with Nutt, secretary Schoch made a point of saying "I am not opposed to repeal of Act 44."
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is spending about $8 million to replace its ticket dispensers and readers. 119 entry lanes are getting a new automatic ticket issuing machine (ATIM) cabinet. 148 exit lanes at toll collector booths are getting new ticket readers and receipt printers.
The new equipment will be in use less than five years because the need for tickets will end with the conversion to all electronic tolling scheduled for mid-2017. Craig Shuey, chief operating officer tells us they considered trying to keep the old equipment going, but decided the risks of the old ticket system collapsing before mid-2017 were too great.
I noticed that is some ramps on the PA Turnpike between it and PA 132 in Bensalem where the old Neshaminy Plaza used to be. I am guessing that is part of the new I-95 and PA Turnpike project, but I see it has not made it to street view yet.The new interchange is an E-ZPass only exit and entrance for eastbound Turnpike traffic, which has nothing to do with the I-95 project. This is before where the new mainline toll plaza will be located.
I see it on google satelite, but when you move down to street view status there is just woods there. Is this going to be a relocated US 1 interchange, a new EZ Pass only interchange, or another exit to relieve traffic in that area.
Also, I noticed that there is no ramp from EB PA 132 to SB US 1 at the nearby cloverleaf. How does EB to SB make it movements being that there is no sign at Old Lincoln Highway that would be the only way this missing movement could be made. Is this lack of signage a mistake or has it been removed and never replaced as this would not be the first time a sign vanished and never replaced?
I noticed that the two Harrisburg Interchanges are Harrisburg Westshore and Harrisburg East. I was wondering why the I-283 interchange is not Harrisburg Eastshore? I noticed to the the ticket says Harrisburg W. to fit it in the same as its counterpart having Harrisburg E. The signs for I-83, the last I have seen, did not say Westshore but West as well.In the 22 years I've been in PA, the I-83/I-76-PA Turnpike interchange has always been known as Harrisburg West. Which matches all the signs, toll tickets, maps etc. Out of curiousity, when was it referred to or called Harrisburg Westshore?
Philly.com: PA Turnpike Chief Resigns
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20121009_Pa__Turnpike_chief_resigns.html (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20121009_Pa__Turnpike_chief_resigns.html)
2012-11-13: State auditor general Jack Wagner said again today in a legislative hearing that the Pennsylvania Turnpike "will go over a financial cliff at some point" unless it is relieved of the obligation to hand over $450 million each year to the state DOT for free roads and transit subsidies. He called the mid-2007 law (Act 44) requiring the payments "a financial noose" around the neck of the Turnpike.
The Turnpike "faces bankruptcy" the auditor general said if it has to keep borrowing more to make the handouts. It was "not a sustainable business model." Wagner alluded to the top of the toll rates/revenue curve where losses of traffic equal the percentage by which toll rates are raised and no more revenue can be extracted from the Turnpike.
He called this a "tipping point" at which the financial model could be overturned.
Turnpike officials say this isn't a present threat, that it has a sound longterm financial plan, that the Turnpike bonds are still highly rated and the management of the Turnpike is aggressively cutting costs to produce an operating surplus that can help pay for its interest and state-handout obligations.
He recommended lawmakers repeal a 2007 law that requires the commission to provide $450 million each year for improvements to roads, bridges and public transportation in the state.
Representatives of the turnpike testified the commission could meet its obligations by increasing tolls about 3 percent each year. A financial adviser told lawmakers there is strong demand for bonds issued by the turnpike.
"The issue here is a choice of how do you finance it," Secretary of Transportation Barry Schoch said after the hearing. "His feeling is that running into debt on the turnpike is not a good choice, and I respect that opinion. I think from our perspective though, as we said today, we can manage it at the turnpike."
So they can meet their "obligations" by raising tolls 3% each year? Nifty.
The problem is the notion of raising tolls 3% EVERY year should not be acceptable to anyone associated with making transportation policy.
Obviously, toll rates do need to increase every so often, what with inflation and all (and, as much as I'd hate seeing gas prices rise, the gas tax should too), but 3% annually seems excessive and unsustainable in the long run.
The bottom line is Act 44 is complete, total, and utter BULLSHIT! And I don't have any faith in Harrisburg to do anything about anytime soon.
Even though I no longer live in PA, I have written representtives there to promote the SoCal model: Giving an MPO the ability to go to the ballot box to raise a 1/4% sales tax for transportation. In San Diego, there is a predetermined split 35% freeways. 35% mass transit, 30% local roads. It raises a sh**load of $$, If the voters passsed a 1% sales tax for stadiums in PItts and Philly, this should be at least presented tot hem as well.
Even though I no longer live in PA, I have written representtives there to promote the SoCal model: Giving an MPO the ability to go to the ballot box to raise a 1/4% sales tax for transportation. In San Diego, there is a predetermined split 35% freeways. 35% mass transit, 30% local roads. It raises a sh**load of $$, If the voters passsed a 1% sales tax for stadiums in PItts and Philly, this should be at least presented tot hem as well.
Even though I no longer live in PA, I have written representtives there to promote the SoCal model: Giving an MPO the ability to go to the ballot box to raise a 1/4% sales tax for transportation. In San Diego, there is a predetermined split 35% freeways. 35% mass transit, 30% local roads. It raises a sh**load of $$, If the voters passsed a 1% sales tax for stadiums in PItts and Philly, this should be at least presented tot hem as well.
Isn't there some sort of funding mechanism like the above in Orange County (Calif.) that is limited to that county?
And might explain why I-5 (Santa Ana Freeway) is in dramatically better condition in Orange County than it is in Los Angeles County?
Even though I no longer live in PA, I have written representtives there to promote the SoCal model: Giving an MPO the ability to go to the ballot box to raise a 1/4% sales tax for transportation. In San Diego, there is a predetermined split 35% freeways. 35% mass transit, 30% local roads. It raises a sh**load of $$, If the voters passsed a 1% sales tax for stadiums in PItts and Philly, this should be at least presented tot hem as well.
Even though I no longer live in PA, I have written representtives there to promote the SoCal model: Giving an MPO the ability to go to the ballot box to raise a 1/4% sales tax for transportation. In San Diego, there is a predetermined split 35% freeways. 35% mass transit, 30% local roads. It raises a sh**load of $$, If the voters passsed a 1% sales tax for stadiums in PItts and Philly, this should be at least presented tot hem as well.
One problem: the voters did not pass a 1% sales tax for stadiums in Pittsburgh. In fact, the plan was to increase the sales tax .5% in 11 counties in the Pittsburgh Metro area to pay for two new stadiums and a convention center in Pittsburgh as well as building road, bridge, sewer, water and industrial park projects in all 11 counties. That referendum was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters in all 11 counties in of November 1997. (To be fair, I don't know the history behind the Philadelphia stadiums.)
Even though I no longer live in PA, I have written representtives there to promote the SoCal model: Giving an MPO the ability to go to the ballot box to raise a 1/4% sales tax for transportation. In San Diego, there is a predetermined split 35% freeways. 35% mass transit, 30% local roads. It raises a sh**load of $$, If the voters passsed a 1% sales tax for stadiums in PItts and Philly, this should be at least presented tot hem as well.
One problem: the voters did not pass a 1% sales tax for stadiums in Pittsburgh. In fact, the plan was to increase the sales tax .5% in 11 counties in the Pittsburgh Metro area to pay for two new stadiums and a convention center in Pittsburgh as well as building road, bridge, sewer, water and industrial park projects in all 11 counties. That referendum was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters in all 11 counties in of November 1997. (To be fair, I don't know the history behind the Philadelphia stadiums.)
I left PA in 1985, I am glad to see the attempt was at least made in 1997 for SW PA, I was worried that a mechanism like that may have been prohibited by PA's constitution. But it has been 14 years, maybe it should be attempted again, when does the Heinz Field tax end?
I guess that's where I got confused: My folks still live in Allegheny County (McCandless) and they always told me that the 1% sales tax for stadiums only had been approved by the voters.
I seem to remember the sales tax showing as 7% whenever I bought something in Philadelphia.Philly's sales tax was bumped up to 7% in 1991 and was later increased to 8% just a few years ago.
There is no tax. That's what I'm saying. The proposal to add .5% to the sales tax was defeated, rejected, shot down, kaput. It didn't happen. Heinz Field (and PNC Park and the David L. Lawrence Convention Center) were paid for with money given by the city, the county and the commonwealth from existing sources. Granted, the taxpayers are footing the bill, but not because they chose to do so, but because the politicians decided to ignore the will of the people.The vote was only for the additional .5% sales tax, not the stadium. Plus "your money" ceases to be yours the moment it's paid in taxes. Once that happens, it's the government's money (refunds are not "giving back your money" but rather paying a debt they incurred when you overpaid).
There is no tax. That's what I'm saying. The proposal to add .5% to the sales tax was defeated, rejected, shot down, kaput. It didn't happen. Heinz Field (and PNC Park and the David L. Lawrence Convention Center) were paid for with money given by the city, the county and the commonwealth from existing sources. Granted, the taxpayers are footing the bill, but not because they chose to do so, but because the politicians decided to ignore the will of the people.The vote was only for the additional .5% sales tax, not the stadium. Plus "your money" ceases to be yours the moment it's paid in taxes. Once that happens, it's the government's money (refunds are not "giving back your money" but rather paying a debt they incurred when you overpaid).
I seem to remember the sales tax showing as 7% whenever I bought something in Philadelphia.Philly's sales tax was bumped up to 7% in 1991 and was later increased to 8% just a few years ago.
Even though I no longer live in PA, I have written representtives there to promote the SoCal model: Giving an MPO the ability to go to the ballot box to raise a 1/4% sales tax for transportation. In San Diego, there is a predetermined split 35% freeways. 35% mass transit, 30% local roads. It raises a sh**load of $$, If the voters passsed a 1% sales tax for stadiums in PItts and Philly, this should be at least presented tot hem as well.
Isn't there some sort of funding mechanism like the above in Orange County (Calif.) that is limited to that county?
And might explain why I-5 (Santa Ana Freeway) is in dramatically better condition in Orange County than it is in Los Angeles County?
Now that work is wrapping up on 3 laning/reconstruction from PA8 to Warrendale and commencing from PA 8 to PA 28, what, if any will be the next Pittsburgh segment to be widened? I am having difficulty gleaning that info from the Capital Improvement Plan
Pennsylvania Turnpike employees have always been proud of the work they do to keep their roadways clear and safe through the winter. And with some justification. The Turnpike's east-west mainline mostly I-76 and the north-south I-476 NE Extension both have the reputation for being the best ways to travel in ice and snow. Whereas Penn DOT has a reputation for struggling to avert ice or clear snow properly the Turnpike has been pretty consistent in delivering a safe roadway with a "bare pavement" policy based on spreading large quantities of salt ahead, and then deploying large fleets of plows to move snow off the travel lanes.
In the north the local wisdom in wintry weather is "forget 80, go down to the Turnpike" and in the east it's "forget 81, go with the (NE) Extension" - because the Turnpike's handling of ice and snow is superior to that of the state DOT on the untolled interstates. Presumably the same is true with the north-south routes in the west.
Early in the winter a guy in one of the maintenance sheds - we'll call him Murphy - told us the Turnpike's superior performance in winter is being put in jeopardy by a new set of PennDOT managers taking over "the third floor" in the Turnpike's central office.
TOLLROADSnews: Snow and ice policy changes generate angst at Penn Pike sheds (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6339)QuoteEarly in the winter a guy in one of the maintenance sheds - we'll call him Murphy - told us the Turnpike's superior performance in winter is being put in jeopardy by a new set of PennDOT managers taking over "the third floor" in the Turnpike's central office.
Penn DOT
TOLLROADSnews: Snow and ice policy changes generate angst at Penn Pike sheds (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6339)QuoteEarly in the winter a guy in one of the maintenance sheds - we'll call him Murphy - told us the Turnpike's superior performance in winter is being put in jeopardy by a new set of PennDOT managers taking over "the third floor" in the Turnpike's central office.
From my experences salting roadways, no matter what policies are created internally regarding how much salt to put on the roads, the plow/salt truck operator just has to use judgement on how much needs to be applied and where.
Before a storm, putting salt out is senseless. Just like a candy wrapper flying around from passing vehicles, most of the salt on a dry road has nothing to stick to, and will mostly be breezed over to the shoulders. Sure, some salt gets crushed by passing vehicles, but compared to what is being spread on the roads, the benefits are minute.
That's why brine is preferred before a storm. But even then, after the storm intensifies, there's not much that can be done to keep the roads cleared until after the storm is over, or the road temp rises to about 32 degrees.
That's why brine is preferred before a storm. But even then, after the storm intensifies, there's not much that can be done to keep the roads cleared until after the storm is over, or the road temp rises to about 32 degrees.
There are places where temperatures can stay below freezing for many, many days, yet snow and ice must be dealt with anyway.
Now that work is wrapping up on 3 laning/reconstruction from PA8 to Warrendale and commencing from PA 8 to PA 28, what, if any will be the next Pittsburgh segment to be widened? I am having difficulty gleaning that info from the Capital Improvement Plan
The state's auditor-general (AG) Jack Wagner and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission differ sharply over a review of the Turnpike's management. Most money is at issue in what Wagner says is $109 million in losses he estimates have been incurred by the Turnpike in interest rate swaps or hedging contracts.
"The Turnpike Commission’s use of swaps associated with its bond issues, which was a strategy designed to save money, has instead proven to saddle the commonwealth’s taxpayers and the Turnpike’s toll-paying customers with enormous costs," the AG report writes. "Given the Turnpike’s precarious financial position relative to Act 44 payments (to the state DOT), the Turnpike should not use these complicated and risky deals."
The Turnpike in a lengthy response disputes the AG's accounting methodology. The Turnpike says the termination payments called $59m in losses by the AG in fact allowed the Turnpike to refinance at a lower interest rate and in fact produced present value savings of nearly $11m as a result.
Noted this press release regarding the Kittany and Blue Mountain Tunnels.
http://www.paturnpike.com/Press/2013/20130102170238.htm
Any idea what the "safety reasons" that prompted this restriction are?
Noted this press release regarding the Kittany and Blue Mountain Tunnels.
http://www.paturnpike.com/Press/2013/20130102170238.htm
Any idea what the "safety reasons" that prompted this restriction are?
My only guess... and it's just a guess since I haven't personally been on the turnpike in that area (or east of Breezewood, for that matter) in almost 6-1/2 years.....:
There is currently road work between MP 199-202, and by the looks of the traffic camera they have in the area (http://www.paturnpike.com/ConstructionProjects/mp199to202/cameras.html (http://www.paturnpike.com/ConstructionProjects/mp199to202/cameras.html)), traffic is using the shoulder area as the right lane of each direction....
Anytime you have a fairly long-term situation where the shoulder is used as a regular lane, you'll usually see buses and trucks restricted to the left lane, since the shoulder isn't designed to take all the weight of heavier vehicles.
As to why this applies to the tunnels, I can only guess that they want the trucks and buses in the left lane a good bit in advance of the construction area... Since there are no lane changes allowed in the tunnels, nor in the short space between the tunnels, they want it (trucks & buses in the left lane) to happen before entering the first tunnel (eastbound), or they want trucks to wait to get out of the left lane till after the tunnels (westbound).
Anytime you have a fairly long-term situation where the shoulder is used as a regular lane, you'll usually see buses and trucks restricted to the left lane, since the shoulder isn't designed to take all the weight of heavier vehicles.
Anytime you have a fairly long-term situation where the shoulder is used as a regular lane, you'll usually see buses and trucks restricted to the left lane, since the shoulder isn't designed to take all the weight of heavier vehicles.
I read somewhere, either on the PA Turnpike website, or in a news article, that one of the main reasons for the Trucks/Buses Left Lane pattern is for the safety of the construction vehicles who have to merge in/out of the right lane into the construction areas. Because trucks and buses take longer to slow down, and because construction vehicles will be driving much slower entering/exiting the right lane to the construction area, it's safer to keep trucks and buses out of the right lane.
I think the issue of drain gates, and the shoulders not being able to take the weight, were also noted in what I remember reading.
It was mentioned recently as well in an article
http://articles.mcall.com/2011-09-04/news/mc-road-warrior-trucks-left-20110904_1_mid-county-lanes-work-zone
On a Pittsburgh-centric message board i frequent, a Turnpike employee posted that final design work for PA 28 to I-376 widening/rebuild commenced in August 2012, but the mentioned that the 376 interchage would be vastly reconfigured. Anyone know anything on this?
On a Pittsburgh-centric message board i frequent, a Turnpike employee posted that final design work for PA 28 to I-376 widening/rebuild commenced in August 2012, but the mentioned that the 376 interchage would be vastly reconfigured. Anyone know anything on this?
I haven't heard anything about this, but, with AET coming to the Turnpike in the future, I could see some flyovers @ the I-76/I-376/US-22 interchange get built to eliminate the tight ramps. Also to eliminate the left exits from I-376 to/from US-22/US-22 Business.
Turnpike Planning Called Into Question Over Demolition of Recently Built Bridges (http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/3238961-74/turnpike-bridges-bridge) - Tribune-Review
When they do any sort of project, they are supposed to plan and forecast for the next 25 years. Let's see what sort of planning was done, and why that forecast failed.
The marginal cost of constructing a bridge over a four-lane freeway with shoulders (which is what most of the Pennsylvania Turnpike is) to accommodate a future six-lane freeway with shoulders is not that high in the scheme of things.
The PA Turnpike bridges remind me of the bridges at the FL 408/417/Valencia College Lane area, built in 1988 and demolished last year after the toll authority folks decided to redesign things. 24 years isn't as severe as 13 years like the PA bridges, but the conditions in Florida aren't as severe and the bridges were quite sufficient according to their ratings. A non-toll department of transportation would certainly not be able to go demolishing such recent work because they wouldn't have the money.How about the original bridge carrying FL 429 over FL 414 that was torn down last year?, This one is a better example as it was only a few years old after FL 414 was extended beyond US 441? Then FDOT when widening Kirkman Road over the FL Turnpike had its bridge widened to accommodate a new travel lane and a sidewalk. The FL Turnpike Enterprise demolished it within 5 years when the FL Turnpike was widened in 08.
I can't believe they jacked up the rates on the PA Tpke the first of this month, yet again.
...and these recent toll hikes are the reason that its always best to take i-80 across the state and not the penna turnpike
I agree with empirestate. To a roadbuff, the Penn. Tpke. is a destination in itself with its interesting history and construction features. And like most toll-roads there is a system in place to assist you if your car breaks down, which happened to me once. And service areas to stop at. I once drove I-80 from New York to State College enroute to Altoona. And the drive from Scranton west was the most boring ride I ever took. Absolutely nothing to see on I-80. I'll stick with the Turnpike.
I agree with empirestate. To a roadbuff, the Penn. Tpke. is a destination in itself with its interesting history and construction features. And like most toll-roads there is a system in place to assist you if your car breaks down, which happened to me once. And service areas to stop at. I once drove I-80 from New York to State College enroute to Altoona. And the drive from Scranton west was the most boring ride I ever took. Absolutely nothing to see on I-80. I'll stick with the Turnpike.
I disagree. I enjoy the drive on I-80. I"m most familiar with the section between DuBois and I-81, and I think it's very scenic through the mountains. As for the turnpike, I find it to be long and boring. The part I'm most familiar with is between Breezewood and I-76. Once you get east of the mountains, it's dreadful.
Yeah, if you are in the Cleveland area and your destination is Harrisburg, Baltimore/DC or Philadelphia, it makes little sense to take I-80. What you save in tolls, you'll burn in gas and time.On a return trip from Toledo to Greater Philadelphia circa 1995, my brother & I decided to bypass much of the PA Turnpike by using PA 60 (now I-376)/I-79/I-68/I-70/I-81/US 11 (going through WV & MD) and re-connect in Carlisle. It added about an hour to our overall travel time but saved us bigtime on tolls even back then.
Yeah, if you are in the Cleveland area and your destination is Harrisburg, Baltimore/DC or Philadelphia, it makes little sense to take I-80. What you save in tolls, you'll burn in gas and time.On a return trip from Toledo to Greater Philadelphia circa 1995, we decided to bypass much of the PA Turnpike by using PA 60 (now I-376)/I-79/I-68/I-70/I-81/US 11 (going through WV & MD) and re-connect in Carlisle. It added about an hour to our overall travel time but saved us bigtime on tolls even back then.
Heck, for Harrisburg, Baltimore/DC; one wouldn't even need to use the PA Turnpike (I-76) east of I-376 at all.
Yeah, if you are in the Cleveland area and your destination is Harrisburg, Baltimore/DC or Philadelphia, it makes little sense to take I-80. What you save in tolls, you'll burn in gas and time.On a return trip from Toledo to Greater Philadelphia circa 1995, my brother & I decided to bypass much of the PA Turnpike by using PA 60 (now I-376)/I-79/I-68/I-70/I-81/US 11 (going through WV & MD) and re-connect in Carlisle. It added about an hour to our overall travel time but saved us bigtime on tolls even back then.
Heck, for Harrisburg, Baltimore/DC; one wouldn't even need to use the PA Turnpike (I-76) east of I-376 at all.
Yeah, if you are in the Cleveland area and your destination is Harrisburg, Baltimore/DC or Philadelphia, it makes little sense to take I-80. What you save in tolls, you'll burn in gas and time.
Yeah, if you are in the Cleveland area and your destination is Harrisburg, Baltimore/DC or Philadelphia, it makes little sense to take I-80. What you save in tolls, you'll burn in gas and time.Among my first road memories is my father driving us (mom, me, and eventually one of my younger brothers) from Geauga County (east of Cleveland) to the Philly Main Line (where my mom's family lived [and still do]) via (US 322 E to Oh 11 S to) I-80 and the NE PA Tpk Ext.
Turnpike Work to Affect Irwin Interchange (http://triblive.com/neighborhoods/yournorwin/yournorwinmore/3472174-74/project-turnpike-bridges)
Preliminary work on the Exit 57 to Exit 67 section is expected to begin in 2015 or 2016 with construction starting on the first five miles in 2018 or 2019.
2013-03-13: The state attorney general Kathleen Kane has filed criminal charges against five officers of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, two vendors and a leading Democrat state senator in so-called pay-to-play corruption. This follows a couple of years of a grand jury and police investigations. The attorney general said that a "pay-to-play culture permeated" the turnpike.
The Grand Jury 'presentment' summarizes: "The Grand Jury finds a prima facie case that these individuals, both individually and in concert with one another, committed and attempted to commit a series of crimes, including illegal bid-rigging, commercial bribery, conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking, theft by deception, criminal conspiracy, and acted as a corrupt organization.
Of the people charged by PA Attorney General I really only know Joe Brimmeier. I met him quite a number of times when he was CEO and talked on the telephone more. He's intelligent, capable and fun to be with. I liked the guy. He never gave me the impression he was uninterested in the service the Turnpike provided to the public or in improvements to it, and was informed and talked intelligently about the issues of the day - where traffic volumes seemed to be going, moving into electronic toll collection, new projects like the Mon Fayette Expressway, widening, E-ZPass.
2013-03-22: Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission secretary/treasurer J William Lincoln resigned today citing as reason the "additional personal stress over the events of the past two weeks" and unspecified health problems. The past two weeks saw culmination of a nearly four year grand jury investigation into racketeering at the Turnpike, and a heap of criminal charges against several close colleagues.
Turnpike chairman William Lieberman is quoted: "We respect (Mr) Lincoln’s decision to resign; given the circumstances, he made the right choice."
Lincoln, 72, was on the 5-person Turnpike Commission for eight years. His testimony to the grand jury was key to building the Attorney General's case against Lincoln's colleagues - Rubin, Hatalowich, Brimmeier. He presented an insider's description of the ring which systematically steered contracts and jobs to politically supportive companies and people in complete contravention of competitive procurement and proper hiring practices.
What's real bad also is that about a month or so ago, Bland, CEO of PAT (Port Authority Transit, Pittsburgh) was fired by the Allegheny County Commisioners so they (and one commissioner in particular pushed this) could get their buddy Brimmeyer in as PAT CEO, it was a done deal until the indictmnets hit.
- from a correspondent:
The wealthiest entrepreneur in Pennsylvania has to be the producer of “Road Work” signs. I have just driven from western Maryland to New Jersey — most of this along the Penna turnpike — and there are thousands of them.
“Roadwork in 2 miles” “Roadwork in 1 mile” “Form One Lane” “Prepare to Stop” “Trucks entering” “Fines doubled in Work Area” and on and on. These are all in an aggressive black sans-serif type on a showy orange background, and some even have little lights flashing on and off.
Very impressive.
There were many opportunities to be impressed on the turnpike for no sooner did you leave one Work Zone, than you entered another.
Maybe this is something I've never noticed, but does anyone know if the E-ZPass lanes on the Turnpike photograph everyone's license plates? The reason I asked is I used the new PA 29 all-ETC interchange last night. As I went under the gantry, I noticed the LED floodlights flashed after I went through. The same thing happened to the car behind me. I have E-ZPass and know it is in working order.
Yes, they do photograph everyone. This because if you have a valid E-ZPass tag, the transaction can still fail (if you don't have enough money, etc.). So they know who to send the bill to if that happens. Allegedly, toll agencies delete the images after a successful E-ZPass transaction is processed.
Maybe this is something I've never noticed, but does anyone know if the E-ZPass lanes on the Turnpike photograph everyone's license plates? The reason I asked is I used the new PA 29 all-ETC interchange last night. As I went under the gantry, I noticed the LED floodlights flashed after I went through. The same thing happened to the car behind me. I have E-ZPass and know it is in working order.
Yes, they do photograph everyone. This because if you have a valid E-ZPass tag, the transaction can still fail (if you don't have enough money, etc.). So they know who to send the bill to if that happens. Allegedly, toll agencies delete the images after a successful E-ZPass transaction is processed.
At the time, I had a standard-issue Kentucky passenger vehicle license plate. Now I have one of the special-issue plates (Spay/Neuter) and I'm not sure how well an out-of-state agency could read and decipher the plate number (since it has small letters stacked on top of one another) to get the information to send out a bill.All 50 states' license plate variations and fonts are kept updated within the system, so it would be able to recognize your Spay/Neuter plate as Kentucky and read the digits accordingly. Because of the small digits, it would probably kick over to a manual operator for verification, who would then zoom in to confirm. Each state's use of O, D, 0; B, 8; I, 1; etc. are all documented, so the manual operator can verify what possible digits are in which position.
....
(On a side note, if you want to really fuck with toll operators, get a custom license plate that looks like a typical issue from your state, but drop a 0 in a letter spot and an I in a number spot.)
An angry Penn Pike worker writes - You have nothing nice to say ever about the PA Turnpike. You didn't find it newsworthy that one of my coworkers was KILLED in the line of duty in October 2012. And you print an article from a motorist who said we stand around and do nothing. You are truly clueless. You didn't think this was newsworthy on your site?
You sir are a total (profanity.)
1,000 toll collectors are going to lose their jobs and you are all for it. These are people who have families to support.
You only publish news that is detrimental to the PA Turnpike. Not that the maintenance WORKERS have a very dangerous job. You just publish that we stand around and do nothing. You have no idea that personnel are NEEDED to provide MPT to our WORKERS. I'll bet you don't know what MPT means. You sit at a desk all day and publish things you know NOTHING about.
Have you ever worked on a highway? Where people don't abide by the work zone speed limits and put my life in danger every day? Yet you publish an article to make PA Turnpike workers look lazy, standing around doing nothing.
You are a clueless idiot. You had no rebuttal to this article
(On a side note, if you want to really fuck with toll operators, get a custom license plate that looks like a typical issue from your state, but drop a 0 in a letter spot and an I in a number spot.)
Moody's is lowering the rating on senior revenue bonds from Aa3 to A1, citing ballooning debt being incurred to subsidize transit and free roads in the state along with traffic and revenue "underperformance" despite higher than assumed toll increases. The Turnpike is required by a state law (Act 44) it proposed in 2007 to head off privatization to contribute $450m/year in grants to lossmaking transit and untolled roads. The state's auditor general has said repeatedly that unless Act 44 is repealed it will force the Turnpike to become insolvent and renege on its debts.
(On a side note, if you want to really fuck with toll operators, get a custom license plate that looks like a typical issue from your state, but drop a 0 in a letter spot and an I in a number spot.)
TOLLROADSnews: A Penn Pike 'WORKER' is angry with our "road signs bonanza" piece + our response on MPT (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6494)
what is MPT?Acronym for Maintenance and Protection of Traffic.
You sir are a total (profanity.)
Some days you feel like an (Almond Joy), some days you (zounds)QuoteYou sir are a total (profanity.)
I really wish I weren't a total zounds. but, some days it's just how it goes.
(that dude really needs to learn how to write. he reminds me of such erstwhile forum brilliants as Ethan Man and SR-641.)
There is a new widening/reconstruction segment site listing at the PA Pike website. I am too lazy to post the link, but it is in Harrisburg from I-83 to the Susquehanna Bridge. When complete, it will give you 6 lanes with widened median from 83 to 283.
Not that this would be anywhere near a good idea, but would this enable PennDot to toll any limited acccess facilities in PA without fed approval, like say US 219
Plan Would Eliminate Pa. Turnpike Commission (http://www.wgal.com/news/susquehanna-valley/state/Plan-would-eliminate-Pa-Turnpike-Commission/-/9758860/19785950/-/eqeifpz/-/index.html?absolute=true)
Governor Thornburgh tried to do just that back in the mid-80s.
HB1197 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.
Her 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."
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."
There's a non-monetary benefit to this too: elimination of all the breezewoods across the state.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.
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.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.
This doesn't seem to be an issue for any other state that has toll roads.
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.
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.
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: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
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.
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.
(2) Since the feds are at least in part to blame for breezewoods, Congress should offer 100% federal funding for all breezewood remediation projects.
With the exception of two in Ohio and I-95/295 on the NJ Turnpike Extension, NONE of these are interstate-interstate connections.
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.
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.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.
I tend to think of the interstates as a coherent system rather than just a brand name.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.
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.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.I tend to think of the interstates as a coherent system rather than just a brand name.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.
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.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.
(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).
PA Turnpike Will Continue Spending Thousands on Outdated Call Boxes (http://www.wtae.com/news/local/pa-turnpike-will-continue-spending-thousands-on-outdated-call-boxes/-/9681086/20072270/-/1vwdmez/-/index.html)
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?The linked-article implies that the law only applied to highways that existed in the PTC system at the time it was enacted. Such probably explains why Turnpikes 43 & 576 do not have them. To the best of my knowledge, I've never seen any PennDOT highway w/any call boxes.
If one breaks down late at night in the middle of nowhere, not everybody one's flagging for help will necessarily stop.
To the best of my knowledge, I've never seen any PennDOT highway w/any call boxes.
To the best of my knowledge, I've never seen any PennDOT highway w/any call boxes.
Interstate 80 had them in the late 60s between Milton and Stroudsburg with plans to expand the system to all Interstates, especially in rural areas.
The extraordinary deal the Penn Pike has done with a couple of Philadelphia brokers to borrow up to $250m from foreign investors seeking US residency visas (known as the EB-5 program) is both better and worse on a second look. The Turnpike has been quite forthcoming with information, so a reporter can't validly complain that any element of 'cover up' surrounds the affair. They are not acting as if they have anything to hide.
The good news seems to be that the Turnpike has NOT got itself "on the hook" for anything much beyond money to hire an 'economist' to work up numbers on 'job creation' likely to result from the I-95 interchange project. That's $50,000 for PR. (Such exercises estimate immediate job creation and gross spending effects, and never look at offsetting effects of finance denied to other projects, and workers not hired there.)
But such claims of jobs created are standard fare for promoting new projects. And so the object of the financing, I-95/Turnpike interchange, will be analysed for the immediate jobs it creates and other spending it produces in construction
MM 298 to MM 312That seems odd. Neither adjacent segment is six lanes. Wouldn't you think the best place to start would be at MP 312 where I-76 leaves the turnpike? Or does much of the truck traffic skip that section via US 202 US 30 and PA 100?
(To be widened to six lanes.)
Don't you mean MP 326? That's the Valley Forge (I-76 East) exit and where it widens to 6-lanes (via I-276).QuoteMM 298 to MM 312That seems odd. Neither adjacent segment is six lanes. Wouldn't you think the best place to start would be at MP 312 where I-76 leaves the turnpike? Or does much of the truck traffic skip that section via US 202 US 30 and PA 100?
(To be widened to six lanes.)
"If we don’t do something about this by the year 2021, it will cost $50 for the average working Pennsylvanian just to travel across our state,” said Auditor General Eugene DePasquale. “That is just unsustainable. There is no way that we can ask the average Pennsylvanian to pay that.”
Why would the average Pennsylvanian go all the way across the state? Wouldn't the average state resident live somewhere along the Turnpike and only need to tranverse part of the state? It'll still be a very high toll, of course. And how many average working Pennsylvanians are required to travel the entire turnpike as well?
What would be the legality of a traveler getting say a 20% discount using the cash lanes or an automatic 20% discount if they can show an ID indicating PA residency.
Why would the average Pennsylvanian go all the way across the state? Wouldn't the average state resident live somewhere along the Turnpike and only need to tranverse part of the state? It'll still be a very high toll, of course. And how many average working Pennsylvanians are required to travel the entire turnpike as well?
Maybe I'm not average, but I used to live in Bristol, so I used to do that occasionally, since my fiancee has family out in Ohio. More to the point of the original quote, I'm assuming he means tolls *overall* would skyrocket, hitting those folks who commute within the state on the Turnpike. I don't know about other parts of the state, but there's a *lot* of people in and around Philly who drive the Turnpike daily (like my fiancee). Every time tolls go up, that hits her directly ($toll_hike * days_commuted).
And as far as daily commuting goes, that is something the turnpike can control. Instead of a uniform 10% increase, the turnpike could say "Ok, interchange to interchange driving in the area between I-476 and US 13 (where most of the daily commuters live) won't see an increase, or just a minor increase. Toll fares would increase 15% for other distances".
But...the turnpike won't do this. If anything, they'll say the opposite - fares need to be higher for these commuters because they are the ones requiring the road to be widened.
Witnesses favorable to Pennsylvania Turnpike defendants charged with corruption said repeatedly in the first court hearing last week that gifts they received from vendors who got contracts with the Turnpike were friendly expressions of gratitude not bribes or payoffs. And they maintained political activity organized by top Turnpike officials didn't involve improper pressure on vendors. Special favors sought by politicians at the Turnpike were merely innocent 'constituent service.'
We rely for the summary that follows on extensive local reports - especially Jeff Frantz at the Harrisburg Patriot News (pennlive.com) and Brad Bumstead Pittsburgh Tribune Review who reported morning and afternoon Monday through Friday last week from the Harrisburg courtroom of state district judge William Wenner. 19 witnesses were heard in five days of a hearing to decide whether the case by state attorney general Kathleen Kane should go to trial before a judge and jury.
The Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security is investigating possible abuses in handling of EB-5 visa applications by Chinese nationals following a referral from an FBI counter-intelligence analyst, the Associated Press reports. They say President Obama's nominee for the deputy-secretary, #2 slot in the department Alejandro Mayorkas is under investigation for his handling of an investor visa when he was head of US Citizenship and Immigration Services unit of the department.
Under the EB-5 program foreign investors putting $500,000 or more into a US business and creating jobs get a special 'foreign investor visa" allowing them to bypass other foreigners applying for entry to the US.
The DHS Inspector General sent an email about the investigation to members of the House and Senate committees on homeland security this week. The IG said that the department's general counsel office obstructed a Securities and Exchange Commission attempt to audit the EB-5 program. And it says the FBI has been concerned about the program providing a way for Chinese intelligence officers to become involved in sensitive building projects through shell companies.
One of these turned out to be an FBI facility being built by an EB-5 contractor.
What's sad is that the chair of the Allegheny Co Commissioners got the head of PAT Transit fired for the purpose of getting a friend in that position, and nominated Brimmeier the day before the indictments.
Pennsylvania Turnpike Celebrates Start of Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project (http://www.paturnpike.com/Press/2013/20130730142841.htm) - Groundbreaking ceremony took place today for Phase 1 of this long-awaited interchange.Here's one video of such:
Pennsylvania Turnpike Celebrates Start of Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project (http://www.paturnpike.com/Press/2013/20130730142841.htm) - Groundbreaking ceremony took place today for Phase 1 of this long-awaited interchange.I will not be happy until the day it is open for business. So many wolf cries over the years, so until its finished I will not rejoice over this.
Pennsylvania Turnpike Celebrates Start of Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project (http://www.paturnpike.com/Press/2013/20130730142841.htm) - Groundbreaking ceremony took place today for Phase 1 of this long-awaited interchange.I will not be happy until the day it is open for business. So many wolf cries over the years, so until its finished I will not rejoice over this.
Privately Turnpike officials say the project could be strung out over a longer period if the Turnpike doesn't get relief from the Act 44 requirements of making grants for transit and free roads of Penn DOT. They say the continued rebuild and widening of the rest of the Turnpike is probably a higher priority than the I-95 interchange.
Privately Turnpike officials say the project could be strung out over a longer period if the Turnpike doesn't get relief from the Act 44 requirements of making grants for transit and free roads of Penn DOT. They say the continued rebuild and widening of the rest of the Turnpike is probably a higher priority than the I-95 interchange.
QuotePrivately Turnpike officials say the project could be strung out over a longer period if the Turnpike doesn't get relief from the Act 44 requirements of making grants for transit and free roads of Penn DOT. They say the continued rebuild and widening of the rest of the Turnpike is probably a higher priority than the I-95 interchange.
I can understand that, as (and correct me if I'm wrong) this portion of the PA Turnpike between existing 95 and the NJ Turnpike becomes toll-free after the interchange is built.
Having said that, the state could use the Act 44 money to assist with I-95 improvements in the area, including this interchange.
And finally, as far as the slow pace goes - Act 44 is relatively recent. This project had dragged on for years in non-construction phases. It was originally supposed to open around the same time the NJ Turnpike widening project is completed in 2014. So Act 44 isn't the sole reason for the slow pace of this project. A lot of median barriers have been constructed...often times in the same place. That money could have gone towards this project instead.
Isn't the I-95 interchange required by federal law?
Why aren't the feds threatening PA with the loss of highway funds if it isn't built? If I were the head of the FHWA, I would tell PA that they won't see so much as a penny of highway money until the interchange is built.
It is my understanding that the I-95 north movement will not be tolled in Pennsylvania, but I-95 south traffic coming over the Delaware River will have to pay a toll at a barrier for I-95 south (currently I-276 west) traffic.Actually, the eastern mainline toll plaza will be relocated west of the I-95 interchange when all is said & done. In short, the only toll barrier that I-95 South through traffic will ultimately encounter will be on the Jersey side at the current NJTP barrier at US 130 (Exit 6A).
In defense of PTC and PennDOT, it was not Pennsylvania's section of I-95 that was cancelled - it was New Jersey's part of I-95 that was cancelled thanks to NIMBYist pressure. However, PTC and PennDOT don't get off for free, since the two of them failed to construct an interchange where there should have been one (regardless of what happened in New Jersey) when I-95 was being planned, designed and constructed north of Philadelphia, and that is their fault.
Even if the NJ portion of 95 had been built, I'd wager long-distance travel patterns would still be largely the same. Most people would take the more direct, and arguably faster and calmer NJTP.
Even if the NJ portion of 95 had been built, I'd wager long-distance travel patterns would still be largely the same. Most people would take the more direct, and arguably faster and calmer NJTP.IMHO, I-295, the northern stretch in particular, would've seen more traffic on it had I-95 in Somerset County been built.
I'd go with the opposite reasoning: Most people would stay on I-95 because they are just following signs for I-95. And they really wouldn't want to pay a toll if they didn't have to.Again, the existing east-gate toll plaza is being relocated west of the new interchange. The new gantry will, no doubt, be of the open-road toll variety.
Actually, they are avoiding two tolls, under the assumption that the 95 bridge over the Delaware was still free. Having said that, when the 95 bridge is widened eventually, the addition of open-road tolling is part of that project, along with the wideneing of 95 from 2 to 3 lanes each direction for about 4 miles in PA.
I'd go with the opposite reasoning: Most people would stay on I-95 because they are just following signs for I-95. And they really wouldn't want to pay a toll if they didn't have to.Again, the existing east-gate toll plaza is being relocated west of the new interchange. The new gantry will, no doubt, be of the open-road toll variety.
Actually, they are avoiding two tolls, under the assumption that the 95 bridge over the Delaware was still free. Having said that, when the 95 bridge is widened eventually, the addition of open-road tolling is part of that project, along with the wideneing of 95 from 2 to 3 lanes each direction for about 4 miles in PA.
Motorist taking 95 from NY to Delaware would have had pay a small toll from NYC to I-287, but then enjoyed a free ride thru the rest of NJ, across the I-95 Scudder Falls Bridge into PA, then thru Philly and Willmington.With the current one-way tolling of the Delaware River Bridges, through-traffic northbounders still would've bypassed PA (along w/Philly) and utilized I-295 North to would-be I-95 connection in Ewing. Al-Jo curve (which is finally being remedied) notwithstanding.
Motorists taking the NJ Turnpike down to Delaware would have to pay the entire NJ Turnpike toll, plus the toll crossing the Delaware Memorial Bridge. That Delaware River toll that would have been avoided if motorist took the originally planned I-95 routing.
It is my understanding that the I-95 north movement will not be tolled in Pennsylvania, but I-95 south traffic coming over the Delaware River will have to pay a toll at a barrier for I-95 south (currently I-276 west) traffic.Actually, the eastern mainline toll plaza will be relocated west of the I-95 interchange when all is said & done. In short, the only toll barrier that I-95 South through traffic will ultimately encounter will be on the Jersey side at the current NJTP barrier at US 130 (Exit 6A).
According to the PTC's Web site (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/) for the project, there will be a (flat-rate) toll for traffic coming over the Delaware River from New Jersey to Pennsylvania (why they could not make a deal with the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to just collect the money at the Exit 6A barrier for the PTC is beyond me).
According to the PTC's Web site (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/) for the project, there will be a (flat-rate) toll for traffic coming over the Delaware River from New Jersey to Pennsylvania (why they could not make a deal with the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to just collect the money at the Exit 6A barrier for the PTC is beyond me). If you look at this image (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAPMAY2013_lg.jpg) on the right side, there is an artistic rendering of what looks like an all-electronic toll point for westbound (Turnpike) or southbound (I-95) movement - it is labelled as MODIFIED DRB TOLL PLAZA WESTBOUND ONLY (though it seems that PTC may be collecting cash there, at least initially).Actually, I am surprised that the westbound open-road gantry east the interchange doesn't run afoul (read: violate) with the original agreement that I-95 into PA from NJ was not going to be tolled beyond the NJ Turnpike gantries... like the current I-95 via the Scudder Falls Bridge.
At some point in the past, I think that toll barrier on the Pennsylvania side was referred to as a "coin drop" toll.
According to the PTC's Web site (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/) for the project, there will be a (flat-rate) toll for traffic coming over the Delaware River from New Jersey to Pennsylvania (why they could not make a deal with the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to just collect the money at the Exit 6A barrier for the PTC is beyond me). If you look at this image (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAPMAY2013_lg.jpg) on the right side, there is an artistic rendering of what looks like an all-electronic toll point for westbound (Turnpike) or southbound (I-95) movement - it is labelled as MODIFIED DRB TOLL PLAZA WESTBOUND ONLY (though it seems that PTC may be collecting cash there, at least initially).Actually, I am surprised that the westbound open-road gantry east the interchange doesn't run afoul (read: violate) with the original agreement that I-95 into PA from NJ was not going to be tolled beyond the NJ Turnpike gantries... like the current I-95 via the Scudder Falls Bridge.
At some point in the past, I think that toll barrier on the Pennsylvania side was referred to as a "coin drop" toll.
If that addtional gantry's going to be there; why move the mainline east gate gantry west of the interchange to begin with? This means that somebody coming into PA via I-95 but heading to I-276 needs to pass through two gantries over a short distance. Granted, it's not as idiotic as the present close proximity of the east gate plaza and the Delaware Valley (Exit 358) interchange plaza (whoever decided not to integrate those two plazas when they were originally built should be shot IMHO); but still there seems to be a trampling of principle here.
Given the PA Turnpike's current extortion toll rates (courtesy of Act 44); there could be a very legitimate concern that motorists may feel that they're getting fleeced again by exhorbitant tolls.
A toll plaza for traffic using the 276/95 ramps would be required if there was only one mainline plaza near the PA-NJ Turnpike connector bridge.
A toll plaza for traffic using the 276/95 ramps would be required if there was only one mainline plaza near the PA-NJ Turnpike connector bridge.My original understanding of this whole project was that the Turnpike from just west of the new interchange to the NJ state line was to be non-tolled at all but still maintained by PTC or a joint venture between them & PennDOT.
NJTA could drop the toll plaza at US 130, and we'd have parity with every other toll bridge between NJ and PA (that is, a toll heading out of NJ, with no other tolls to *just* use the bridge).I'm assuming that you're only referring to the westbound entrance ramp from US 130 as opposed to mainline Turnpike gantry (which serves as an end to the NJTP's closed toll collection system). If that's the case, you're right. The current PA proposal means that somebody heading from US 130 to I-276 is crossing three different toll gantries/plazas.
I believe that is the correct history, but if anyone knows different, please correct me.Some old maps (including the 1964 Rand McNally (http://web.archive.org/web/20060514223439/http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg377a/81a.jpg)) show a proposed connection from the I-95/PA 413 interchange to I-276/US 13. Presumably this would have been built by PennDOT. (A 1971 map (http://ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_PDF_FILES/MAPS/Type_10_GHS_Historical_Scans/Bucks_1971_Sheet_3.pdf) does not show this, but does show I-895 connecting to the same interchange.)
Some old maps (including the 1964 Rand McNally (http://web.archive.org/web/20060514223439/http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg377a/81a.jpg)) show a proposed connection from the I-95/PA 413 interchange to I-276/US 13. Presumably this would have been built by PennDOT.It's interesting that at the northeast corner of that map, US 13 is shown as I-95 once it turns into a limited-access highway (heavy green line). I remember some RMD road atlases erroneously showing the PA 413 branch-off I-95 with a direct connection to the PA Turnpike (interchange shown as a white square) into the the 1980s.
The PA Turnpike is significant in that it never had any plans to become free once its bonds were paid off, unlike most (if not all) the surrounding toll roads,According to at least one historical account of the PA Turnpike, the original plan indeed called for the removal of tolls once the original bond(s) that built the road were paid off (sometime in the 1980s); the road would have then been turned over to PennDOT and been treated like a toll-free Interstate.
BTW, I'm getting an error message when I attempted to open your other links.This forum borks FTP links. Fiddle with the beginning of the URL.
I do not understand why the proposed freeway along US 13 in Bucks County is not an option being its an industrialized area that usually is the easiest to build through. Plus its a straight line where when the I-95/ PA Turnpike interchange will have I-95 zig zag.Guess on my part, if one looks further northeast (off the map) US 13 terminates at US 1.
Exerpt from Steve Anderson's PhillyRoads site on the history of I-95 through PA and why the US 13/1 corridor was not chosen for I-95:
However, New Jersey officials opposed this routing on the basis of the physical and capacity constraints on the four-lane bridge and freeway.
This forum borks FTP links. Fiddle with the beginning of the URL.
I am talking about now, and not the original I-95. I think instead of the current interchange project that a freeway connecting Exit 40 of I-95 to Exit 359 ( I think as I am still not familiar with the new mile exit numbers).Prior to the Feds re-routing I-95, PTC/PennDOT indeed had long-range plans to extend the PA 413 connector northward onto the Turnpike. Such an extension would've involved a reconfiguration/integration with the existing Delaware Valley/US 13 interchange (Exit 358 BTW). The original Tunrpike/Connector interchange was to be of a trumpet design similar to the Valley Forge/I-76 East (Exit 326) interchange.
A 1971 map does not show this, but does show I-895 connecting to the same interchange.
1971 Bucks Co. map (Sheet 3) (ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_PDF_FILES/MAPS/Type_10_GHS_Historical_Scans/Bucks_1971_Sheet_3.pdf)It's interesting that for one needing to get from I-95 South to PA 413, one had to exit off the proposed I-895 (via a cloverleaf ramp) and get onto I-95 northbound before reaching PA 413. My guess is that southbound I-95 off-ramp to the would-be I-895 wound up ultimately getting built as the completed missing movement to PA 413 sometime in the late 90s/early 2000s.
If I am correct, the ramp toll at Delaware Valley (Exit 358) is to be lifted when the direct I-95 connections are made. Not knowing how the relocated barrier plaza rates would be set (compared to the current one), the bridge toll might be set for PTC to recover this lost revenue (and likely then some). In theory, the tolls between Exits 358 and 359 would be lost with the shuffling of toll barriers if there were not the WB bridge toll.
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/No_E-ZPass_Heres_a_bill_Electronic_tolling_planned_for_PA_Turnpike.htmlExcerpt from that link:
There may not be a ticket section of the PA Turnpike to worry about anyway...While all-electronic tolling will eliminate jam-ups at traditional toll plazas; it still means that the proposed toll gantry arrangement at the eastern end still means that a motorist from US 130 in NJ heading to I-276 (beyond the proposed I-95 interchange) will be crossing (& paying, after exiting off 276, 76 or 476) three gantries over a relatively short distance.
IMHO, after the implimentation of all-electronic tolling; those who don't have EZ-Pass should be just billed the equivalent of the cash/non-EZ-Pass rate without any addtional fine or penalty
Or does that make way too much sense.
Will the implementation of all-electronic tolling mean that all traffic would be allowed to use either Virginia Drive (Exit 340 off I-276 West) or PA 29 (Exit 320 off I-76) interchanges?
Really, the ultimate solution would to be do away with EZ-Pass entirely and bill based strictly on plate (camera technology and character recognition these days is more than good enough to do this). You sign up for a PA Turnpike account (or perhaps have an account with a consortium member) and it just gets billed directly to that account. Not signed up? You get mailed a bill for the toll + processing charge. This is the direction that we need to go to have universal interoperability between disparate electronic tolling systems nationwide,
The problem with toll by plate is reciprocal agreements between states in regards to sharing plate data. Using the Triangle Expressway in North Carolina as an example, right now if you drive on the road without a transponder you won't be billed if NC doesn't have an agreement with your state to share registration information. The reason being is that some states charge so much to pull the data that it exceeds the cost of the toll! I tested this last December when I took the TriEx... no bill in the mail.
So basically, your plan for "interoperability" is just to do away with what little interoperability we have now (requiring motorists to have an account with each toll authority they use to avoid extra fees) in return for getting rid of no transponder = no service? For those of us in the northeast, that would be a huge step backwards. I can drive all day and still not encounter a road in the US that uses a transponder other than E-ZPass, and therefore bill-by-plate surcharges. The nearest is at the extreme southern part of Indiana.IMHO, after the implimentation of all-electronic tolling; those who don't have EZ-Pass should be just billed the equivalent of the cash/non-EZ-Pass rate without any addtional fine or penalty
Or does that make way too much sense.
I think the Turnpike has said there won't be a "fine" to not use ez-pass. Since cash would go away completely, you'd have an EZ-Pass rate and a post-billed rate, which will still be higher. So while there isn't a fine per se, you'd still pay more.
Really, the ultimate solution would to be do away with EZ-Pass entirely and bill based strictly on plate (camera technology and character recognition these days is more than good enough to do this). You sign up for a PA Turnpike account (or perhaps have an account with a consortium member) and it just gets billed directly to that account. Not signed up? You get mailed a bill for the toll + processing charge. This is the direction that we need to go to have universal interoperability between disparate electronic tolling systems nationwide,QuoteWill the implementation of all-electronic tolling mean that all traffic would be allowed to use either Virginia Drive (Exit 340 off I-276 West) or PA 29 (Exit 320 off I-76) interchanges?
One would hope...
So basically, your plan for "interoperability" is just to do away with what little interoperability we have now (requiring motorists to have an account with each toll authority they use to avoid extra fees) in return for getting rid of no transponder = no service? For those of us in the northeast, that would be a huge step backwards. I can drive all day and still not encounter a road in the US that uses a transponder other than E-ZPass, and therefore bill-by-plate surcharges. The nearest is at the extreme southern part of Indiana.I'm not saying we need to get rid of EZ-Pass overnight, but there's no technological reason we even need to use electronic transponders any more. It's significantly less expensive for toll networking using incompatible transponders to implement bill-by-plate (using high speed cameras and optical character recognition of plates) than to have to implement readers for multiple types of electronic transponders, some of which would require separate antennas, separate supporting hardware, and so on. The hard part is having some centralized method for finding which tolling authority someone's cars are registered with... and you need that with *any* method of interoperability. Once you're reading plates for interoperability reasons, then it's only a small step to just read them for everything. No surcharges needed if it's all automatic.
It's significantly less expensive for toll networking using incompatible transponders to implement bill-by-plate (using high speed cameras and optical character recognition of plates) than to have to implement readers for multiple types of electronic transponders, some of which would require separate antennas, separate supporting hardware, and so on.
It's significantly less expensive for toll networking using incompatible transponders to implement bill-by-plate (using high speed cameras and optical character recognition of plates) than to have to implement readers for multiple types of electronic transponders, some of which would require separate antennas, separate supporting hardware, and so on.
Rather than build separate hardware for each transponder, why not just all use the same transponder type? We don't even all need to use E-Z Pass or anything, just transponders that all use the same technology.
So basically, your plan for "interoperability" is just to do away with what little interoperability we have now (requiring motorists to have an account with each toll authority they use to avoid extra fees) in return for getting rid of no transponder = no service? For those of us in the northeast, that would be a huge step backwards. I can drive all day and still not encounter a road in the US that uses a transponder other than E-ZPass, and therefore bill-by-plate surcharges. The nearest is at the extreme southern part of Indiana.I'm not saying we need to get rid of EZ-Pass overnight, but there's no technological reason we even need to use electronic transponders any more. It's significantly less expensive for toll networking using incompatible transponders to implement bill-by-plate (using high speed cameras and optical character recognition of plates) than to have to implement readers for multiple types of electronic transponders, some of which would require separate antennas, separate supporting hardware, and so on. The hard part is having some centralized method for finding which tolling authority someone's cars are registered with... and you need that with *any* method of interoperability. Once you're reading plates for interoperability reasons, then it's only a small step to just read them for everything. No surcharges needed if it's all automatic.
Anthony Maniscola, a former Turnpike Inspector General, says that despite criminal prosecutions of top Pennsylvania Turnpike officials patronage, pay-for-play contracting and other malpractice continues to be "pervasive." He says the Turnpike should be put under the control of the state department of transportation (PennDOT) and "run like a real highway agency."
This is reported this morning by staff writer Paul Nussbaum who got an exclusive (http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20130906_Ex-inspector_general__Disband_Pa__Turnpike_Commission.html) for the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Maniscola concedes that some progress has been made in "rooting out no-show workers, thieving supervisors 'who used the turnpike as their own little Home Depot,' and toll collectors with their hands in the till."
But he said that "at the top, where four politically appointed commissioners rule, much remains to be done."
Going back through some recent postings on my site's Facebook page, the idea to disband it was mentioned in 2009 and put forth in a bill in 2010. It seems like the idea surfaces every so many years, and nothing changes.
It seems talk of abolishing the PTC lingers as much as talk of putting tolls on I-80.
...I really would like to see both "free" ends of I-70 transferred to the PTC. It would allow a lot of fixing-up along the western section (where so badly needed), and if the eastern part between Breezewood and the Maryland border were to come under PTC jurisdiction, then I think we could say "bye bye" to Breezewood.
If Pennsylvania were to abolish the PTC, then what?
PennDOT presumably would do like some other states (Florida, New Hampshire and Massachusetts come to mind) and create a Bureau of Turnpikes as a separate department under PennDOT management, along with all or very nearly all of the staff that used to work for the PTC.
Though I really would like to see both "free" ends of I-70 transferred to the PTC. It would allow a lot of fixing-up along the western section (where so badly needed), and if the eastern part between Breezewood and the Maryland border were to come under PTC jurisdiction, then I think we could say "bye bye" to Breezewood.
As for Breezewood, it will never change, with or without a PTC. The business owners care about one thing, and it is not continuity of an Interstate.
The problem with I-80's tolling proposal is that they kept saying the money would go to mass transit, which the feds prohibited. And after the original application was denied, PA proposed to toll 80 again...and again said the money would assist with mass transit! And again, the proposal was rejected. Deadbrained politicians at their finest.
As for Breezewood, it will never change, with or without a PTC. The business owners care about one thing, and it is not continuity of an Interstate.
I know it's not the change many people have hoped for, but frankly, I've long thought incremental changes such as this could be an effective way of addressing the problem, rather than just hoping for a bypass that may never come.
One other point on this from the financial side of the equation.
The states current brilliant move is to lever up the turnpike authority and basically use the funds for the states transportation spending (44 act).
To put this in basic terms, it's like you forming an entity and borrowing money in that entity's name and then just sending that money to your personal bank account.
This is a great way to fund yourself without putting new debt on your balance sheet. Until the day it doesn't work anymore. On that fateful day, the political class will have to decide whether to default on the turnpike's debt, or assume it onto the states balance sheet.
One other point on this from the financial side of the equation.
The states current brilliant move is to lever up the turnpike authority and basically use the funds for the states transportation spending (44 act).
To put this in basic terms, it's like you forming an entity and borrowing money in that entity's name and then just sending that money to your personal bank account.
This is a great way to fund yourself without putting new debt on your balance sheet. Until the day it doesn't work anymore. On that fateful day, the political class will have to decide whether to default on the turnpike's debt, or assume it onto the states balance sheet.
The curious fact here is that the bond markets and credit rating agencies seem to be fully aware of the PTC selling debt and then just shipping the cash off to PennDOT (to be spent on things that have nothing to do with the Turnpike's network), yet they keep purchasing PTC bonds (which I assume are not "full faith and credit" bonds - in other words, the bondholders do not have recourse to Pennsylvania taxpayers in the event of a default).
There have been mixed-mode lane use in the past, especially at the smaller plazas (Wilkes-Barre, for example). I think they try to avoid it due to the risk of an inattentive driver rear-ending a cash customer. The automated plazas farther north on the Extension also have mixed-mode lanes.
On the Thruway they solve that problem by requiring ALL traffic to stop (not just cash) in mixed lanes.
PennDOT presumably would do like some other states (Florida, New Hampshire and Massachusetts come to mind) and create a Bureau of Turnpikes as a separate department under PennDOT management, along with all or very nearly all of the staff that used to work for the PTC.
Stupid question... isn't the equipment needed installed in all lanes on the PATP? If so, do they actively disable it in cash-only lanes when they're staffed? If not, is there any reason you *can't* just go through any cash lane with E-Z Pass?
Stupid question... isn't the equipment needed installed in all lanes on the PATP? If so, do they actively disable it in cash-only lanes when they're staffed? If not, is there any reason you *can't* just go through any cash lane with E-Z Pass?
It appears the answer is, surprisingly, yesthey do disable the E-ZPass equipment in cash only lanes. According to the PTC (http://www.paturnpike.com/ezpass/personalfaq.htm#entered), if you enter through an E-ZPass lane] and attempt to exit through a cash only lane, the human toll taker at the exit point will charge you the "lost ticket" rate (maximum possible toll), but you can request a form to get the overpayment refunded.
To intentionally disable the equipment that's ALREADY THERE and thereby incur $25 in administrative costs to refund a $10 toll seems incredibly stupid to me. I can understand them wanting to discourage mixed cash/E-ZPass traffic through a lane because of the potential for speed differential, unexpected stops, and collisions, but disabling the equipment is ridiculous.
They're not the only agency, either. I forget who, but either the MTA or Port Authority also won't do mixed mode. (We were discussing both in the context of a particular bridge project.) It definitely crimps travel flexibility - and roadway design flexibility through the plaza, especially when you have nearby entrances/exits with traffic splits through the plaza.Stupid question... isn't the equipment needed installed in all lanes on the PATP? If so, do they actively disable it in cash-only lanes when they're staffed? If not, is there any reason you *can't* just go through any cash lane with E-Z Pass?
It appears the answer is, surprisingly, yes–they do disable the E-ZPass equipment in cash only lanes. According to the PTC (http://www.paturnpike.com/ezpass/personalfaq.htm#entered), if you enter through an E-ZPass lane] and attempt to exit through a cash only lane, the human toll taker at the exit point will charge you the "lost ticket" rate (maximum possible toll), but you can request a form to get the overpayment refunded.
To intentionally disable the equipment that's ALREADY THERE and thereby incur $25 in administrative costs to refund a $10 toll seems incredibly stupid to me. I can understand them wanting to discourage mixed cash/E-ZPass traffic through a lane because of the potential for speed differential, unexpected stops, and collisions, but disabling the equipment is ridiculous.
It appears the answer is, surprisingly, yes–they do disable the E-ZPass equipment in cash only lanes. According to the PTC (http://www.paturnpike.com/ezpass/personalfaq.htm#entered), if you enter through an E-ZPass lane] and attempt to exit through a cash only lane, the human toll taker at the exit point will charge you the "lost ticket" rate (maximum possible toll), but you can request a form to get the overpayment refunded.They're not the only agency, either. I forget who, but either the MTA or Port Authority also won't do mixed mode. (We were discussing both in the context of a particular bridge project.) It definitely crimps travel flexibility - and roadway design flexibility through the plaza, especially when you have nearby entrances/exits with traffic splits through the plaza.
To intentionally disable the equipment that's ALREADY THERE and thereby incur $25 in administrative costs to refund a $10 toll seems incredibly stupid to me. I can understand them wanting to discourage mixed cash/E-ZPass traffic through a lane because of the potential for speed differential, unexpected stops, and collisions, but disabling the equipment is ridiculous.
Newer Thruway barriers have some pretty creative solutions though (such as putting the E-ZPass lanes in the center and having a pedestrian crosswalk).Newer Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority plazas have an enclosed pedestrian overpass: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.644084,-81.507182&spn=0.015272,0.028346&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=28.644184,-81.507416&panoid=O5iMhA5UgL-8uwzFnkXIHw&cbp=12,41.48,,0,-3.73
Some toll plazas have an underground passageway, with an access stairway at every single booth!
The (relatively) new toll plaza with the "lighthouse" at the southern end of the NJ Turnpike has a conspicuous overhead walkway. I think they still have to cross at least some (ticketed) lanes to get to their booth, though.
Some toll plazas have an underground passageway, with an access stairway at every single booth!
The (relatively) new toll plaza with the "lighthouse" at the southern end of the NJ Turnpike has a conspicuous overhead walkway. I think they still have to cross at least some (ticketed) lanes to get to their booth, though.
I know of no plans to convert the entire Thruway to AET and couldn't find anything when I searched. I suspect the page is referring to the pilot program to convert the Harriman, Tappan Zee, and Yonkers barriers. If it's successful I wouldn't be surprised to see the other barrier tolls converted, but the ticket system would obviously have to be done all at once.Everything I have quoted is correct. I have no clue as to any other part of the system.
I know of no plans to convert the entire Thruway to AET and couldn't find anything when I searched. I suspect the page is referring to the pilot program to convert the Harriman, Tappan Zee, and Yonkers barriers. If it's successful I wouldn't be surprised to see the other barrier tolls converted, but the ticket system would obviously have to be done all at once. I wonder if this is why the Williamsville barrier replacement/upgrade project has been on hold for over a decade.
Harriman is different than Woodbury. They're only converting the one on 17.I know of no plans to convert the entire Thruway to AET and couldn't find anything when I searched. I suspect the page is referring to the pilot program to convert the Harriman, Tappan Zee, and Yonkers barriers. If it's successful I wouldn't be surprised to see the other barrier tolls converted, but the ticket system would obviously have to be done all at once. I wonder if this is why the Williamsville barrier replacement/upgrade project has been on hold for over a decade.
Harriman is the southern end of the Thruway "main" ticket (closed) system. Why would the Thruway Authority want to spend money on that unless they are going to flip the entire system to AET?
Otherwise, I would assume that Harriman, along with the Tappan Zee and Yonkers barriers are the busiest on the entire Thruway system, so it makes plenty of sense to convert those - and at the Tappan Zee, AET would allow a return to two-way tolling if the Authority wanted to go that way
Though would some drivers be attracted to the T-Z to avoid the (high) tolls on the Port Authority crossings if the eastbound Tappan Zee toll was reduced as part of two-way tolling?
Newer Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority plazas have an enclosed pedestrian overpass: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.644084,-81.507182&spn=0.015272,0.028346&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=28.644184,-81.507416&panoid=O5iMhA5UgL-8uwzFnkXIHw&cbp=12,41.48,,0,-3.73
That's Woodbury actually. Harriman, Woodbury, and exit 16 form a really strange system. Staying on I-87 is just a conventional get ticket/pay toll interaction with Woodbury. I-87 south to NY 17 is a similarly conventional system for exit 16 (using a booth divided from the rest of Harriman). NY 17 to I-87 south is a single barrier interaction with Harriman.I know of no plans to convert the entire Thruway to AET and couldn't find anything when I searched. I suspect the page is referring to the pilot program to convert the Harriman, Tappan Zee, and Yonkers barriers. If it's successful I wouldn't be surprised to see the other barrier tolls converted, but the ticket system would obviously have to be done all at once. I wonder if this is why the Williamsville barrier replacement/upgrade project has been on hold for over a decade.
Harriman is the southern end of the Thruway "main" ticket (closed) system. Why would the Thruway Authority want to spend money on that unless they are going to flip the entire system to AET?
Otherwise, I would assume that Harriman, along with the Tappan Zee and Yonkers barriers are the busiest on the entire Thruway system, so it makes plenty of sense to convert those - and at the Tappan Zee, AET would allow a return to two-way tolling if the Authority wanted to go that way
Though would some drivers be attracted to the T-Z to avoid the (high) tolls on the Port Authority crossings if the eastbound Tappan Zee toll was reduced as part of two-way tolling?
Now it's time to get funky. Traveling from NY 17 to I-87 north involves the barrier interaction with Harriman as before, but then traffic is immediately funneled into a separated booth in Woodbury to receive a discounted exit 16 ticket.
Trust me, this was examined. (It's possible that I was involved...) I think the non-starter is because the mainline isn't AET yet, so they need a condition that works for the NY 17 ramps. Will this be revisited? That hasn't been determined, because no one's drawn up the final condition, to my knowledge.
I just had a thought though. When Harriman goes AET, there will be no reason to keep it on the exit 16 ramps. The gantry could easily be set up on the Thruway mainline between exits 15A and 16, eliminating the two-step system presently used to get on I-87 north.
Harriman is different than Woodbury. They're only converting the one on 17.
That's Woodbury actually. Harriman, Woodbury, and exit 16 form a really strange system. Staying on I-87 is just a conventional get ticket/pay toll interaction with Woodbury. I-87 south to NY 17 is a similarly conventional system for exit 16 (using a booth divided from the rest of Harriman). NY 17 to I-87 south is a single barrier interaction with Harriman.
Now it's time to get funky. Traveling from NY 17 to I-87 north involves the barrier interaction with Harriman as before, but then traffic is immediately funneled into a separated booth in Woodbury to receive a discounted exit 16 ticket.
I just had a thought though. When Harriman goes AET, there will be no reason to keep it on the exit 16 ramps. The gantry could easily be set up on the Thruway mainline between exits 15A and 16, eliminating the two-step system presently used to get on I-87 north.
Unfortunately all the toll increases currently go to mass transit in Pittsburg and Philadelphia.
How much does "pay-to-play" contracting cost the public?
About $45 million, in one episode at the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, according to a recent analysis of a contract for computer software.
The analysis concluded that the turnpike commission paid far too much and received far too little when it bought a software system from Ciber Inc., of Greenwood Village, Colo., whose former vice president has been charged by state prosecutors with giving gifts to turnpike officials to win contracts.
The report said the turnpike commission paid about five times more than it should have - for a faulty system.
I am curious: Are there any Turnpike mainline ADT's approaching or surpassing the 8 lane level, other than say the Delaware River Bridge after the 95 ramps are done.
I am curious: Are there any Turnpike mainline ADT's approaching or surpassing the 8 lane level, other than say the Delaware River Bridge after the 95 ramps are done.
..just an FYI, there is a sign replacement project on the eastern portion of the Turnpike...definitely includes Exit 312 through to Exit 343. There are concrete foundations placed in most places, and it looks like many of the sign bridges both on the mainline and on the interchange ramps are being replaced with monotube structures.About time IMHO. All the Norristown exit BGS' along eastbound 276 should include 476 SOUTH references.
The 2 mile advance BGS eastbound for Exit 333 used to read TO 476 SOUTH | Norristown...it now reads 476 SOUTH | Chester. Most of the other signs haven't been replaced yet.
Speaking of sign changes along the Turnpike, I like the idea of renaming some of them to better reflect the major cities they pass. In the Pittsburgh area, you have Exit 28 which is currently named 'Cranberry,' and Exit 57 which is currently named 'Pittsburgh.' I say name Exit 28 'Pittsburgh North' and Exit 57 'Pittsburgh East.' In the Philadelphia area, you have Exit 326 which is currently named 'Valley Forge,' and you'll soon have Exit 357 when the I-95 interchange is completed. I say name Exit 326 'Philadelphia West' and Exit 357 'Philadelphia East.' Doing this would make both cities accounted for by traffic from both directions.
Does the MUTCD allow that many destinations even for brown guide signs? In any case, here's a mockup of what the exit 110 sign may look like...
I get what you're getting at here, although I generally hate dividing cities up like this, especially since a city like Philadelphia doesn't really have West & East per se.At present, eastbounders along the PA Turnpike (I-76) encounter a supplemental sign just over two miles prior to the Valley Forge exit that reads Philadelphia NEXT 5 EXITS (http://goo.gl/maps/0SZyy). Giving 2 interchanges along the Turnpike that contain the exact same name, Philadelphia in this case, with no distinction at all will actually cause more confusion IMHO than it would solve; especially when one reads the toll rate/ticket schedule.
Neighborhood areas are described by their direction...West Philly is basically a crime ridden area; there's 'North Philly' & 'South Philly', but 'East Philly' doesn't really exist at all.
And by keeping people on the Turnpike an extra 30 miles alone, when they could've been at their destination in less than 20 via 76 or 95, probably doesn't help traffic flow either as traffic volumes on the PA Turnpike are quite high in this area.
In a case like Philly, I think simply stating Philadelphia is good enough for those travelling from either direction, as the routes from the PA Turnpike run in a convenient angle towards the city.
(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Signs/PARecreationSigns-Exit110_zpsa83fed92.png)93 should be in Highway Gothic.
Speaking of sign changes along the Turnpike, I like the idea of renaming some of them to better reflect the major cities they pass. In the Pittsburgh area, you have Exit 28 which is currently named 'Cranberry,' and Exit 57 which is currently named 'Pittsburgh.' I say name Exit 28 'Pittsburgh North' and Exit 57 'Pittsburgh East.' In the Philadelphia area, you have Exit 326 which is currently named 'Valley Forge,' and you'll soon have Exit 357 when the I-95 interchange is completed. I say name Exit 326 'Philadelphia West' and Exit 357 'Philadelphia East.' Doing this would make both cities accounted for by traffic from both directions.
I get what you're getting at here, although I generally hate dividing cities up like this, especially since a city like Philadelphia doesn't really have West & East per se.At present, eastbounders along the PA Turnpike (I-76) encounter a supplemental sign just over two miles prior to the Valley Forge exit that reads Philadelphia NEXT 5 EXITS (http://goo.gl/maps/0SZyy). Giving 2 interchanges along the Turnpike that contain the exact same name, Philadelphia in this case, with no distinction at all will actually cause more confusion IMHO than it would solve; especially when one reads the toll rate/ticket schedule.
Neighborhood areas are described by their direction...West Philly is basically a crime ridden area; there's 'North Philly' & 'South Philly', but 'East Philly' doesn't really exist at all.
And by keeping people on the Turnpike an extra 30 miles alone, when they could've been at their destination in less than 20 via 76 or 95, probably doesn't help traffic flow either as traffic volumes on the PA Turnpike are quite high in this area.
In a case like Philly, I think simply stating Philadelphia is good enough for those travelling from either direction, as the routes from the PA Turnpike run in a convenient angle towards the city.
How much confusion has it caused over the past 60 or so years?
Being that there's no East Philadelphia, how does one even define East Philadelphia, much less go to East Philadelphia?
93 should be in Highway Gothic.
Last time I checked, there's only been one PA Turnpike interchange called/named Philadelphia: until recently, it was always the US 1 interchange (since renamed Bensalem); and it will be the new I-95/195 interchange. Not sure where you're getting the notion that PTC has more than one interchange simultaneously named Philadelphia.At present, eastbounders along the PA Turnpike (I-76) encounter a supplemental sign just over two miles prior to the Valley Forge exit that reads Philadelphia NEXT 5 EXITS (http://goo.gl/maps/0SZyy). Giving 2 interchanges along the Turnpike that contain the exact same name, Philadelphia in this case, with no distinction at all will actually cause more confusion IMHO than it would solve; especially when one reads the toll rate/ticket schedule.
How much confusion has it caused over the past 60 or so years?
Being that there's no East Philadelphia, how does one even define East Philadelphia, much less go to East Philadelphia?To the best of my knowledge, there's no East Harrisburg nor West Harrisburg either; nonetheless there are Turnpike interchanges named Harrisburg East and Harrisburg West. Granted, the Susquehanna River (& bridge crossing) is a more definitive line of demarcation and the directional suffixes for those two interchanges were likely applied in relation to such.
Even more interesting is the fact that they have a "South Philadelphia West" labeled on the map.That's obviously a mistake. It should read Southwest Philadelphia.
Such case-mixing (in attempt to follow FHWA guidelines) has actually been done, note the 2ND listing next to St. listing on this BGS (http://goo.gl/maps/I4SeH)93 should be in Highway Gothic.
While I am a Clearview opposer, I believe that in situations like this, and others where numerals are used in the main destination legend (such as numbered street names), that the numerals should be allowed to remain in Clearview, just because switching fonts in the middle of the same line of text just seems odd to me.
The decision by the Turnpike Commission Tuesday to hike tolls for the seventh year in a row means the cash toll to drive from the Ohio border to the New Jersey border will be $46.05 for passenger cars, up from the current $43.85.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20140618_Cross-state_cost_on_Pa__Turnpike_in_2015___46_05.html#vHpTMvxhKF1dIIGe.99
Tolls going up.Somebody actually mentioned such in the Comments section of the article as well.
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20140618_Cross-state_cost_on_Pa__Turnpike_in_2015___46_05.htmlQuoteThe decision by the Turnpike Commission Tuesday to hike tolls for the seventh year in a row means the cash toll to drive from the Ohio border to the New Jersey border will be $46.05 for passenger cars, up from the current $43.85.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20140618_Cross-state_cost_on_Pa__Turnpike_in_2015___46_05.html#vHpTMvxhKF1dIIGe.99
(As of the posting of this link, the picture used in the story is of the NJ Turnpike, not the PA Turnpike. :-D)
An engineering study will examine connecting Interstate 476 – also known as the turnpike – and I-81 at two points outside Scranton, one near Avoca and a second near South Abington Twp. It would create a bypass dubbed the Scranton Beltway.
The study is part of a long-range plan to address congestion in the Interstate 81 corridor in Northeast Pennsylvania, according to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission officials who made the announcement with lawmakers in Pittston Twp.
State transportation secretary Barry Schoch said the study, expected to cost about $500,000, will begin this month and take a year to complete. The study will develop traffic models to determine the best use of improved connections between the two highways, assess the environment of both areas and analyze any alternatives.
A map provided by the agencies showed the two new connections could shift about 20,000 to 25,000 vehicles per day from Interstate 81 to the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
About 70,000 vehicles per day travel on I-81 between the Lackawanna-Luzerne County line and the Central Scranton Expressway. In contrast, about 10,000 vehicles travel between the Wyoming Valley and Clarks Summit exits of the turnpike every day, according to Turnpike Commission spokeswoman Mimi Doyle.
Seeking to ease congestion, PennDOT previously announced a $174 million project to add a third lane on a six-mile stretch of I-81 between the Lackawanna-Luzerne counties line and the Central Scranton Expressway. That project could start in five years at the earliest.
I did this in reverse the last time I was on I-81 northbound in the area. Traffic was severely backed up and moving slowly, so I bailed at PA 315 and used 476, since I planned to use US 11 north of Clarks Summit anyway. I don't know what toll I paid for use of 476, since I have an E-ZPass, but to me it was worth it to get out of the slowdown. There was very little traffic on 476 but I did see a PA state trooper running radar in the vicinity where 81 and 476 cross.As I mentioned earlier, the current & previous passenger vehicle (Class 1) tolls (especially at the EZPass rates) aren't too exhorbitant in this area; it's the truck tolls (Class 9 EZPass rate from Exit 115 to Clarks Summit is over $52) that's the issue.
Oddly, the PTC website makes no mention of work between Donegal and Somerset. Is it a full reconstruction? Widening?
Oddly, the PTC website makes no mention of work between Donegal and Somerset. Is it a full reconstruction? Widening?I noticed that too. It is definitely a full reconstruction and widening (per the "Your Tolls At Work" signs). The project is on the "monthly schedule" though.
http://www.paturnpike.com/improve/conschedule.aspx (http://www.paturnpike.com/improve/conschedule.aspx)
IIRC this section had been 5 lanes with the 3 lane part being whatever side was Uphill to the summit. Does it look like it is going to 6 lanes, maybe 7?
I was traveling east on the Turnpike today between Blue Mountain and Carlisle. The current widening project has entered stage 2 for eastbound traffic (i.e. traffic has been moved over to the newly widened road section). I almost did a double take when we started to travel on concrete pavement instead of asphalt. I thought maybe the road would be paved when the center portion was constructed, but the concrete had grooves to channel water, making me think the Turnpike may have done its first project using concrete pavement as the riding surface.
It's definitely a riding surface, since I saw several drain grilles set into the edge of the concrete under the guardrail.
I was pleased to discover that the PTC contractor that laid the concrete actually did a decent job. It was very smooth and even and the noise sounded just right.
I was traveling east on the Turnpike today between Blue Mountain and Carlisle. The current widening project has entered stage 2 for eastbound traffic (i.e. traffic has been moved over to the newly widened road section). I almost did a double take when we started to travel on concrete pavement instead of asphalt. I thought maybe the road would be paved when the center portion was constructed, but the concrete had grooves to channel water, making me think the Turnpike may have done its first project using concrete pavement as the riding surface.
Also, the Turnpike has done a true "crossover" between Donegal and Somerset, where both sides are sharing the old eastbound lanes and the entire westbound side has been dug up down to the dirt (instead of just part of the road at a time).
Apparently work has begun between MM 124 and MM 134 (http://www.patpconstruction.com/mp124to134/map.aspx), east of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel. They've replaced some overpasses already, and they're going to widen this segment from four lanes to six with full 12' shoulders on the insides and outsides. I'm betting the new Allegheny Mountain Tunnel will be six lanes when its built too.
Looks like some curves were straightened out between the tunnel and New Baltimore. 2005 imagery on HistoricAerials shows EB traffic on the new roadway and WB traffic on the old. Velly interestink.
Apparently work has begun between MM 124 and MM 134 (http://www.patpconstruction.com/mp124to134/map.aspx), east of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel. They've replaced some overpasses already, and they're going to widen this segment from four lanes to six with full 12' shoulders on the insides and outsides. I'm betting the new Allegheny Mountain Tunnel will be six lanes when its built too.
If the tunnel replacement is to be 6 lanes, I would almost expect them to go with a non-tunnel cut. Has the stretch between Summerset and the tunnel been rebuilt already? There have been so many disjointed projects I have lost track.
Looks like some curves were straightened out between the tunnel and New Baltimore. 2005 imagery on HistoricAerials shows EB traffic on the new roadway and WB traffic on the old. Velly interestink.
They were. Several westbound curves where that carriageway split off and took a less-direct route were eliminated. The carriageways now remain together.
Apparently work has begun between MM 124 and MM 134 (http://www.patpconstruction.com/mp124to134/map.aspx), east of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel. They've replaced some overpasses already, and they're going to widen this segment from four lanes to six with full 12' shoulders on the insides and outsides. I'm betting the new Allegheny Mountain Tunnel will be six lanes when its built too.
If the tunnel replacement is to be 6 lanes, I would almost expect them to go with a non-tunnel cut. Has the stretch between Summerset and the tunnel been rebuilt already? There have been so many disjointed projects I have lost track.
Yeah... Time is mostly a blur, but I think the section from about the Somerset interchange to the tunnels has been done for possibly a decade now... before they made widening to 6-lanes a default part of the complete reconstructions.
If I were a betting man, I would also bet that the PTC ends up selecting a non-tunnel alternative. There are groups that seem to be against it, but I think it's what the PTC really wants to do.
As to MM 124 and MM 134, in early June they had cleared most of the trees on the hillside where they're apparently doing "New Baltimore Slope Remediation". I'm wondering if they're gonna cut into it to smooth out the curve there.
If the Allegheny Mountain tunnels are bypassed, will we be allowed to walk/bike through them?
Funny, this is now 2 projects that had no forewarning via the PTC design/construction website. I wonder what other surprises may be in store? With this 124-134 project and a 2017 officially listed project for MM 149-155, can the gap between and by extension, the US 220/I 99 interchange be very far behind?
Funny, this is now 2 projects that had no forewarning via the PTC design/construction website. I wonder what other surprises may be in store?In scrolling through recent DVRPC (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission) documents, I saw reference to some more PTC projects that were new to me.
Or take the forever-to-get-built 95/PA Turnpike connection - a regional planning commission should be busting balls to get the state and agency to move faster on that. Instead, the PA Turnpike spends millions on projects with questionable benefits while pushing back projects like this interchange which will improve traffic flow, especially in that area.
There's no real "regional" planning going on, which results in things like the Blue Route (I-476) becoming a parking lot because points north and south of the highway (like I-95) weren't considered for expansion to deal with the extra traffic. And with the Blue Route brought a new way for people to get to the Jersey Shore - via the single lane per direction US 322 in NJ to Rt. 55, not to mention the additional suburban sprawl that would come with the ability to access jobs from a new location A real regional planning commission would've been saying - OK, we know 476 needs to be built, but we're going to have to work with NJDOT regarding upgrading 322. Instead, the regional planning commission acts as if PA & NJ are on different planets, with no interconnectivity whatsoever.One has to wonder if an earlier but never executed plan to have I-476 and US 322 cross & interchange w/I-95 at the same location was ever considered when the Blue Route & Commodore Barry Bridge was only sketches circa the 1960s. Such an alignement would've eliminated those particular bottlenecks along I-95. Although I have to wonder whether PennDOT was either on crack or PCP when they designed the through-I-95 ramps at I-476 to be only 4 lanes total rather than 6 circa the early 70s.
Or take the forever-to-get-built 95/PA Turnpike connection - a regional planning commission should be busting balls to get the state and agency to move faster on that. Instead, the PA Turnpike spends millions on projects with questionable benefits while pushing back projects like this interchange which will improve traffic flow, especially in that area.I hear you on that one; but see CP's reply as towards why such can't legally happen.
On a similar note, the Turnpike Commission is currently doing preliminary design work for the segment between MM 57 and MM 67, and the western end of that segment is about half a mile east of the I-376 interchange, which leads me to believe that they might have a reconfigured interchange planned when they start doing design work for the segment between MM 49 and MM 57.
My guess is that it would be more like Laurel Hill, which has always officially been off-limits–and I get the impression that the PTC and the PSP have been less lenient about trespassing there.
In scrolling through recent DVRPC (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission) documents, I saw reference to some more PTC projects that were new to me.
http://www.dvrpc.org/reports/14049A.pdf (http://www.dvrpc.org/reports/14049A.pdf) (page 28 of document)
In the I-276 section between Fort Washington and Willow Grove, there is discussion on how to make the Virginia Drive slip ramp a complete full movement interchange. Also under study is if Welsh Road (PA-63) could have slip ramps built into a new bridge project over the turnpike.
Both projects would be about 2 miles from my house, making a potential 4 turnpike interchanges within 5 miles of my house! (Makes my personal commute considerably easier if I don't mind paying the tolls) The downside I didn't see studied is how the mainline will handle additional traffic. The westbound section backs up more mornings than not..
Myself, I think that that there are far to few access points on the Turnpike in the Philadelphia area. I realize that this is because the road was originally designed as a long-distance facility, not a commuter facility. But users are currently crammed into a ridiculously few number of access points. Constructability and cost issues aside, from an operational standpoint there should be twice the current number.A couple things to consider:
With the Turnpike's move to AET happening in a few years, constructability and cost will become a lot more flexible and manageable; I think we'll see various combinations of slip ramps in a variety of locations proposed–some of which will actually get built.
En route to/from Carlisle this past Saturday, I noticed some recently-erected curve warning & speed advisory signs along the way. The ones located east of Lebannon-Lancaster (Exit 266/PA 72) had 60 MPH advisory panels but the ones west of there had 65 MPH panels.
One has to wonder if the latter 65 MPH advisories could give hint to the speed limit(s) on those particular stretches of the Turnpike increasing to 70 mph down the road.
With the Turnpike's move to AET happening in a few years, constructability and cost will become a lot more flexible and manageable; I think we'll see various combinations of slip ramps in a variety of locations proposed–some of which will actually get built.Why just slip ramps? Full interchanges are more useful. With a slip ramp, once you get off, you have to drive miles out of your way to get back on.
I was traveling east on the Turnpike today between Blue Mountain and Carlisle. The current widening project has entered stage 2 for eastbound traffic (i.e. traffic has been moved over to the newly widened road section). I almost did a double take when we started to travel on concrete pavement instead of asphalt. I thought maybe the road would be paved when the center portion was constructed, but the concrete had grooves to channel water, making me think the Turnpike may have done its first project using concrete pavement as the riding surface.
Also, the Turnpike has done a true "crossover" between Donegal and Somerset, where both sides are sharing the old eastbound lanes and the entire westbound side has been dug up down to the dirt (instead of just part of the road at a time).
Is this part of the MP 206-210 project or the 220-226 project?
With the Turnpike's move to AET happening in a few years, constructability and cost will become a lot more flexible and manageable; I think we'll see various combinations of slip ramps in a variety of locations proposed–some of which will actually get built.Why just slip ramps? Full interchanges are more useful. With a slip ramp, once you get off, you have to drive miles out of your way to get back on.
With all that being said, however, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is looking to build additional full interchanges in this area. A good source of info and maps for proposed access points within Montgomery County can be found here (http://www.montcopa.org/index.aspx?NID=1553) and here (http://www.montcopa.org/index.aspx?NID=1758).Interesting stuff.
Personally, the current and altered Valley Forge interchange is the one I have issue with the most because it still has through I-76 westbound traffic funneling down into a single-lane cloverleaf ramp. IMHO, this interchange (without the added connections) should be either reconfigured to either a mirrored trumpet (cloverleaf ramp would be for the I-276 West to I-76 East movements) interchange or a full-blown directional interchange w/fly-over ramps.
So the 100 mile stretch of highway will go 97 miles. Interesting. And how many construction zones are in this area, wiping out the higher limit?
Construction is to start late next month or in early October on the long-awaited direct connection between Interstate 95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, after the award of a $142.9 million contract to a Bucks County firm.
PKF-Mark III Inc., of Newtown, won the contract from the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to build the first section of the $420 million Stage 1 of the new interchange that will finally provide an unbroken I-95 between Maine and Florida.
For decades, I-95 has been incomplete in New Jersey near Trenton.
The $142.9 million will pay for widening and reconstructing about four miles of the turnpike in Bristol Township, where the connection with I-95 will be built. It will also pay for building three new turnpike bridges and installing the piers for the flyover ramps for the connection.
IT'S ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME !! I've been reading for the last 10 years that this interchange was going to happen, and every time I drive thru that area, I note with disgust that ground has not yet been broken.
The NJ Turnpike has interchanges with toll-free interstates, as does the New York Thruway. Apparently funded by those toll authorities in those states. Only the friggin' Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission wouldn't spend the money to build it back in the 1970's.
It should never have taken this many years!
I wonder what would happen to Breezewood's economy if they ever actually filled the gap. The whole town seems built around people stopping off and using their gas stations and eating at their restaurants.
I've never stopped there but does anyone ever actually stop in Breezewood?
I wonder what would happen to Breezewood's economy if they ever actually filled the gap. The whole town seems built around people stopping off and using their gas stations and eating at their restaurants.
I've never stopped there but does anyone ever actually stop in Breezewood?
I avoid it like the plague. Never used that exit and will once and only once to say I did it.
I wonder what would happen to Breezewood's economy if they ever actually filled the gap. The whole town seems built around people stopping off and using their gas stations and eating at their restaurants.
I've never stopped there but does anyone ever actually stop in Breezewood?
I wonder what would happen to Breezewood's economy if they ever actually filled the gap. The whole town seems built around people stopping off and using their gas stations and eating at their restaurants.
I've never stopped there but does anyone ever actually stop in Breezewood?
I wonder what would happen to Breezewood's economy if they ever actually filled the gap. The whole town seems built around people stopping off and using their gas stations and eating at their restaurants.
I've never stopped there but does anyone ever actually stop in Breezewood?
"The whole town seems built around people stopping off and using their gas stations and eating at their restaurants. "
And then you ask if anyone actually stops there? Your own statement says that a LOT of people stop there. Otherwise, all those gas stations and restaurants wouldn't be there!
I wonder what would happen to Breezewood's economy if they ever actually filled the gap. The whole town seems built around people stopping off and using their gas stations and eating at their restaurants.
I've never stopped there but does anyone ever actually stop in Breezewood?
I wonder what would happen to Breezewood's economy if they ever actually filled the gap. The whole town seems built around people stopping off and using their gas stations and eating at their restaurants.
I've never stopped there but does anyone ever actually stop in Breezewood?
"The whole town seems built around people stopping off and using their gas stations and eating at their restaurants. "
And then you ask if anyone actually stops there? Your own statement says that a LOT of people stop there. Otherwise, all those gas stations and restaurants wouldn't be there!
Out of the millions of cars who are forced into it, you can build an economy around the relatively few who actually stop. I've just never met or heard of one of those people.
I bet 99% of cars that go through there don't stop, I wonder who in the hell that 1% is. :P
I wonder what would happen to Breezewood's economy if they ever actually filled the gap. The whole town seems built around people stopping off and using their gas stations and eating at their restaurants.
I've never stopped there but does anyone ever actually stop in Breezewood?
"The whole town seems built around people stopping off and using their gas stations and eating at their restaurants. "
And then you ask if anyone actually stops there? Your own statement says that a LOT of people stop there. Otherwise, all those gas stations and restaurants wouldn't be there!
Out of the millions of cars who are forced into it, you can build an economy around the relatively few who actually stop. I've just never met or heard of one of those people.
I bet 99% of cars that go through there don't stop, I wonder who in the hell that 1% is. :P
I wonder what would happen to Breezewood's economy if they ever actually filled the gap. The whole town seems built around people stopping off and using their gas stations and eating at their restaurants.
I've never stopped there but does anyone ever actually stop in Breezewood?
....
As to the first question, I don't think it would hurt "Breezewood's economy" (note: Breezewood isn't really an incorporated municipality of any kind, just a PA "Village") anywhere near as much as those businesses probably fear if they just added a simple 2 ramps so traffic could avoid it.
....
I wonder what would happen to Breezewood's economy if they ever actually filled the gap. The whole town seems built around people stopping off and using their gas stations and eating at their restaurants.
I've never stopped there but does anyone ever actually stop in Breezewood?
I-84 was the oddball that one wonders about. NY 23 isn't really a freeway, I belive NY 85 was intended to connect with unbuilt I-87 (and it may not be considered a freeway at at the overpass, though I consider it a super-2 through Slingerlands), and US 209 is caught up in the I-587 mess.IT'S ABOUT FRIGGIN' TIME !! I've been reading for the last 10 years that this interchange was going to happen, and every time I drive thru that area, I note with disgust that ground has not yet been broken.
The NJ Turnpike has interchanges with toll-free interstates, as does the New York Thruway. Apparently funded by those toll authorities in those states. Only the friggin' Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission wouldn't spend the money to build it back in the 1970's.
It should never have taken this many years!
They still have plenty more. Breezewood, I-78, I-80, I-81, US 219, US 222, the Bud Shuster Porkway... Knowing them, they'll never complete I-70.
It's not like New York doesn't have its share of non-interchanges. Look at how long it took them to connect the Thruway to I-84 and, for much of the time, both were run by NYSTA. It still fails to connect to NY 23, NY 85, and US 209, all of which are at least semi-limited-access.
I've only been through there once, when clinching I-70, and I had thought I had made a wrong turn coming off the Turnpike before realizing this was the legendary Breezewood. I continued on the signed I-70 without stopping.You would go that way to check out the abandoned Turnpike.
I don't have much intention of going that way again. it's a pretty strange 90 degree jog on I-70 that I don't foresee factoring into any high-speed plan I have; so if I were in the area again, I'd figure there are plenty of non-freeways to explore.
You would go that way to check out the abandoned Turnpike.
You would go that way to check out the abandoned Turnpike.
Of the four times I've been through Breezewood, three was for visiting the abandoned section between the Ray's Hill and Sidling Hill tunnels.
One of the things I learned by looking at hard data when I worked for PennDOT District 6-0 was that when an extremely congested area is bypassed, local businesses usually end up better off. When local and through traffic is combined in a congested area, potential customers stay away because it's so hard to get into and out of the area. When through traffic is separated from the local traffic, customers who would've stayed away now patronize the local businesses because it's easier to do. This is more likely the more congested an area is.
You would go that way to check out the abandoned Turnpike.
Of the four times I've been through Breezewood, three was for visiting the abandoned section between the Ray's Hill and Sidling Hill tunnels.
One of the things I learned by looking at hard data when I worked for PennDOT District 6-0 was that when an extremely congested area is bypassed, local businesses usually end up better off. When local and through traffic is combined in a congested area, potential customers stay away because it's so hard to get into and out of the area. When through traffic is separated from the local traffic, customers who would've stayed away now patronize the local businesses because it's easier to do. This is more likely the more congested an area is.
So Breezewood might actually BENEFIT from a bypass?
The four times I've been through Breezewood...
1989: Refueled at Sunoco on the way to Pittsburgh via the Turnpike and Parkway East
1995: Passed through on the way home from State College (it was in the fall on a PSU football bye week). I'd detoured through Altoona to get my first look at the Horseshoe Curve and 3 or 4 trains rounding it, which is one reason I went through Breezewood
1999: Passed through on the way to NE OH and the PFHOF and the R&RHOF
July 20, 2014: Planned to cruise up and down the Breezewood stretch before heading out 30 to Bedford, then up the Barbara Feldon, er, Bud Shuster Highway to Altoona for three days of railfanning. Unfortunately as I came down the hill on 70 (this was about 3:45 pm) I concluded from the backup that this was a bad idea, so I dove for the left lane and headed west on 30.
ixnay
It's worth noting that the Thruway was constructed late enough that most interchanges with interstates connected with them from the get-go.
The four times I've been through Breezewood...
1989: Refueled at Sunoco on the way to Pittsburgh via the Turnpike and Parkway East
1995: Passed through on the way home from State College (it was in the fall on a PSU football bye week). I'd detoured through Altoona to get my first look at the Horseshoe Curve and 3 or 4 trains rounding it, which is one reason I went through Breezewood
1999: Passed through on the way to NE OH and the PFHOF and the R&RHOF
July 20, 2014: Planned to cruise up and down the Breezewood stretch before heading out 30 to Bedford, then up the Barbara Feldon, er, Bud Shuster Highway to Altoona for three days of railfanning. Unfortunately as I came down the hill on 70 (this was about 3:45 pm) I concluded from the backup that this was a bad idea, so I dove for the left lane and headed west on 30.
ixnay
If you are headed to Altoona/Bedford/State College, or anywhere along I-99, its always best to take US 30 west from there anyway...
Am I over-relying on Historic Aerials? Unfortunately I have never managed to find maps (aside from topo maps that don't differentiate between "under construction", "proposed", "was there decades ago", and "what's actually there") from this era so I have to infer based on what's in between the 1951 and 1969 images. Even if the interstates weren't there yet, with the exceptions of I-390, I-81, I-84, I-481, and I-88, the interchanges were ready and waiting.
Given the Thruway's later construction than the PA Turnpike, I wouldn't be surprised if the interchanges near the interstates were specifically designed to eventually connect.
Given the Thruway's later construction than the PA Turnpike, I wouldn't be surprised if the interchanges near the interstates were specifically designed to eventually connect.
Not sure that Newburgh was ever designed to connect, given the massive job that was undertaken there to remove the long-standing breezewood between I-87 and I-84.
And the NYSTA did a good job in getting rid of that breezewood.
^^^Exit 15-AAAAACCCCKKKK! It makes my eyes bleed!
We should just be glad that NY and PA aren't like the Mass Pike with its freeway interchanges. Exit 4 (https://goo.gl/maps/4sXVP) is a pretty dangerous quadruple trumpet, Exit 10 (https://goo.gl/maps/sxI3J) is...odd, and Exit 15 (https://goo.gl/maps/rRTZQ) is just messed up. I won't even talk about Exit 5 (https://goo.gl/maps/f60WA), as no freeways are involved. I'd take Breezewood, I-99, or the old I-84 connection over any of these, even though all but Exit 5 provide direct connections to the adjacent freeway.
Breezewood has a Sheetz. It's the only one of which I am aware that's in close proximity to the turnpike besides Bedford. If I'm hungry and driving the turnpike and I know of a Sheetz, I'll definitely get off and patronize it instead of the fast food at one of the service plazas.
With ~137 miles of difference, I don't know that having a Sheetz at the Morgantown interchange would at all affect most people's decisions as to whether to stop at Breezewood or not.
With ~137 miles of difference, I don't know that having a Sheetz at the Morgantown interchange would at all affect most people's decisions as to whether to stop at Breezewood or not.
No. Not at all. When Sheetz calls, you answer. You don't wait 2 hours until you get to another one.
When did they paint the tunnels from the blue/gray to just gray? also, same thing for the overpasses
When did they paint the tunnels from the blue/gray to just gray? also, same thing for the overpasses
It seems different sections get different colors when they paint stuff. I noticed some purple between Cranberry & Ohio. Some of the newer monotube sign supports are blue (Irwin/New Stanton), green (Allegheny Valley), etc...
That bridge also I think may be the last replaced before going to faux-field stone look on bridge structures.
That bridge also I think may be the last replaced before going to faux-field stone look on bridge structures.
For what it is worth, most of the Delaware Vally monotubes (and bridges) have been painted brown; however I have seen some blue and red monotube around (there seems to be a sign replacement project underway, with some new... interesting signs), but I have not had a chance to see if they were installed in that color.
The NE Extension southbound has some new signs that merge diagrammatic arrows, the Mid-County exit name; exit tabs, and of course, Clearview. Will try to grab a shot at some point.
Was the PTC smart enough to place those expensive signs on wide enough gantries to accommodate the future widening of the mainline?
It'd be great to see the PA Turnpike (mainline) widened, especially since most of it is pretty underwhelming in terms of design - but I don't think there are any plans to do so (correct me if I'm wrong).
Some of the Central portions of the Turnpike have been reconstructed as 4-lane, so not necessarily all of the reconstructed segments will be 6-lane. But in the Pittsburgh area, there is a need from a traffic volume standpoint.
I thought they were planning on six-laning the whole thing anyway, even where it would be overkill.
The 70 multiplex, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh areas need it though. Even in the Philly area, it could easily stand an eight-laning from Valley Forge over all the way to the NJTP, but I don't think that's planned at all. (The current river bridge is wide enough, but I don't know if the twin will be or if it will be narrower.)
Have not read the line item yet to see if it includes any 376 exit improvements.
Just stopped by the PC Major Projects Design and Construction page and note a few new SW PA projects listed as now in design: This is what I am seeing there:
MP 28-31 Reconstruction, which IIRC includes the 19/79 interchange
MP 49-53 Reconstruction
MP 53-57 Reconstruction
This is consistent with what I have read in the past that 376 to the new Allegheny River Bridge would be 2 contracts. Have not read the line item yet to see if it includes any 376 exit improvements.
A new project has been added:
The design phase of the Freedom Road bridge in Cranberry. I've been waiting for this one to be dealt with since the late 1970's.
A new project has been added:
The design phase of the Freedom Road bridge in Cranberry. I've been waiting for this one to be dealt with since the late 1970's.
And it's likely a precursor to six-laning the Turnpike between I-79 and the Beaver River. Sometime early next decade, the Turnpike will be six lanes all the way from Ohio to New Stanton.
A new project has been added:
The design phase of the Freedom Road bridge in Cranberry. I've been waiting for this one to be dealt with since the late 1970's.
And it's likely a precursor to six-laning the Turnpike between I-79 and the Beaver River. Sometime early next decade, the Turnpike will be six lanes all the way from Ohio to New Stanton.
Hopefully Freedom Road will be at least 4 lanes (2 each way) over the Turnpike with the new bridge. It's needed badly. I've seen traffic get backed up pretty bad coming into Cranberry over the Turnpike because it gets jammed up by traffic trying to turn left onto Executive Drive.
There is no other project listed between mms 14 and 28 yet.
There is no other project listed between mms 14 and 28 yet.
Directly from the project's home page:
"The new structure will also be lengthened to accommodate the Turnpikes template for the future reconstruction of the Turnpike which includes an additional travel lane in each direction."
There is no other project listed between mms 14 and 28 yet.
Directly from the project's home page:
"The new structure will also be lengthened to accommodate the Turnpikes template for the future reconstruction of the Turnpike which includes an additional travel lane in each direction."
But note the 'template' part of that statement. I doubt it's something that'll be done in the short term. There are numerous bridge reconstructions for widenings that ultimately never take place.
The new lanes of the widen section of the Northeast Extension are scheduled to be opened today.That's good news. I'll be using that stretch tomorrow evening.
There's a sign on I-276 WB just past the Delaware River Bridge that says "I-276 WEST Harrisburg" with 2 down arrows. Is the space here for a future I-95 shield or just a wide spot? Doesn't look big enough to fit a shield in there though.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3936/15381421197_c16dc50fb3_z.jpg)
here it is with the other sign:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5609/14946686984_ef2cc0860b_z.jpg)
No: 95 would go on the top line, not below it. The extra space would be reserved for a destination name "Philadelphia", "Pittsburgh", etc. or, most likely, it's just a fuck up.A f-up....yep that's what I figured. Kinda surprised not much I-276 signage in that area anyway.
No: 95 would go on the top line, not below it.
When the I-95/Turnpike connexion has been completed, these signs will then be above the I-95. So the I-276 sign would have to be replaced by an I-95 sign; also, the exit number on the other sign would have to be replaced accordingly.
These signs look a lot newer than the structure on which they are mounted.
I was on that part of the New Jersey Turnpike yesterday (between Exit 4 in Mount Laurel and East Spur Exit 16E in Secaucus). No doubt in my mind that said sign will soon read
PENN TURNPIKE
PHILADELPHIA
Also, I noticed this while in Philadelphia from mid-day Friday until early Saturday afternoon:
(http://i.imgur.com/6Fjf8Gk.jpg)
At of-noon on a Saturday. Is I-76/Schuylkill Expressway always backed up onto I-676/US Route 30 West like this?
the Schuylkill is usually backed-up approaching the Vine from the west, and the Vine is usually backed-up approaching the Schuylkill. it's only during particularly light traffic times that everything moves freely. during rush hour, the Vine will be backed up end-to-end and then some - with the Schuylkill backed up starting at Girard or Spring Garden, and I-95 starting at Allegheny or NJ 90.Also, I noticed this while in Philadelphia from mid-day Friday until early Saturday afternoon:
[...]
At of-noon on a Saturday. Is I-76/Schuylkill Expressway always backed up onto I-676/US Route 30 West like this?
It's almost always going to be like that on the weekends. The Schuykill Expressway is simply busy in the weekends in both directions.
Those BGS', except for the Exit tab are from the late 1980s or very early 1990s. The space on the I-276 West pull-through BGS may have indeed been intended for a more immediate (closer) destination (Philadelphia perhaps) to be added when the I-95 interchange would eventually have been completed. The 276 WEST heading would've been replaced with either 95 SOUTH or 95 TO 276 with maybe a SOUTH heading in smaller letters added.There's a sign on I-276 WB just past the Delaware River Bridge that says "I-276 WEST Harrisburg" with 2 down arrows. Is the space here for a future I-95 shield or just a wide spot? Doesn't look big enough to fit a shield in there though.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5609/14946686984_ef2cc0860b_z.jpg)
I think those signs are old (with a new exit tab on one), so I'm not sure it even matters because I bet that they'll replace the sign on the left at the very least. The condensed "276" font inside the Interstate shield looks like the condensed "376," "279" and "579" font I saw on signs in Pittsburgh that were fabricated in the mid-1980s. Since the 1990s, the font inside three-digit Interstate shields in Pennsylvania has either been the normal font, or an even more condensed font. The two signs in your picture (save the exit tab) could be examples of some of the first fully reflectorized, non-button-copy signs in Pennsylvania.
Update: the widened section that opened runs for about 5 miles north of the I-276 & Mid-County interchange. Work is still being done on the widening between MM 25-26 and the Lansdale interchange.The new lanes of the widen section of the Northeast Extension are scheduled to be opened today.That's good news. I'll be using that stretch tomorrow evening.
Is "Exit 20" technically a left exit worthy of a yellow Left tab? It is actually the "thru" movement of that interchange, with access to the East-West mainline the right-hand movements.Such didn't stop MassDOT from installing an LEFT EXIT 1B tab over its I-95 North/US 1 South BGS at the I-95/93 interchange in Canton roughly a year ago.
Also, the right-justification made sense to me, as those all align with the "Exit 20" information. For the amount of information on that sign (three exits, the Mid-County exit number and name, exit only reference and control cities; distance to exit) it is a very readable sign.Until this past Saturday night, I have never seen left/right justification of destination listings on a diagrammatic BGS. If one actually saw the BGS (either in person of viewing a photo); one would clearly see how silly it was for PTC to do such.
Edit: I guess my point is, the sign itself is centered on the I-476 through-movement diagram, so the right justification on its right for I-476 control, and left justification for the I-276 control/exits makes sense in the overall placement...
Note: The separate panel BGS erected closer to the interchange (& erected earlier) (https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Plymouth+Meeting,+PA&aq=0&oq=plymouth+meeting,+PA&sll=40.002498,-75.118033&sspn=0.376076,0.602188&vpsrc=6&t=h&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Plymouth+Meeting,+Montgomery+County,+Pennsylvania&ll=40.119319,-75.280101&spn=0.000033,0.018818&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.119401,-75.280165&panoid=MmYQZgLLtSffuUQolZ4Odw&cbp=12,148.91,,0,16.62) does not do such.
I love how each one of those signs has a different typeface for the numbers inside the shield... from left to right: C, B, D. Even the C bleeds into the border of the shield - I still think it should be 15" numerals and not these gargantuan 18" numerals that barely have any breathing room inside the shield.I spoke about this earlier. The I-276 shield with the squashed Series D numerals has since been replaced with one having Series B numerals; at least, it's consistent with the other I-276 shields on newer BGS'... the supplemental BGS featuring elongated Series D 276 numerals located further north being the exception.
Such didn't stop MassDOT from installing an LEFT EXIT 1B tab over its I-95 North/US 1 South BGS at the I-95/93 interchange in Canton roughly a year ago.
Until this past Saturday night, I have never seen left/right justification of destination listings on a diagrammatic BGS. If one actually saw the BGS (either in person of viewing a photo); one would clearly see how silly it was for PTC to do such.
Note: The separate panel BGS erected closer to the interchange (& erected earlier) (https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Plymouth+Meeting,+PA&aq=0&oq=plymouth+meeting,+PA&sll=40.002498,-75.118033&sspn=0.376076,0.602188&vpsrc=6&t=h&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Plymouth+Meeting,+Montgomery+County,+Pennsylvania&ll=40.119319,-75.280101&spn=0.000033,0.018818&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.119401,-75.280165&panoid=MmYQZgLLtSffuUQolZ4Odw&cbp=12,148.91,,0,16.62) does not do such.
I have seen it, in fact I think I commented on them after they first appeared, but have not had the chance to get a picture. (this is my neck of the woods, I live less than 5 miles away from said overheads). In the interest of discussion, I submit the following crude ASCII version:How long ago did you see them? I know they weren't there 2 months ago.
See above for minor legend fix. I also believe that the Philadelphia/Chester listings are closer to the SOUTH 476 legend thereby leaving a lot of green space below.
[EXIT 20]
[MID-COUNTY]
+---------------------------------------+
| SOUTH 476 /|\ |
| | / 276 East |
| Philadelphia |/ New Jersey |
| Chester |_________________ |
| | |
| | / 276 West |
| |/ Harrisburg |
| | |
| 1 Mile |
+---------------------------------------+
(Proper Interstate shields where route number indicated)
I don't see the relationship with the three panel signs further downstream, they are three discrete signs, centered to their own internal center line.Per MUTCD, the final BGS' at an interchange that have preceeding diagrammatic approach BGS' are separate panels. The issue here is consistency. Had those 3 BGS panels been erected at the same time as the approach BGS'; the justification oddity would've been noticed right away.
I agree I have not seen this treatment on other BGS diagrammatic (or at least ones I can readily think of). Can you imagine what the APL would have looked like?I'm not sure if this ramp configuration even meets the criteria for APLs; I don't think it does.
How long ago did you see them? I know they weren't there 2 months ago.
See above for minor legend fix. I also believe that the Philadelphia/Chester listings are closer to the SOUTH 476 legend thereby leaving a lot of green space below.
[EXIT 20]
[MID-COUNTY]
+---------------------------------------+
| SOUTH 476 /|\ |
| | / 276 East |
| Philadelphia |/ New Jersey |
| Chester |_________________ |
| | |
| | / 276 West |
| |/ Harrisburg |
| | |
| 1 Mile |
+---------------------------------------+
(Proper Interstate shields where route number indicated)
I don't see the relationship with the three panel signs further downstream, they are three discrete signs, centered to their own internal center line.Per MUTCD, the final BGS' at an interchange that have preceeding diagrammatic approach BGS' are separate panels. The issue here is consistency. Had those 3 BGS panels been erected at the same time as the approach BGS'; the justification oddity would've been noticed right away.
I agree I have not seen this treatment on other BGS diagrammatic (or at least ones I can readily think of). Can you imagine what the APL would have looked like?I'm not sure if this ramp configuration even meets the criteria for APLs; I don't think it does.
I would have a bigger issue, however, if the legends suddenly changed to Plymouth Meeting, Horsham, and Norristown, after at least 3 BGS diagrams that make no mention of those locations.When the first BGS for I-276 West was erected, a few non-roadgeek friends of mine asked why Norristown wasn't included on the sign like its button-copy predecessor was. Some actually thought that they couldn't get to Germantown Pike (Norristown interchange) anymore via I-276 West. While I may have successfully convinced them that nothing really changed except for the sign listings, they would've been totally lost if I explained to them why only one destination is listed for one direction rather than two.
I might be the only one, but I like the arrow-per-lane signs because they can be easily read at highway speed without taking attention away from the road.In general, APLs are only used when there's one lane that allows for more than one direction (aka a shared lane) and there are only two direction choices(?). This interchange has two off-ramps off I-476 in short proximity and does not have a shared lane; therefore APL signage would not be appropriate in this case. OTOH, using diagrammatic signage makes perfect sense here.
I would have a bigger issue, however, if the legends suddenly changed to Plymouth Meeting, Horsham, and Norristown, after at least 3 BGS diagrams that make no mention of those locations.When the first BGS for I-276 West was erected, a few non-roadgeek friends of mine asked why Norristown wasn't included on the sign like its button-copy predecessor was. Some actually thought that they couldn't get to Germantown Pike (Norristown interchange) anymore via I-276 West. While I may have successfully convinced them that nothing really changed except for the sign listings, they would've been totally lost if I explained to them why only one destination is listed for one direction rather than two.
While there is a supplemental BGS for the I-276 East & West movements; it only lists the exit number ranges (333 -2 for I-276 West); there's no town listings. IMHO, a supplemental BGS reading Germantown Pike use EXIT 333 off I-276 WEST would be justified. Not everybody knows which exit number corresponds to what road or town.
One surprise, and I mentioned such earlier when the three BGS' at the interchange was first erected, is that PTC is still using New Jersey for the I-276 East destination despite MUTCD now either discouraging or prohibiting such. IMHO, this is one case where using a state name for a destination is appropriate. Some BGS' have used either Philadelphia at PA 611 (which would not be correct IMHO) or N.J. Tunpike - New York (along I-476 North) as listed I-276 East destinations.I might be the only one, but I like the arrow-per-lane signs because they can be easily read at highway speed without taking attention away from the road.In general, APLs are only used when there's one lane that allows for more than one direction (aka a shared lane) and there are only two direction choices(?). This interchange has two off-ramps off I-476 in short proximity and does not have a shared lane; therefore APL signage would not be appropriate in this case. OTOH, using diagrammatic signage makes perfect sense here.
Standard:
On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign
designs as provided in Sections 2E.21 and 2E.22 shall be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges
(see Section 2E.32) that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route (see Figures 2E-4,
2E-5, 2E-8, and 2E-9) and for all splits that include an option lane (see Figures 2E-6 and 2E-10). Overhead
Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs shall not be used on freeways and expressways for any other
types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits and splits that do not have an option lane.
Diagrammatics are inappropriate in this situation, as well. Both types of signs are explicitly forbiddenWouldn't be the first time for PTC to either deviate or use a superseded MUTCD standard; IIRC, diagrammatics for splits without an optional exit lane used to be allowed.
When the first BGS for I-276 West was erected, a few non-roadgeek friends of mine asked why Norristown wasn't included on the sign like its button-copy predecessor was.
I might be the only one, but I like the arrow-per-lane signs because they can be easily read at highway speed without taking attention away from the road.In general, APLs are only used when there's one lane that allows for more than one direction (aka a shared lane) and there are only two direction choices(?). This interchange has two off-ramps off I-476 in short proximity and does not have a shared lane; therefore APL signage would not be appropriate in this case. OTOH, using diagrammatic signage makes perfect sense here.
QuoteI might be the only one, but I like the arrow-per-lane signs because they can be easily read at highway speed without taking attention away from the road.In general, APLs are only used when there's one lane that allows for more than one direction (aka a shared lane) and there are only two direction choices(?). This interchange has two off-ramps off I-476 in short proximity and does not have a shared lane; therefore APL signage would not be appropriate in this case. OTOH, using diagrammatic signage makes perfect sense here.
I thought the exit to 276 East was an option lane, but might be remembering that wrong.
I might be the only one, but I like the arrow-per-lane signs because they can be easily read at highway speed without taking attention away from the road. There are a few diagrammatics in/near Buffalo that are pretty difficult to read and two are the only lane assignment sign before the gore point. That's what the MUTCD is getting at- might show everything, but not as clear as the alternative.I prefer arrow-per-lane to diagrammatics, but not to to old standard of having down arrows on the regular exit sign.
The old Norristown signs (and interchange) got me into trouble when I first moved out this way, and gave directions to friends and family. They followed the routing to the mainline Turnpike exit for Norristown, instead of I-476 Exit 19, as intended. That is likely why Norristown is no longer mentioned southbound -- the exit is actually Plymouth Meeting, which was a much smaller town when the original Turnpike was constructed. There is talk of a slip-ramp/EZ Pass only exit within city of Norristown that would probably lead to the existing exit being renamed.I'm a bit confused. Where were your friends & family coming from? If they were coming from the north and stayed on I-476 Southbound, the next exit after the toll gantry is Exit 18 (for Ridge Pike that's marked as Norristown*) *for a very brief period it also had Conshohocken listed underneath but was greened out.
I am sure you mean exit 18B for Norristown, from I-476 North.You're right, I did. I've since corrected my earlier post; it was a long day.
Interestingly, on the off ramp of 18-B is a sign to Norristown, indicating 3 miles; within a distance of less than a half-mile, the next intersection has a Norristown 1 sign.That's not the first time I've seen an inconsistency with listed distances.
I prefer arrow-per-lane to diagrammaticsWhile this is getting OT; my beef with the new APLs are the grossly-oversized arrows... particularly the upright ones (for straight-through movements). Such make for unnecessarily large sign boards. One state, mentioned in another thread, actually used smaller (but not too small) arrows for their APLs; and the BGS' looked 10 times better than any MUTCD-spec'd APLs IMHO.
I agree about the arrows being over-sized, but I never really liked diagrammatics either. Also, none of the NYSDOT arrow-per-lane installs I've seen (all in Region 4) have separate panels at the final sign before the split. It's just arrow-per-lane all the way.
Note: The separate panel BGS erected closer to the interchange (& erected earlier) (https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Plymouth+Meeting,+PA&aq=0&oq=plymouth+meeting,+PA&sll=40.002498,-75.118033&sspn=0.376076,0.602188&vpsrc=6&t=h&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Plymouth+Meeting,+Montgomery+County,+Pennsylvania&ll=40.119319,-75.280101&spn=0.000033,0.018818&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.119401,-75.280165&panoid=MmYQZgLLtSffuUQolZ4Odw&cbp=12,148.91,,0,16.62) does not do such.
I need to amend my comments about never seeing right-justify on standalone BGS - the new Clearview signage on the mainline Turnpike has right-justified Philadelphia and Chester as well, and this is a separate panel sign. I tried to get a picture, but I clearly need more practice (it is not worth posting what I got...)The previous button-copy BGS (https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Plymouth+Meeting,+PA&aq=0&oq=plymouth+meeting,+pa&sll=40.002498,-75.118033&sspn=0.376076,0.602188&vpsrc=6&t=h&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Plymouth+Meeting,+Montgomery+County,+Pennsylvania&ll=40.113748,-75.274222&spn=0.000016,0.009409&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.113755,-75.274312&panoid=hcnXHoQCGVpJcvvMoHNhqw&cbp=12,280.6,,0,12.21) for that left ramp split had the two destinations right-justified as well. That one was probably one of the first BGS' I've seen in PA that used that approach. Truth be told, the original panel only had the Chester destination listed but was replaced/modified with a larger panel containing both Philadelphia & Chester within the first 6 months of the Mid-County interchange fully opening in 1992. Which was why the Philadelphia text is slightly smaller and more crowded than the Chester text.
(These signs replaced the left-over-from-PA 9 days of seeing two 476 Shields for the NE Extension)
What always interested me in the older signs you linked was that Philadelphia always appeared to be an addition, the slat Philly was added on was a slightly different shade of green, and you could confirm the addition at the back of the sign.The Philadelphia additions to the southbound I-476 signs were in response to complaints from those heading south from Lansdale, Quakertown or Lehigh Valley that see a Philadelphia message at the entrance ramps and then are greeted with Chester, New Jersey, Harrisburg & Norristown (at the time) when approaching Mid-County & I-276. Granted, the PTC rushed & did a half-*ssed job in placing the additional destination on the BGS' (the 2-mile advance BGS along I-276 westbound missed this edit); but, nonetheless, that's how it went down.
I've seen many instances of left-justified signs, but did not readily recall right justifies.That's because there are more right-lane exits than there are left-lane exits.
In a somewhat-related note, I noted a lot of diagrammatic signs on the GS Parkway that justified text similar to the new southbound Extension signs.If it's the BGS I'm thinking of along the GSP (northbound approaching Exit 155P), such only involves a single-line destination listing, not a double-line destination listing.
Ok, finally got some usable pictures from the new signs in this area.Is it me or the 1 MILE notation should be more centered with respect to the stem of the arrow as opposed to the center of the signboard? I didn't notice that when I saw that BGS a week-and-a-half ago.
New advance sign for the Mid-County/I-276 Interchange on I-476 South:
(http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah180/flyer_78/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_134106_zpswbxdzbxb.jpg) (http://s1380.photobucket.com/user/flyer_78/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_134106_zpswbxdzbxb.jpg.html)
At the split:I have to wonder if the I-276 West BGS was a complete replacement or just an alteration of the earlier-mounted BGS with the scrunched Series D numerals and the NEXT RIGHT text at the bottom? My guess would be the latter.
(http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah180/flyer_78/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_134144_zpsoh3kqmjq.jpg)
===== MAINLINE PHOTOS =====At Last! The misleading I-76 West message that's been there for over 20 years has finally been corrected with the more proper & consistent I-276 West message. Also, I-276 shields in the proper Series C font. BTW, the Clearview font for the lower-case lettering is a clear give-away that both BGS panels are brand new. When that pipe gantry was first erected a few years ago, the older early 90s-vintage BGS' were simply transferred onto the newer gantry.
Exit 333 On-Ramp Split: (The over-staying-its-welcome PA 9 shield is removed (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1094528,-75.2888895,3a,75y,254.35h,106.35t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sf3kiI6DfzSlURqp21V7wXA!2e0))
(http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah180/flyer_78/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_1304260_zpsmvzgx2da.jpg) (http://s1380.photobucket.com/user/flyer_78/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_1304260_zpsmvzgx2da.jpg.html)
I-276 East, Hope Lodge State Historic Site in Serif Font:That's an interesting font.
(http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah180/flyer_78/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_130624_zpsyoemkbnn.jpg) (http://s1380.photobucket.com/user/flyer_78/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_130624_zpsyoemkbnn.jpg.html)
I-276 East Exit 339, odd alignment for Ambler: (Not a new sign)One has to wonder whether a different northbound 309 destination was originally selected but Ambler was an 11th-hour change? Since I never saw the predecessor (pre-1980s) BGS' for the I-276 stretch; I can't be 100% sure of this.
(http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah180/flyer_78/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_130906_zps8jxy8zjp.jpg) (http://s1380.photobucket.com/user/flyer_78/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_130906_zps8jxy8zjp.jpg.html)
I-276 West Exit Sequence Sign (Fixed out-of-order Norristown sequence) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1309627,-75.2029216,3a,75y,250.84h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1st_TF9s4LbKbXy8LPcnXBBw!2e0)(http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah180/flyer_78/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_131420_zps3fyclb3d.jpg) (http://s1380.photobucket.com/user/flyer_78/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_131420_zps3fyclb3d.jpg.html)I'm guessing that whoever designed the BGS' along I-276 is not the same one who designed the BGS' along I-476. The former apparently didn't get the memo regarding the restricted use of the Clearview font. Man, just when one thought that the PTC finally got it right; one sees this.
I-276 West Exit 333/I-476 Advance (Replaces this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1206822,-75.2488737,3a,75y,245.07h,88.49t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sGjusw3GaD41-mefo8qdIvQ!2e0) with the double I-476 shields)The Clearview all-caps & numerals aside, I'm extremely surprised that Philadelphia is not included in this BGS like it was on its predecessor BGS; given the static PTC received for not originally including it 22 years ago (yes, the previous BGS was that old).
(http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah180/flyer_78/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_131639_zpsccisufpt.jpg) (http://s1380.photobucket.com/user/flyer_78/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_131639_zpsccisufpt.jpg.html)
I-276 West Approx 1/2 Mile from last gantry (note continued use of "This Lane (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.115654,-75.2635424,3a,75y,259.81h,73.04t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spgwiJhbCYU7ZKKXQXYL-OA!2e0)")Is it me or are the size of those destination lettering larger than the ones at the Exit 333 toll plaza? Use the I-276 West BGS' for visual comparison.
(http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah180/flyer_78/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_131730_zpsh53zbbvk.jpg) (http://s1380.photobucket.com/user/flyer_78/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_131730_zpsh53zbbvk.jpg.html)
I-276 West Ramps to Exit 20/I-476 NorthFail on several levels:
(http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah180/flyer_78/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_131805_zpsmtbcnv23.jpg) (http://s1380.photobucket.com/user/flyer_78/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_131805_zpsmtbcnv23.jpg.html)
I-276 Exit 333 ALL CAPS exit signs (replaces Mixed-Case Version) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1098619,-75.2839088,3a,75y,97.69h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1ssGlLGzeNAq25KrymBq-qbA!2e0)Ugh! WHY????? :banghead:
(http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah180/flyer_78/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_134351_zpslis1dwqs.jpg) (http://s1380.photobucket.com/user/flyer_78/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_134351_zpslis1dwqs.jpg.html)
At least it looks like PennDOT has got the memo on how to properly use Clearview (for the I-476 signs), but then I guess they lost it again on the mainline. The last sign IMO is pretty damn ugly.The signs are PTC not PennDOT. Although, the original Plymouth Rd. & SOUTH 476 BGS' were probably PennDOT spec'd; the new ones are definitely PTC given the colored pipe gantry.
it's been Ambler forever. everything's center-aligned except for "Philadelphia."I-276 East Exit 339, odd alignment for Ambler: (Not a new sign)One has to wonder whether a different northbound 309 destination was originally selected but Ambler was an 11th-hour change? Since I never saw the predecessor (pre-1980s) BGS' for the I-276 stretch; I can't be 100% sure of this.
(http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah180/flyer_78/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_130906_zps8jxy8zjp.jpg) (http://s1380.photobucket.com/user/flyer_78/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_130906_zps8jxy8zjp.jpg.html)
Fair enough, but given that this BGS is an actual exit BGS (as opposed to an advance BGS); Ambler should have been center-justified with respect to the Philadelphia listing and not the signboard itself.it's been Ambler forever. everything's center-aligned except for "Philadelphia."I-276 East Exit 339, odd alignment for Ambler: (Not a new sign)One has to wonder whether a different northbound 309 destination was originally selected but Ambler was an 11th-hour change? Since I never saw the predecessor (pre-1980s) BGS' for the I-276 stretch; I can't be 100% sure of this.
(http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah180/flyer_78/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_130906_zps8jxy8zjp.jpg) (http://s1380.photobucket.com/user/flyer_78/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_130906_zps8jxy8zjp.jpg.html)
not going to argue that it's ugly as hell. i'd prefer that the alignment for both "Ambler" and the 309 shield should be centered with respect to "Philadelphia."]it's been Ambler forever. everything's center-aligned except for "Philadelphia."Fair enough, but given that this BGS is an actual exit BGS (as opposed to an advance BGS); Ambler should have been center-justified with respect to the Philadelphia listing and not the signboard itself.
The signs are PTC not PennDOT. Although, the original Plymouth Rd. & SOUTH 476 BGS' were probably PennDOT spec'd; the new ones are definitely PTC given the colored pipe gantry.
Since KEEP RIGHT is now used instead of NEXT RIGHT for the I-476 South message; I would've used KEEP LEFT instead of the downward arrow for the Plymouth Rd. BGS. There's certainly enough room for that message.
I agree these are PTC signs, but it appears that PennDOT did play around with Pipes recently (July 2011 Streetview shows the old signs) on US 202 in West Chester (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9761482,-75.5853334,3a,75y,122.94h,84.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6oazE3luZWZY9cc3DKjEVg!2e0). Newer US 202 works in Malvern/Great Valley area use traditional PennDOT supports. Not sure if it was test, mistake, or something simply done for the hell of it.It's possible that PennDOT may be trying/experimenting w/such.
Speaking of:Personally, and I felt this way even with the previous signage, the gantry should be placed closer to the split and the BGS for I-476 South should be an exit-style sign with an angled right-arrow. With that in mind, I'd place ground-mounted BGS for the advance movements; maybe even a simple diagrammatic since the lane splits in two, MUTCD be damned.QuoteSince KEEP RIGHT is now used instead of NEXT RIGHT for the I-476 South message; I would've used KEEP LEFT instead of the downward arrow for the Plymouth Rd. BGS. There's certainly enough room for that message.
Agreed. Next Right also made much more sense, given that there is no lane to keep right in (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1100384,-75.2828239,3a,75y,78.39h,72.06t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sAFG2QH8RrizSn0oGV0jVBw!2e0).
the new overhead on I-95S at exit 30 (PA-73/Cottman Ave) uses a curved pipe, so PennDOT is definitely not opposed to using them.It's interesting that the curved pipe used for that gantry is not painted. Also, it's the only BGS for that interchange that doesn't include the Rhawn St. listing.
Damn, the sign bugs me wasn't shown. There is a new overhead sign on 276 West right at the 476 interchange that suggests traffic going to 476 South (Blue Route) to "Use this lane" and has an arrow pointing straight down into the outer most through lane. (the fourth lane is an exit only lane they want isolated for traffic towards the NE Extension) What gets me is the sign placement though, it is RIGHT at the point where Southbound traffic would have leave 276West to the right. It is bound to trick tons of out of town travellers into staying in that third lane instead of exiting. If that was the last thing I saw before an exit, it would sure fill me with doubt if I didn't know the area.Do you mean this sign:
Damn, the sign bugs me wasn't shown.That's likely because that particular BGS assembly wasn't replaced just yet. Most of the comments recently posted were directed towards the new replacement signs.
Does the arrow under "Chester" now point down instead of indicating the exit to the right? Regardless, I think this sign could do without the "This Lane" to avoid that type of confusion, since the far right lane is clearly marked as an exit only for the NE Extension.Part of the problem here is that it's a shared lane for both I-276 West & I-476 South traffic. IMHO, this could be one case where either APL signage or diagrammatics are warranted.
Before the mile-based renumber, it was actually numbered as a mainline I-276 exit, 25A. In fact, wouldn't it make more sense to have Exit 20 A/B be for the exit-to-mainline movements?I meant to chime on this earlier. I absolutely agree with you that the I-276 ramps from I-476 South should be assigned as Exits 20B-A and had it not been for the existence of toll plazas/gantries the ramps from I-476 to I-276 would've been signed as Exit 20 (Northbound, current Exits 19-20 would be redesignated as 19A-B)/20B-A (Southbound). The ramps to I-476 from I-276 would've been signed as Exit 334 (Eastbound) and possibly 334B-A (Westbound).
Damn, the sign bugs me wasn't shown. There is a new overhead sign on 276 West right at the 476 interchange that suggests traffic going to 476 South (Blue Route) to "Use this lane" and has an arrow pointing straight down into the outer most through lane. (the fourth lane is an exit only lane they want isolated for traffic towards the NE Extension) What gets me is the sign placement though, it is RIGHT at the point where Southbound traffic would have leave 276West to the right. It is bound to trick tons of out of town travellers into staying in that third lane instead of exiting. If that was the last thing I saw before an exit, it would sure fill me with doubt if I didn't know the area.
Kind of a Damned if one does, damned if one doesn't situation.
This one? Sorry, I had it, just didn't post it...That's the one. Great shot, but boy that sign is going to get some people exiting late if they see the one just up the ramp showing the split between 476 South & 476 North. (just in frame)
(http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah180/flyer_78/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_131757_zpsfgk4h6wj.jpg) (http://s1380.photobucket.com/user/flyer_78/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20141028_131757_zpsfgk4h6wj.jpg.html)
A shame they couldn't widen the approach to add another full exit only lane with the NE Extention expansion project..IMHO, PTC should've widened it (for another full exit lane) when the Mid-County plaza and the I-476 connection was built 22 years ago.
After the impromptu N.J. Turnpike meet to look at the new lanes between a point south of Exit 6 and 8A, we (two friends from AAROADS and myself) headed south via the N.J. Turnpike, then west via the N.J. Turnpike's Pennsylvania Turnpike Extension, across the Delaware River, and past the point where the E-W Mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike (I-276) passes under I-95. There was some construction work going on adjacent to the westbound lanes of I-276 prior to I-95, but not much else.
The location of the new eastern end of the Turnpike's ticket system was pretty obvious (west of I-95) and two new overpasses have been (re)built over I-276.
We exited the Turnpike at U.S. 1, headed north to the Delaware Expressway (I-95), and headed south toward the span that carries I-95 over I-276. There was no obvious work going on along I-95.
Rhetorical question - why is it that the N.J. Turnpike Authority was able to plan, engineer and complete a massive widening of their turnpike in much less time than the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and PennDOT are taking to build part of a (relatively) simple interchange?
And of course, PTC has delayed most of the ramps between the E-W Mainline and the Delaware Expressway until well into the future.
also, unlike the Schuylkill, nobody refers to I-95 as the Delaware Expressway. It's just 95 or I-95.
Rhetorical question - why is it that the N.J. Turnpike Authority was able to plan, engineer and complete a massive widening of their turnpike in much less time than the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and PennDOT are taking to build part of a (relatively) simple interchange?
PennDOT has no cash.
also, unlike the Schuylkill, nobody refers to I-95 as the Delaware Expressway. It's just 95 or I-95.
also, unlike the Schuylkill, nobody refers to I-95 as the Delaware Expressway. It's just 95 or I-95.
I've never heard anyone in the tri-state area (including PA) use "I-" before the Interstate number. It is always just the number, or occasionally (usually with US or State routes) "Route XX".Rhetorical question - why is it that the N.J. Turnpike Authority was able to plan, engineer and complete a massive widening of their turnpike in much less time than the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and PennDOT are taking to build part of a (relatively) simple interchange?
This is the exact reason I refuse to believe that it'll be done before the year 2020. What would really be interesting is if because of how long Pennsylvania is taking to build the interchange, I-95 was rerouted to avoid PA and Philadelphia, instead heading up the Delaware Memorial Bridge and assuming the entire length of the New Jersey Turnpike. Highly unlikely, but it would be amusing to see that happen.
PennDOT has no cash.
also, unlike the Schuylkill, nobody refers to I-95 as the Delaware Expressway. It's just 95 or I-95.
They're using the money from the Turnpike to keep the Philly and Pittsburgh transit systems afloat. Act 44.
They have also raised tolls to help cover the costs of Act 44.Act 44 was what triggered these now-annual toll increases in the first place.
They have also raised tolls to help cover the costs of Act 44.Act 44 was what triggered these now-annual toll increases in the first place.
Act 44 might have something to do with it.
PennDOT has no cash.
also, unlike the Schuylkill, nobody refers to I-95 as the Delaware Expressway. It's just 95 or I-95.
They have also raised tolls to help cover the costs of Act 44.Act 44 was what triggered these now-annual toll increases in the first place.
Right. So how much money is that bringing in...is it covering the Act 44 payments, and if so, then what happened to the money that the Turnpike was already making that should've covered this project in the first place?
The Pa transportation bill eliminiated the Act 44 contribution and provided for a multi year payback to the PTC for funds already taken. This has allowed for the PTC to resume the 22 to 79 section of the Southern Beltway in Pittsburgh, the MP 128 to 138 (?) reconstruction of the mainline, the Allegheny tunnel Bypass study, and has advanced to final design the mainline work for 376 to 28, and the Warrendale plaza to 79/19 and this was just with this years reimbursement, I expect many more projects to advance or start within the next 12 months.
It wouldn't surprise me if the PTC is deliberately dragging their feet re: the I-95 interchange for the simple reason that they still don't really want it for the same reasons they didn't build it when I-95 was built. They are afraid of losing toll revenue......... It always comes down to money.......
The Pa transportation bill eliminiated the Act 44 contribution and provided for a multi year payback to the PTC for funds already taken. This has allowed for the PTC to resume the 22 to 79 section of the Southern Beltway in Pittsburgh, the MP 128 to 138 (?) reconstruction of the mainline, the Allegheny tunnel Bypass study, and has advanced to final design the mainline work for 376 to 28, and the Warrendale plaza to 79/19 and this was just with this years reimbursement, I expect many more projects to advance or start within the next 12 months.
The PA Turnpike-I-95 connection project was in turtle mode long, lo-o-o-ong before Act 44 was ever thought of. I was a member of the CAC (Community Advisory Committee) for this project back in 1993. Act 44 came and went; the pace of this project was glacial before, during, and after its reign.
It wouldn't surprise me if the PTC is deliberately dragging their feet re: the I-95 interchange for the simple reason that they still don't really want it for the same reasons they didn't build it when I-95 was built. They are afraid of losing toll revenue......... It always comes down to money.......
That does not make much sense. If anything, drivers that will mindlessly be able to follow the I-95 shields up and down the East Coast once part of the Bristol Township project is done will result in more (not less) revenue-paying traffic on the eastern end of the Pennsylvania Turnpike's E-W Mainline. Of course, this (newly renumbered) section of I-95 will become the only four-lane section of the road between Petersburg, Va. and Connecticut (with the exception of a few ramps that carry I-95 in Maryland and Virginia, and through Wilmington, Delaware, where six-lane I-495 is a nearly perfect bypass of the four lane segment.
It wouldn't surprise me if the PTC is deliberately dragging their feet re: the I-95 interchange for the simple reason that they still don't really want it for the same reasons they didn't build it when I-95 was built. They are afraid of losing toll revenue......... It always comes down to money.......
That does not make much sense. If anything, drivers that will mindlessly be able to follow the I-95 shields up and down the East Coast once part of the Bristol Township project is done will result in more (not less) revenue-paying traffic on the eastern end of the Pennsylvania Turnpike's E-W Mainline. Of course, this (newly renumbered) section of I-95 will become the only four-lane section of the road between Petersburg, Va. and Connecticut (with the exception of a few ramps that carry I-95 in Maryland and Virginia, and through Wilmington, Delaware, where six-lane I-495 is a nearly perfect bypass of the four lane segment.
Current day 95 is only 4 lanes north of 413 to the Scudders Falls Bridge, and I don't think the short stretch of 95 between 413 & the PA Turnpike will be widened to 6 lanes as part of this project.
I thought the PA Turnpike was to be widened from 95 to the PA-NJ Turnpike Bridge, and eventually the bridge will be dualized as well to price 3 lanes per direction.
Current day 95 is only 4 lanes north of 413 to the Scudders Falls Bridge, and I don't think the short stretch of 95 between 413 & the PA Turnpike will be widened to 6 lanes as part of this project.It looks like from the rendering on the website that it will be 2 lanes through the 413 interchange from the NB exit ramp to the NB on-ramp, with 3 lanes continuing to the split for the Turnpike / Future 95N. The 3D Animation NB doesn't show lane markings on the right, but it looks like 3 lanes through here, and the overhead BGS indicates this as well.
I thought the PA Turnpike was to be widened from 95 to the PA-NJ Turnpike Bridge, and eventually the bridge will be dualized as well to price 3 lanes per direction.The mapping on the website shows this widening as well, with the temporary drop to 2 lanes at the US 13 interchange until the second bridge is built.
It will be widened. Who knows if the bridge will be though. The project is split into phases:
-Phase 1: Turnpike widening, new toll barrier (honestly, at this point they might as well just not bother), I-95 flyovers (scheduled to be completed this decade)
-Phase 2: the rest of the interchange (unfunded, scheduled for next decade)
-Phase 3: building the second bridge (unfunded, not yet scheduled at all)
I don't believe that the recently-passed transportation bill killed off Act 44. All it did was just reduce the number of times (or percentages) of toll increases. We'll know come early 2015; the recent toll increases have been occurring every January.The Pa transportation bill eliminiated the Act 44 contribution and provided for a multi year payback to the PTC for funds already taken. This has allowed for the PTC to resume the 22 to 79 section of the Southern Beltway in Pittsburgh, the MP 128 to 138 (?) reconstruction of the mainline, the Allegheny tunnel Bypass study, and has advanced to final design the mainline work for 376 to 28, and the Warrendale plaza to 79/19 and this was just with this years reimbursement, I expect many more projects to advance or start within the next 12 months.
All of Act 44 has been killed? Is former State Senator Vince Fumo (the architect of Act 44) still in federal prison?
It will be widened. Who knows if the bridge will be though. The project is split into phases:Second bridge holds a special place in my heart, because NJ Turnpike. PA was supposed to finish the I-95 connection by now, but they have barely begun. NJ Tpk. may warrant widenings south of Interchange 6, especially between 3-4. Will those be needed when the PA interchange opens, or will enough traffic siphon off? Or will so much traffic siphon off that the second bridge becomes necessary? Is there any situation where traffic balances so perfectly that no improvements are needed south of the GS Parkway at all?
-Phase 1: Turnpike widening, new toll barrier (honestly, at this point they might as well just not bother), I-95 flyovers (scheduled to be completed this decade)
-Phase 2: the rest of the interchange (unfunded, scheduled for next decade)
-Phase 3: building the second bridge (unfunded, not yet scheduled at all)
It will be widened. Who knows if the bridge will be though. The project is split into phases:Second bridge holds a special place in my heart, because NJ Turnpike. PA was supposed to finish the I-95 connection by now, but they have barely begun. NJ Tpk. may warrant widenings south of Interchange 6, especially between 3-4. Will those be needed when the PA interchange opens, or will enough traffic siphon off? Or will so much traffic siphon off that the second bridge becomes necessary? Is there any situation where traffic balances so perfectly that no improvements are needed south of the GS Parkway at all?
-Phase 1: Turnpike widening, new toll barrier (honestly, at this point they might as well just not bother), I-95 flyovers (scheduled to be completed this decade)
-Phase 2: the rest of the interchange (unfunded, scheduled for next decade)
-Phase 3: building the second bridge (unfunded, not yet scheduled at all)
I have suggested in the past (and I repeat) that it is time for the N.J. Turnpike to do away with the silly "secret" N.J. 700 designation and sign the Turnpike from Exit 1 to Exit 6 as a 3DI, perhaps I-895. Turnpikes in states as diverse as Kansas and Pennsylvania have done this for many years.
I know they’d never do this, but I’d make a special trip to PA if the PTC would re-open the tunnel linking the two plazas while North Midway is closed for reconstruction.
North Midway was built later, i read that it originally was just a fuel stop and the tunnel was used to link the two sides together, so you could get food. Then they built the recently demolished building later.
Wasn't the upstairs used for some sort of lodging at one point?
Isn't South Midway being preserved? since it did just get an overhaul.
....
In 2008, I went on a road trip with my then-9-year-old son. I was a PennDOT employee at the time and I arranged ahead of time (had to arrange for personal liability assumption and all that) for the two of us to tour the tunnel, dorm, and facilities which are not accessible to the public. The dorm is still much as it was when it was used, but without the beds; it's now used for storage. The tunnel is used by employees. It's in relatively good shape, but the paint has peeled a lot. The stairs in the north plaza had been removed and rebuilt in a slightly different location (now completely obliterated with the demolition of course). The stairs in the south plaza are in the same location, just not accessible by the public.
I have suggested in the past (and I repeat) that it is time for the N.J. Turnpike to do away with the silly "secret" N.J. 700 designation and sign the Turnpike from Exit 1 to Exit 6 as a 3DI, perhaps I-895. Turnpikes in states as diverse as Kansas and Pennsylvania have done this for many years.
Yet they aren't the only state with such a case. New York (part of Berkshire Spur and ~1 mile within Exit 24), Maine (I-495 is unsigned on the Falmouth Spur), and Florida keep "secret" designations for the parts that don't fit in the Interstate grid. The Creek Turnpike in Oklahoma doesn't have any designation I can find. Heck, the Berkshire Spur couldn't be I-487 if NYSTA wanted it until the Castleton Bridge gets a median barrier.
I have suggested in the past (and I repeat) that it is time for the N.J. Turnpike to do away with the silly "secret" N.J. 700 designation and sign the Turnpike from Exit 1 to Exit 6 as a 3DI, perhaps I-895. Turnpikes in states as diverse as Kansas and Pennsylvania have done this for many years.
The most serious Federal problem is that the southern part of the New Jersey Turnpike is not presently on the Interstate System and must not carry an Interstate number. The state of New Jersey would have to be sure that all features are up to current standards, agree to operating requirements for Interstates, and submit a request to the FHWA that it be designated an Interstate. The state has not been persuaded so far that it would be worth it.
There are some photos here:
http://www.gribblenation.com/breezewood/midway.html (http://www.gribblenation.com/breezewood/midway.html)
I think this came up on another thread not too long ago, and someone had pointed to this page.
I have suggested in the past (and I repeat) that it is time for the N.J. Turnpike to do away with the silly "secret" N.J. 700 designation and sign the Turnpike from Exit 1 to Exit 6 as a 3DI, perhaps I-895. Turnpikes in states as diverse as Kansas and Pennsylvania have done this for many years.
FHWA has objected to such in the past for the following reason (note: this was written several years ago):Quote from: Steve Anderson's NYCRoads WebsiteThe most serious Federal problem is that the southern part of the New Jersey Turnpike is not presently on the Interstate System and must not carry an Interstate number. The state of New Jersey would have to be sure that all features are up to current standards, agree to operating requirements for Interstates, and submit a request to the FHWA that it be designated an Interstate. The state has not been persuaded so far that it would be worth it.
Source for above-quote (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/)
Nonetheless, there's no reason why the NJTA can't actually sign & designate the lower Turnpike as State Route 695 or 895.
I have suggested in the past (and I repeat) that it is time for the N.J. Turnpike to do away with the silly "secret" N.J. 700 designation and sign the Turnpike from Exit 1 to Exit 6 as a 3DI, perhaps I-895. Turnpikes in states as diverse as Kansas and Pennsylvania have done this for many years.
FHWA has objected to such in the past for the following reason (note: this was written several years ago):Quote from: Steve Anderson's NYCRoads WebsiteThe most serious Federal problem is that the southern part of the New Jersey Turnpike is not presently on the Interstate System and must not carry an Interstate number. The state of New Jersey would have to be sure that all features are up to current standards, agree to operating requirements for Interstates, and submit a request to the FHWA that it be designated an Interstate. The state has not been persuaded so far that it would be worth it.
Source for above-quote (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/)
Nonetheless, there's no reason why the NJTA can't actually sign & designate the lower Turnpike as State Route 695 or 895.
Would this happening in 20xx mean it would not be grandfathered in?
I have suggested in the past (and I repeat) that it is time for the N.J. Turnpike to do away with the silly "secret" N.J. 700 designation and sign the Turnpike from Exit 1 to Exit 6 as a 3DI, perhaps I-895. Turnpikes in states as diverse as Kansas and Pennsylvania have done this for many years.
FHWA has objected to such in the past for the following reason (note: this was written several years ago):Quote from: Steve Anderson's NYCRoads WebsiteThe most serious Federal problem is that the southern part of the New Jersey Turnpike is not presently on the Interstate System and must not carry an Interstate number. The state of New Jersey would have to be sure that all features are up to current standards, agree to operating requirements for Interstates, and submit a request to the FHWA that it be designated an Interstate. The state has not been persuaded so far that it would be worth it.
Source for above-quote (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/)
Nonetheless, there's no reason why the NJTA can't actually sign & designate the lower Turnpike as State Route 695 or 895.
....Neat. Do you have any pictures you can share, or do they frown upon your posting that sort of thing?
In 2008, I went on a road trip with my then-9-year-old son. I was a PennDOT employee at the time and I arranged ahead of time (had to arrange for personal liability assumption and all that) for the two of us to tour the tunnel, dorm, and facilities which are not accessible to the public. The dorm is still much as it was when it was used, but without the beds; it's now used for storage. The tunnel is used by employees. It's in relatively good shape, but the paint has peeled a lot. The stairs in the north plaza had been removed and rebuilt in a slightly different location (now completely obliterated with the demolition of course). The stairs in the south plaza are in the same location, just not accessible by the public.
Quote from: Steve Anderson's NYCRoads WebsiteThe most serious Federal problem is that the southern part of the New Jersey Turnpike is not presently on the Interstate System and must not carry an Interstate number. The state of New Jersey would have to be sure that all features are up to current standards, agree to operating requirements for Interstates, and submit a request to the FHWA that it be designated an Interstate. The state has not been persuaded so far that it would be worth it.
Source for above-quote (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/)
Nonetheless, there's no reason why the NJTA can't actually sign & designate the lower Turnpike as State Route 695 or 895.
Quote from: Steve Anderson's NYCRoads WebsiteThe most serious Federal problem is that the southern part of the New Jersey Turnpike is not presently on the Interstate System and must not carry an Interstate number. The state of New Jersey would have to be sure that all features are up to current standards, agree to operating requirements for Interstates, and submit a request to the FHWA that it be designated an Interstate. The state has not been persuaded so far that it would be worth it.
Source for above-quote (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/)
Nonetheless, there's no reason why the NJTA can't actually sign & designate the lower Turnpike as State Route 695 or 895.
Though I have driven that part of the N.J. Turnpike many times, and aside from the non-MUTCD signage, it would seem able to pass an inspection by FHWA or AASHTO to allow it to be signed as an Interstate. I do not think I have used all of the exits, so they may not be up to snuff, but on the other hand, they have to be better than some of the Pennsylvania Turnpike's interchanges along the E-W Mainline and Northeast Extension, all of which have Interstate designation.
Speaking of which, the approaches to the F.S. Key Bridge were once signed as Md. 695 (because they were Super-2, though the bridge itself has always been four lane divided), but is now signed as I-695 (though the last time I checked, the Highway Location Reference still reads Md. 695), even though some sections of the road seem to not exactly be Interstate standard, especially on the southeast side, between U.S. 40 and Md. 151 (one of the exits to the now-defunct Sparrows Point steel mill).
It would have to be a nitpik type of thing if anything. Anything between Exits 1 & 6 are what would be found elsewhere on the interstate portion of the Turnpike.Is there a difference in overpass clearances between the southern section (Exits 1-6) vs. Exit 6 and up? I'm assuming that the southern section is one section that hasn't yet been significantly redesigned/altered since it was built.
It would have to be a nitpik type of thing if anything. Anything between Exits 1 & 6 are what would be found elsewhere on the interstate portion of the Turnpike.Is there a difference in overpass clearances between the southern section (Exits 1-6) vs. Exit 6 and up? I'm assuming that the southern section is one section that hasn't yet been significantly redesigned/altered since it was built.
It would have to be a nitpik type of thing if anything. Anything between Exits 1 & 6 are what would be found elsewhere on the interstate portion of the Turnpike.Is there a difference in overpass clearances between the southern section (Exits 1-6) vs. Exit 6 and up? I'm assuming that the southern section is one section that hasn't yet been significantly redesigned/altered since it was built.
I don't believe any of them are posted for low overheight clearance (less than 16 foot overheight clearance).
Come to think of it, I do not recall ever having seen a structure over the New Jersey Turnpike that was posted for clearance issues.
Although charges were announced last year with great fanfare in an alleged “pay to play” scandal involving secret gifts of cash, travel and entertainment, and campaign contributions, the case against numerous former Pennsylvania Turnpike officials ended quietly Thursday with plea deals and no jail time.
The last two defendants in the high-profile corruption case pleaded guilty Thursday to one count each of felony conflict of interest; other defendants in the case had previously entered guilty pleas, entered a diversion program that will allow charges to be dropped or had charges dismissed.
Former Pennsylvania Turnpike CEO Joseph Brimmeier and former COO George Hatalowich were sentenced Thursday to 60 months of probation, a fine of $2,500 and 250 hours of community service. The state is not requesting restitution in either case.
IIRC, one of the selling points of Clearview was that you wouldn't need to enlarge sign legends to maintain legibility.Agreed, but that hasn't stopped many agencies (not just PTC and/or PennDOT) from doing such.
IIRC, one of the selling points of Clearview was that you wouldn't need to enlarge sign legends to maintain legibility.Agreed, but that hasn't stopped many agencies (not just PTC and/or PennDOT) from doing such.
I-276 BGS replacement update (no photos, just observations as of Nov. 22):
Apparently, somebody at PTC must've read either this thread or elsewhere on this site about the absence of I-476 South info. on the main BGS' for Exit 333 (Norristown) along I-276 eastbound.
The new BGS' along I-276 eastbound now read as:
EXIT 333
NORRISTOWN
476 SOUTH
Chester
Where were you this past Oct. 29 (see Reply #887) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=419.875) when I commented regarding the older Exit 333/Norristown signs? :sombrero:I-276 BGS replacement update (no photos, just observations as of Nov. 22):
Apparently, somebody at PTC must've read either this thread or elsewhere on this site about the absence of I-476 South info. on the main BGS' for Exit 333 (Norristown) along I-276 eastbound.
The new BGS' along I-276 eastbound now read as:
EXIT 333
NORRISTOWN
476 SOUTH
Chester
That's been there for a few months IIRC
There are some photos here:
http://www.gribblenation.com/breezewood/midway.html (http://www.gribblenation.com/breezewood/midway.html)
I think this came up on another thread not too long ago, and someone had pointed to this page.
I had seen those pictures before (hence my reference to upstairs being set up as a meeting room or breakroom). I was just curious if there were any others. I'm not optimistic of finding anything from back when it was still in use.
There are some photos here:
http://www.gribblenation.com/breezewood/midway.html (http://www.gribblenation.com/breezewood/midway.html)
I think this came up on another thread not too long ago, and someone had pointed to this page.
I had seen those pictures before (hence my reference to upstairs being set up as a meeting room or breakroom). I was just curious if there were any others. I'm not optimistic of finding anything from back when it was still in use.
Chinese investors have begun signing up to spend $500,000 each to help pay for a long-awaited connection between the Pennsylvania Turnpike and I-95.
In exchange, the investors hope to get permanent residency in the United States for themselves and their families.
Agents for the novel financing plan have been pitching the proposal in China since September, touting the project's financial stability and showcasing photos of Gov. Corbett and Turnpike Commission officials breaking ground for the construction in Bucks County.
"Guaranteed by U.S. Government, Class A+ Repayment Credit!" proclaimed the Chinese-language website promoting the investment last month. "A key expressway-connecting hub project in U.S.A.!"
2017 is extremely optimistic. It's almost 2015 and I don't think they've broken ground yet for the 95/Pa. Tpk. interchange. At least not as of last July when I was there. At the speed they're going, a more realistic completion date might by say 2025?
And to think the entire original 118-mile New Jersey Turnpike was built in 2 years........ Yes, I know things were a lot simpler then but still, we could use some of that post World War II style sense-of-urgency now........
2017 is extremely optimistic. It's almost 2015 and I don't think they've broken ground yet for the 95/Pa. Tpk. interchange. At least not as of last July when I was there. At the speed they're going, a more realistic completion date might by say 2025?
Yes, the first (Section D10/E) of the two phases that actually involve building the first part of the connection (the flyover ramps for what will be I-95 north-to-south and south-to-north) is under construction. The second (Section D20/F) of the two phases is scheduled to go to construction in spring of 2015.
This won't be the entire interchange, mind you, only the two ramps of I-95. But it is something. Finally one of the contracts for the interchange itself is under construction. Yip-yip-yahoo. Thank God for small miracles.
Here's pictures from the construction update page regarding what they've been doing. http://www.paturnpikei95.com/construction/CurrentConstructionSectionD1E.htm
This won't be the entire interchange, mind you, only the two ramps of I-95. But it is something. Finally one of the contracts for the interchange itself is under construction. Yip-yip-yahoo. Thank God for small miracles.
Based on the graphic in the article that CP posted yesterday and in a FB posting containing another web-link (I saw it earlier but can't find it); the redesignation of I-95/295 north of the PA Turnpike and I-195 is slated to become I-395 rather than an extension of I-195.
Such a designation would eliminate the need to change more mile markers & interchange numbers along I-195 as well as having a through-route running via a cloverleaf ramp (current I-295 South onto I-195 East).
Personally, I would've went with I-695 since the roadway in question is actually a beltway around Trenton and the fact that the original I-695 projects in both PA and NJ never came to fruition.
Based on the graphic in the article that CP posted yesterday and in a FB posting containing another web-link (I saw it earlier but can't find it); the redesignation of I-95/295 north of the PA Turnpike and I-195 is slated to become I-395 rather than an extension of I-195.
Such a designation would eliminate the need to change more mile markers & interchange numbers along I-195 as well as having a through-route running via a cloverleaf ramp (current I-295 South onto I-195 East).
Personally, I would've went with I-695 since the roadway in question is actually a beltway around Trenton and the fact that the original I-695 projects in both PA and NJ never came to fruition.
When Stage 1 is completed in 2018, I-95 will be rerouted onto the Pennsylvania Turnpike east of the connection and then onto the New Jersey Turnpike. The current I-95 north of the connection will be redesignated as I-395 or I-195, project manager Jeff Davis said.
I am glad to hear of this possible change. I would also have used I-695, or I-895 (which also had an original project in both states, closer by), but at least something other than I-195 is the cleanest way to incorporate another designation into the system in this area. Would eliminate the need for cardinal direction changes as well along the affected sections of present I-95 and I-295.IMHO, the NJ section of the future I-395 should still be signed East-West given its beginning & end points in the Garden State. Such wouldn't alter Exits and mile markers 1 through 8 at all.
agreed.I am glad to hear of this possible change. I would also have used I-695, or I-895 (which also had an original project in both states, closer by), but at least something other than I-195 is the cleanest way to incorporate another designation into the system in this area. Would eliminate the need for cardinal direction changes as well along the affected sections of present I-95 and I-295.IMHO, the NJ section of the future I-395 should still be signed East-West given its beginning & end points in the Garden State. Such wouldn't alter Exits and mile markers 1 through 8 at all.
The PA section can (IMHO, should) still stay North-South once its changed from I-95 to I-395 as well.
Based on the graphic in the article that CP posted yesterday and in a FB posting containing another web-link (I saw it earlier but can't find it); the redesignation of I-95/295 north of the PA Turnpike and I-195 is slated to become I-395 rather than an extension of I-195.
Such a designation would eliminate the need to change more mile markers & interchange numbers along I-195 as well as having a through-route running via a cloverleaf ramp (current I-295 South onto I-195 East).
Personally, I would've went with I-695 since the roadway in question is actually a beltway around Trenton and the fact that the original I-695 projects in both PA and NJ never came to fruition.
What?! How many times is that designation going to change? I could've sworn I-195 was already pretty much the final answer.
Honestly, we don't need any more occurrences of two interstates ending at each other at a random location. Bad enough that I-195/I-495 and I-280/I-680 do it.Both of those are major interchanges, not random locations. Making I-195 and I-495 one continuous route would be stupid. I-280/680 would make more sense, but it's fine as it is.
Shouldn't miles 0 to 60 of the I-295 be redesignated to an odd number first digit as it will no longer rejoin its parent, i.e. the I-95.No. Ignoring the fact that the rules have been crushed in recent years, there was never any consensus on what parity to give a route that begins at the parent but ends at another Interstate. See I-276.
Shouldn't miles 0 to 60 of the I-295 be redesignated to an odd number first digit as it will no longer rejoin its parent, i.e. the I-95.No. Ignoring the fact that the rules have been crushed in recent years, there was never any consensus on what parity to give a route that begins at the parent but ends at another Interstate. See I-276.
See I-476 if you want an interstate that doesn't begin nor end at its parent.I immediately thought of I-476 after reading NE2's post too. Granted, I didn't chime in. I suppose one cound say for interstate anomalies/fuck ups, see PennDOT.
Shouldn't miles 0 to 60 of the I-295 be redesignated to an odd number first digit as it will no longer rejoin its parent, i.e. the I-95.No. Ignoring the fact that the rules have been crushed in recent years, there was never any consensus on what parity to give a route that begins at the parent but ends at another Interstate. See I-276.
The thing is that an even 3di has differing meanings depending on the state. In NY, NJ and OH, an even digit is assigned if it connects to an Interstate at both ends. While I-390 has both ends at an Interstate currently, that was not the case until 15 years ago. I-590 was, at one point, going to be extended to NY 104. I-280, I-684 and I-290 were never intended to connect to their parents on both ends. Heck, I-287 doesn't have either end at its parent, although the New York portion did at one point.FWIW, on their road maps & atlases, Rand McNally lists 3dis on their road maps (in a separate legend from the general legend) in the following manner:
Some states aren't even consistent within their own borders. Take Massachusetts. There's the I-395 designation from Connecticut and then you have I-290, I-291, and I-495. 291 doesn't even have a direct interchange with I-90. PA is the same way with I-376 - both the old and new iterations have both ends at an Interstate, yet every other 3di with both ends at an interstate is even.Do keep in mind that the I-395 designation came along years if not a decade later than most of the 3dis in the Bay State (the highway was originally CT/MA 52).
I-276 was designated well before it ended at another Interstate.Shouldn't miles 0 to 60 of the I-295 be redesignated to an odd number first digit as it will no longer rejoin its parent, i.e. the I-95.No. Ignoring the fact that the rules have been crushed in recent years, there was never any consensus on what parity to give a route that begins at the parent but ends at another Interstate. See I-276.
I-276 ended at what was then future I-95.I-276 was designated well before it ended at another Interstate.Shouldn't miles 0 to 60 of the I-295 be redesignated to an odd number first digit as it will no longer rejoin its parent, i.e. the I-95.No. Ignoring the fact that the rules have been crushed in recent years, there was never any consensus on what parity to give a route that begins at the parent but ends at another Interstate. See I-276.
Pennsylvania Turnpike, 359 miles: from the Ohio State line to Bristol (the entire route except a short section at the eastern end).
Personally, I'd extend I-195 and decommission MA 25, which would have I-495 end at I-195.Honestly, we don't need any more occurrences of two interstates ending at each other at a random location. Bad enough that I-195/I-495 and I-280/I-680 do it.Both of those are major interchanges, not random locations. Making I-195 and I-495 one continuous route would be stupid. I-280/680 would make more sense, but it's fine as it is.
The reason why 395 was chosen rather than an extension of I-290 (or even I-190, one early-80s vintage Atlas road map erroneously listed MA 52 as such) was likely due to CT not having I-90 anywhere inside the state. The closest I-90 gets to the CT border is just over 7 miles at the Sturbridge (Exit 9/I-84) interchange. In contrast, I-95 goes through both CT and MA and I-195 was already taken in MA (& RI).I-290 and I-395 -> I-695
Personally, I'd extend I-195 and decommission MA 25, which would have I-495 end at I-195.I-495 already ends at I-195. Your suggestion (which I agree with you 100%) only involves changing MA 25 not I-495.
Nice idea. However, when CT/MA 52 became I-395; I-290 was already built and the decision to designate as an Interstate came about due to CT (not MA) trading in I-84 (to RI) mileage. As a result, ConnDOT was only focused on CT/MA 52 not I-190 nor 290 further north.The reason why 395 was chosen rather than an extension of I-290 (or even I-190, one early-80s vintage Atlas road map erroneously listed MA 52 as such) was likely due to CT not having I-90 anywhere inside the state. The closest I-90 gets to the CT border is just over 7 miles at the Sturbridge (Exit 9/I-84) interchange. In contrast, I-95 goes through both CT and MA and I-195 was already taken in MA (& RI).I-290 and I-395 -> I-695
I-190 -> I-395
You're telling me that the Somerset Freeway proposal was already dead before I-276 was numbered (at least as the original I-280)? I don't buy it for a second.I-276 ended at what was then future I-95.I-276 was designated well before it ended at another Interstate.Shouldn't miles 0 to 60 of the I-295 be redesignated to an odd number first digit as it will no longer rejoin its parent, i.e. the I-95.No. Ignoring the fact that the rules have been crushed in recent years, there was never any consensus on what parity to give a route that begins at the parent but ends at another Interstate. See I-276.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfmQuotePennsylvania Turnpike, 359 miles: from the Ohio State line to Bristol (the entire route except a short section at the eastern end).
Just to be crazy and continue making long x76 routes, switch 276 onto the old 95 north of the PA turnpike up and around Trenton. We could always use more super long x76 routes that go way beyond everything else.
No, I-280/276 ended at the crossing of then-proposed I-95 in Bucks County. This was probably at US 13 (exit 358) rather than where I-95 was eventually built (2 miles west). I don't know if or when I-276 was officially extended to the state line.Exactly. It did not end at another Interstate. Thank you.
It ended at another Interstate in the way that most even 3DIs did back then, when the system was still being built.No, I-280/276 ended at the crossing of then-proposed I-95 in Bucks County. This was probably at US 13 (exit 358) rather than where I-95 was eventually built (2 miles west). I don't know if or when I-276 was officially extended to the state line.Exactly. It did not end at another Interstate. Thank you.
Okay. What happened between the period that Somerset was cancelled but before 95 was extended to the PA Extension? Wasn't there a time when it was extended down to Exit 8 or so, but not all the way?It ended at another Interstate in the way that most even 3DIs did back then, when the system was still being built.No, I-280/276 ended at the crossing of then-proposed I-95 in Bucks County. This was probably at US 13 (exit 358) rather than where I-95 was eventually built (2 miles west). I don't know if or when I-276 was officially extended to the state line.Exactly. It did not end at another Interstate. Thank you.
What happened between the period that Somerset was cancelled but before 95 was extended to the PA Extension? Wasn't there a time when it was extended down to Exit 8 or so, but not all the way?Signage was not all changed at once (and still hasn't been), but I-95 was officially moved from the Somerset to the PA Extension in 1982.
SEC. 149. (A) Notwithstanding the first sentence of section 103(e)(4) of title 23, United States Code ["Upon the joint request of a State Governor and the local governments concerned, the Secretary may withdraw his approval of any route or portion thereof on the Interstate System which is within an urbanized area or which passes through and connects urbanized areas within a State and which was selected and approved in accordance with this title, if he determines that such route or portion thereof is not essential to completion of a unified and connected Interstate System and if he receives assurances that the State does not intend to construct a toll road in the traffic corridor which would be served by the route or portion thereof."], the Secretary of Transportation shall approve the withdrawal from the Interstate System the route of Interstate Route 95 and Interstate Route 695 from the intersection with Interstate Route 295 in Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey, to the proposed intersection with Interstate Route 287 in Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey.
(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized and directed, pursuant to section 103 of such title, to designate as part of the Interstate Highway System the New Jersey Turnpike from exit 10 to the interchange with the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the Pennsylvania Turnpike from such interchange to and including the proposed interchange with Interstate Route 95 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
(C) The Secretary of Transportation is further authorized and directed to designate Interstate Route 95 and assure through proper sign designations the orderly connection of Interstate Route 95 pursuant to this section.
That reminds me of the old mile designations on I-287 - as you went south (west at the time) on NJ 440, mileage dropped to 0 at the Turnpike, then reset to (I think) 36, and continued down to (again, I think) 33 before dropping to 0 for the "actual" start of I-287, where I-95, whose mileage was represented by the 36-33 numbering, was to turn south. Exits were renumbered when they finally moved the start of I-287 to abut the start of NJ 440.(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-287/n41g.jpg)
At which service areas on the Turnpike is E-85 available?
Wonder if this will have any pictures of Breezewood, or maybe of that monument to PTC slothfulness, the uncompleted Bristol interchange between I-95 and the East-West Mainline of the Turnpike?
Request for quotation: PA Turnpike 75th Anniversary Coffee Table Book (http://www.paturnpike.com/purchasing/Bid%20Tabs/BID%20Printing-75thAnnivBook-2014.pdf) (.pdf)
I gotta say, based on progress with I-95 so far, 2105 may be realistic.Wonder if this will have any pictures of Breezewood, or maybe of that monument to PTC slothfulness, the uncompleted Bristol interchange between I-95 and the East-West Mainline of the Turnpike?
Request for quotation: PA Turnpike 75th Anniversary Coffee Table Book (http://www.paturnpike.com/purchasing/Bid%20Tabs/BID%20Printing-75thAnnivBook-2014.pdf) (.pdf)
April 2105 launch, huh? Going for bids early...
The PA Turnpike Commission (PTC) announced today that it has identified funding needed to construct a new interchange joining the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstate 276) with the Lafayette Street Extension in Montgomery County. Turnpike commissioners recently committed $45 million to construct a full on/off connection to be located between the existing Valley Forge and Norristown exits.
http://www.paturnpike.com/press/2015/20150107160400.htm
Funding for a new interchange in Norristown has been approved, according to the local media, earliest expected completion is 2020.QuoteThe PA Turnpike Commission (PTC) announced today that it has identified funding needed to construct a new interchange joining the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstate 276) with the Lafayette Street Extension in Montgomery County. Turnpike commissioners recently committed $45 million to construct a full on/off connection to be located between the existing Valley Forge and Norristown exits.
http://www.paturnpike.com/press/2015/20150107160400.htm
Funding for a new interchange in Norristown has been approved, according to the local media, earliest expected completion is 2020.QuoteThe PA Turnpike Commission (PTC) announced today that it has identified funding needed to construct a new interchange joining the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstate 276) with the Lafayette Street Extension in Montgomery County. Turnpike commissioners recently committed $45 million to construct a full on/off connection to be located between the existing Valley Forge and Norristown exits.
Opening (and most of construction) will come after planned conversion to AET. That and the limited space available between the Turnpike and the tracks makes me wonder if they'll just built a diamond with AET equipment on the ramps.
The new AET exit coming to the Northeast Extension looks more like a nod to future AET implementations, versus ones they built for other roadways. Some pics on the project website: http://www.paturnpike.com/constructionprojects/Rt903AEI/
The new AET exit coming to the Northeast Extension looks more like a nod to future AET implementations, versus ones they built for other roadways. Some pics on the project website: http://www.paturnpike.com/constructionprojects/Rt903AEI/
I love how PTC has such a boastful tone about this project, yet the I-95/I-276 Bristol interchange project is dragging-on at a pace that can be described as slow, slower and slowest.
Ganassi Racing built a secret indoor facility a decade ago. For years, Chip Ganassi and his associates denied the existence of the converted tunnel east of Pittsburgh, but it's not only there for straight-line running, it's now an approved IndyCar testing facility.
The Laurel Hill Tunnel was created in the late 1800s for a railway that was never finished. It later became part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. However, the popularity of the four-lane roadway eventually caused too much congestion at the two-lane, nearly mile-long tunnel, and in the late 1960s it was again abandoned.
How Ganassi came to control the tunnel and the extent of its usage remain part of its mystery, but there is no doubt that having a controlled environment to simulate actual racecars is a significant advantage, especially given the testing limits.
An Indiana state truck driver allegedly used the Pennsylvania Turnpike 146 times without paying fares totaling more than $23,680, according to court documents.
Abid Ponjevic, 57, of Avon, was held for trial Wednesday on charges of altered license plate, a registration plate violation and fare evasion by East Huntingdon District Judge Charles Moore.
A total 145 more counts of fare evasion were filed against Ponjevic as summary offenses for unpaid toll tickets that state police said they found in his cab when Ponjevic was arrested in July.
Ponjevic, an independent trucker who was born in Bosnia, was stopped about 9:20 p.m. on July 21 after he went through an E-ZPass lane at the New Stanton interchange with the first two digits of his front license plate covered with duct tape, state police Cpl. Charles Seilhamer testified.
I noticed new advisory signs on curves between Downingtown and Malvern. Some 60, some 65. A 65 advisory in a 65 zone doesn't make a lot of sense. Could this imply a forthcoming increase in the limit from 65 to 70 on this stretch? It would certainly be appropriate. When it is not rush hour, one can comfortably handle this stretch at 75-80.
I noticed new advisory signs on curves between Downingtown and Malvern. Some 60, some 65. A 65 advisory in a 65 zone doesn't make a lot of sense. Could this imply a forthcoming increase in the limit from 65 to 70 on this stretch? It would certainly be appropriate. When it is not rush hour, one can comfortably handle this stretch at 75-80.
I noticed new advisory signs on curves between Downingtown and Malvern. Some 60, some 65. A 65 advisory in a 65 zone doesn't make a lot of sense. Could this imply a forthcoming increase in the limit from 65 to 70 on this stretch? It would certainly be appropriate. When it is not rush hour, one can comfortably handle this stretch at 75-80.
They did this just before they posted the first 70 mph segment. Seems like it's an indicator that the segment you were on will become 70 mph soon.
I noticed new advisory signs on curves between Downingtown and Malvern. Some 60, some 65. A 65 advisory in a 65 zone doesn't make a lot of sense. Could this imply a forthcoming increase in the limit from 65 to 70 on this stretch? It would certainly be appropriate. When it is not rush hour, one can comfortably handle this stretch at 75-80.
They did this just before they posted the first 70 mph segment. Seems like it's an indicator that the segment you were on will become 70 mph soon.
Agreed - I saw these advisory signs near Lancaster right before they announced the higher speed limit on that stretch. I'm surprised they would post 70 MPH so close to Philly, but they did say the increase could be systemwide.
The highest actual speeds between Harrisburg and the Delaware River Bridge are between the Valley Forge and Bensalem interchanges. With the law restricting the higher limit to so-called rural areas only being no longer in effect, the PTC and PennDOT have both said they will consider 70 mph for non-rural stretches, specifically this stretch.
According to the PTC website, the only publicaly announced widening on the NE extension is up to Quakertown
The highest actual speeds between Harrisburg and the Delaware River Bridge are between the Valley Forge and Bensalem interchanges. With the law restricting the higher limit to so-called rural areas only being no longer in effect, the PTC and PennDOT have both said they will consider 70 mph for non-rural stretches, specifically this stretch.
When did PennDOT do that? I hope it was recently, because there are some Interstate segments in Pennsylvania that have heinously underposted speed limits. They include, but might not be limited to:
I-70 between Breezewood and the Maryland state line
I-79 between Washington and Cranberry Township
I-90
I-99 between State College and I-80
Quite frankly, the only Interstates that should have 55 MPH limits are the substandard ones in urban areas. Pennsylvania reminds me a lot of the Carolinas, with widely variable speed limits. At least the Interstates in Pennsylvania aren't as heavily patrolled as they are in the Carolinas.
I-90 won't go up that much. The asinine, unnecessary 55 section in Erie is a cash cow for them. I-79 could use a 70 MPH limit from I-279 to a little south of US 20. All of I-80 excluding Stroudsburg could be 70, as could US 15/future I-99 north of Williamsport.
According to the PTC website, the only publicaly announced widening on the NE extension is up to Quakertown
I'll take it! The improvement on the one section that's complete between I-276 and Lansdale is pretty dramatic.
On a side note, why is Exit 31 (Pa. 63) signed Lansdale when it is in Kulpsville?
Better question how come there is only one control city for PA 63? Remember there is a space included in the sign for two cities or places, yet it uses the redundant "Landsdale" for both the name and destination. If there is no other being used or planned to be used, then make a smaller sign.According to the PTC website, the only publicaly announced widening on the NE extension is up to Quakertown
I'll take it! The improvement on the one section that's complete between I-276 and Lansdale is pretty dramatic.
On a side note, why is Exit 31 (Pa. 63) signed Lansdale when it is in Kulpsville?
The asinine, unnecessary 55 section in Erie is a cash cow for them.
According to the PTC website, the only publicaly announced widening on the NE extension is up to Quakertown
I'll take it! The improvement on the one section that's complete between I-276 and Lansdale is pretty dramatic.
On a side note, why is Exit 31 (Pa. 63) signed Lansdale when it is in Kulpsville?Better question how come there is only one control city for PA 63? Remember there is a space included in the sign for two cities or places, yet it uses the redundant "Landsdale" for both the name and destination. If there is no other being used or planned to be used, then make a smaller sign.According to the PTC website, the only publicaly announced widening on the NE extension is up to Quakertown
I'll take it! The improvement on the one section that's complete between I-276 and Lansdale is pretty dramatic.
On a side note, why is Exit 31 (Pa. 63) signed Lansdale when it is in Kulpsville?
Not clear to me how far north the PTC is going to take the widening of the Northeast Extension...
The improvement on the one section that's complete between I-276 and Lansdale is pretty dramatic.
On a side note, why is Exit 31 (Pa. 63) signed Lansdale when it is in Kulpsville?
Better question how come there is only one control city for PA 63? Remember there is a space included in the sign for two cities or places, yet it uses the redundant "Landsdale" for both the name and destination. If there is no other being used or planned to be used, then make a smaller sign.
The highest actual speeds between Harrisburg and the Delaware River Bridge are between the Valley Forge and Bensalem interchanges. With the law restricting the higher limit to so-called rural areas only being no longer in effect, the PTC and PennDOT have both said they will consider 70 mph for non-rural stretches, specifically this stretch.
When did PennDOT do that? I hope it was recently, because there are some Interstate segments in Pennsylvania that have heinously underposted speed limits. They include, but might not be limited to:
I-70 between Breezewood and the Maryland state line
I-79 between Washington and Cranberry Township
I-90
I-99 between State College and I-80
Quite frankly, the only Interstates that should have 55 MPH limits are the substandard ones in urban areas. Pennsylvania reminds me a lot of the Carolinas, with widely variable speed limits. At least the Interstates in Pennsylvania aren't as heavily patrolled as they are in the Carolinas.
I-90 won't go up that much. The asinine, unnecessary 55 section in Erie is a cash cow for them.
The highest actual speeds between Harrisburg and the Delaware River Bridge are between the Valley Forge and Bensalem interchanges. With the law restricting the higher limit to so-called rural areas only being no longer in effect, the PTC and PennDOT have both said they will consider 70 mph for non-rural stretches, specifically this stretch.
When did PennDOT do that? I hope it was recently, because there are some Interstate segments in Pennsylvania that have heinously underposted speed limits. They include, but might not be limited to:
I-70 between Breezewood and the Maryland state line
I-79 between Washington and Cranberry Township
I-90
I-99 between State College and I-80
Quite frankly, the only Interstates that should have 55 MPH limits are the substandard ones in urban areas. Pennsylvania reminds me a lot of the Carolinas, with widely variable speed limits. At least the Interstates in Pennsylvania aren't as heavily patrolled as they are in the Carolinas.
I-90 won't go up that much. The asinine, unnecessary 55 section in Erie is a cash cow for them.
Agreed. For a town the size of Erie to have such looong stretches of "urban" speed limit zones on it's two major interstates is ridiculous! The traffic on I-79 -- especially between I-90 and US-20 -- is so sparse, giving it a 55 MPH limit is a joke.
And I-90's zone is a joke as most everything south of the freeway's 55 MPH zone is rural. With the exception of US-19/Peach Street, or as I like to call it: The "Peach Pit" due to all the poorly timed traffic lights along it, you have to go north a couple of miles or so before you get to actual bona-fide bedroom communities with sizable street grids or subdivisions. Hell, I-90 never comes close to Erie's city limits -- another reason to kill off the 55 zone.
One of the jokes I heard about the I-90 stretch thru PA is that 50% of it is a 55 MPH zone and the other 50% is always under construction with the speed limit even less. I guess they really want you to spend as much time in their little corner of the Commonwealth as possible.
It's still early in the construction season...Give PennDOT some time! :bigass:Exactly! Memorial Day weekend is right around the corner. PennDOT seems to love closing a lane for several miles right before a holiday weekend.
I-90 won't go up that much. The asinine, unnecessary 55 section in Erie is a cash cow for them.
According to the PTC website, the only publicaly announced widening on the NE extension is up to QuakertownThat is indeed a new development (to me anyways). The current widening contract, now under construction, only goes as far north as the Lansdale interchange.
One has to wonder if the space (at least for the old, long-gone button-copy BGS') was originally reserved for Green Lane (where PA 63 ends at PA 29).Better question how come there is only one control city for PA 63? Remember there is a space included in the sign for two cities or places, yet it uses the redundant "Lansdale" (intentional spelling correction) for both the name and destination. If there is no other being used or planned to be used, then make a smaller sign.I seem to recall that it was there on old button copy signs decades ago, then the blank space was retained on new retroreflective signs in FHWA type, then retained yet again on newer signs in Clearview.
The obvious choice for a second destination would be Harleysville
I-90 won't go up that much. The asinine, unnecessary 55 section in Erie is a cash cow for them.
When statements like this are made, is there any truth to it? This seems to be a universal excuse, often times without any substance to back it up. Do the police really congregate on I-90, or does traffic seem to flow fairly fast without much enforcement? And the million dollar question: What is the speed at which the cops will start stopping people?
"I saw someone pulled over" isn't really answering the question, because you don't know if that person was going 63 in a 55, 82 in a 55, had mechanical problems and the cop pulled up to help, or any other numerous possibilities as to why a civilian car and cop car were on the side of the road.
I noticed new advisory signs on curves between Downingtown and Malvern. Some 60, some 65. A 65 advisory in a 65 zone doesn't make a lot of sense. Could this imply a forthcoming increase in the limit from 65 to 70 on this stretch? It would certainly be appropriate. When it is not rush hour, one can comfortably handle this stretch at 75-80.
At least for now, one section of Pennsylvania's Interstate highway network that should not have a higher posted speed limit is I-70 between Washington (I-79) and New Stanton (I-76, Pennsylvania Turnpike).
I did see that PennDOT was starting a project to do some work along this stretch the last time I was by there (September 2014), but even by PennDOT standards, that is a terrible section of freeway.
According to the Morning Call (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/warrior/mc-road-warrior-turnpike-wider-20140703-column.html), there are reasonably firm plans to go up as far as Quakertown, intentions to go to Lehigh Valley, and perhaps the possibility of going further, depending on the availability of funds.
...
The Turnpike’s other recent reconstructions have been rather dramatic, too. I drove the length of the mainline from Harrisburg to the Ohio line last year for the first time in several years, and the many rebuilt sections were startlingly unfamiliar–it felt like a completely different highway.
I have mixed feelings about it, too, because there was a fertile period in my roadgeeking life when I lived in Harrisburg and drove long distances on the Turnpike regularly. And being engrossed in the Turnpike’s history, looking at old photos, etc., driving it in those days (early-mid 2000s) still evoked a sense of connection to the highway’s earliest days–with all of the original stylized concrete arch overpasses, wayside tables, colonial house service plazas, etc. With most of those things now gone, the highway is progressively getting more much modern, but unfortunately, it feels much less unique, too.
Typically moves 55-60 and there's almost always a cop sitting there with the radar gun out. Get much above 60 and you might get stopped. I've been going 60, been passed by someone going slightly faster than I was driving, and seen that person get pulled over not far ahead.
The redundancy isn’t really unique–just look at Irwin, Somerset, or Lebanon-Lancaster for examples of that. I have always wondered about the blank space, though. I seem to recall that it was there on old button copy signs decades ago, then the blank space was retained on new retroreflective signs in FHWA type, then retained yet again on newer signs in Clearview.
With the recent signage replacements along I-276; that redundancy now only exists for the westbound exit signs. PTC changed (long overdue IMHO) the legends for the eastbound exit BGS' Scroll down to Reply #955 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=419.950).The redundancy isn’t really unique–just look at Irwin, Somerset, or Lebanon-Lancaster for examples of that. I have always wondered about the blank space, though. I seem to recall that it was there on old button copy signs decades ago, then the blank space was retained on new retroreflective signs in FHWA type, then retained yet again on newer signs in Clearview.
Or how about Norristown? Literally, the sign repeats itself. Norristown/Norristown.
According to the PTC website, the only publicaly announced widening on the NE extension is up to QuakertownThat is indeed a new development (to me anyways). The current widening contract, now under construction, only goes as far north as the Lansdale interchange.
With the recent signage replacements along I-276; that redundancy now only exists for the westbound exit signs. PTC changed (long overdue IMHO) the legends for the eastbound exit BGS' Scroll down to Reply #955 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=419.950).The redundancy isn’t really unique–just look at Irwin, Somerset, or Lebanon-Lancaster for examples of that. I have always wondered about the blank space, though. I seem to recall that it was there on old button copy signs decades ago, then the blank space was retained on new retroreflective signs in FHWA type, then retained yet again on newer signs in Clearview.
Or how about Norristown? Literally, the sign repeats itself. Norristown/Norristown.
It should be noted that there are plans to split/reconfigure the Lansdale interchange into 2 separate exit ramps: one for EZ-Pass only (proposed Exit 31A), the other for the conventional cash/ticket booths (existing Exit 31/proposed Exit 31B). The signage plans I saw (from a couple of years ago) do indeed include Kulpsville as well as Lansdale (interchange name/listed destination redundancy will be retained) on the main BGS boards.
Oh I know that one very well, but at least there is no blank space for a second control city there like at Landsdale.The redundancy isn’t really unique–just look at Irwin, Somerset, or Lebanon-Lancaster for examples of that. I have always wondered about the blank space, though. I seem to recall that it was there on old button copy signs decades ago, then the blank space was retained on new retroreflective signs in FHWA type, then retained yet again on newer signs in Clearview.
Or how about Norristown? Literally, the sign repeats itself. Norristown/Norristown.
I did not know they changed it EB. I drove through there WB in March and the signs were still just Norristown/Norristown.The reason why the westbound signs didn't change was because there's a separate, direct exit ramp to I-476 South just prior to that exit. Eastbounders (that did not already exit off at Valley Forge to continue along I-76 East to I-476) wanting to get on I-476 South have to use the Norristown exit. As I stated earlier; this change (for the eastbound signs) should've been done when the I-476/Blue Route connection was first completed in the early 90s.
Oh I know that one very well, but at least there is no blank space for a second control city there like at Landsdale.It should be noted that when Germantown Pike was still part of US 422; Philadelphia was included with Norristown for the destination listings. One old BGS along I-276 eastbound survived (w/the US 422 shield removed/greened out) into the late 90s/early 2000s.
According to the PTC website, the only publicaly announced widening on the NE extension is up to Quakertown
I'll take it! The improvement on the one section that's complete between I-276 and Lansdale is pretty dramatic.
On a side note, why is Exit 31 (Pa. 63) signed Lansdale when it is in Kulpsville?Better question how come there is only one control city for PA 63? Remember there is a space included in the sign for two cities or places, yet it uses the redundant "Landsdale" for both the name and destination. If there is no other being used or planned to be used, then make a smaller sign.According to the PTC website, the only publicaly announced widening on the NE extension is up to Quakertown
I'll take it! The improvement on the one section that's complete between I-276 and Lansdale is pretty dramatic.
On a side note, why is Exit 31 (Pa. 63) signed Lansdale when it is in Kulpsville?
Ramp F-1 in that diagram will be the new Exit 31A. The PTC signage plans I saw (on PTC Construction Plan format) shows such (note: upon re-examining the plans, I made an error in terms of the destination listings and modifed my earlier post per above). Given that this new ramp is close to the existing interchange; assigning it, and redesignating the existing ramp as Exit 31B, seems to be a no-brainer. Note: based in the above-graphic, there will still be only one exit ramp from I-476 southbound.It should be noted that there are plans to split/reconfigure the Lansdale interchange into 2 separate exit ramps: one for EZ-Pass only (proposed Exit 31A), the other for the conventional cash/ticket booths (existing Exit 31/proposed Exit 31B). The signage plans I saw (from a couple of years ago) do indeed include Kulpsvilleas well as Lansdale (interchange name/listed destination redundancy will be retained)and Harleysville on the main BGS boards. Harleysville will be listed above Kulpsville. The Lansdale interchange name banner will remain but it will be the same height (16", 5-W Clearview font) as the destination listings and will also be in mixed-case lettering.
They provided this image as what the new ramps will look like, no indication of exit numbers though... (https://www.patpconstruction.com/mpa20toa31/lib/img/overview/lansdale-interchange.jpg)
auxiliary ramps
Three auxiliary ramps are being constructed:
one ramp from Towamencin
and two E-ZPass-only ramps
(one entering southbound I-476 from
Old Forty Foot Road and one exiting
I-476 northbound to Sumneytown Pike).
Project newsletter: https://www.patpconstruction.com/mpA20toA31/lib/pdf/Winter_2015_Newsletter.pdf
If they do opt for suffixes, it will be the first ones since Mid-County (Exit 20) was Exit 25A, numbered as a main-line exit when it opened.
Nah, towards the end of months, there will be 5 million police officers strolling the interstates to fulfill their quotas. It basically turns the PA Turnpike and the rest of the state into speed traps every inch.The highest actual speeds between Harrisburg and the Delaware River Bridge are between the Valley Forge and Bensalem interchanges. With the law restricting the higher limit to so-called rural areas only being no longer in effect, the PTC and PennDOT have both said they will consider 70 mph for non-rural stretches, specifically this stretch.
When did PennDOT do that? I hope it was recently, because there are some Interstate segments in Pennsylvania that have heinously underposted speed limits. They include, but might not be limited to:
I-70 between Breezewood and the Maryland state line
I-79 between Washington and Cranberry Township
I-90
I-99 between State College and I-80
Quite frankly, the only Interstates that should have 55 MPH limits are the substandard ones in urban areas. Pennsylvania reminds me a lot of the Carolinas, with widely variable speed limits. At least the Interstates in Pennsylvania aren't as heavily patrolled as they are in the Carolinas.
Is Highway 43 ever going to be extended further north, or will it permanently dead-end at Exit 54?
Is Highway 43 ever going to be extended further north, or will it permanently dead-end at Exit 54?
Is Highway 43 ever going to be extended further north, or will it permanently dead-end at Exit 54?
Is Highway 43 ever going to be extended further north, or will it permanently dead-end at Exit 54?Probably in 3001.
One of the last remaining pieces of getting this job to construction is permitting. DEP will be holding a public hearing for the MP 320-326 project on July 14 from 7 pm to 9 pm at the Tredyffrin Township Bldg. Plans will be available for review beginning at 6:30 pm.
Is Highway 43 ever going to be extended further north, or will it permanently dead-end at Exit 54?
Personally, I'd say the odds favor it never making it north of Exit 54, though I wouldn't be that surprised if it were to make it somewhere north. I could see the eastern leg heading to Monroeville actually getting built at some point in the future, or maybe even just extending it to the Duquesne / West Mifflin area.
As for the spur into the City, I feel seeing that built in my lifetime (if ever) is more likely than seeing the sun rise in the west, but a little less likely than seeing true peace in the Middle East.
The Breezewood issue isn't just PTC; it's also PennDOT.
Which agency is going to spend the money to fix it? By rights, both should.
But, how many people from the motoring public get upset about this issue? Overall, probably very few. They're probably more upset about routine congestion on an otherwise free-flowing highway. There's probably more people here in this group that get upset just the principle of it than have actually been thru it.
It should be fixed, because Interstates shouldn't have traffic lights on them. But then again we have another thread going regarding intersections on interstates in Texas, which is also not supposed to occur.
There are imperfections in the system, but at least they are isolated instances. It's not like the Feds are bowing to pressure to create more at-grade intersections on the Interstate system.
Agreed that it is a PennDOT and PTC problem. But Congress could mandate a fix by telling the PTC that the interest on Turnpike bonds will become fully taxable if it fails remediate all of those non-connections between the Turnpike and crossing freeways and expressways. PTC would have them all (Allegheny Valley, Somerset, Bedford, Breezewood, Carlisle, Pocono, Wyoming Valley, and the badly substandard interchange at Clark's Summit) fixed in a year or two!
Hell, they could throw in money into any federal spending budget specifically for those items. But overall, when it comes down to it, the Feds seem to be OK with the situation as it is.Quite true.
Considering direct, limited-access highway connections have been built with I-376 (Beaver Valley and Monroeville)
Even the Beaver Valley interchange isn't optimal (and it was totally built by the PTC), as traffic from I-76 wanting to go on I-376 WB (north) has a stop sign to contend with, and a left turn across traffic to get there, to accommodate local access to PA-351
Even the Beaver Valley interchange isn't optimal (and it was totally built by the PTC), as traffic from I-76 wanting to go on I-376 WB (north) has a stop sign to contend with, and a left turn across traffic to get there, to accommodate local access to PA-351
I wonder, could be possible to replace that stop sign with a roundabout?
Depending on terrain a PTP to NB 376 lop ramp would be more optimal.
Agreed that it is a PennDOT and PTC problem. But Congress could mandate a fix by telling the PTC that the interest on Turnpike bonds will become fully taxable if it fails remediate all of those non-connections between the Turnpike and crossing freeways and expressways. PTC would have them all (Allegheny Valley, Somerset, Bedford, Breezewood, Carlisle, Pocono, Wyoming Valley, and the badly substandard interchange at Clark's Summit) fixed in a year or two!
Or they'd just raise the tolls to cover the tax. A lot of those potential interchanges would be very expensive, and very difficult to get done. Really, Breezewood is probably the easiest of all those connections to make. All that's really needed is 2 fairly simple ramps and modifications to bypass US-30. (Of course, I've seen some interesting more elaborate ideas elsewhere in these forums)
Hell, they could throw in money into any federal spending budget specifically for those items. But overall, when it comes down to it, the Feds seem to be OK with the situation as it is.Nobody in Congress (where the pressure has to originate) has a clue or really cares.
Considering direct, limited-access highway connections have been built with I-376 (Beaver Valley and Monroeville)
Even the Beaver Valley interchange isn't optimal (and it was totally built by the PTC), as traffic from I-76 wanting to go on I-376 WB (north) has a stop sign to contend with, and a left turn across traffic to get there, to accommodate local access to PA-351
If Breezewood is so easy and cheap to fix, why won't someone just fix it? It seems like it'd be good PR for the PTC or PennDOT if things got fixed.
I could see someone raising a stink though about job losses when all of the businesses in Breezewood have to close shop because no one would ever stop there otherwise.
For all the times I have driven I-70 thru Breezewood, that particular exit on the Pike vs some of the neighboring exits has the best selection of services in quite a distance either way. Even if they did convert Breezewood to a full interstate-interstate interchange with a secondary exit to/from US-30, I still think a lot of the businesses will continue to thrive as it will still be a "pit stop" for a lot of travelers. It's not like there are a deluge of exits with boku services within 15 miles of Breezewood on either section of I-70 or I-76 East for that matter.
The biggest Breezewood NIMBYs are probably the businesses that shouldn't be in business there in the first place -- the oldest of the old and/or the ones that charge higher than normal prices for their food, gas and/or lodging.
I'd be also willing to bet that many of the businesses will gain nearly as many customers as they would stand to lose -- they may lose some of the I-70 thru traffic, but they may gain people who would not/did not stop because they were afraid to stop with all of the current traffic flow & congestion during peak times.
Just my $.02 observation.
PennDOT and PTC simply gave up on Breezewood - it's a permanent addition to the Interstate system. NIMBYs have stopped the connection, because of the fear of the hard earned cash going down the drain.
My family usually stop at Breezewood because those are the first couple services since Chambersburg, 40 miles away. There's also less lines at Breezewood than the service plazas further west of Breezewood, so if we're in a rush, we can zip in and out for food/snacks/gas.PennDOT and PTC simply gave up on Breezewood - it's a permanent addition to the Interstate system. NIMBYs have stopped the connection, because of the fear of the hard earned cash going down the drain.
The owners of the land on which the Breezewood schlock sits have been very good about getting Pennsylvania elected officials to not even talk about a remediation.
I drive through Breezewood sometimes, but I never, ever stop to patronize anything. Instead, I stop in Hancock, Maryland or at one of the Pennsylvania Turnpike service plazas west of Breezewood.
For all the times I have driven I-70 thru Breezewood, that particular exit on the Pike vs some of the neighboring exits has the best selection of services in quite a distance either way. Even if they did convert Breezewood to a full interstate-interstate interchange with a secondary exit to/from US-30, I still think a lot of the businesses will continue to thrive as it will still be a "pit stop" for a lot of travelers. It's not like there are a deluge of exits with boku services within 15 miles of Breezewood on either section of I-70 or I-76 East for that matter.
I'd be also willing to bet that many of the businesses will gain nearly as many customers as they would stand to lose -- they may lose some of the I-70 thru traffic, but they may gain people who would not/did not stop because they were afraid to stop with all of the current traffic flow & congestion during peak times.
Just my $.02 observation.
I think this is where we start grasping for straws. By this logic, everywhere where two interstates meet, there would be a huge metropolis of hotels, fast food restaurants, and other services. Clearly this isn't the case.
Another solution for Breezewood that I read about on the web in the MTR era: Connect the two stub ends of I-70 and the old pike with a wide arc behind the business strip. That way everyone would see the businesses there. Each side would be a half-diamond ramps.
Another solution for Breezewood that I read about on the web in the MTR era: Connect the two stub ends of I-70 and the old pike with a wide arc behind the business strip. That way everyone would see the businesses there. Each side would be a half-diamond ramps.That's right. When you look at a map of Breezewood, you can see that the terminus of I-70 at US 30 is nearly a mile north of the point where the turnpike goes over I-70. If you put in direct ramps at the point where the turnpike goes over I-70, very few people would go 2 miles out of their way for gasoline and food.
There is at least some hope for a compromise if the only way to get from I-70 to the Turnpike is by going over the town of Breezewood with a diamond exit at US 30.
If you put in direct ramps at the point where the turnpike goes over I-70, very few people would go 2 miles out of their way for gasoline and food.
If you put in direct ramps at the point where the turnpike goes over I-70, very few people would go 2 miles out of their way for gasoline and food.
I might agree somewhat about gasoline - But if I were hungry around that area, I would absolutely hit up Breezewood for the choice in food. I'm on the side of thinking that says Breezewood would be just fine with a direct connection of some sort for I-70 & the Turnpike.
If you put in direct ramps at the point where the turnpike goes over I-70, very few people would go 2 miles out of their way for gasoline and food.
I might agree somewhat about gasoline - But if I were hungry around that area, I would absolutely hit up Breezewood for the choice in food. I'm on the side of thinking that says Breezewood would be just fine with a direct connection of some sort for I-70 & the Turnpike.
I'd still hit up Breezewood if I timed it right, even if it was only for gas. The amount you'd save at the pump is worth it and the cheaper food options are certainly a plus. What will hurt are the places that want to price gouge.
If you put in direct ramps at the point where the turnpike goes over I-70, very few people would go 2 miles out of their way for gasoline and food.
I might agree somewhat about gasoline - But if I were hungry around that area, I would absolutely hit up Breezewood for the choice in food. I'm on the side of thinking that says Breezewood would be just fine with a direct connection of some sort for I-70 & the Turnpike.
I'd still hit up Breezewood if I timed it right, even if it was only for gas. The amount you'd save at the pump is worth it and the cheaper food options are certainly a plus. What will hurt are the places that want to price gouge.
If you're hitting up Breezewood for gas, then you are doing it wrong and planned poorly. Breezewood has among the highest prices for gas in the state. If you are using I-70, Maryland isn't too far away and gas is 20 cents cheaper, which you should've hit up before entering PA, or planning your gas usage properly so you have enough to make it down to Maryland. Other states are cheaper than PA in general, and there are even other towns in PA at least a dime cheaper than Breezewood.
Hell, right now (6/17/15, 10:25pm per Gasbuddy), gas is about $2.95 in Breezewood. Gas at the Sideling Hill Service Plaza is $2.92.
So, how does spending more in Breezewood save you money???
If you put in direct ramps at the point where the turnpike goes over I-70, very few people would go 2 miles out of their way for gasoline and food.
I might agree somewhat about gasoline - But if I were hungry around that area, I would absolutely hit up Breezewood for the choice in food. I'm on the side of thinking that says Breezewood would be just fine with a direct connection of some sort for I-70 & the Turnpike.
I'd still hit up Breezewood if I timed it right, even if it was only for gas. The amount you'd save at the pump is worth it and the cheaper food options are certainly a plus. What will hurt are the places that want to price gouge.
If you're hitting up Breezewood for gas, then you are doing it wrong and planned poorly. Breezewood has among the highest prices for gas in the state. If you are using I-70, Maryland isn't too far away and gas is 20 cents cheaper, which you should've hit up before entering PA, or planning your gas usage properly so you have enough to make it down to Maryland. Other states are cheaper than PA in general, and there are even other towns in PA at least a dime cheaper than Breezewood.
Hell, right now (6/17/15, 10:25pm per Gasbuddy), gas is about $2.95 in Breezewood. Gas at the Sideling Hill Service Plaza is $2.92.
So, how does spending more in Breezewood save you money???
The PA Turnpike announced more details on the all-electronic tolling coming to the Delaware River Bridge next year.
However, they also announced I-376 (Beaver Valley Expressway) will also go AET.
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Electronic-Tolls-Delaware-River-Bridge-PA-Turnpike-Pennsylvania-308004461.html (http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Electronic-Tolls-Delaware-River-Bridge-PA-Turnpike-Pennsylvania-308004461.html)
Not sure if this video has been posted on AAROADS before: Bucks County Courier-Times: "Drive" the Pennsylvania Turnpike's new I-95 connection (http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/drive-the-pennsylvania-turnpike-s-new-i--connection/html_44ba77d7-0b7f-5aa2-bdba-9ff200d1a18b.html)It was and it's about a year or two old (Note the I-195 signing (now Future I-295)).
Pennsylvania Turnpike drivers used the bright yellow roadside emergency call boxes more than 18,000 times a year 15 years ago. Now, it's about 1,200 times a year.
About half of Americans owned a cellphone 15 years ago. Now, ownership hovers at about 90 percent, so the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is considering whether it's time to scale back one of the nation's last and largest emergency call box systems.
“With the continued drop in the call box deployments and the new ways that we have to tell us about accidents, I think that's made the timing right to reconsider this,” turnpike spokesman Carl DeFebo said.
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Pa. Turnpike commission considers getting rid of callboxes (http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/8613440-74/turnpike-call-boxes)As I mentioned either further back on this thread or in another thread; I would support reducing but not flat-out eliminating all the call boxes for the following reasons:QuotePennsylvania Turnpike drivers used the bright yellow roadside emergency call boxes more than 18,000 times a year 15 years ago. Now, it's about 1,200 times a year.QuoteAbout half of Americans owned a cellphone 15 years ago. Now, ownership hovers at about 90 percent, so the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is considering whether it's time to scale back one of the nation's last and largest emergency call box systems.
“With the continued drop in the call box deployments and the new ways that we have to tell us about accidents, I think that's made the timing right to reconsider this,” turnpike spokesman Carl DeFebo said.One needs to remember that call boxes aren't just for reporting accidents; but for reporting breakdowns as well.
IMHO, a more logical approach would be to reduce the number of call boxes along stretches that go through more populated regions (example: I-276 in the Greater Philadelphia area). Instead of currently having one at every mile; reduce the number to one every 2 or 3 miles. in those areas.depending on how the call boxes are connected, this might not actually provide a significant cost savings - e.g. if the removal of some but not all boxes requires the installation and subsequent maintenance of repeaters or other hardware. disclaimer - i do not know how the call boxes are wired, this is purely conjecture.
One would hope that those strings of call-boxes were installed in parallel circuits as opposed to in series. That way if one is taken out of service (or knocked out in an accident); the remaining boxes before and after would still be functional.IMHO, a more logical approach would be to reduce the number of call boxes along stretches that go through more populated regions (example: I-276 in the Greater Philadelphia area). Instead of currently having one at every mile; reduce the number to one every 2 or 3 miles. in those areas.depending on how the call boxes are connected, this might not actually provide a significant cost savings - e.g. if the removal of some but not all boxes requires the installation and subsequent maintenance of repeaters or other hardware. disclaimer - i do not know how the call boxes are wired, this is purely conjecture.
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Pa. Turnpike commission considers getting rid of callboxes (http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/8613440-74/turnpike-call-boxes)As I mentioned either further back on this thread or in another thread; I would support reducing but not flat-out eliminating all the call boxes for the following reasons:QuotePennsylvania Turnpike drivers used the bright yellow roadside emergency call boxes more than 18,000 times a year 15 years ago. Now, it's about 1,200 times a year.QuoteAbout half of Americans owned a cellphone 15 years ago. Now, ownership hovers at about 90 percent, so the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is considering whether it's time to scale back one of the nation's last and largest emergency call box systems.
1. The more remote and rural stretches of the Turnpike may still not have decent cell phone reception (aka Dead Zones).
2. If one's cell phone is out of commission or has a dead battery (such does happen) and that person is driving alone; they might as well be viewed as someone without a cell phone.Quote from: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review“With the continued drop in the call box deployments and the new ways that we have to tell us about accidents, I think that's made the timing right to reconsider this,” turnpike spokesman Carl DeFebo said.One needs to remember that call boxes aren't just for reporting accidents; but for reporting breakdowns as well.
IMHO, a more logical approach would be to reduce the number of call boxes along stretches that go through more populated regions (example: I-276 in the Greater Philadelphia area). Instead of currently having one at every mile; reduce the number to one every 2 or 3 miles. in those areas.
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Pa. Turnpike commission considers getting rid of callboxes (http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/8613440-74/turnpike-call-boxes)As I mentioned either further back on this thread or in another thread; I would support reducing but not flat-out eliminating all the call boxes for the following reasons:QuotePennsylvania Turnpike drivers used the bright yellow roadside emergency call boxes more than 18,000 times a year 15 years ago. Now, it's about 1,200 times a year.QuoteAbout half of Americans owned a cellphone 15 years ago. Now, ownership hovers at about 90 percent, so the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is considering whether it's time to scale back one of the nation's last and largest emergency call box systems.
1. The more remote and rural stretches of the Turnpike may still not have decent cell phone reception (aka Dead Zones).
2. If one's cell phone is out of commission or has a dead battery (such does happen) and that person is driving alone; they might as well be viewed as someone without a cell phone.Quote from: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review“With the continued drop in the call box deployments and the new ways that we have to tell us about accidents, I think that's made the timing right to reconsider this,” turnpike spokesman Carl DeFebo said.One needs to remember that call boxes aren't just for reporting accidents; but for reporting breakdowns as well.
IMHO, a more logical approach would be to reduce the number of call boxes along stretches that go through more populated regions (example: I-276 in the Greater Philadelphia area). Instead of currently having one at every mile; reduce the number to one every 2 or 3 miles. in those areas.
If they're going to keep them, they have to remain every mile. If you have a breakdown, you're not going to want to walk upwards of 3 miles to get to a box. Let's say someone breaks down: they're probably not aware of where the closest box is. They walk the right way, and it's no further than a half mile away. Walk the wrong way, and that's a long 2.5 mile walk with traffic flying by. Oh, they have to return to their car. That could be over a 5 mile round trip walk.
New NE Extension All Electronic (but E-Z Pass Only) Exit 87 is scheduled to (finally) open June 30. https://www.patpconstruction.com/Rt903AEI/
The release notes that mis-use of the interchange (without E-ZPass) results in a $25 administrative charge, and the toll will be equal to the furthest entry point -- Ohio Line. That's some charge...
I noticed today that a VMS announced the opening of the "Route 903" E-ZPass only interchange on the NE Extension on 6/30. From what I could tell from the covered up signs, control cities are Lake Harmony and Jim Thorpe.
I noticed today that a VMS announced the opening of the "Route 903" E-ZPass only interchange on the NE Extension on 6/30. From what I could tell from the covered up signs, control cities are Lake Harmony and Jim Thorpe.
I don’t know how I completely missed any news of this project even being underway, but just now looking at the project map for the first time...it looks like the new diamond interchange will cause some weaving conflicts with the Hickory Run Service Plaza which is immediately adjacent.
I must be missing something. Unless exit 87 and the Hickory Run Service Plaza are both right exits, and exit 87 is an exit only lane, there should be no weaving between the deceleration lane and the slip ramp.I noticed today that a VMS announced the opening of the "Route 903" E-ZPass only interchange on the NE Extension on 6/30. From what I could tell from the covered up signs, control cities are Lake Harmony and Jim Thorpe.
I don’t know how I completely missed any news of this project even being underway, but just now looking at the project map for the first time...it looks like the new diamond interchange will cause some weaving conflicts with the Hickory Run Service Plaza which is immediately adjacent.
Headed NB on the Turnpike there's a WEAVE sign at the merge of the Hickory Run Service Area on ramp.
(https://www.edgarsnyder.com/images/large-550/signs/weave-area.png)
I noticed today that a VMS announced the opening of the "Route 903" E-ZPass only interchange on the NE Extension on 6/30. From what I could tell from the covered up signs, control cities are Lake Harmony and Jim Thorpe.
I dont know how I completely missed any news of this project even being underway, but just now looking at the project map for the first time...it looks like the new diamond interchange will cause some weaving conflicts with the Hickory Run Service Plaza which is immediately adjacent.
Headed NB on the Turnpike there's a WEAVE sign at the merge of the Hickory Run Service Area on ramp.
(https://www.edgarsnyder.com/images/large-550/signs/weave-area.png)
The new interchange who only allow EZ-pass users with PA-903 on the NE Extension (I-476) is open just in time for July 4.
http://www.wfmz.com/news/Regional-Poconos-Coal/new-rt-903-turnpike-interchange-opens-in-poconos/33865186
The new interchange who only allow EZ-pass users with PA-903 on the NE Extension (I-476) is open just in time for July 4.
http://www.wfmz.com/news/Regional-Poconos-Coal/new-rt-903-turnpike-interchange-opens-in-poconos/33865186
Great to see it open and E-Z Pass technology being used to its fullest potential. But I'm curious, why don't they install ticket dispensers for the onramps to the Turnpike? It would still be a human free interchange and more motorists could use the access to the roadway.
The new interchange who only allow EZ-pass users with PA-903 on the NE Extension (I-476) is open just in time for July 4.
http://www.wfmz.com/news/Regional-Poconos-Coal/new-rt-903-turnpike-interchange-opens-in-poconos/33865186
Great to see it open and E-Z Pass technology being used to its fullest potential. But I'm curious, why don't they install ticket dispensers for the onramps to the Turnpike? It would still be a human free interchange and more motorists could use the access to the roadway.
Great to see it open and E-Z Pass technology being used to its fullest potential. But I'm curious, why don't they install ticket dispensers for the onramps to the Turnpike? It would still be a human free interchange and more motorists could use the access to the roadway.If one installs ticket dispensers on the on-ramps; one would need to install tollbooths for the corresponding the off-ramps; so it would not be human-free. Remember, this is a full-movement interchange; not an entrance-ramps only one.
Great to see it open and E-Z Pass technology being used to its fullest potential. But I'm curious, why don't they install ticket dispensers for the onramps to the Turnpike? It would still be a human free interchange and more motorists could use the access to the roadway.If one installs ticket dispensers on the on-ramps; one would need to install tollbooths for the corresponding the off-ramps; so it would not be human-free. Remember, this is a full-movement interchange; not an entrance-ramps only one.
They're supposed to be free-flowing interchanges. Tickets require vehicles to stop. And tickets need to be reloaded. And ticket machines jam.
Besides, much of the purpose is to encourage EZ Pass usage.
But I'm curious, why don't they install ticket dispensers for the onramps to the Turnpike? It would still be a human free interchange and more motorists could use the access to the roadway.
That's what they're doing with the new toll barrier for the I-95 interchange. I'd rather they stick to their original schedule to do a total conversion in 2016, ditch the barrier, and put the money to finishing the rest of the project sooner. But that's not how the PTC works...But I'm curious, why don't they install ticket dispensers for the onramps to the Turnpike? It would still be a human free interchange and more motorists could use the access to the roadway.
Because in a few years the Turnpike will be All Electronic Tolling (AET) on the entire system, so they would be purchasing and installing new equipment just to rip it out after not too long.
Another year, another toll increase. This one, however, is much larger than usual (at least for E-ZPass customers)I think everyone in PA might be missing something here....can't you use US 30 as a shunpike to it? Why don't more people use US 30 as a shunpike (If you want to go to Harrisburg, take US 30 to I-83)?
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2015/07/07/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-tolls-go-up-for-eighth-in-a-row/stories/201507070174
This one, however, is much larger than usual (at least for E-ZPass customers)the increases are the same for cash and EZpass - was that not the case previously?
Another year, another toll increase. This one, however, is much larger than usual (at least for E-ZPass customers)Act 44 strikes again.
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2015/07/07/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-tolls-go-up-for-eighth-in-a-row/stories/201507070174
Also, an additional toll will be collected from westbound vehicles at a new all-electronic toll plaza in Bucks County, at the eastern end of the turnpike.One word (worth repeating) comment for such: Extortion, Extortion, Extortion!
That toll will be $5 for passenger vehicles using E-ZPass and $6.75 for vehicles without E-ZPass. A bill will be mailed to the owner of a non-E-ZPass vehicle, based on its license plate.
I think everyone in PA might be missing something here....can't you use US 30 as a shunpike to it? Why don't more people use US 30 as a shunpike (If you want to go to Harrisburg, take US 30 to I-83)?US 30 is not a continuous highway in the Keystone State whereas the Turnpike is. So using it as a shunpike route can add more travel time depending on where one's origin & destination are.
If the PANYNJ can charge what they do between NJ and NY, and NYC's Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority can charge what they have been on their crossings, I guess PTC can overcharge as well.Again, and I stated such earlier, this is not metropolitan NYC/Hudson River Crossings we're talking about here where there's (near-)monopoly-agency control here. This is an area that's just north of DRPA territory (although they tried & failed to get control over the Tacony-Palmyra and Burlington-Bristol Bridges during the mid-90s, thank goodness) and is just south of DRJTBC (Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission) territory. I can easily see added traffic along the Burlington-Bristol, Trenton-Morrisville and even the Scudder Falls Bridges as a result of this proposed extortion toll.
Then we cannot forget Delaware either, who had as of last year the most expensive toll rate per mile on I-95.Apples & oranges comparsion; that toll (also an extortion rate IMHO) doesn't involve a river crossing and can be easily bypassed.
Act 44 is the next Cherynobyl disaster...sooner or later people will find the turnpike too expensive, even for EZPass, and then byebye PTC.
I don't know...look at Harrisburg's roads. They are a disgrace to this country.Act 44 is the next Cherynobyl disaster...sooner or later people will find the turnpike too expensive, even for EZPass, and then byebye PTC.
Pfft. Demand's too inelastic to ever see that happen.
I don't know...look at Harrisburg's roads. They are a disgrace to this country.Act 44 is the next Cherynobyl disaster...sooner or later people will find the turnpike too expensive, even for EZPass, and then byebye PTC.
Pfft. Demand's too inelastic to ever see that happen.
But if the PANYNJ can charge outrageous tolls, why can't the PTC? Just like when Disney World charges over 100 bucks a pop, the other theme parks follow suit.If the PANYNJ can charge what they do between NJ and NY, and NYC's Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority can charge what they have been on their crossings, I guess PTC can overcharge as well.Again, and I stated such earlier, this is not metropolitan NYC/Hudson River Crossings we're talking about here where there's (near-)monopoly-agency control here. This is an area that's just north of DRPA territory (although they tried & failed to get control over the Tacony-Palmyra and Burlington-Bristol Bridges during the mid-90s, thank goodness) and is just south of DRJTBC (Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission) territory. I can easily see added traffic along the Burlington-Bristol, Trenton-Morrisville and even the Scudder Falls Bridges as a result of this proposed extortion toll.Then we cannot forget Delaware either, who had as of last year the most expensive toll rate per mile on I-95.Apples & oranges comparsion; that toll (also an extortion rate IMHO) doesn't involve a river crossing and can be easily bypassed.
Harrisburg's freeways and freeway bridges are pretty substandard, and are only four-six lanes wide. Therei s also tight weaving because of how many exits there are tightly packed together (this is true for I-83 SB from US 322 WB from the Eisenhower Interchange - if you want to get on Paxton Street from US 322, you have to make a hard weave in 3/8 of a mile to exit). They are also pretty bumpy too, that they're gonna become Hersheypark.I don't know...look at Harrisburg's roads. They are a disgrace to this country.Act 44 is the next Cherynobyl disaster...sooner or later people will find the turnpike too expensive, even for EZPass, and then byebye PTC.
Pfft. Demand's too inelastic to ever see that happen.
Huh? :hmm:
It's going to be even more ridiculous when (future I-295 / ) I-95 north of Trenton's crossing via the Scudder Falls Bridge will become tolled.What agency will be tolling that upgraded crossing? I'm assuming that it will be the DRJTBC (which tolls the US 1 crossing). Hopefully, they'll have the decency to show some restraint with the future toll rate. IMHO, that new crossing (Scudder Falls) should not have a PA-bound toll higher than $3 (for passenger vehicles). All other DRJTBC tolled crossings are currently only $1.
It's going to be even more ridiculous when (future I-295 / ) I-95 north of Trenton's crossing via the Scudder Falls Bridge will become tolled.What agency will be tolling that upgraded crossing? I'm assuming that it will be the DRJTBC (which tolls the US 1 crossing). Hopefully, they'll have the decency to show some restraint with the future toll rate. IMHO, that new crossing (Scudder Falls) should not have a PA-bound toll higher than $3 (for passenger vehicles). All other DRJTBC tolled crossings are currently only $1.
But if the PANYNJ can charge outrageous tolls, why can't the PTC? Just like when Disney World charges over 100 bucks a pop, the other theme parks follow suit.
Bottom line is if one person charges ridiculous prices and gets away with it, others will soon follow. My point was not about the different politics between NYC and SE PA, just to point out its old news to jack up the prices anyplace now.
Act 44 is the next Cherynobyl disaster...sooner or later people will find the turnpike too expensive, even for EZPass, and then byebye PTC.
Act 89 substantially altered the Commission’s funding obligations to PennDOT. While the Commission’s payment obligation remains at $450 million annually through Fiscal Year 2022, none of the payments are dedicated to highways and bridges. Instead, all $450 million is allocated to support transit capital, operating, multi-modal and other non-highway programs. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2023, the annual payment obligations decreases to $50 million until the payment obligations ends in 2057.
Harrisburg's freeways and freeway bridges are pretty substandard, and are only four-six lanes wide. Therei s also tight weaving because of how many exits there are tightly packed together (this is true for I-83 SB from US 322 WB from the Eisenhower Interchange - if you want to get on Paxton Street from US 322, you have to make a hard weave in 3/8 of a mile to exit). They are also pretty bumpy too, that they're gonna become Hersheypark.I don't know...look at Harrisburg's roads. They are a disgrace to this country.Act 44 is the next Cherynobyl disaster...sooner or later people will find the turnpike too expensive, even for EZPass, and then byebye PTC.
Pfft. Demand's too inelastic to ever see that happen.
Huh? :hmm:
Act 44 was superseded by Act 89, but the tolls will keep going up to fund projects that have nothing to do with the Pennsylvania Turnpike.Slight correction, Act 89 amended (not superseded) Act 44 per the opening paragraph of your posted-link (bold emphasis added).
The General Assembly of Pennsylvania approved Act 44 in July 2007 that was subsequently amended by Act 89 in November 2013.
If the PANYNJ can charge what they do between NJ and NY, and NYC's Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority can charge what they have been on their crossings, I guess PTC can overcharge as well.One difference between the PANYNJ and the PTC is that PANYNJ covers a much smaller (but lucrative) territory (mainly the Hudson River corridor) and whereas the PTC's highway network extends statewide.
Just like when Disney World charges over 100 bucks a pop, the other theme parks follow suit.Disney World and other theme parks are a pleasure destinations; toll facilities, by and large, are not.
Bottom line is if one person charges ridiculous prices and gets away with it, others will soon follow.Yes and no. A year or two ago, RITBA tried to pull a fast one with implementing a toll (via AET gantries) for the replacement Sakonnet River Bridge (Route 24) and charged NYC-like rates for out-of-state drivers (including neighboring MA). Thankfully, the state intervened and RITBA were beaten back and the temporary 10-cent tolls on the gantries were dropped (though the gantries themselves are still present IIRC).
The bridge is being replaced, and DRJTBC already said the tolls won't be going away.It's going to be even more ridiculous when (future I-295 / ) I-95 north of Trenton's crossing via the Scudder Falls Bridge will become tolled.What agency will be tolling that upgraded crossing? I'm assuming that it will be the DRJTBC (which tolls the US 1 crossing). Hopefully, they'll have the decency to show some restraint with the future toll rate. IMHO, that new crossing (Scudder Falls) should not have a PA-bound toll higher than $3 (for passenger vehicles). All other DRJTBC tolled crossings are currently only $1.
DRJTBC owns the Scudder Falls Bridge. Also I believe the tolls are going up to fund the bridge widening (or are they flat out replacing it?) project so hopefully they go away after its paid for. *snickers*
Disney is just an example of what one agency does that another follows. Whether its public or private, it seems that all people of today copy one another! If one toll agency does it so will another large or small!Act 44 was superseded by Act 89, but the tolls will keep going up to fund projects that have nothing to do with the Pennsylvania Turnpike.Slight correction, Act 89 amended (not superseded) Act 44 per the opening paragraph of your posted-link (bold emphasis added).Quote from: PTC Act 44 PlanThe General Assembly of Pennsylvania approved Act 44 in July 2007 that was subsequently amended by Act 89 in November 2013.If the PANYNJ can charge what they do between NJ and NY, and NYC's Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority can charge what they have been on their crossings, I guess PTC can overcharge as well.One difference between the PANYNJ and the PTC is that PANYNJ covers a much smaller (but lucrative) territory (mainly the Hudson River corridor) and whereas the PTC's highway network extends statewide.Just like when Disney World charges over 100 bucks a pop, the other theme parks follow suit.Disney World and other theme parks are a pleasure destinations; toll facilities, by and large, are not.Bottom line is if one person charges ridiculous prices and gets away with it, others will soon follow.Yes and no. A year or two ago, RITBA tried to pull a fast one with implementing a toll (via AET gantries) for the replacement Sakonnet River Bridge (Route 24) and charged NYC-like rates for out-of-state drivers (including neighboring MA). Thankfully, the state intervened and RITBA were beaten back and the temporary 10-cent tolls on the gantries were dropped (though the gantries themselves are still present IIRC).
That was one case where NYC/PANYNJ-style toll rate tactics were, thankfully, aborted.
Hopefully, similar can happen here; especially since the Future I-95 section of the PA Turnpike (between the I-95 interchange and the Delaware River Bridge) was originally planned not to have tolls placed anywhere. While I don't expect the new westbound AET gantry will be dropped/withdrawn following a public outcry/protest over the pending toll rates; IMHO, the PTC could be forced/pressured (maybe it's time to involve the Feds since such is part of a quasi-Interstate completion project) to lower that AET toll rate enough to be reasonably competetive. While one should not expect a $1-$2 toll; $5+* is outrageous.
*Assuming this AET gantry is subject to Act 44 toll increases.
Disney is just an example of what one agency does that another follows. Whether its public or private, it seems that all people of today copy one another! If one toll agency does it so will another large or small!Agree on the principle/concept of such; disagree on the application. Most people can easily avoid Disney if they don't want to pay those prices; such is not always true for the motoring public and trucking industry.
Now granted that may not be the reason here, but do not be surprised if it is as well. Its human nature now to charge more especially if it puts a burden on the customers who have to pay.Again. We're not talking about something that most people can do without. Additionally, we're not talking about a region that has an overall higher cost-of-living (NYC i.e. where everything "supposedly" costs more) and where one agency literally controls every river crossing. We're talking about the modification of the toll structure/schedule for one particular existing crossing that is proposed to be overpriced.
The bridge is being replaced, and DRJTBC already said the tolls won't be going away.It's going to be even more ridiculous when (future I-295 / ) I-95 north of Trenton's crossing via the Scudder Falls Bridge will become tolled.What agency will be tolling that upgraded crossing? I'm assuming that it will be the DRJTBC (which tolls the US 1 crossing). Hopefully, they'll have the decency to show some restraint with the future toll rate. IMHO, that new crossing (Scudder Falls) should not have a PA-bound toll higher than $3 (for passenger vehicles). All other DRJTBC tolled crossings are currently only $1.
DRJTBC owns the Scudder Falls Bridge. Also I believe the tolls are going up to fund the bridge widening (or are they flat out replacing it?) project so hopefully they go away after its paid for. *snickers*
FWIW, the current 358-359 (Delaware Valley/Delaware River Bridge) toll is $2.15 cash/$1.46 E-ZPass. While such will go away for eastbounders; westbounder will get hosed with the new toll rates (assuming that such info. (from the Philly Inquirer) is indeed correct).Disney is just an example of what one agency does that another follows. Whether its public or private, it seems that all people of today copy one another! If one toll agency does it so will another large or small!Agree on the principle/concept of such; disagree on the application. Most people can easily avoid Disney if they don't want to pay those prices; such is not always true for the motoring public and trucking industry.Now granted that may not be the reason here, but do not be surprised if it is as well. Its human nature now to charge more especially if it puts a burden on the customers who have to pay.Again. We're not talking about something that most people can do without. Additionally, we're not talking about a region that has an overall higher cost-of-living (NYC i.e. where everything "supposedly" costs more) and where one agency literally controls every river crossing. We're talking about the modification of the toll structure/schedule for one particular existing crossing that is proposed to be overpriced.
And unlike past PA Turnpike toll increases (Act 44-related and otherwise); this new gantry directly targets those coming from the Garden State, especially locals from Florence with a significant percentage (at least 300%) toll increase.
Maybe, the best solution here would be to have either DRJTBC or even DRPA take over that particular proposed toll gantry (& bridge project) and eliminate the westbound toll from the NJTP/US 130 interchange. That way the toll rates will, at least, remain constant every year and won't be subject to the whims of the PTC & Act 44.
DRJTBC or Burlington Bridge Commission. DRPA can piss off. Last thing anyone needs is them getting another bridge to maintain.Fair enough, I only mentioned agencies that presently toll large bridges.
DRJTBC or Burlington Bridge Commission. DRPA can piss off. Last thing anyone needs is them getting another bridge to maintain.Fair enough, I only mentioned agencies that presently toll large bridges.
DRJTBC or Burlington Bridge Commission. DRPA can piss off. Last thing anyone needs is them getting another bridge to maintain.Fair enough, I only mentioned agencies that presently toll large bridges.
True. I just don't want them taking over and making drop from cruising down either turnpike at 65-70 to crawling over the bridge at a miserable 45MPH cause their cops get bored.
DRJTBC or Burlington Bridge Commission. DRPA can piss off. Last thing anyone needs is them getting another bridge to maintain.Fair enough, I only mentioned agencies that presently toll large bridges.
True. I just don't want them taking over and making drop from cruising down either turnpike at 65-70 to crawling over the bridge at a miserable 45MPH cause their cops get bored.
While that PA/NJ Turnpike bridge is signed at 50 mph, I don't believe either state's cops are interested in ticketing anyone anywhere near that speed.
Most of this expensive toll rate thing is because PA is quite broke. Really, just find a toll rate thatFTFY.PennDOTPTC and everyone else can be happy with.
Getting OT, but 1 to the Trenton Makes bridge is even better than Calhoun.
A detour around Scudder Falls will be quite a bit longer, and the best option - over the Calhoun Street Bridge - involves a narrower bridge and a longer drive thru Morrisville. But considering these people currently have a free ride, they're not going to be happy no matter what the toll will be.
This one, however, is much larger than usual (at least for E-ZPass customers)the increases are the same for cash and EZpass - was that not the case previously?
It'll come to the point where 78, 80 and 30 will be reasonable shunpikes.
It'll come to the point where 78, 80 and 30 will be reasonable shunpikes.I'd take 22 before 30.
The bridge is being replaced, and DRJTBC already said the tolls won't be going away.It's going to be even more ridiculous when (future I-295 / ) I-95 north of Trenton's crossing via the Scudder Falls Bridge will become tolled.What agency will be tolling that upgraded crossing? I'm assuming that it will be the DRJTBC (which tolls the US 1 crossing). Hopefully, they'll have the decency to show some restraint with the future toll rate. IMHO, that new crossing (Scudder Falls) should not have a PA-bound toll higher than $3 (for passenger vehicles). All other DRJTBC tolled crossings are currently only $1.
DRJTBC owns the Scudder Falls Bridge. Also I believe the tolls are going up to fund the bridge widening (or are they flat out replacing it?) project so hopefully they go away after its paid for. *snickers*
A detour around Scudder Falls will be quite a bit longer, and the best option - over the Calhoun Street Bridge - involves a narrower bridge and a longer drive thru Morrisville. But considering these people currently have a free ride, they're not going to be happy no matter what the toll will be.
The bridge is being replaced, and DRJTBC already said the tolls won't be going away.It's going to be even more ridiculous when (future I-295 / ) I-95 north of Trenton's crossing via the Scudder Falls Bridge will become tolled.What agency will be tolling that upgraded crossing? I'm assuming that it will be the DRJTBC (which tolls the US 1 crossing). Hopefully, they'll have the decency to show some restraint with the future toll rate. IMHO, that new crossing (Scudder Falls) should not have a PA-bound toll higher than $3 (for passenger vehicles). All other DRJTBC tolled crossings are currently only $1.
DRJTBC owns the Scudder Falls Bridge. Also I believe the tolls are going up to fund the bridge widening (or are they flat out replacing it?) project so hopefully they go away after its paid for. *snickers*
A detour around Scudder Falls will be quite a bit longer, and the best option - over the Calhoun Street Bridge - involves a narrower bridge and a longer drive thru Morrisville. But considering these people currently have a free ride, they're not going to be happy no matter what the toll will be.
When I moved down to Florida back in 1990, almost eight years after the Airport Mainline Plaza on FL 528 was added, still people were complaining about that particular toll point. As prior to 1982, FL 528 was a free road as the current Beachline Freeway was not yet built between present day exits 8 and 13. A four lane arterial was in place of the freeway and charged nothing.
When the road was upgraded to freeway to complete the missing link of FL 528's freeway (FL 528 was continuously numbered over the arterial which was McCoy Road) the toll went up and the free alternative became the service road, people complained about paying a toll as they never did before. As the service road became the new McCoy Road, it got narrowed to two lanes and at its intersection with FL 436, it does a lot of weaving because of the current Exit 11 on FL 528, so the road veers northward and comes to meet with FL 436 at grade 2/10 mile north of the FL 528 and FL 436 interchange. On the realigned McCoy Road near hear it is a longer distance than the 2/10 mile as it zigs very much and a reduced 35 mph speed limit makes the trip longer.
People will complain, no matter what. You charge for something that was not before and no one likes it. Of course businesses and government agencies know that and if they have you over a barrel they will do it. Look at gas prices as we need to use our cars, so naturally the price of oil is much higher than it was 15 years ago, as we have no choice to pay it or else we do not get to work or the market. Demand, I believe is the word which is why the PTC will jack up prices just like every other commodity out there.
It'll come to the point where 78, 80 and 30 will be reasonable shunpikes.I'd take 22 before 30.
Most of this expensive toll rate thing is becausePA is quiteSEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County are broke and would massively cut-back operations or impose huge fare increases on their riders without the enormous diversion of toll revenue from Pennsylvania Turnpike patrons. Really, just find a toll rate that PennDOT and everyone else can be happy with.
It'll come to the point where 78, 80 and 30 will be reasonable shunpikes.I'd take 22 before 30.
30 is awful east of Lancaster.
Prior to the passage of Act 89; SEPTA actually threatened to shut down about 60% of its Regional Rail sytem (including the line I use for commuting) and retire all its remaining Silverliner IV cars without replacements. As a result, then-Gov. Corbett blinked (some say that move cost him his re-election bid later that year) and the rest is history.Most of this expensive toll rate thing is becauseFTFY.PA is quiteSEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County are broke and would massively cut-back operations or impose huge fare increases on their riders without the enormous diversion of toll revenue from Pennsylvania Turnpike patrons.
CP's referring to the stretch of US 30 between the bypass (just west of Coatesville) and Lancaster. That stretch of road does get congested... even on weekends.30 is awful east of Lancaster.The bypass isn't too bad if it doesn't have spillage traffic off of 202 but yeah you get east of Paoli you're screwed.
It's going to be even more ridiculous when (future I-295 / ) I-95 north of Trenton's crossing via the Scudder Falls Bridge will become tolled.What agency will be tolling that upgraded crossing? I'm assuming that it will be the DRJTBC (which tolls the US 1 crossing). Hopefully, they'll have the decency to show some restraint with the future toll rate. IMHO, that new crossing (Scudder Falls) should not have a PA-bound toll higher than $3 (for passenger vehicles). All other DRJTBC tolled crossings are currently only $1.
DRJTBC owns the Scudder Falls Bridge. Also I believe the tolls are going up to fund the bridge widening (or are they flat out replacing it?) project so hopefully they go away after its paid for. *snickers*
I use 30 as a shunpike quite a bit to visit relatives near Gettysburg. Unless I really have to make time, I usually go with 30 because I find the turnpike horribly boring between Valley Forge and Harrisburg. Most of it I find to be relatively fine (typically driving this on a weekend), except I agree on the stretch immediately east of the freeway segment around Lancaster. I believe there's some improvements coming soon at 41 in Gap, although I'd like to see something done in the aforementioned segment. If we're lucky, they will start building a bypass here, grade the roadways, install some bridges and then abandon the project to continue the County's limited access goat path network.CP's referring to the stretch of US 30 between the bypass (just west of Coatesville) and Lancaster. That stretch of road does get congested... even on weekends.30 is awful east of Lancaster.The bypass isn't too bad if it doesn't have spillage traffic off of 202 but yeah you get east of Paoli you're screwed.
That the Scudder bridge is going toll is news to me. When was it first announced? Google isn't helping.
ixnay
That the Scudder bridge is going toll is news to me. When was it first announced? Google isn't helping.
ixnay
December 2010 (http://scudderfallsbridge.com/projectstatusupdate.htm).
In December 2009, the Commission voted to establish cashless tolling for the Scudder Falls Replacement Bridge.
You can take 741 or 340.It'll come to the point where 78, 80 and 30 will be reasonable shunpikes.I'd take 22 before 30.
30 is awful east of Lancaster.
The opening of the Pennsylvania Turnpike's first all-electronic toll facility in Bucks County in January will be the first step toward doing away with cash tolls - and toll collectors - all along the turnpike.
All-electronic tolling also is part of the long-delayed direct connection between the turnpike and I-95, now under construction.
In January, when all turnpike tolls are to be increased by 6 percent, a new electronic toll will also be imposed on westbound vehicles at the eastern end of the turnpike. The toll will be $5 for vehicles with E-ZPass and $6.75 for those without. The non-E-ZPass vehicles' owners will be billed by mail, based on license plates.
That is a harbinger of the future.
Philly.com: Pa. Turnpike looks to do away with toll collectorsl (http://www.philly.com/philly/business/columnists/20150709_Pa__Turnpike_looks_to_do_away_with_toll_collectors.html)
Philly.com: Pa. Turnpike looks to do away with toll collectorsl (http://www.philly.com/philly/business/columnists/20150709_Pa__Turnpike_looks_to_do_away_with_toll_collectors.html)
so of course the article's picture is of a toll both on the NJ Turnpike.
I use 30 as a shunpike quite a bit to visit relatives near Gettysburg. Unless I really have to make time, I usually go with 30 because I find the turnpike horribly boring between Valley Forge and Harrisburg. Most of it I find to be relatively fine (typically driving this on a weekend), except I agree on the stretch immediately east of the freeway segment around Lancaster.One downside with the freeway portions of 30, from Lancaster and points east, is that still has a posted 55-mph speed limit vs. the Turnpike's posted 65 and 70 (west of I-176/Morgantown) limits.
I believe there's some improvements coming soon at 41 in Gap, although I'd like to see something done in the aforementioned segment. If we're lucky, they will start building a bypass here, grade the roadways, install some bridges and then abandon the project to continue the County's limited access goat path network.Not to sound like a skeptic, but I'll believe such when I actually see it being built. Truth be told, fictional territory here, there needs to be a US 30 freeway link between PA 462 and Coatesville (just east of PA 10) as well as an upgrade of PA 41 into a freeway north of US 1.
You can take 741 or 340.The downside of using those roads are when one gets behind a slowpoke (I'm not just talking about Amish buggies) and there's no passing zones (741 has a few, 340... not so much); and one has to slow down when going through some towns.
there's also no good alternatives if you're coming from north of the city. as it is, if i'm going to the Lansdale/Collegeville/Phoenixville area, my options are to take route 1 down to the Turnpike and then back up the NE Ext or back-road the entire thing at a significant time cost - and that's not even that long a trip.
309 is an alternative to the NE Extension only, not the mainline Turnpike. My backup route is actually 95-1-276-309-73 instead of 95-1-276-476.there's also no good alternatives if you're coming from north of the city. as it is, if i'm going to the Lansdale/Collegeville/Phoenixville area, my options are to take route 1 down to the Turnpike and then back up the NE Ext or back-road the entire thing at a significant time cost - and that's not even that long a trip.
Depending on the time of day 309 is a good option. Traffic can suck at times but on a good day 309 can get you up to Lansdale and 63, 73 and 663 can get you to western Montco in a breeze.
If you really wanna shunpike, you could use US 1 to PA 132 to PA 611 to PA 73/PA 309.309 is an alternative to the NE Extension only, not the mainline Turnpike. My backup route is actually 95-1-276-309-73 instead of 95-1-276-476.there's also no good alternatives if you're coming from north of the city. as it is, if i'm going to the Lansdale/Collegeville/Phoenixville area, my options are to take route 1 down to the Turnpike and then back up the NE Ext or back-road the entire thing at a significant time cost - and that's not even that long a trip.
Depending on the time of day 309 is a good option. Traffic can suck at times but on a good day 309 can get you up to Lansdale and 63, 73 and 663 can get you to western Montco in a breeze.
309 is an alternative to the NE Extension only, not the mainline Turnpike. My backup route is actually 95-1-276-309-73 instead of 95-1-276-476.there's also no good alternatives if you're coming from north of the city. as it is, if i'm going to the Lansdale/Collegeville/Phoenixville area, my options are to take route 1 down to the Turnpike and then back up the NE Ext or back-road the entire thing at a significant time cost - and that's not even that long a trip.
Depending on the time of day 309 is a good option. Traffic can suck at times but on a good day 309 can get you up to Lansdale and 63, 73 and 663 can get you to western Montco in a breeze.
no thanks. Street Rd is to be avoided, not sought out.If you really wanna shunpike, you could use US 1 to PA 132 to PA 611 to PA 73/PA 309.309 is an alternative to the NE Extension only, not the mainline Turnpike. My backup route is actually 95-1-276-309-73 instead of 95-1-276-476.there's also no good alternatives if you're coming from north of the city. as it is, if i'm going to the Lansdale/Collegeville/Phoenixville area, my options are to take route 1 down to the Turnpike and then back up the NE Ext or back-road the entire thing at a significant time cost - and that's not even that long a trip.
Depending on the time of day 309 is a good option. Traffic can suck at times but on a good day 309 can get you up to Lansdale and 63, 73 and 663 can get you to western Montco in a breeze.
(http://That's)(http://[IMG][[IMG][/uIMG]/zA[IMG])sus[ttc ysyIMG](http://)[/IMG]z 5et first place tIMG][/IMG]
Sorry I pocket replied(http://That's)(http://[IMG][[IMG][/uIMG]/zA[IMG])sus[ttc ysyIMG](http://)[/IMG]z 5et first place tIMG][/IMG]
That is so inappropriate.
I'm going to be visiting lower Bucks County in a few weeks. Is something happening with Street Rd. that I need to know about?
I'm going to be visiting lower Bucks County in a few weeks. Is something happening with Street Rd. that I need to know about?other than the casino driving traffic far beyond what the road is designed to handle, no. avoid it like the plague during rush hour or any special event.
Thanks guys. I'll be staying at the Holiday Inn next to the casino. I was there a year ago and didn't have any traffic problems on Street Rd. Has it gotten worse since then?
Midgets hang over BGSNew E-ZPass-only Pa. turnpike ramps hit thousands with $64 bill
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20150717_New_E-ZPass-only_Pa__turnpike_ramps_hit_thousands_with__64_bill.html
And...no surprise here...GPS is to blame for many people taking the EZ Pass exit when they don't have EZ Pass.
And...no surprise here...GPS is to blame for many people taking the EZ Pass exit when they don't have EZ Pass.Given that this interchange just opened 2 weeks ago; I don't believe that all the various GPS navigation maps, info., etc. out there have been yet updated to include the interchange. A GPS-reason for that interchange currently would be; why did one miss that interchange?
Just another reason to switch to AET on the turnpike.Such will be coming; just not for a few years.
Just another reason to switch to AET on the turnpike.Such will be coming; just not for a few years.
And...no surprise here...GPS is to blame for many people taking the EZ Pass exit when they don't have EZ Pass.Given that this interchange just opened 2 weeks ago; I don't believe that all the various GPS navigation maps, info., etc. out there have been yet updated to include the interchange. A GPS-reason for that interchange currently would be; why did one miss that interchange?
Midgets hang over BGSNew E-ZPass-only Pa. turnpike ramps hit thousands with $64 bill
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20150717_New_E-ZPass-only_Pa__turnpike_ramps_hit_thousands_with__64_bill.html
(For a driver with E-ZPass, the lowest toll at the new ramp would be $1.07.)
Midgets hang over BGSNew E-ZPass-only Pa. turnpike ramps hit thousands with $64 bill
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20150717_New_E-ZPass-only_Pa__turnpike_ramps_hit_thousands_with__64_bill.htmlQuote(For a driver with E-ZPass, the lowest toll at the new ramp would be $1.07.)
Find that hard to believe. Especially if the person is coming from the Warendale Toll Plaza (not the Ohio Boarder since that section of the Turnpike is FREE after you enter the state).
For "legacy" GPS head units, such as Garmin, etc. this is true. For those that use Google/Waze or Apple maps for directions, it does indeed route you off this interchange for nearby destinations.I'd be curious to know when did Google/Waze or Apple maps update their info. to include a brand-new interchange that opened just 2 weeks ago?
It still shows the issues of over-reliance on such technology... The PA-903 ramps even have "E-Z Pass only" on the exit ramps in addition to the yellow tag-holder only banners.You're preaching to the choir on this one. There seems to be no cure for stupid. When the Virginia Drive (Exit 340) partial interchange/slip ramps (I-276 Westbound only) opened in 2000 (well before the mass proliferation & usage of GPS navigation units); I wonder what was the percentage of accidental entries/exits by non-E-ZPass users took place?
Of course, there are a number of low clearance signs before a railroad bridge in Syracuse, NY that have also been ignored... so...Don't even get me started on that one. I've been screaming from the mountain-tops (regarding GPS users ignoring signs) ever since I heard about a 12-ft. high bus carrying 40 or so passengers struck a 10-ft. high overpass along Soldiers Field Road (a road that has tons of signs and/or banners prohibiting overheight vehicles at every entrance ramp) in Boston several years ago and injured several passengers including a then-16-year-old who's currently in a quadriplegic state.
One interesting tidbit from the article is that penalties will be reduced if you retained your entry ticket.It always pays to hold on to certain items.
For "legacy" GPS head units, such as Garmin, etc. this is true. For those that use Google/Waze or Apple maps for directions, it does indeed route you off this interchange for nearby destinations.I'd be curious to know when did Google/Waze or Apple maps update their info. to include a brand-new interchange that opened just 2 weeks ago?
For "legacy" GPS head units, such as Garmin, etc. this is true. For those that use Google/Waze or Apple maps for directions, it does indeed route you off this interchange for nearby destinations.I'd be curious to know when did Google/Waze or Apple maps update their info. to include a brand-new interchange that opened just 2 weeks ago?
I would be too, but I did test it before posting :)...
King of Prussia Mall to Lake Harmony, PA (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/King+of+Prussia+Mall,+North+Gulph+Road,+King+of+Prussia,+PA/Lake+Harmony,+PA+18624/@40.5733117,-76.0619593,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c6944ab30b8765:0x21c6a02d866542a5!2m2!1d-75.3857776!2d40.0890706!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c4f8d76e29dd37:0x5b8c48bbb08f44c8!2m2!1d-75.5910219!2d41.0606423)
Edit -- funny, looking at the map close-in, they haven't even added the fact it is a full interchange, only showing northbound exit and southbound entry...
I did test it before posting :)...For grins & giggles, using Google Maps, I tried using a Scranton to PA 903 (just south of the new interchange) trip and the directions would not allow using the new interchange. Such more than proves my earlier point regarding GPS systems either not updating at all nor completely providing the updated info. when conditions change.
King of Prussia Mall to Lake Harmony, PA (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/King+of+Prussia+Mall,+North+Gulph+Road,+King+of+Prussia,+PA/Lake+Harmony,+PA+18624/@40.5733117,-76.0619593,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c6944ab30b8765:0x21c6a02d866542a5!2m2!1d-75.3857776!2d40.0890706!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c4f8d76e29dd37:0x5b8c48bbb08f44c8!2m2!1d-75.5910219!2d41.0606423)
Edit -- funny, looking at the map close-in, they haven't even added the fact it is a full interchange, only showing northbound exit and southbound entry...
Yeah, it wouldn't be a secret that the interchange was opening.True, but the exact opening date may not have been known too far in advance; and even if a target opening date was set in advance, such can be subject to change at the last minute.
Programs - especially those dealing with traffic - are set to automatically adjust their directions once an interchange or highway opens.Not necessarily, see the above-examples regarding the US 202 Parkway (after being open for a few months) and the fore-mentioned mock itinerary from Scranton to the new PA 903 interchange.
Very similar to when a highway is closed, such as when the I-495 overpass in Wilmington experienced an emergency shutdown last summer. Within about 2 days, Google practically wiped that portion of 495 off the map, and anyone looking up directions would have been routed another way.The reasons for the Google's (& others') swift actions with the I-495 closure were:
How does one notify Google Maps of errors?
ixnay
Another related-question would be: what's the percentage of GPS/navigation units out there that are legacy types (Garmin, Tom-Tom, etc.) vs. Google/Waze or Apple? My guess would be the former for the simple reasoning that such has been on the market longer than the latter.
I did test it before posting :)...For grins & giggles, using Google Maps, I tried using a Scranton to PA 903 (just south of the new interchange) trip and the directions would not allow using the new interchange. Such more than proves my earlier point regarding GPS systems either not updating at all nor completely providing the updated info. when conditions change.
King of Prussia Mall to Lake Harmony, PA (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/King+of+Prussia+Mall,+North+Gulph+Road,+King+of+Prussia,+PA/Lake+Harmony,+PA+18624/@40.5733117,-76.0619593,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c6944ab30b8765:0x21c6a02d866542a5!2m2!1d-75.3857776!2d40.0890706!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c4f8d76e29dd37:0x5b8c48bbb08f44c8!2m2!1d-75.5910219!2d41.0606423)
Edit -- funny, looking at the map close-in, they haven't even added the fact it is a full interchange, only showing northbound exit and southbound entry...Yeah, it wouldn't be a secret that the interchange was opening.True, but the exact opening date may not have been known too far in advance; and even if a target opening date was set in advance, such can be subject to change at the last minute.Programs - especially those dealing with traffic - are set to automatically adjust their directions once an interchange or highway opens.Not necessarily, see the above-examples regarding the US 202 Parkway (after being open for a few months) and the fore-mentioned mock itinerary from Scranton to the new PA 903 interchange.Very similar to when a highway is closed, such as when the I-495 overpass in Wilmington experienced an emergency shutdown last summer. Within about 2 days, Google practically wiped that portion of 495 off the map, and anyone looking up directions would have been routed another way.The reasons for the Google's (& others') swift actions with the I-495 closure were:
1. It was an emergency/safety-related closure.
2. The road in question carries local as well as interstate (little i) traffic; it's a common pass-through route for out-of-state drivers.
3. The highway's closure (& the reasons for it) were well publicized throughout the media.
When PA 23 (Valley Forge Road) at the Pickering Dam bridge was recently closed for a replacement project. MapQuest (IIRC, MQ & Tom-Tom share the same info.) overcompensated the bridge closure to a point that when a friend of mine tried to get a set of directions from Delaware County to a conference center along PA 23 located east of the bridge (the closure should not have impacted the routing); he got a bunch of unnecessary twists & turns.
In addtion and adding insult to injury, MQ ignored the destination and routed the itinerary onto a residence located at the end of a nearby dead-end road. Something went clearly wrong with MQ (not sure if such has since been corrected).
When I read the directions (which were intended to be distributed for others to follow) and I tried to unsuccessfully force/alter the MQ routing but it wouldn't take. I tried Bing Maps with the same origin & destination and got what I expected (straight-forward routing with no bridge-closure-related impacts). I sent my friend the corrected directions and he distributed such to others and nobody (that had the corrected directions) got lost.
I guess the moral here is that there's still a human element involved regarding GPS/Map updates. They don't just change automatically because of an opening or closure; somebody has to be programing/updating the info. or least checking/verifying such. The partial-info. (via Google) for the PA 903 interchange and the MapQuest over-restriction for the PA 23 Pickering Dam bridge closure are examples of such glitches.
I wouldn't think it would be on the toll tickets (not that many people can read them anyway).Since this interchange is E-ZPass Only; it would not be printed on toll tickets at all. The same is true for the other three E-ZPass only interchanges (PA 29, PA 132 & Virginia Drive).
Anyone approaching the interchange and not from the area presumably wouldn't know the interchange exists. Among the info presented is that big "EZ Pass Tagholders Only" yellow warning message. Why would people just randomly use the interchange then?The article doesn't specifically mention how many accidental users blame GPS' for using this particular interchange (PA 903). It seems to, in essense, cover all of the E-ZPass Only interchanges for GPS-related unauthorized uses. The other three E-ZPass Only interchanges have been open longer and have had been since updated into GPS mapping and data systems (note: the Virginia Drive interchange to/from I-276 West predated GPS systems and was already included).
Ok, then let's say it another way: the interchange opened two weeks ago. It's not on anyone's maps. It wouldn't be in driving directions printed from the internet. I wouldn't think it would be on the toll tickets (not that many people can read them anyway). Anyone approaching the interchange and not from the area presumably wouldn't know the interchange exists. Among the info presented is that big "EZ Pass Tagholders Only" yellow warning message. Why would people just randomly use the interchange then?
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) has approved toll rates for a cashless, nonstop tolling point for westbound motorists crossing the Delaware River Bridge from New Jersey into Pennsylvania on Interstate 276.
E-ZPass customers, who make up more than 80 percent of traffic at the bridge, will pay $5 for a two-axle vehicle; non-E-ZPass customers will pay $6.75 via Toll by Plate, a system that will take an image of the license plate and mail an invoice to the vehicle’s owner. Each additional axel will cost an additional $5 for E-ZPass customers and an additional $6.75 for non-E-ZPass customers.
The Delaware River Bridge electronic toll is a critical element of the PTC’s $1.4 billion project to connect I-95 and the Turnpike. “This is a vital project for the commission and the region and an essential first step in creating a long-awaited direct link between the Turnpike and I-95,” said Turnpike Chairman Sean Logan.
BucksLocalNews.com: Pennsylvania Turnpike okays rates for Delaware River bridge electronic toll; changes paving way for direct connection with I-95 (http://www.buckslocalnews.com/articles/2015/07/25/bucks_news/doc55b26f78eebf7886993865.txt?viewmode=default)QuoteThe Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) has approved toll rates for a cashless, nonstop tolling point for westbound motorists crossing the Delaware River Bridge from New Jersey into Pennsylvania on Interstate 276.QuoteE-ZPass customers, who make up more than 80 percent of traffic at the bridge, will pay $5 for a two-axle vehicle; non-E-ZPass customers will pay $6.75 via Toll by Plate, a system that will take an image of the license plate and mail an invoice to the vehicle’s owner. Each additional axel will cost an additional $5 for E-ZPass customers and an additional $6.75 for non-E-ZPass customers.QuoteThe Delaware River Bridge electronic toll is a critical element of the PTC’s $1.4 billion project to connect I-95 and the Turnpike. “This is a vital project for the commission and the region and an essential first step in creating a long-awaited direct link between the Turnpike and I-95,” said Turnpike Chairman Sean Logan.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike hopes to do away with toll collectors and tossing coins into baskets on the 16.5-mile Beaver Valley Expressway next summer.
Plans call for implementing all-electronic collection on the expressway, which is the tolled portion of Interstate 376 stretching from Chippewa in Beaver County to New Castle in Lawrence County.
People with E-ZPass would be billed the same as today, but those without the transponders would have their license plates photographed. They would be billed monthly by mail for the equivalent of the former cash toll.
Cash tolls are about 40 percent more than E-ZPass tolls.
post-gazette.com: Toll collectors to disappear on Beaver Valley Expressway (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2015/08/03/Toll-collectors-to-disappear-on-Beaver-Valley-Expressway/stories/201508030021)QuoteThe Pennsylvania Turnpike hopes to do away with toll collectors and tossing coins into baskets on the 16.5-mile Beaver Valley Expressway next summer.QuotePlans call for implementing all-electronic collection on the expressway, which is the tolled portion of Interstate 376 stretching from Chippewa in Beaver County to New Castle in Lawrence County.QuotePeople with E-ZPass would be billed the same as today, but those without the transponders would have their license plates photographed. They would be billed monthly by mail for the equivalent of the former cash toll.QuoteCash tolls are about 40 percent more than E-ZPass tolls.
post-gazette.com: Toll collectors to disappear on Beaver Valley Expressway (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2015/08/03/Toll-collectors-to-disappear-on-Beaver-Valley-Expressway/stories/201508030021)QuoteThe Pennsylvania Turnpike hopes to do away with toll collectors and tossing coins into baskets on the 16.5-mile Beaver Valley Expressway next summer.QuotePlans call for implementing all-electronic collection on the expressway, which is the tolled portion of Interstate 376 stretching from Chippewa in Beaver County to New Castle in Lawrence County.QuotePeople with E-ZPass would be billed the same as today, but those without the transponders would have their license plates photographed. They would be billed monthly by mail for the equivalent of the former cash toll.QuoteCash tolls are about 40 percent more than E-ZPass tolls.
If you read the article, it sounds like it won't be ORT, but rather motorists will still have to slowly proceed through toll booths (similar to the Henry Hudson Bridge in NYC).
One would think AET would be a known quantity, given how many places already use it. Or has each agency chosen to reinvent the wheel?
One would think AET would be a known quantity, given how many places already use it. Or has each agency chosen to reinvent the wheel?
Honestly, we need a lot less propitiatory stuff in everything, so if AET were to convince these authorities to adopt a single standard for doing business, all the better.
Honestly, we need a lot less propitiatory stuff in everything, so if AET were to convince these authorities to adopt a single standard for doing business, all the better.
^This, ^this and more ^this. :clap:
Honestly, we need a lot less propitiatory stuff in everything, so if AET were to convince these authorities to adopt a single standard for doing business, all the better.
^This, ^this and more ^this. :clap:
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as it seems. Most agencies need to bid out their work. Unless they have a really good reason, they have to award the bid to the lowest bidder. If the lowest bidder says that they can create a AET system, and there's no reasonable doubt they can't, they are awarded the bid. It's almost guaranteed that if the agency says that they prefer another vendor because of their work on another toll agency's system, even though their bid was higher, the agency will be taken to court.
EZ Pass itself, while a unified network to the motorist, is made up of numerous different systems. Even more complicated is that they are now cross-honoring passes and accounts from other networks outside of EZ Pass.
And remember - AET isn't a specific thing (all it stands for is All Electronic Tolling), so it can't convince anyone to do anything. While Maryland instituted AET with EZ Pass on the ICC, it was hardly the first to do so...Texas, Florida & California all had all-electronic tolling options prior to Maryland and EZ Pass.
All the PTC needs to do is call up Maryland and ask them how the ICC works.ICC uses a gantry between each set of exits (one in each direction). Same setup on 495/95 Express lanes in VA. Fortunately, the EZpass invoice doesn't line item each stretch of road, but provides a summary for each trip.
All the PTC needs to do is call up Maryland and ask them how the ICC works.ICC uses a gantry between each set of exits (one in each direction). Same setup on 495/95 Express lanes in VA. Fortunately, the EZpass invoice doesn't line item each stretch of road, but provides a summary for each trip.
They can't just design it in-house and only bid out for the actual installation? Or put that stuff in as design parameters? There are only so many ways to skin a cat... the technical end has been solved many times by many states (the reason I mentioned Maryland is because they're an E-ZPass state, some the implementation would likely be very similar if not identical).
Honestly, we need a lot less propitiatory stuff in everything, so if AET were to convince these authorities to adopt a single standard for doing business, all the better.
^This, ^this and more ^this. :clap:
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as it seems. Most agencies need to bid out their work. Unless they have a really good reason, they have to award the bid to the lowest bidder. If the lowest bidder says that they can create a AET system, and there's no reasonable doubt they can't, they are awarded the bid. It's almost guaranteed that if the agency says that they prefer another vendor because of their work on another toll agency's system, even though their bid was higher, the agency will be taken to court.
EZ Pass itself, while a unified network to the motorist, is made up of numerous different systems. Even more complicated is that they are now cross-honoring passes and accounts from other networks outside of EZ Pass.
And remember - AET isn't a specific thing (all it stands for is All Electronic Tolling), so it can't convince anyone to do anything. While Maryland instituted AET with EZ Pass on the ICC, it was hardly the first to do so...Texas, Florida & California all had all-electronic tolling options prior to Maryland and EZ Pass.
…we need a lot less propitiatory stuff…
Or put that stuff in as design parameters?
All the PTC needs to do is call up Maryland and ask them how the ICC works.ICC uses a gantry between each set of exits (one in each direction). Same setup on 495/95 Express lanes in VA. Fortunately, the EZpass invoice doesn't line item each stretch of road, but provides a summary for each trip.
I've read that the PTC has been considering this model for the mainline, rather than simply replacing the entry/exit booths. (No mention how it would be invoiced).
When I read that, I wondered if they would also re-toll the stretch between Cranberry & Ohio, since it would still be free-flowing, and charging travelers a little more fairly.
Wait and see, I suppose....
All the PTC needs to do is call up Maryland and ask them how the ICC works.ICC uses a gantry between each set of exits (one in each direction). Same setup on 495/95 Express lanes in VA. Fortunately, the EZpass invoice doesn't line item each stretch of road, but provides a summary for each trip.
I've read that the PTC has been considering this model for the mainline, rather than simply replacing the entry/exit booths. (No mention how it would be invoiced).
When I read that, I wondered if they would also re-toll the stretch between Cranberry & Ohio, since it would still be free-flowing, and charging travelers a little more fairly.
Wait and see, I suppose....
Though on the other hand, the PTC is going ahead with a one-way all-electronic toll coming off the turnpike bridge over the Delaware River when the interchange at Bristol is complete enough to sign the far eastern end of the Pennsylvania Turnpike's East-West Mainline as I-95.
Since there will no longer be cash collected there, why not charge toll in both directions?
I can understanding the justification for keeping it one-way tolling.Had the PTC been smart when it first built that stretch in the 50s; the mainline toll plaza would've (IMHO, should've) been located just west of the Delaware Valley (US 13) interchange and smaller cash booths placed on the ramps for traffic entering to/exiting from bridge; it could've converted to a one-way toll system when the rest of the Delaware River crossings did in the early-to-mid 1990s.
Maybe after they went thru the numbers, the expenses of running two-way tolling here didn't justify the revenues. While there won't be toll takers any more, there will still be equipment expenses and maintenance. But, I bet the big expenses would be hiring people to look up non-EZ Pass tagholder info and mailing that out. They already need to do it for WB traffic anyway, but they would probably need to double the number of people - and mailings - if there was two way tolling. Sure, some of those people would do roundtrips within a months' timespan, but that's not everyone.They're gonna need to hire those people anyways when the entire system goes AET.
I can understanding the justification for keeping it one-way tolling.
All the PTC needs to do is call up Maryland and ask them how the ICC works.ICC uses a gantry between each set of exits (one in each direction). Same setup on 495/95 Express lanes in VA. Fortunately, the EZpass invoice doesn't line item each stretch of road, but provides a summary for each trip.
I've read that the PTC has been considering this model for the mainline, rather than simply replacing the entry/exit booths. (No mention how it would be invoiced).
When I read that, I wondered if they would also re-toll the stretch between Cranberry & Ohio, since it would still be free-flowing, and charging travelers a little more fairly.
Wait and see, I suppose....
Though on the other hand, the PTC is going ahead with a one-way all-electronic toll coming off the turnpike bridge over the Delaware River when the interchange at Bristol is complete enough to sign the far eastern end of the Pennsylvania Turnpike's East-West Mainline as I-95.
Since there will no longer be cash collected there, why not charge toll in both directions?
It would certainly be way fairer.
I imagine the thinking is that since every other toll authority charges leaving NJ only, that the PA Turnpike would do the same. If the toll was charged in both directions, I would doubt people would go out of their way to avoid a $2.50 charge if they were already on the Turnpike, especially if they simply want to continue on the NJ Turnpike. And going WB, I doubt many people would use the NJ Turnpike just to save $2.50 in PA. And this is especially true as the NJ Turnpike will still charge a premium for using Interchange 6.
Maybe after they went thru the numbers, the expenses of running two-way tolling here didn't justify the revenues. While there won't be toll takers any more, there will still be equipment expenses and maintenance. But, I bet the big expenses would be hiring people to look up non-EZ Pass tagholder info and mailing that out. They already need to do it for WB traffic anyway, but they would probably need to double the number of people - and mailings - if there was two way tolling. Sure, some of those people would do roundtrips within a months' timespan, but that's not everyone.
I can understanding the justification for keeping it one-way tolling.
Because everyone going into New Jersey is probably going to come out of New Jersey at some point, there's probably no true advantage to toll both ways. The majority of people aren't going to seek a cheaper, alternative route. Not only do you have to double up the equipment for both directions, but...and this is what I alluded to earlier...you would actually have to hire more people to research and collect money from toll violators as there will be toll violators in both directions; not just one direction.
Because everyone going into New Jersey is probably going to come out of New Jersey at some pointActually, quite a few people just stay here.
Because everyone going into New Jersey is probably going to come out of New Jersey at some pointActually, quite a few people just stay here.
a) Because we have self serve gas
b) because people just die
Zzzzxzzzyzzzzzqqwzzzyyz) Because it is so wonderful
Pennsylvania Turnpike officials say the toll road has completely reopened in western Pennsylvania several hours after a truck crash closed the entire highway.
Westbound traffic resumed about 12:45 p.m. on the 86-mile stretch between Breezewood and New Stanton interchanges. That was announced about an hour after the eastbound lanes reopened.
I don't believe such was mentioned here as of yet, but along stretches of the Northeast Extension (I-476), north of Landale; the PTC has been installing enhanced mile markers (the ones that include the route number shield & direction) at every whole mile and large mile markers (w/no shield or direction) at every 0.1 mile. These were installed along off the shoulders. The older-style whole-mile markers, located on the median barrier, still remain.
I don't believe such was mentioned here as of yet, but along stretches of the Northeast Extension (I-476), north of Landale; the PTC has been installing enhanced mile markers (the ones that include the route number shield & direction) at every whole mile and large mile markers (w/no shield or direction) at every 0.1 mile. These were installed along off the shoulders. The older-style whole-mile markers, located on the median barrier, still remain.
The rebuilt section of I-476, from the I-276 (Mid-County) interchange north to Pa. 63 (Lansdale) has a very un-Pennsylvania Turnpike "look and feel" to it (and that is a complement).
Because everyone going into New Jersey is probably going to come out of New Jersey at some point
I also noticed a large number of curve warning signs at 60 MPH -- perhaps 70 will be coming one day soon...
The rebuilt section of I-476, from the I-276 (Mid-County) interchange north to Pa. 63 (Lansdale) has a very un-Pennsylvania Turnpike "look and feel" to it (and that is a complement).
I don’t think that’s a fair statement. I think it looks and feels very much like the other recently reconstructed sections of the PA Turnpike west of Carlisle. If you haven’t seen much of the PA Turnpike system lately, you really ought to make a weekend trip, because it has changed remarkably in recent years and is still transforming rapidly.
Sorry if this is a stupid question that was answered before, but I couldn't find it on the PA Turnpike site. Is the EZPass discount on the PA Tpke only for Pennsylvania EZPasses or for any EzPass regardless of what state its from.
I also noticed a large number of curve warning signs at 60 MPH -- perhaps 70 will be coming one day soon...
Possibly, but I would be more optimistic if some of the curves were posted at 65 MPH (as they are on the current 70 MPH section).
What really annoys me about the "totally reconstructed" sections of the Turnpike between Breezewood and the Ohio border is that it was not widened when it was "totally reconstructed."
I moved to CA before that work, did they at least grade for 6 lanes? Did they rebuild the overhead bridges for 6 lanes?What really annoys me about the "totally reconstructed" sections of the Turnpike between Breezewood and the Ohio border is that it was not widened when it was "totally reconstructed."
It was reconstructed almost 20 years ago. The decision to widen the Turnpike to six lanes was made about 10 years ago, which is why you'll notice that a) everything reconstructed through 2005 remained four lanes, b) there was a lull in reconstruction during the mid-2000s, and c) everything reconstructed since 2008 has been widened to six lanes. It just means they'll eventually have to go back and widen the segments between New Stanton and the Laurel Summit (24 miles), and between Somerset and the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel (12 miles).
I also noticed a large number of curve warning signs at 60 MPH -- perhaps 70 will be coming one day soon...
Possibly, but I would be more optimistic if some of the curves were posted at 65 MPH (as they are on the current 70 MPH section).
There are plenty of 65 curves in the 65.
I moved to CA before that work, did they at least grade for 6 lanes? Did they rebuild the overhead bridges for 6 lanes?What really annoys me about the "totally reconstructed" sections of the Turnpike between Breezewood and the Ohio border is that it was not widened when it was "totally reconstructed."
It was reconstructed almost 20 years ago. The decision to widen the Turnpike to six lanes was made about 10 years ago, which is why you'll notice that a) everything reconstructed through 2005 remained four lanes, b) there was a lull in reconstruction during the mid-2000s, and c) everything reconstructed since 2008 has been widened to six lanes. It just means they'll eventually have to go back and widen the segments between New Stanton and the Laurel Summit (24 miles), and between Somerset and the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel (12 miles).
I moved to CA before that work, did they at least grade for 6 lanes? Did they rebuild the overhead bridges for 6 lanes?
I can see a 4-lane bottleneck existing for decades to come where the Turnpike crosses US-30 near the Juniata River as well. That looks to be a fairly new structure (when US-30 added the other river bridge) and is only designed for 4 lanes.
I moved to CA before that work, did they at least grade for 6 lanes? Did they rebuild the overhead bridges for 6 lanes?
Unfortunately, no. The good news is, there are only 22 overpasses on those two segments combined.I can see a 4-lane bottleneck existing for decades to come where the Turnpike crosses US-30 near the Juniata River as well. That looks to be a fairly new structure (when US-30 added the other river bridge) and is only designed for 4 lanes.
I don't see it. Based on the way the underpass is constructed (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0143188,-78.4707865,3a,75y,54.29h,85.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCjZUOoNyroQYZfcQ30PZ0A!2e0!7i3328!8i1664), it should be relatively easy to extend the central pier and the retaining walls to widen the Turnpike.
And the PTC has a 5 miles section around Everett on the radar screen for the 6 lane reconstruction starting 1Q 2017.
And the PTC has a 5 miles section around Everett on the radar screen for the 6 lane reconstruction starting 1Q 2017.
Speaking of Everett, wonder it might actually get direct access to and egress from the Turnpike once all-electronic toll collection is phased-in?
And the PTC has a 5 miles section around Everett on the radar screen for the 6 lane reconstruction starting 1Q 2017.
Speaking of Everett, wonder it might actually get direct access to and egress from the Turnpike once all-electronic toll collection is phased-in?
That brings up an interesting question. From the 50s through the 80s in cities and towns across the country, land use and traffic patterns changed dramatically as Americans reacted to and took advantage of the mobility and access that newly constructed freeways enabled. But what would happen in a setting like Everett, where the PA Turnpike has sliced through town for three quarters of a century, yet the town has changed relatively little because of its lack of access to the highway?
At this point, the direct connection is useless. Just let it be, because the PTC, FHWA, PennDOT and other agencies let the gap go and later got used to it. Then the public did.And the PTC has a 5 miles section around Everett on the radar screen for the 6 lane reconstruction starting 1Q 2017.
Speaking of Everett, wonder it might actually get direct access to and egress from the Turnpike once all-electronic toll collection is phased-in?
That brings up an interesting question. From the ’50s through the ’80s in cities and towns across the country, land use and traffic patterns changed dramatically as Americans reacted to and took advantage of the mobility and access that newly constructed freeways enabled. But what would happen in a setting like Everett, where the PA Turnpike has sliced through town for three quarters of a century, yet the town has changed relatively little because of its lack of access to the highway?
In today's world, the town and Turnpike would probably talk. Many towns that like their rural nature probably wouldn't want an interchange.
At this point, the direct connection is useless. Just let it be, because the PTC, FHWA, PennDOT and other agencies let the gap go and later got used to it. Then the public did.
Clearly a recipe for success (and greed)...the tolls are high already, why encourage people to use the Turnpike. Lower the tolls = more money and more traffic.At this point, the direct connection is useless. Just let it be, because the PTC, FHWA, PennDOT and other agencies let the gap go and later got used to it. Then the public did.
Unlikely that the FHWA had anything to do with the siting decisions for this part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, since it did not exist when it was planned, engineered and built.
But the Turnpike interchanges were limited in part because of the need to have expensive toll barriers, and attended toll collection, at each interchange, 24 hours a day, 7 days a well.
That will not be a constraint once the transition to all-electronic tolling (AET) is made. The Turnpike may well want more interchanges with AET to encourage more traffic to use the Turnpike.
Clearly a recipe for success (and greed)...the tolls are high already, why encourage people to use the Turnpike. Lower the tolls = more money and more traffic.
While the Commission’s payment obligation remains at $450 million annually through Fiscal Year 2022, none of the payments are dedicated to highways and bridges. Instead, all $450 million is allocated to support transit capital, operating, multi-modal and other non-highway programs.
Last week my dad and I were on the widened part of the Northeast Extension for the first time, and I'm curious about all the unused shoulder (http://binged.it/1KgpBP0) in the SB-WB ramp at the Mid County Interchange. It's still like that even with that part of the widening finished. It seemed like it was built that way so that the ramp would be moved over to the edge to accommodate full six-lane widening up to the toll plaza, or at least the SB-EB loop, but that wasn't actually done.I noticed this when the section was first opened and am equally as curious. Ideally, the Westbound I-276 traffic will have a full exit only lane(s) for the interchange and perhaps the geometry of the ramp will move a tad east, but the widening just north of the merge (West-I276 to North-I476) is VERY wide and fully paved. You could easily park several 18 wheelers in that area if need be. If anyone has a better grasp of why this looks the way it does, please fill us in. I can only imagine it's for some kind of future widening of the bridges, a bit like the southbound-I476 far right side going into the interchange..
Anyone have any idea what else it may have been intended for?
Just wondering...when the post advisory speeds, is there any requirement that they must be less than the posted speed limit, or can they post them because the 85th percentile speed is higher than the safe speed for the curve?MUTCD says "at or lower than the posted speed."
It's not common, but I have seen advisory speeds = speed limits previously, so it's not completely unheard of.
I know this had been proposed but I never knew they actually did it. I looked towards the toll plaza at the Willow Hill interchange (between Harrisburg and Breezewood) and noticed they had the LED lane signs, with a design that looked like it had multiple lines of text and a background color different than for "Cash Only" or "E-ZPass". I think I might have made out the word "credit" as well. If I saw correctly, it looks like the PTC installed automated toll payment machines at at least one of the rural interchanges and may even take credit cards.
They had the WB Blue Mtn and Kittantny Mtn Tunnel closed. All traffic diverted to the EB tunnelThe last time that I was on that section of the turnpike, there was 2-way traffic in the EB tunnel. This was back in October 2011. Perhaps it was coincidental, or it might be annual inspection/maintenance in September and October, just guessing.
They had the WB Blue Mtn and Kittantny Mtn Tunnel closed. All traffic diverted to the EB tunnelThe last time that I was on that section of the turnpike, there was 2-way traffic in the EB tunnel. This was back in October 2011. Perhaps it was coincidental, or it might be annual inspection/maintenance in September and October, just guessing.
America's first superhighway turns 75 years old today, and slowly but surely, segment by segment, it's being reconstructed as a modern superhighway once again. :cheers:
A project has been added to the PTC website: Ne Extension repaving from MP A94 to A122
A project has been added to the PTC website: Ne Extension repaving from MP A94 to A122
Now they have projects for every letter from A through Z. :clap:
And they have yet to delete the PA 903 AET diamond interchange which is supposedly complete.
So to the south is PA 31. the land is all clear, and I'd say that a four lane interstate can be crammed through there. It'll just dip south west of Huckleberry Highway to the left of the photo and return to the alignment when PA 31 parallels I-76 for a couple of miles to the east (to the right, but you have to pan right/zoom out to see).
I forgot to specify 4 total lanes. Oops. There could be a 3rd lane for a truck climbing lane, but the tunnels are high traffic, if it's possible they can cram it through with three lanes each way with a 4th for climbing/shoulder.So to the south is PA 31. the land is all clear, and I'd say that a four lane interstate can be crammed through there. It'll just dip south west of Huckleberry Highway to the left of the photo and return to the alignment when PA 31 parallels I-76 for a couple of miles to the east (to the right, but you have to pan right/zoom out to see).
If they reroute it in any direction from the current tunnels, it will be 3 lanes each direction (6 total) at a minimum. No way they would only have 4 lanes (2 each way) since they are widening all new reconstruction areas to 3 lanes each way. They might add an extra 4 lane for truck climbing, but who knows.
I seem to recall reading in Dan Cupper’s book that the Turnpike’s never executed dual-dual plan would have kept the truck carriageways on the easier grades through the tunnels while car lanes would climb around them on bypass alignments. I wonder if this has been or could be considered as an option for Allegheny Mountain.My recollection of one of the issues they're trying to solve with the current alignment is that trucks with hazardous cargo can't go thru the tunnels, so need to exit and re-enter the Turnpike. Putting only trucks to the old tunnels is an interesting idea, but ignores this problem.
NJ.com - Cashless Tolls coming to Pennsylvania Turnpike at NJ Crossing
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/12/cashless_tolls_coming_to_pa_turnpike_at_nj_crossin.html#incart_most_shared-mercer
I was doing some digging on the PA Turnpike website this week. A previously announced toll increase (I believe it is 6%) takes effect Sunday morning, at the same time AET is implemented at the Delaware River Bridge.Yup, the bridge is one-way tolled to be parallel to the other Delaware River bridges below it. That folds into the Tpk. toll for the stretch east of I-95.
What is not noted, however, is that the toll rises significantly for westbound motorists who use the bridge (and might be comparable to eastbound motorists entering from Ohio). For example, the toll from the bridge to Valley Forge will more than double from just over $4 currently to over $9 on Sunday ($5 bridge toll + Turnpike toll from new mainline plaza).
I was doing some digging on the PA Turnpike website this week. A previously announced toll increase (I believe it is 6%) takes effect Sunday morning, at the same time AET is implemented at the Delaware River Bridge.Yup, the bridge is one-way tolled to be parallel to the other Delaware River bridges below it. That folds into the Tpk. toll for the stretch east of I-95.
What is not noted, however, is that the toll rises significantly for westbound motorists who use the bridge (and might be comparable to eastbound motorists entering from Ohio). For example, the toll from the bridge to Valley Forge will more than double from just over $4 currently to over $9 on Sunday ($5 bridge toll + Turnpike toll from new mainline plaza).
Would be great if, when tolls go cashless throughout, E-Z Pass could consolidate billing for the various agencies and send a unified bill. There's so much that current technology can do to get rid of inefficiencies if only the state agencies would allow it.
At this point, they're gonna nickel and dime us to death. They don't realize we can just use US 30.Depending on location; US 30 isn't always a freeway and, hence, isn't always the best toll-free alternative.
I believe he meant the bill for toll by plate, not transponder tolls.Would be great if, when tolls go cashless throughout, E-Z Pass could consolidate billing for the various agencies and send a unified bill. There's so much that current technology can do to get rid of inefficiencies if only the state agencies would allow it.
I'm not sure I understand this question. Currently, statements are already consolidated. I have an NJ EZ Pass. Regardless of what toll plaza I go thru in any state, it shows up on that one statement. I don't get 6 statements from 6 different states!
At this point, they're gonna nickel and dime us to death. They don't realize we can just use US 30.
At this point, they're gonna nickel and dime us to death. They don't realize we can just use US 30.
Or I-81 to I-70 and I-68 and US 40. One of my apps said it only adds 45 minutes and 30 miles. With today's gas prices, the time might be worth it for some people.
At this point, they're gonna nickel and dime us to death. They don't realize we can just use US 30.
Would be great if, when tolls go cashless throughout, E-Z Pass could consolidate billing for the various agencies and send a unified bill. There's so much that current technology can do to get rid of inefficiencies if only the state agencies would allow it.
At this point, they're gonna nickel and dime us to death. They don't realize we can just use US 30.
Or I-81 to I-70 and I-68 and US 40. One of my apps said it only adds 45 minutes and 30 miles. With today's gas prices, the time might be worth it for some people.
Some of my last trips from Norfolk to Pittsburgh around 1995, I began to go 68 to 40(brownsville) to 43 to 70 to 79. It took the same amount of time with no tolls and NO (what was then) an overcrowded turnpike from Breezewood to Butler Valley. I was soooo much less stressed.
At this point, they're gonna nickel and dime us to death. They don't realize we can just use US 30.
Or I-81 to I-70 and I-68 and US 40. One of my apps said it only adds 45 minutes and 30 miles. With today's gas prices, the time might be worth it for some people.
Some of my last trips from Norfolk to Pittsburgh around 1995, I began to go 68 to 40(brownsville) to 43 to 70 to 79. It took the same amount of time with no tolls and NO (what was then) an overcrowded turnpike from Breezewood to Butler Valley. I was soooo much less stressed.
Wasn't there a toll plaza on 43 just before I-70?
At this point, they're gonna nickel and dime us to death. They don't realize we can just use US 30.
Or I-81 to I-70 and I-68 and US 40. One of my apps said it only adds 45 minutes and 30 miles. With today's gas prices, the time might be worth it for some people.
At this point, they're gonna nickel and dime us to death. They don't realize we can just use US 30.
Or I-81 to I-70 and I-68 and US 40. One of my apps said it only adds 45 minutes and 30 miles. With today's gas prices, the time might be worth it for some people.
Some of my last trips from Norfolk to Pittsburgh around 1995, I began to go 68 to 40(brownsville) to 43 to 70 to 79. It took the same amount of time with no tolls and NO (what was then) an overcrowded turnpike from Breezewood to Butler Valley. I was soooo much less stressed.
Wasn't there a toll plaza on 43 just before I-70?
There is one just south of I-70, yes - here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/California,+PA/@40.1009136,-79.9145203,783m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x88351ad0d8ca8ea5:0x7337ce4fd3b1bb96!6m1!1e1).
At this point, they're gonna nickel and dime us to death. They don't realize we can just use US 30.
Convince your parents to elect new people and do the same when you're old enough. A lot of what's causing the high toll rates is Act 44. The tolls are funding PennDOT projects.
At this point, they're gonna nickel and dime us to death. They don't realize we can just use US 30.
Convince your parents to elect new people and do the same when you're old enough. A lot of what's causing the high toll rates is Act 44. The tolls are funding PennDOT projects.
Not just PennDOT projects - but non-highway projects having nothing to do with the Turnpike, and wages and benefits paid to transit employees.
At this point, they're gonna nickel and dime us to death. They don't realize we can just use US 30.
Convince your parents to elect new people and do the same when you're old enough. A lot of what's causing the high toll rates is Act 44. The tolls are funding PennDOT projects.
So explain again why someone should vote those politicians out of office?
So explain again why someone should vote those politicians out of office?
Tolls paid by toll road patrons should be used to maintain and upgrade that toll road system along with (maybe) nearby related projects on "free" roads.
Toll crossings and especially toll cordons in dense urban that divert money to transit does not bother me nearly as much.
Worthy of mention. Looks like the PA Turnpike is increasing the tolls by 6% again, on Sunday the 10th.
Worthy of mention. Looks like the PA Turnpike is increasing the tolls by 6% again, on Sunday the 10th. It normally would be $1.70, now it is $1.80. Not even EZPass can save you at this point, but it's a fair cushion. Act 89 really seems to be angering people in PA. Maybe this governor is trash?
But you're not getting the point. If taxes were raised that money could still be going elsewhere throughout the state.
Someone living in PA may not normally take the Turnpike. Higher tolls where the money funds local projects allows them to benefit from everyone else driving the Turnpike.
If a politician were to say: I'm going to fix your roads. Do you want me to raise your gas taxes causing you to pay more every time you fill up your tank, or raise the tolls on a road you never drive which won't cost you a penny more, which option do you think many will choose?
I'm not saying it's right or fair. I'm saying: A taxpayer, if given an option, will often take the one that benefits them the most. That's why it would be silly for a taxpayer to vote out a politician that found an alternate source of funding that didn't raise their taxes.
But you're not getting the point. If taxes were raised that money could still be going elsewhere throughout the state.
Someone living in PA may not normally take the Turnpike. Higher tolls where the money funds local projects allows them to benefit from everyone else driving the Turnpike.
If a politician were to say: I'm going to fix your roads. Do you want me to raise your gas taxes causing you to pay more every time you fill up your tank, or raise the tolls on a road you never drive which won't cost you a penny more, which option do you think many will choose?
I'm not saying it's right or fair. I'm saying: A taxpayer, if given an option, will often take the one that benefits them the most. That's why it would be silly for a taxpayer to vote out a politician that found an alternate source of funding that didn't raise their taxes.
WV is basically looking to do the same thing as PA did with Act 44. There's been talk of having the West Virginia Parkways Authority float a large bond to pay for WVDOH projects and increase WV Turnpike tolls to pay for it. The majority of Turnpike users are from out-of-state, so it mostly bite them rather than WV residents.
Typo. I edited my post.Worthy of mention. Looks like the PA Turnpike is increasing the tolls by 6% again, on Sunday the 10th.
*Another* 6% hike seven days after the last one on Jan. 3?
http://www.wgal.com/news/pa-turnpike-toll-increase-is-now-in-effect/37243100
ixnay
CorrectAct 89 really seems to be angering people in PA. Maybe this governor is trash?
Act 89 was passed under the previous administration and it reduced the toll increases that would have happened if Act 44 had been left untouched. Not sure why you'd blame Governor Wolf for this.
Act 89 was signed into law by Gov. Corbett (and many believe that's why he was shown the door in the 2014 elections).
11 year olds and politics do not mix.Worthy of mention. Looks like the PA Turnpike is increasing the tolls by 6% again, on Sunday the 10th. It normally would be $1.70, now it is $1.80. Not even EZPass can save you at this point, but it's a fair cushion. Act 89 really seems to be angering people in PA. Maybe this governor is trash?
Act 89 was passed under the previous administration and it reduced the toll increases that would have happened if Act 44 had been left untouched. Not sure why you'd blame Governor Wolf for this.
Act 89 was signed into law by Gov. Corbett (and many believe that's why he was shown the door in the 2014 elections).
This is news to me. Can't say I recall hearing anything about it in the campaign. I recall the main issues being that he refused to tax natural gas extraction and that he wouldn't increase education spending. That said, Act 89 is one of the reasons I (albeit very unenthusiasticly) voted for Mr. Corbet over Mr. Wolf. They're both losers though.
11 year olds and politics do not mix.Worthy of mention. Looks like the PA Turnpike is increasing the tolls by 6% again, on Sunday the 10th. It normally would be $1.70, now it is $1.80. Not even EZPass can save you at this point, but it's a fair cushion. Act 89 really seems to be angering people in PA. Maybe this governor is trash?
Act 89 was passed under the previous administration and it reduced the toll increases that would have happened if Act 44 had been left untouched. Not sure why you'd blame Governor Wolf for this.
But you're not getting the point. If taxes were raised that money could still be going elsewhere throughout the state.
Someone living in PA may not normally take the Turnpike. Higher tolls where the money funds local projects allows them to benefit from everyone else driving the Turnpike.
If a politician were to say: I'm going to fix your roads. Do you want me to raise your gas taxes causing you to pay more every time you fill up your tank, or raise the tolls on a road you never drive which won't cost you a penny more, which option do you think many will choose?
I'm not saying it's right or fair. I'm saying: A taxpayer, if given an option, will often take the one that benefits them the most. That's why it would be silly for a taxpayer to vote out a politician that found an alternate source of funding that didn't raise their taxes.
WV is basically looking to do the same thing as PA did with Act 44. There's been talk of having the West Virginia Parkways Authority float a large bond to pay for WVDOH projects and increase WV Turnpike tolls to pay for it. The majority of Turnpike users are from out-of-state, so it mostly bite them rather than WV residents.
Not to mention that there are 3 Toll Barriers on the mainline, but no tollbooths at any of the exits, except for US-19 North in Beckley. Most "locals" don't pay to use the WV Turnpike at all because they know where they have to get on or off to avoid the tolls. The only people who pay the tolls are, as was previously mentioned, the "out-of-towners" and those locals that will pay to "bypass" the free roads/slower traffic.
A few Wolf ads. (not 100% sure if such was directly from the Wolf campaign or an independent group that supported Wolf) that aired in southeastern PA pointed out that Corbett raised taxes (via Act 89) and, hence, renegged on his 2010 campaign promise not to raise taxes.
Act 89 was signed into law by Gov. Corbett (and many believe that's why he was shown the door in the 2014 elections).
This is news to me. Can't say I recall hearing anything about it in the campaign. I recall the main issues being that he refused to tax natural gas extraction and that he wouldn't increase education spending. That said, Act 89 is one of the reasons I (albeit very unenthusiasticly) voted for Mr. Corbet over Mr. Wolf. They're both losers though.
Act 89 was signed into law by Gov. Corbett (and many believe that's why he was shown the door in the 2014 elections).
This is news to me. Can't say I recall hearing anything about it in the campaign. I recall the main issues being that he refused to tax natural gas extraction and that he wouldn't increase education spending. That said, Act 89 is one of the reasons I (albeit very unenthusiasticly) voted for Mr. Corbet over Mr. Wolf. They're both losers though.
You can vote?
But you're not getting the point. If taxes were raised that money could still be going elsewhere throughout the state.
Someone living in PA may not normally take the Turnpike. Higher tolls where the money funds local projects allows them to benefit from everyone else driving the Turnpike.
If a politician were to say: I'm going to fix your roads. Do you want me to raise your gas taxes causing you to pay more every time you fill up your tank, or raise the tolls on a road you never drive which won't cost you a penny more, which option do you think many will choose?
I'm not saying it's right or fair. I'm saying: A taxpayer, if given an option, will often take the one that benefits them the most. That's why it would be silly for a taxpayer to vote out a politician that found an alternate source of funding that didn't raise their taxes.
Surprised nobody commented about the major bottleneck going up to the Allegheny Tunnel during this weekend's snow storm. Hundreds of vehicles, including buses with students & college athletes, were stranded for nearly 24 hours.
Not sure why the PTC is reviewing the incident (seems like a bureaucratic answer). A combination of a construction-narrowed mountain climb and lack of turnarounds are the major issues.
http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/news&id=366365931
this article states that the PTC "would investigate whether the tractor-trailers should have been on the Turnpike in the first place." A different article had another quote about the potential of banning trucks in the left lane during weather events.I believe the "banning" had to do with empty trailers which were subject to the crosswinds. I'm not sure how exactly you advertise that to traffic already on the road subject to white-out conditions, if it's not already a rule.
11 year olds and politics do not mix.Worthy of mention. Looks like the PA Turnpike is increasing the tolls by 6% again, on Sunday the 10th. It normally would be $1.70, now it is $1.80. Not even EZPass can save you at this point, but it's a fair cushion. Act 89 really seems to be angering people in PA. Maybe this governor is trash?
Act 89 was passed under the previous administration and it reduced the toll increases that would have happened if Act 44 had been left untouched. Not sure why you'd blame Governor Wolf for this.
Agreed; it's too similar to adults and politics, and we've got quite enough of that already.
Surprised nobody commented about the major bottleneck going up to the Allegheny Tunnel during this weekend's snow storm. Hundreds of vehicles, including buses with students & college athletes, were stranded for nearly 24 hours.
Not sure why the PTC is reviewing the incident (seems like a bureaucratic answer). A combination of a construction-narrowed mountain climb and lack of turnarounds are the major issues.
http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/news&id=366365931
This might be interesting to watch...this article states that the PTC "would investigate whether the tractor-trailers should have been on the Turnpike in the first place." A different article had another quote about the potential of banning trucks in the left lane during weather events.
Surprised nobody commented about the major bottleneck going up to the Allegheny Tunnel during this weekend's snow storm. Hundreds of vehicles, including buses with students & college athletes, were stranded for nearly 24 hours.
Not sure why the PTC is reviewing the incident (seems like a bureaucratic answer). A combination of a construction-narrowed mountain climb and lack of turnarounds are the major issues.
http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/news&id=366365931
This might be interesting to watch...this article states that the PTC "would investigate whether the tractor-trailers should have been on the Turnpike in the first place." A different article had another quote about the potential of banning trucks in the left lane during weather events.
It's all blah-blah-blah from the PA Turnpike. Less than two years ago, they had another incident closer to Philly during a snowstorm that closed the highway for an extensive period of time. They said they would review things then. Clearly, whatever 'Review' they did resulted in nothing being done.
Surprised nobody commented about the major bottleneck going up to the Allegheny Tunnel during this weekend's snow storm. Hundreds of vehicles, including buses with students & college athletes, were stranded for nearly 24 hours.
Not sure why the PTC is reviewing the incident (seems like a bureaucratic answer). A combination of a construction-narrowed mountain climb and lack of turnarounds are the major issues.
http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/news&id=366365931
This might be interesting to watch...this article states that the PTC "would investigate whether the tractor-trailers should have been on the Turnpike in the first place." A different article had another quote about the potential of banning trucks in the left lane during weather events.
It's all blah-blah-blah from the PA Turnpike. Less than two years ago, they had another incident closer to Philly during a snowstorm that closed the highway for an extensive period of time. They said they would review things then. Clearly, whatever 'Review' they did resulted in nothing being done.
It's all blah-blah-blah from the PA Turnpike. Less than two years ago, they had another incident closer to Philly during a snowstorm that closed the highway for an extensive period of time. They said they would review things then. Clearly, whatever 'Review' they did resulted in nothing being done.
Of course, they're also looking for excuses to abandon the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel. This just adds to the ammunition.
It's all blah-blah-blah from the PA Turnpike. Less than two years ago, they had another incident closer to Philly during a snowstorm that closed the highway for an extensive period of time. They said they would review things then. Clearly, whatever 'Review' they did resulted in nothing being done.
Of course, they're also looking for excuses to abandon the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel. This just adds to the ammunition.
How does that matter? With (or without) the tunnel, the Turnpike traffic still has to ascend the grade to get through (or past) the crest of Allegheny Mountain.
It's all blah-blah-blah from the PA Turnpike. Less than two years ago, they had another incident closer to Philly during a snowstorm that closed the highway for an extensive period of time. They said they would review things then. Clearly, whatever 'Review' they did resulted in nothing being done.
Of course, they're also looking for excuses to abandon the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel. This just adds to the ammunition.
How does that matter? With (or without) the tunnel, the Turnpike traffic still has to ascend the grade to get through (or past) the crest of Allegheny Mountain.
Understood, but I'm stating that the PTC wants to can the tunnels or add a 3rd. Just noting that this accident could be seen as more ammo.
The issue is going to come down to regarding whether trucks should be on the Turnpike at all during a snowstorm. I still don't see how this relates to a new tunnel or tunnel bypass whatsoever.
The issue is going to come down to regarding whether trucks should be on the Turnpike at all during a snowstorm. I still don't see how this relates to a new tunnel or tunnel bypass whatsoever.
I agree. One thing that Colorado does (at least on I-70) is to mandate that trucks have chains on-board and ready for use if they are headed between Denver and Grand Junction during the snow season (which is long there (October to May) thanks to the high elevations).
It might not be a bad idea for states to impose similar requirements on mountainous Interstates in the East, including the mountain parts of the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Carlisle to Cranberry and the Northeast Extension north of Exit 56 {Lehigh Valley), "Free" I-70 east of Breezewood, I-68, I-64, I-77, I-26, I-81 north of Harrisburg and I-40 (and probably others).
The issue is going to come down to regarding whether trucks should be on the Turnpike at all during a snowstorm. I still don't see how this relates to a new tunnel or tunnel bypass whatsoever.
I agree. One thing that Colorado does (at least on I-70) is to mandate that trucks have chains on-board and ready for use if they are headed between Denver and Grand Junction during the snow season (which is long there (October to May) thanks to the high elevations).
It might not be a bad idea for states to impose similar requirements on mountainous Interstates in the East, including the mountain parts of the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Carlisle to Cranberry and the Northeast Extension north of Exit 56 {Lehigh Valley), "Free" I-70 east of Breezewood, I-68, I-64, I-77, I-26, I-81 north of Harrisburg and I-40 (and probably others).
The issue is going to come down to regarding whether trucks should be on the Turnpike at all during a snowstorm. I still don't see how this relates to a new tunnel or tunnel bypass whatsoever.
I agree. One thing that Colorado does (at least on I-70) is to mandate that trucks have chains on-board and ready for use if they are headed between Denver and Grand Junction during the snow season (which is long there (October to May) thanks to the high elevations).
It's all blah-blah-blah from the PA Turnpike. Less than two years ago, they had another incident closer to Philly during a snowstorm that closed the highway for an extensive period of time. They said they would review things then. Clearly, whatever 'Review' they did resulted in nothing being done.
Of course, they're also looking for excuses to abandon the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel. This just adds to the ammunition.
It's all blah-blah-blah from the PA Turnpike. Less than two years ago, they had another incident closer to Philly during a snowstorm that closed the highway for an extensive period of time. They said they would review things then. Clearly, whatever 'Review' they did resulted in nothing being done.
Of course, they're also looking for excuses to abandon the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel. This just adds to the ammunition.
They plan to either bore a new pair of tunnels with three lanes each, or build a six-lane bypass. Both options would help prevent what happened because there'd be a third lane. Coincidentally, the existing cattle chutes are in place because of slope remediation in preparation for widening the Turnpike east of the tunnel to six lanes. It also appears that trucks are instructed to use only the right lane through the cattle chutes, because the left lane is only 11' wide.
It's all blah-blah-blah from the PA Turnpike. Less than two years ago, they had another incident closer to Philly during a snowstorm that closed the highway for an extensive period of time. They said they would review things then. Clearly, whatever 'Review' they did resulted in nothing being done.
Of course, they're also looking for excuses to abandon the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel. This just adds to the ammunition.
They plan to either bore a new pair of tunnels with three lanes each, or build a six-lane bypass. Both options would help prevent what happened because there'd be a third lane. Coincidentally, the existing cattle chutes are in place because of slope remediation in preparation for widening the Turnpike east of the tunnel to six lanes. It also appears that trucks are instructed to use only the right lane through the cattle chutes, because the left lane is only 11' wide.
No, the instructions are to use the left lane only. This has been widely reported. Not sure where you would've read 'Right Lane Only'.
Also, I think the pavement in the shoulders is less thick, making it easier to rut and tear up by all the truck traffic.
It's all blah-blah-blah from the PA Turnpike. Less than two years ago, they had another incident closer to Philly during a snowstorm that closed the highway for an extensive period of time. They said they would review things then. Clearly, whatever 'Review' they did resulted in nothing being done.
Of course, they're also looking for excuses to abandon the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel. This just adds to the ammunition.
They plan to either bore a new pair of tunnels with three lanes each, or build a six-lane bypass. Both options would help prevent what happened because there'd be a third lane. Coincidentally, the existing cattle chutes are in place because of slope remediation in preparation for widening the Turnpike east of the tunnel to six lanes. It also appears that trucks are instructed to use only the right lane through the cattle chutes, because the left lane is only 11' wide.
No, the instructions are to use the left lane only. This has been widely reported. Not sure where you would've read 'Right Lane Only'.
The PA Turnpike often keeps trucks in the left lane through cattle-chuted construction zones. They do this when the lanes are slightly narrowed and moved to the right, with the right lane then occupying part of what was the right shoulder. Trucks are kept off the modified right lane because it can be very uneven. In some places it slopes to the right and in some places there are drainage grates with dips. This make it very difficult to keep a tractor-trailer stable. They tend to wiggle and fishtail, even when the road surface is clear and dry.
It's all blah-blah-blah from the PA Turnpike. Less than two years ago, they had another incident closer to Philly during a snowstorm that closed the highway for an extensive period of time. They said they would review things then. Clearly, whatever 'Review' they did resulted in nothing being done.
Of course, they're also looking for excuses to abandon the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel. This just adds to the ammunition.
They plan to either bore a new pair of tunnels with three lanes each, or build a six-lane bypass. Both options would help prevent what happened because there'd be a third lane. Coincidentally, the existing cattle chutes are in place because of slope remediation in preparation for widening the Turnpike east of the tunnel to six lanes. It also appears that trucks are instructed to use only the right lane through the cattle chutes, because the left lane is only 11' wide.
No, the instructions are to use the left lane only. This has been widely reported. Not sure where you would've read 'Right Lane Only'.
The PA Turnpike often keeps trucks in the left lane through cattle-chuted construction zones. They do this when the lanes are slightly narrowed and moved to the right, with the right lane then occupying part of what was the right shoulder. Trucks are kept off the modified right lane because it can be very uneven. In some places it slopes to the right and in some places there are drainage grates with dips. This make it very difficult to keep a tractor-trailer stable. They tend to wiggle and fishtail, even when the road surface is clear and dry.
The main reason isn't shoulder stability, it's construction vehicle entrances. It depends on where there are construction vehicle entrances in the work zones. If the construction vehicle entrances are from the right/shoulder, then trucks are limited to the left lane. But in places where the median is being reconstructed, so the construction vehicle entrances are from the left, then trucks are limited to the right lane. This was a safety study done in terms of the construction vehicle entrances, and the ability of regular trucks to slow down when a construction vehicle enters. There was a FAQ about this on the Turnpike website years ago about this.
Most times, the shoulder is stabilized before being used for traffic.
It could be for either reason. On the extension, work has shifted to the original travel lanes/median; and trucks and buses are still directed to keep left, though all truck entrances would now also be from the left.I saw that new BGS a couple of Saturdays ago.
In other construction news, new overhead signage is up for the existing exit 31, with the B portion of the exit plaque covered. It would seem much of this work is redundant with the coming AET, then again, the rate they implement things might make a very useful decade or so...
It's all blah-blah-blah from the PA Turnpike. Less than two years ago, they had another incident closer to Philly during a snowstorm that closed the highway for an extensive period of time. They said they would review things then. Clearly, whatever 'Review' they did resulted in nothing being done.
Of course, they're also looking for excuses to abandon the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel. This just adds to the ammunition.
They plan to either bore a new pair of tunnels with three lanes each, or build a six-lane bypass. Both options would help prevent what happened because there'd be a third lane. Coincidentally, the existing cattle chutes are in place because of slope remediation in preparation for widening the Turnpike east of the tunnel to six lanes. It also appears that trucks are instructed to use only the right lane through the cattle chutes, because the left lane is only 11' wide.
No, the instructions are to use the left lane only. This has been widely reported. Not sure where you would've read 'Right Lane Only'.
The PA Turnpike often keeps trucks in the left lane through cattle-chuted construction zones. They do this when the lanes are slightly narrowed and moved to the right, with the right lane then occupying part of what was the right shoulder. Trucks are kept off the modified right lane because it can be very uneven. In some places it slopes to the right and in some places there are drainage grates with dips. This make it very difficult to keep a tractor-trailer stable. They tend to wiggle and fishtail, even when the road surface is clear and dry.
The main reason isn't shoulder stability, it's construction vehicle entrances. It depends on where there are construction vehicle entrances in the work zones. If the construction vehicle entrances are from the right/shoulder, then trucks are limited to the left lane. But in places where the median is being reconstructed, so the construction vehicle entrances are from the left, then trucks are limited to the right lane. This was a safety study done in terms of the construction vehicle entrances, and the ability of regular trucks to slow down when a construction vehicle enters. There was a FAQ about this on the Turnpike website years ago about this.
Most times, the shoulder is stabilized before being used for traffic.
It absolutely has to do with the shoulder. This construction zone was in the median, and trucks were limited to the left lane.
Feel free to drive the PA Turnpike sometimes and view the work zone signage.
It's all blah-blah-blah from the PA Turnpike. Less than two years ago, they had another incident closer to Philly during a snowstorm that closed the highway for an extensive period of time. They said they would review things then. Clearly, whatever 'Review' they did resulted in nothing being done.
Of course, they're also looking for excuses to abandon the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel. This just adds to the ammunition.
They plan to either bore a new pair of tunnels with three lanes each, or build a six-lane bypass. Both options would help prevent what happened because there'd be a third lane. Coincidentally, the existing cattle chutes are in place because of slope remediation in preparation for widening the Turnpike east of the tunnel to six lanes. It also appears that trucks are instructed to use only the right lane through the cattle chutes, because the left lane is only 11' wide.
No, the instructions are to use the left lane only. This has been widely reported. Not sure where you would've read 'Right Lane Only'.
The PA Turnpike often keeps trucks in the left lane through cattle-chuted construction zones. They do this when the lanes are slightly narrowed and moved to the right, with the right lane then occupying part of what was the right shoulder. Trucks are kept off the modified right lane because it can be very uneven. In some places it slopes to the right and in some places there are drainage grates with dips. This make it very difficult to keep a tractor-trailer stable. They tend to wiggle and fishtail, even when the road surface is clear and dry.
The main reason isn't shoulder stability, it's construction vehicle entrances. It depends on where there are construction vehicle entrances in the work zones. If the construction vehicle entrances are from the right/shoulder, then trucks are limited to the left lane. But in places where the median is being reconstructed, so the construction vehicle entrances are from the left, then trucks are limited to the right lane. This was a safety study done in terms of the construction vehicle entrances, and the ability of regular trucks to slow down when a construction vehicle enters. There was a FAQ about this on the Turnpike website years ago about this.
Most times, the shoulder is stabilized before being used for traffic.
It absolutely has to do with the shoulder. This construction zone was in the median, and trucks were limited to the left lane.
Tom Wertz's fire department pager went off at 12:20 a.m. Jan. 23 with a call from Bedford County's emergency dispatching center seeking help for hundreds of drivers stranded on a snow-clogged stretch of the Pennsylvania Turnpike near Allegheny Mountain Tunnel.
Wertz, 49, chief of Shawnee Valley Volunteer Fire Department, met at the fire hall in nearby Schellsburg with member Justin Milburn and plowed through snow in a four-wheel-drive brush truck to an access gate at mile 138.
“We had about a foot of snow already, and they said they had a backup on the turnpike. I had no idea what it was going to be like when we got there,” he said.
What awaited them was a roughly 16-mile line of traffic that had been building since a tractor-trailer hauling chocolate triggered a 5.6-mile backup when it crashed and blocked the westbound lanes about 5:21 p.m., turnpike officials told the Tribune-Review in response to questions.
The incident drew national attention and raised questions about whether turnpike officials moved fast enough to help drivers who were stranded overnight and relied largely on volunteer emergency responders from nearby small towns who could reach the area. No one died or was seriously injured, but state officials promised to examine the response.
Exacerbating the problem as heavy snow fell, at least two tractor-trailers at 7:40 p.m. blocked the turnpike's westbound lanes as they struggled to climb the east slope of Allegheny Mountain near mile 123, officials said. Shortly after 9 p.m., the backlog grew when westbound traffic was stopped near the Kegg Maintenance Building at mile 132.2 to prevent more vehicles from entering narrow "cattle chutes" in place because of a construction project.
The PTC had no scruples about not connecting its road to I-95That one will eventually be a thing of the past in the next few years (at least for the future through I-95 movements). Construction for this project has since begun.
to pick their way through Morgantown getting to I-176There's been a direct connection (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1674472,-75.8942139,15z) from the Turnpike to I-176 since the mid-90s.
why was it willing to connect the NE Extension to U.S. 22IIRC, the twisted (IMHO) direct connection prohibition that existed at the time was toll towards toll roads connecting to Interstates freeways, not US nor state freeways.
(or for that matter, the NE Ext. and mainline Turnpike to free I-476)?The reasoning for PTC building a direct connection between the E-W Turnpike (I-276) and the NE Extension (I-476) is a no-brainer; both roads are part of the PTC system.
The truck traffic on US 11 in Carlisle is impressive. I don't know if I've ever had a real long delay through there, but it does slow you down.Whenever there's a car show taking place on the fairgrounds; traffic along US 11 gets very heavy. One Saturday, I've seen it back up as far north as the I-81 interchange when the All-Ford Nationals was taking place.
Also, I think the pavement in the shoulders is less thick, making it easier to rut and tear up by all the truck traffic.
I agree. Perhaps not full-depth pavement to the right. I have seen similar signage in Virginia (but not recently).
The PTC had no scruples about not connecting its road to I-95That one will eventually be a thing of the past in the next few years (at least for the future through I-95 movements). Construction for this project has since begun.
There's been a direct connection (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1674472,-75.8942139,15z) from the Turnpike to I-176 since the mid-90s.
IIRC, the twisted (IMHO) direct connection prohibition that existed at the time was toll towards toll roads connecting to Interstates freeways, not US nor state freeways.
The reasoning for PTC building a direct connection between the E-W Turnpike (I-276) and the NE Extension (I-476) is a no-brainer; both roads are part of the PTC system.
As far as the Blue Route (free I-476) semi-direct (to get to I-276 West from I-476 North, one still needs to get onto Germantown Pike and enter at the adjacent Norristown interchange) connection is concerned; such a restriction (regarding direct Interstate connections) were likely no longer an issue, development along Germantown Pike (mainly the Plymouth Meeting Mall) coupled with complaints regarding northbound I-476 traffic being dumped on Chemical Road (prior to the Turnpike connection) were loud enough to warrant building the present connection. I believe the Mid-County Toll Plaza is now the largest toll plaza along the PTC system (Valley Forge is the 2nd largest); the large traffic demand along I-476, no doubt motivated the size of that plaza (obviously pre-E-ZPass and AET) to be as large as it is.
Per Google satellite, that transition from 476 north to 276 west is free of stoplights (and I noticed the couple of at-speed E-ZPass lanes in each direction at the toll plaza).Yes, but one still uses another road (Germantown Pike) as a means of reaching the westbound Turnpike (I-276). The only reason why there's no traffic light between the 2 interchanges (Blue Route & Turnpike) along Germantown Pike is because of their close proximity.
IIRC for the first 12 months after the Mid-County Expressway opened full-length, the only direct access from same to the turnpike was the ramp to 276 east. All movements from the Blue Route to 276 west and the northbound NE Ext. were via Germantown Pike.Such was obviously a temporary condition due to the northbound overpass being overhauled; it was raised to accommodate the then-new directional ramp (from I-276 West to I-476 South) underneath.
A Pennsylvania Turnpike toll collector who survived a botched robbery attempt last month that left three people dead said she was terrified but her instincts took over during the attack by a retired state trooper, who was killed by police responding to her call for help.
Martha Berkstresser told The Associated Press in an interview last week that her "mind was going 24 mph" after Clarence Briggs pulled a gun on her and co-worker Danny Crouse as they were counting money at a booth in the Fort Littleton interchange during the predawn twilight on Sunday, March 20.
Hang on Interstate 81 drivers, help is on the way.
However, it will cost you and is at least seven years away.
State transportation officials outlined more detailed plans Thursday for a proposed $170 million Scranton Beltway designed to divert traffic off the busiest local stretch of Interstate 81 onto the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
TheTimes-Tribune.com: Turnpike, PennDOT officials announce Scranton Beltway plans (http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/turnpike-penndot-officials-announce-scranton-beltway-plans-1.2036534)QuoteHang on Interstate 81 drivers, help is on the way.QuoteHowever, it will cost you and is at least seven years away.QuoteState transportation officials outlined more detailed plans Thursday for a proposed $170 million Scranton Beltway designed to divert traffic off the busiest local stretch of Interstate 81 onto the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
The beltway probably won’t be ready until 2023.
The project would mark the largest local highway construction project since the 1990s construction of the $460 million Casey Highway across Lackawanna County, state Sen. John Blake said.
Really odd that they call it the "beltway" -- seems to imply that they're building a new road when really, it's just totally revamping the I-81/I-476 connections.
Really odd that they call it the "beltway" -- seems to imply that they're building a new road when really, it's just totally revamping the I-81/I-476 connections.
Well, one would be able to loop around Scranton like one would in any other beltway if the new junctions have all movements, but the lack of local exits on I-476 begs the question of why one could possibly WANT to.Really odd that they call it the "beltway" -- seems to imply that they're building a new road when really, it's just totally revamping the I-81/I-476 connections.
Yeah... maybe just "Bypass" would have been better than Beltway.
The only time I've been thru the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton area on a family trip, I think the summer between my 9th-10th grades in the mid 90's, my dad made a point of taking this stretch of the NE Extension to expressly avoid I-81 in the area, and thought it well worth the money (though the tolls were a good bit less then, and I think the highway was still PA-9 at the time)
At any rate, since PennDOT admitted they're pretty much not going to do any widening or major improvements to I-81 there, it's better than nothing.
Perhaps they could install travel time signs or otherwise emphasize the difference in speed limit?
Another idea would be to swap I-81 and I-476, thereby emphasizing the PTC as a bypass?Well, one would be able to loop around Scranton like one would in any other beltway if the new junctions have all movements, but the lack of local exits on I-476 begs the question of why one could possibly WANT to.Really odd that they call it the "beltway" -- seems to imply that they're building a new road when really, it's just totally revamping the I-81/I-476 connections.
Yeah... maybe just "Bypass" would have been better than Beltway.
The only time I've been thru the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton area on a family trip, I think the summer between my 9th-10th grades in the mid 90's, my dad made a point of taking this stretch of the NE Extension to expressly avoid I-81 in the area, and thought it well worth the money (though the tolls were a good bit less then, and I think the highway was still PA-9 at the time)
At any rate, since PennDOT admitted they're pretty much not going to do any widening or major improvements to I-81 there, it's better than nothing.
I've noticed more willingness to use toll roads in Texas, where people jump on to avoid delays on the free parallel Interstates (and other state/US freeways, expressways, and arterials). I think if you get enough congestion and there is no free-flowing untolled route, the tolled route will pick up volume.
Well, I-35 between San Antonio and the Austin area has TX 130 as the tolled alternative, and I-35 gets plenty of traffic. TX 130 gets cricket sounds everywhere, as when it had opened, Section 5 and 6 had only 6000 AADT as of 2013. Texas A&M Transportation Institute found incentives to use TX 130, but although through trucks are a small part of traffic of I-35, there's still a lot of trucks there than on TX 130. Even on the 85 mph segment, there's still not a lot of traffic, and the 130 Concession Company went bankrupt too.I've noticed more willingness to use toll roads in Texas, where people jump on to avoid delays on the free parallel Interstates (and other state/US freeways, expressways, and arterials). I think if you get enough congestion and there is no free-flowing untolled route, the tolled route will pick up volume.
It also helps that the speed limit is higher on them, at least in Dallas/Fort Worth.
Here's one tip when traveling on the PA turnpike. If you are traveling westbound on the turnpike, and you get on the turnpike at or before the Lebanon Interchange, always stop at the Lawn Service Plaza. This is because the next service plaza, Blue Mountain, is not for 90 miles which is the longest gap between service plazas westbound wise. And while along the first half of the gap, there are a spew of exits in the Harrisburg area that have nearby accommodations in case of an emergency, as soon as you pass the Carlisle exit, there is not another exit before the Blue Mountain Service Plaza, and that service plaza isn't for another 40 miles. I share this because my brother went to University of Pittsburgh and I'm from the Philly area, so my family would travel frequently to Pittsburgh on the turnpike, and one time, we were traveling on the stretch between the Carlisle exit and the Blue Mountain Service Plaza, and my mother had to use the restroom really bad, and we were so close to running out of gas. Fortunately, we made it to Blue Mountain before disaster occured, but we were all so worried. Even since then, we would always stop at Lawn.
Does anyone have any other tips for traveling the turnpike?
Here's one tip when traveling on the PA turnpike. If you are traveling westbound on the turnpike, and you get on the turnpike at or before the Lebanon Interchange, always stop at the Lawn Service Plaza. This is because the next service plaza, Blue Mountain, is not for 90 miles which is the longest gap between service plazas westbound wise. And while along the first half of the gap, there are a spew of exits in the Harrisburg area that have nearby accommodations in case of an emergency, as soon as you pass the Carlisle exit, there is not another exit before the Blue Mountain Service Plaza, and that service plaza isn't for another 40 miles. I share this because my brother went to University of Pittsburgh and I'm from the Philly area, so my family would travel frequently to Pittsburgh on the turnpike, and one time, we were traveling on the stretch between the Carlisle exit and the Blue Mountain Service Plaza, and my mother had to use the restroom really bad, and we were so close to running out of gas. Fortunately, we made it to Blue Mountain before disaster occured, but we were all so worried. Even since then, we would always stop at Lawn.
Does anyone have any other tips for traveling the turnpike?
I'm not sure it is 90 miles between Lawn and Blue Mountain. I'm seeing the distance as 56 miles per the PA Turnpike website - it is still on the long side though. The largest gap is west of New Stanton, given there's no longer a service plaza between there and the Ohio state line. It's at least 77 miles between plazas in that case.
I have an even better tip. Just drive I-80 instead.
For real, drive a little more cautiously because that road is prone to accidents.
I have an even better tip. Just drive I-80 instead.
For real, drive a little more cautiously because that road is prone to accidents.
For me (living in Maryland), I-80 is not at all a feasible or worthwhile alternative to the I-70/I-76 part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, even though that trip includes Breezewood.
In some cases (depending on destination) I-68 to I-79 or even to Turnpike 43 is a workable bypass route.
Then again, how did the old Zelienople service plaza go bankrupt and close? That made the gap between services much more tolerable, as it was about 25 miles to the next service plaza at the Mahoning Valley service plaza on the Ohio Turnpike. Although it was 56 miles from New Stanton to there, it's a tolerable gap, and 25 miles is also decent. Would've helped a lot, as Pittsburgh is really far from there.Here's one tip when traveling on the PA turnpike. If you are traveling westbound on the turnpike, and you get on the turnpike at or before the Lebanon Interchange, always stop at the Lawn Service Plaza. This is because the next service plaza, Blue Mountain, is not for 90 miles which is the longest gap between service plazas westbound wise. And while along the first half of the gap, there are a spew of exits in the Harrisburg area that have nearby accommodations in case of an emergency, as soon as you pass the Carlisle exit, there is not another exit before the Blue Mountain Service Plaza, and that service plaza isn't for another 40 miles. I share this because my brother went to University of Pittsburgh and I'm from the Philly area, so my family would travel frequently to Pittsburgh on the turnpike, and one time, we were traveling on the stretch between the Carlisle exit and the Blue Mountain Service Plaza, and my mother had to use the restroom really bad, and we were so close to running out of gas. Fortunately, we made it to Blue Mountain before disaster occured, but we were all so worried. Even since then, we would always stop at Lawn.
Does anyone have any other tips for traveling the turnpike?
I'm not sure it is 90 miles between Lawn and Blue Mountain. I'm seeing the distance as 56 miles per the PA Turnpike website - it is still on the long side though. The largest gap is west of New Stanton, given there's no longer a service plaza between there and the Ohio state line. It's at least 77 miles between plazas in that case.
As one who has driven both I-80 and the Pa. Tpk. between New Jersey and the Altoona-State College area, I prefer the Turnpike even with the tolls. I-80 is a horribly boring drive. Miles and miles of nothing to see. At least the Turnpike has service areas, interesting tunnels and is generally more scenic.
I said parallel. TX 130 serves an empty corridor.Well, I-35 between San Antonio and the Austin area has TX 130 as the tolled alternative, and I-35 gets plenty of traffic. TX 130 gets cricket sounds everywhere, as when it had opened, Section 5 and 6 had only 6000 AADT as of 2013. Texas A&M Transportation Institute found incentives to use TX 130, but although through trucks are a small part of traffic of I-35, there's still a lot of trucks there than on TX 130. Even on the 85 mph segment, there's still not a lot of traffic, and the 130 Concession Company went bankrupt too.I've noticed more willingness to use toll roads in Texas, where people jump on to avoid delays on the free parallel Interstates (and other state/US freeways, expressways, and arterials). I think if you get enough congestion and there is no free-flowing untolled route, the tolled route will pick up volume.
It also helps that the speed limit is higher on them, at least in Dallas/Fort Worth.
So it's essentially a gamble if that toll road picks up volume, even if the free road is congested.
Then again, how did the old Zelienople service plaza go bankrupt and close?
I said parallel. TX 130 serves an empty corridor.Well, I-35 between San Antonio and the Austin area has TX 130 as the tolled alternative, and I-35 gets plenty of traffic. TX 130 gets cricket sounds everywhere, as when it had opened, Section 5 and 6 had only 6000 AADT as of 2013. Texas A&M Transportation Institute found incentives to use TX 130, but although through trucks are a small part of traffic of I-35, there's still a lot of trucks there than on TX 130. Even on the 85 mph segment, there's still not a lot of traffic, and the 130 Concession Company went bankrupt too.I've noticed more willingness to use toll roads in Texas, where people jump on to avoid delays on the free parallel Interstates (and other state/US freeways, expressways, and arterials). I think if you get enough congestion and there is no free-flowing untolled route, the tolled route will pick up volume.
It also helps that the speed limit is higher on them, at least in Dallas/Fort Worth.
So it's essentially a gamble if that toll road picks up volume, even if the free road is congested.
TX 130 hits I-10 too far east to attract San Antonio traffic and too far west for Houston traffic. It really needed to come in west of Seguin.
As one who has driven both I-80 and the Pa. Tpk. between New Jersey and the Altoona-State College area, I prefer the Turnpike even with the tolls. I-80 is a horribly boring drive. Miles and miles of nothing to see. At least the Turnpike has service areas, interesting tunnels and is generally more scenic.
I've been on both as well, and I find I-80 to be more interesting and scenic.
Here's one tip when traveling on the PA turnpike. If you are traveling westbound on the turnpike, and you get on the turnpike at or before the Lebanon Interchange, always stop at the Lawn Service Plaza. This is because the next service plaza, Blue Mountain, is not for 90 miles which is the longest gap between service plazas westbound wise. And while along the first half of the gap, there are a spew of exits in the Harrisburg area that have nearby accommodations in case of an emergency, as soon as you pass the Carlisle exit, there is not another exit before the Blue Mountain Service Plaza, and that service plaza isn't for another 40 miles. I share this because my brother went to University of Pittsburgh and I'm from the Philly area, so my family would travel frequently to Pittsburgh on the turnpike, and one time, we were traveling on the stretch between the Carlisle exit and the Blue Mountain Service Plaza, and my mother had to use the restroom really bad, and we were so close to running out of gas. Fortunately, we made it to Blue Mountain before disaster occured, but we were all so worried. Even since then, we would always stop at Lawn.
Does anyone have any other tips for traveling the turnpike?
I'm not sure it is 90 miles between Lawn and Blue Mountain. I'm seeing the distance as 56 miles per the PA Turnpike website - it is still on the long side though. The largest gap is west of New Stanton, given there's no longer a service plaza between there and the Ohio state line. It's at least 77 miles between plazas in that case.
Therefore, in regards to both exits and service plazas, the biggest gap westbound is from Carlisle to Blue Mountain.
Therefore, in regards to both exits and service plazas, the biggest gap westbound is from Carlisle to Blue Mountain.
Actually, the biggest gap in both directions is from the Somerset Service Plazas to the Bedford exit, which is about 34 miles.
It reminds me somewhat of the European "no passing" signs but it uses the same color circles as the small hazmat signs you sometimes see in the Midwest.
I'm not sure it is 90 miles between Lawn and Blue Mountain. I'm seeing the distance as 56 miles per the PA Turnpike website - it is still on the long side though. The largest gap is west of New Stanton, given there's no longer a service plaza between there and the Ohio state line. It's at least 77 miles between plazas in that case.
I'm not sure it is 90 miles between Lawn and Blue Mountain. I'm seeing the distance as 56 miles per the PA Turnpike website - it is still on the long side though. The largest gap is west of New Stanton, given there's no longer a service plaza between there and the Ohio state line. It's at least 77 miles between plazas in that case.
According to Google, it is 81+ miles from the New Stanton service plaza on the Pennsylvania Turnpike (the last one westbound on the E-W Mainline) to the first one on the Ohio Pike (Mahoning Valley). IMO, the PTC and its service plaza concession holder ought to be able to have some on-Turnpike services in that long stretch, perhaps between I-79 and Ohio?
That's awfully far for a road that supposedly provides service plazas for its patrons (and I know that at least some of the exits on the westbound Penn Pike between New Stanton and the Ohio border show services available at the interchanges).
I'm not sure it is 90 miles between Lawn and Blue Mountain. I'm seeing the distance as 56 miles per the PA Turnpike website - it is still on the long side though. The largest gap is west of New Stanton, given there's no longer a service plaza between there and the Ohio state line. It's at least 77 miles between plazas in that case.
According to Google, it is 81+ miles from the New Stanton service plaza on the Pennsylvania Turnpike (the last one westbound on the E-W Mainline) to the first one on the Ohio Pike (Mahoning Valley). IMO, the PTC and its service plaza concession holder ought to be able to have some on-Turnpike services in that long stretch, perhaps between I-79 and Ohio?
That's awfully far for a road that supposedly provides service plazas for its patrons (and I know that at least some of the exits on the westbound Penn Pike between New Stanton and the Ohio border show services available at the interchanges).
If you've seen service area pricing, you're paying a bigger penalty by eating on the Turnpike!
I am guessing CT is still allowed to keep plazas because its grandfathered into it being it was a toll road on I-95.You guessed correctly. Similar can be said regarding the Newton (southbound) and Lexington (northbound) service plazas along I-95 (MA 128) in MA. Those predated 128 becoming the de-facto I-95 and were also grandfathered.
If you've seen service area pricing, you're paying a bigger penalty by eating on the Turnpike!
Correct. But for convenience, the service plazas are IMO best, and in many states they have gotten nice renovations in recent years (such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Delaware and Connecticut).
Wish they were allowed by the feds on "free" freeways, as they are in Quebec and especially Ontario - and in many EU nations.
If you've seen service area pricing, you're paying a bigger penalty by eating on the Turnpike!
Correct. But for convenience, the service plazas are IMO best, and in many states they have gotten nice renovations in recent years (such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Delaware and Connecticut).
Wish they were allowed by the feds on "free" freeways, as they are in Quebec and especially Ontario - and in many EU nations.
If they aren't allowed, then how the heck is NYSDOT putting in rest areas with stores on the LIE and I-90 east of Albany?
If you've seen service area pricing, you're paying a bigger penalty by eating on the Turnpike!
Correct. But for convenience, the service plazas are IMO best, and in many states they have gotten nice renovations in recent years (such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Delaware and Connecticut).
Wish they were allowed by the feds on "free" freeways, as they are in Quebec and especially Ontario - and in many EU nations.
If they aren't allowed, then how the heck is NYSDOT putting in rest areas with stores on the LIE and I-90 east of Albany?
I travel the LIE a lot, and I have not seen a single store in the one or two rest areas on it.
If you've seen service area pricing, you're paying a bigger penalty by eating on the Turnpike!
Correct. But for convenience, the service plazas are IMO best, and in many states they have gotten nice renovations in recent years (such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Delaware and Connecticut).
Wish they were allowed by the feds on "free" freeways, as they are in Quebec and especially Ontario - and in many EU nations.
If they aren't allowed, then how the heck is NYSDOT putting in rest areas with stores on the LIE and I-90 east of Albany?
I travel the LIE a lot, and I have not seen a single store in the one or two rest areas on it.
They're building a new one with a Taste NY store. Construction hasn't started yet.
The Taste NY Long Island Welcome Center will inform visitors of additional locations to purchase regionally-produced goods and help to promote Long Island towns, villages and events.
If you've seen service area pricing, you're paying a bigger penalty by eating on the Turnpike!
Correct. But for convenience, the service plazas are IMO best, and in many states they have gotten nice renovations in recent years (such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Delaware and Connecticut).
Wish they were allowed by the feds on "free" freeways, as they are in Quebec and especially Ontario - and in many EU nations.
If they aren't allowed, then how the heck is NYSDOT putting in rest areas with stores on the LIE and I-90 east of Albany?
I travel the LIE a lot, and I have not seen a single store in the one or two rest areas on it.
They're building a new one with a Taste NY store. Construction hasn't started yet.
That's not what the press release says...
https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/press-releases/2016/2016-03-22QuoteThe Taste NY Long Island Welcome Center will inform visitors of additional locations to purchase regionally-produced goods and help to promote Long Island towns, villages and events.
If you've seen service area pricing, you're paying a bigger penalty by eating on the Turnpike!
Correct. But for convenience, the service plazas are IMO best, and in many states they have gotten nice renovations in recent years (such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Delaware and Connecticut).
Wish they were allowed by the feds on "free" freeways, as they are in Quebec and especially Ontario - and in many EU nations.
If they aren't allowed, then how the heck is NYSDOT putting in rest areas with stores on the LIE and I-90 east of Albany?
I travel the LIE a lot, and I have not seen a single store in the one or two rest areas on it.
They're building a new one with a Taste NY store. Construction hasn't started yet.
They're converting the eastbound parking area. I believe the westbound one will be closing, but don't quote me on that, it's just something I remember seeing in one of the many, many articles that have sprung up on the subject in recent weeks.
The plans, posted April 1 (no joke), say otherwise. Retail counter and prep kitchen (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=11646&p_is_digital=Y).
The I-90 one in Schodack has a clearly-marked sales and retail area on page 74 (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_NOTICE_ADMIN.VIEWFILE?p_file_id=12321&p_is_digital=Y).
Quick question that I know has been answered here before: does PTC give the E-ZPass discount to all tags, or just to Pennsylvania tags? I'm taking a little road trip later this week and I'd like to know how many limbs I'll have to sell to pay their outrageous tolls.
Quick question that I know has been answered here before: does PTC give the E-ZPass discount to all tags, or just to Pennsylvania tags? I'm taking a little road trip later this week and I'd like to know how many limbs I'll have to sell to pay their outrageous tolls.Yes. The PA Turnpike gives the E-Z Pass discount to all tag holders; regardless of what agency issued the tag. Even with the discount, it's painful to use though.
It's no more painful than what the MTA or Port Authority charges. PTC will get less from me in one trip than PANYNJ would for one crossing.
Wouldn't be surprised if the toll by plate rate is the current cash rate.
Quick question that I know has been answered here before: does PTC give the E-ZPass discount to all tags, or just to Pennsylvania tags? I'm taking a little road trip later this week and I'd like to know how many limbs I'll have to sell to pay their outrageous tolls.Yes. The PA Turnpike gives the E-Z Pass discount to all tag holders; regardless of what agency issued the tag. Even with the discount, it's painful to use though.
Quick question that I know has been answered here before: does PTC give the E-ZPass discount to all tags, or just to Pennsylvania tags? I'm taking a little road trip later this week and I'd like to know how many limbs I'll have to sell to pay their outrageous tolls.Yes. The PA Turnpike gives the E-Z Pass discount to all tag holders; regardless of what agency issued the tag. Even with the discount, it's painful to use though.
Tell me about it, costed me near $30 round trip on my trip to Pittsburgh, going there i entered in at Carlisle and going home I exited at Bedford/I-99. The PA Turnpike is one of the most expensive toll roads in the area, without any favors (since I have an TBTA EZPass) the Jersey Turnpike is like 9 bucks from Exit 10 to 1. I shudder to think what the PA Turnpike is gunna cost if they try any wierd time of day tolling.
Quick question that I know has been answered here before: does PTC give the E-ZPass discount to all tags, or just to Pennsylvania tags? I'm taking a little road trip later this week and I'd like to know how many limbs I'll have to sell to pay their outrageous tolls.Yes. The PA Turnpike gives the E-Z Pass discount to all tag holders; regardless of what agency issued the tag. Even with the discount, it's painful to use though.
Tell me about it, costed me near $30 round trip on my trip to Pittsburgh, going there i entered in at Carlisle and going home I exited at Bedford/I-99. The PA Turnpike is one of the most expensive toll roads in the area, without any favors (since I have an TBTA EZPass) the Jersey Turnpike is like 9 bucks from Exit 10 to 1. I shudder to think what the PA Turnpike is gunna cost if they try any wierd time of day tolling.
To be fair, you travelled about 270 miles on the PA Turnpike, and about 95 miles on the NJ Turnpike.
Overall, the PA Turnpike is more expensive per mile, but you also travelled a lot more miles on that road, so the costs are relatively in line with your distance.
Harrisburg to Philadelphia is relatively good except the god awful stretch east of Lancaster. But, the shunpike is PA283 to Lancaster to US30 to US202 to I-76 just south of the US 422 exit on the turnpike. This is only 1 mile longer. But, you get to deal with the Lancaster-to-Gap(PA41) stretch that can be a PITA when there's heavy traffic. Which seems to be always. But, 283 and a stretch of 30 are freeway and 202 is all freeway.
Meanwhile, to get that nine buck charge on the Thruway, you'd have to drive 200 miles!Quick question that I know has been answered here before: does PTC give the E-ZPass discount to all tags, or just to Pennsylvania tags? I'm taking a little road trip later this week and I'd like to know how many limbs I'll have to sell to pay their outrageous tolls.Yes. The PA Turnpike gives the E-Z Pass discount to all tag holders; regardless of what agency issued the tag. Even with the discount, it's painful to use though.
Tell me about it, costed me near $30 round trip on my trip to Pittsburgh, going there i entered in at Carlisle and going home I exited at Bedford/I-99. The PA Turnpike is one of the most expensive toll roads in the area, without any favors (since I have an TBTA EZPass) the Jersey Turnpike is like 9 bucks from Exit 10 to 1. I shudder to think what the PA Turnpike is gunna cost if they try any wierd time of day tolling.
To be fair, you travelled about 270 miles on the PA Turnpike, and about 95 miles on the NJ Turnpike.
Overall, the PA Turnpike is more expensive per mile, but you also travelled a lot more miles on that road, so the costs are relatively in line with your distance.
Meanwhile, to get that nine buck charge on the Thruway, you'd have to drive 200 miles!Quick question that I know has been answered here before: does PTC give the E-ZPass discount to all tags, or just to Pennsylvania tags? I'm taking a little road trip later this week and I'd like to know how many limbs I'll have to sell to pay their outrageous tolls.Yes. The PA Turnpike gives the E-Z Pass discount to all tag holders; regardless of what agency issued the tag. Even with the discount, it's painful to use though.
Tell me about it, costed me near $30 round trip on my trip to Pittsburgh, going there i entered in at Carlisle and going home I exited at Bedford/I-99. The PA Turnpike is one of the most expensive toll roads in the area, without any favors (since I have an TBTA EZPass) the Jersey Turnpike is like 9 bucks from Exit 10 to 1. I shudder to think what the PA Turnpike is gunna cost if they try any wierd time of day tolling.
To be fair, you travelled about 270 miles on the PA Turnpike, and about 95 miles on the NJ Turnpike.
Overall, the PA Turnpike is more expensive per mile, but you also travelled a lot more miles on that road, so the costs are relatively in line with your distance.
Ohio (I-76/I-80 interchange) to Cranberry (I-79) is free westbound.
I just did this stretch of 30 EB today, coming back to NJ. The project at Gap to separate the EB and WB lanes of 30 is in full swing, with new signals going up and the new WB roadway looking fairly close to completion, seen here:Harrisburg to Philadelphia is relatively good except the god awful stretch east of Lancaster. But, the shunpike is PA283 to Lancaster to US30 to US202 to I-76 just south of the US 422 exit on the turnpike. This is only 1 mile longer. But, you get to deal with the Lancaster-to-Gap(PA41) stretch that can be a PITA when there's heavy traffic. Which seems to be always. But, 283 and a stretch of 30 are freeway and 202 is all freeway.
On a side note, the widening of US 202 (http://www.us202-300.com/overview.cfm) to 6 lanes out to US 30 should be completed by the end of the year. However, there are plans to reconstruct the US 30 freeway (http://www.dailylocal.com/article/DL/20150928/NEWS/150929725) in the near future.
Also I have used PA 340 to bypass the Gap area. PA 340 does not have that much traffic between Intercourse and PA 82 (just north of Coatesville.)
70 MPH even goes out to Bensalem, but no further due to construction and the new mainline toll barrier immediately to the east of there.I just did this stretch of 30 EB today, coming back to NJ. The project at Gap to separate the EB and WB lanes of 30 is in full swing, with new signals going up and the new WB roadway looking fairly close to completion, seen here:Harrisburg to Philadelphia is relatively good except the god awful stretch east of Lancaster. But, the shunpike is PA283 to Lancaster to US30 to US202 to I-76 just south of the US 422 exit on the turnpike. This is only 1 mile longer. But, you get to deal with the Lancaster-to-Gap(PA41) stretch that can be a PITA when there's heavy traffic. Which seems to be always. But, 283 and a stretch of 30 are freeway and 202 is all freeway.
On a side note, the widening of US 202 (http://www.us202-300.com/overview.cfm) to 6 lanes out to US 30 should be completed by the end of the year. However, there are plans to reconstruct the US 30 freeway (http://www.dailylocal.com/article/DL/20150928/NEWS/150929725) in the near future.
Also I have used PA 340 to bypass the Gap area. PA 340 does not have that much traffic between Intercourse and PA 82 (just north of Coatesville.)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.993702,-76.0251194,17z/data=!3m1!1e3?force=lite (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.993702,-76.0251194,17z/data=!3m1!1e3?force=lite)
I'm glad they're finally looking at improvements on the Coatesville/Downingtown bypass segment - I remember when they built the Exton bypass section to 202. Maybe someday in my lifetime they'll link this to the Lancaster bypass (and bypass the 'bypass' of York), making my shunpiking even better. I'm gonna have to give 340 a shot again - it's been a long time.
On the way out via the PA Turnpike (back on topic), I noticed they have the 70 speed limit signs as far east as the Willow Grove area now. I'm a little surprised with this - I thought for sure they wouldn't go to 70 until they were west of Valley Forge.
I was using the $9.07 toll rate for the 202 mile journey from I-87 to I-490 that I take MANY times per year for every single family gathering.Meanwhile, to get that nine buck charge on the Thruway, you'd have to drive 200 miles!Quick question that I know has been answered here before: does PTC give the E-ZPass discount to all tags, or just to Pennsylvania tags? I'm taking a little road trip later this week and I'd like to know how many limbs I'll have to sell to pay their outrageous tolls.Yes. The PA Turnpike gives the E-Z Pass discount to all tag holders; regardless of what agency issued the tag. Even with the discount, it's painful to use though.
Tell me about it, costed me near $30 round trip on my trip to Pittsburgh, going there i entered in at Carlisle and going home I exited at Bedford/I-99. The PA Turnpike is one of the most expensive toll roads in the area, without any favors (since I have an TBTA EZPass) the Jersey Turnpike is like 9 bucks from Exit 10 to 1. I shudder to think what the PA Turnpike is gunna cost if they try any wierd time of day tolling.
To be fair, you travelled about 270 miles on the PA Turnpike, and about 95 miles on the NJ Turnpike.
Overall, the PA Turnpike is more expensive per mile, but you also travelled a lot more miles on that road, so the costs are relatively in line with your distance.
About right. The toll from 24 to 48A is roughly $11 and that's ~250 miles.
Didn't the PTC just elect to change all their 65 mph zones to 70 mph instead of having them co-exist the way PennDOT did?
Didn't the PTC just elect to change all their 65 mph zones to 70 mph instead of having them co-exist the way PennDOT did?
Yes. The signs started going up the day after the PTC press release on 2 May 2016. Here's a link to the press release (which also lists the small areas which remain at 55 mph):
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2016/20160502143015.htm
I noticed that too on my way WB on Friday. I thought the first 70 MPH sign I encountered was more toward Willow Grove but I might have missed one.Didn't the PTC just elect to change all their 65 mph zones to 70 mph instead of having them co-exist the way PennDOT did?
Yes. The signs started going up the day after the PTC press release on 2 May 2016. Here's a link to the press release (which also lists the small areas which remain at 55 mph):
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2016/20160502143015.htm
There's still one 65 MPH sign - westbound at the US 1 interchange (a temporary sign at the end of the construction zone).
I noticed that too on my way WB on Friday. I thought the first 70 MPH sign I encountered was more toward Willow Grove but I might have missed one.Didn't the PTC just elect to change all their 65 mph zones to 70 mph instead of having them co-exist the way PennDOT did?
Yes. The signs started going up the day after the PTC press release on 2 May 2016. Here's a link to the press release (which also lists the small areas which remain at 55 mph):
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2016/20160502143015.htm
There's still one 65 MPH sign - westbound at the US 1 interchange (a temporary sign at the end of the construction zone).
Even after the widening, there's still a lot of unused pavement space (https://goo.gl/maps/2zJiBzzHv2B2) on the Northeast Extension at the Mid-County Interchange. Does anyone know what it is or was supposed to be used for?the imagery i'm seeing there is from mid-construction. it's currently 3 lanes in each direction.
Even after the widening, there's still a lot of unused pavement space (https://goo.gl/maps/2zJiBzzHv2B2) on the Northeast Extension at the Mid-County Interchange. Does anyone know what it is or was supposed to be used for?the imagery i'm seeing there is from mid-construction. it's currently 3 lanes in each direction.
“Revenues from this increase will fund a newly approved, 10-year spending plan which invests more than $5.77 billion in our system in the coming decade – a large part of which will support ongoing total reconstruction and widening projects.”
Revenues from the 2017 increase will also allow the PTC to fund its annual requirement to support off-Turnpike ground-transportation enhancements. Since 2007, the PTC has been providing supplemental funding to the commonwealth that is invested by PennDOT into non-tolled highways and public-transportation providers. Starting in Fiscal Year 2015, PTC payments have funded transit exclusively.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2016/20160719153742.htm
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission’s chairman says the agency isn’t in financial trouble today but it needs to take steps to avoid problems in the future.
That’s why the commission Tuesday voted to increase tolls for the ninth year in a row, review all construction projects to make sure the agency can afford them and provide close scrutiny on all hirings. The 6 percent toll hike will raise the cost of a trip from Ohio to New Jersey from $48.90 to $51.85 and from $34.93 to $37 for E-ZPass users, who received a toll break several years ago to encourage more motorists to use the cashless system.
“Right now, I can say no, we’re not in financial trouble,” said commission Chairman Sean Logan of Monroeville. “I want to make sure that doesn’t become a yes in two or five or 10 years.”
Part of the reason for the toll increase is the turnpike’s obligation to pay PennDOT $450 million a year under a 2007 state law. Initially that money was for general PennDOT expenses, but two years ago the obligation was changed to earmark the money for public transit only and cut the payment after 2023 to $50 million a year.
The 2007 law, Act 44, envisioned a stream of revenue from higher turnpike tolls and new tolls on Interstate 80 flowing from the commission to PennDOT. Despite the Federal Highway Administration's rejection of I-80 tolls that spring, the turnpike still is required to pay PennDOT $450 million per year and to raise tolls as necessary to meet all of its funding obligations.
To meet those obligations now, the turnpike has been borrowing. Mr. Logan said the commission collects about $1 billion a year in tolls, has debt payments of about $600 million annually and operating expenses of about $380 million a year, a figure that doesn’t include road construction and maintenance.
They are insane. This is insane. $52 for a car to go 300 miles and change. The NJ Turnpike Authority is able to get a lot more work done for a lot less per mile.https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2016/20160719153742.htm
Pittsburgh Post Gazette: Pennsylvania Turnpike to raise tolls 9th year in a row - Commission increases fees 6 percent, reviews all construction projects (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2016/07/19/Turnpike-commission-increases-tolls-6-percent-reviews-all-construction-projects/stories/201607190174)QuoteThe Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission’s chairman says the agency isn’t in financial trouble today but it needs to take steps to avoid problems in the future.QuoteThat’s why the commission Tuesday voted to increase tolls for the ninth year in a row, review all construction projects to make sure the agency can afford them and provide close scrutiny on all hirings. The 6 percent toll hike will raise the cost of a trip from Ohio to New Jersey from $48.90 to $51.85 and from $34.93 to $37 for E-ZPass users, who received a toll break several years ago to encourage more motorists to use the cashless system.Quote“Right now, I can say no, we’re not in financial trouble,” said commission Chairman Sean Logan of Monroeville. “I want to make sure that doesn’t become a yes in two or five or 10 years.”QuotePart of the reason for the toll increase is the turnpike’s obligation to pay PennDOT $450 million a year under a 2007 state law. Initially that money was for general PennDOT expenses, but two years ago the obligation was changed to earmark the money for public transit only and cut the payment after 2023 to $50 million a year.QuoteThe 2007 law, Act 44, envisioned a stream of revenue from higher turnpike tolls and new tolls on Interstate 80 flowing from the commission to PennDOT. Despite the Federal Highway Administration's rejection of I-80 tolls that spring, the turnpike still is required to pay PennDOT $450 million per year and to raise tolls as necessary to meet all of its funding obligations.QuoteTo meet those obligations now, the turnpike has been borrowing. Mr. Logan said the commission collects about $1 billion a year in tolls, has debt payments of about $600 million annually and operating expenses of about $380 million a year, a figure that doesn’t include road construction and maintenance.
They are insane. This is insane. $52 for a car to go 300 miles and change. The NJ Turnpike Authority is able to get a lot more work done for a lot less per mile.https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2016/20160719153742.htm
Pittsburgh Post Gazette: Pennsylvania Turnpike to raise tolls 9th year in a row - Commission increases fees 6 percent, reviews all construction projects (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2016/07/19/Turnpike-commission-increases-tolls-6-percent-reviews-all-construction-projects/stories/201607190174)QuoteThe Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission’s chairman says the agency isn’t in financial trouble today but it needs to take steps to avoid problems in the future.QuoteThat’s why the commission Tuesday voted to increase tolls for the ninth year in a row, review all construction projects to make sure the agency can afford them and provide close scrutiny on all hirings. The 6 percent toll hike will raise the cost of a trip from Ohio to New Jersey from $48.90 to $51.85 and from $34.93 to $37 for E-ZPass users, who received a toll break several years ago to encourage more motorists to use the cashless system.Quote“Right now, I can say no, we’re not in financial trouble,” said commission Chairman Sean Logan of Monroeville. “I want to make sure that doesn’t become a yes in two or five or 10 years.”QuotePart of the reason for the toll increase is the turnpike’s obligation to pay PennDOT $450 million a year under a 2007 state law. Initially that money was for general PennDOT expenses, but two years ago the obligation was changed to earmark the money for public transit only and cut the payment after 2023 to $50 million a year.QuoteThe 2007 law, Act 44, envisioned a stream of revenue from higher turnpike tolls and new tolls on Interstate 80 flowing from the commission to PennDOT. Despite the Federal Highway Administration's rejection of I-80 tolls that spring, the turnpike still is required to pay PennDOT $450 million per year and to raise tolls as necessary to meet all of its funding obligations.QuoteTo meet those obligations now, the turnpike has been borrowing. Mr. Logan said the commission collects about $1 billion a year in tolls, has debt payments of about $600 million annually and operating expenses of about $380 million a year, a figure that doesn’t include road construction and maintenance.
They are insane. This is insane. $52 for a car to go 300 miles and change. The NJ Turnpike Authority is able to get a lot more work done for a lot less per mile.
It's a bunch of trouble. Massachusetts dissolved their toll agency and I can see PA having to go the same route.They are insane. This is insane. $52 for a car to go 300 miles and change. The NJ Turnpike Authority is able to get a lot more work done for a lot less per mile.
Currently about $35 (with E-ZPass) for a car to go from Ohio to New Jersey (nearly 357 miles), works out to about 10¢ a mile.
About the same (also with E-ZPass) the other direction.
Now I can see that PTC probably has higher per-mile operating costs than NJTA because of the higher elevations of the E-W Mainline west of Carlisle, and the N.E. Extension north of Lehigh Valley, plus the tunnels.
Much (all?) of the funding of Act 44 payments to PennDOT have been funded by the PTC selling bonds (http://www.empowerpa.org/pennsylvania-turnpike-passes-milestone-now-7-billion-in-debt/) - an activity that drove New York City to the edge of bankruptcy in the 1970.
It's a bunch of trouble. Massachusetts dissolved their toll agency and I can see PA having to go the same route.
I've also noticed that the original section from 1940 has very narrow lanes. That might be the result of the PTC doing nothing.
NJTA does not subsidize NJDOT. They only contribute money to projects that benefit the Turnpike (for example, the Pulaski Skyway reconstruction).It's a bunch of trouble. Massachusetts dissolved their toll agency and I can see PA having to go the same route.
In theory, having an independent toll agency means a buffer (in the form of the agency's board of directors) between the agency and state elected officials (say, ummm, like those in the Pennsylvania legislature) that want to raid the toll agency's coffers for money because they do not want to raise taxes (especially on motor fuels) - and to some extent to isolate the toll agency from politics.
In the case of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, the board has done none of those things, and has hampered the PTC's efforts to build legitimate (and needed) highway projects (I-95/I-276 interchange in Bristol Township or added tube(s) or bypass of the run-down Allegheny Mountain Tunnel, anyone?).
So in the case of Pennsylvania, yes, getting rid of the PTC and making it a division of PennDOT might just result in a better Turnpike (I think transparency might be better as a part of the DOT).
Compare and contrast with NJTA, which does give a substantial sum of money annually to NJDOT (I do not remember how much), but still charges reasonable per-mile tolls and generally keeps the roads under its jurisdiction in decent shape (my gripes are that some of the bridge decks on the New Jersey Turnpike, while in apparently good condition, have expansion joints that make for a very bumpy ride (especially north of Exit 13); and the lack of reassurance assemblies and signs showing the number of miles to several control cities, northbound and southbound).
NJTA does not subsidize NJDOT. They only contribute money to projects that benefit the Turnpike (for example, the Pulaski Skyway reconstruction).
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission approved a six percent toll increase earlier this week, partly to keep itself out of future financial trouble.
The toll increases, which will take effect next year, are to help cover debt payments that currently take up about a third of the Turnpike Commission’s yearly budget.
This will be the ninth year in a row the rates go up, partly to pay PennDOT for road maintenance by way of a 2007 law that requires them to do so.
Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale on Thursday told KDKA Radio’s James Garrity he will audit the Turnpike Commission.
NJTA does not subsidize NJDOT. They only contribute money to projects that benefit the Turnpike (for example, the Pulaski Skyway reconstruction).
I read someplace that there was some sort of systematic diversion of revenue to NJDOT, but I also know that you know better than someplace.
The NJTA HEAVILY subsidizes NJDOT, to the tune of over $300 million a year. Is that money going to the Puluski Skyway project? Maybe....but the NJTA Financials don't specify that. They simply show it as a cash outflow from the NJTA to NJDOT.
The NJTA HEAVILY subsidizes NJDOT, to the tune of over $300 million a year. Is that money going to the Puluski Skyway project? Maybe....but the NJTA Financials don't specify that. They simply show it as a cash outflow from the NJTA to NJDOT.
The NJTA HEAVILY subsidizes NJDOT, to the tune of over $300 million a year. Is that money going to the Puluski Skyway project? Maybe....but the NJTA Financials don't specify that. They simply show it as a cash outflow from the NJTA to NJDOT.
But that $300 million is less than the Act 44/Act 89 that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is diverting to PennDOT - and beyond that, the Act 44/Act 89 are bleeding the PTC white, while the money that the New Jersey Turnpike Authority sends to NJDOT does not seem to impair the NJTA from getting its work done.
There's a noticeable degrading of the Turnpike from how it used to be. You'll find some asphalt rutting going on and other maintenance that isn't as kept up on as it used to be. It's still superior to many other roads, but the slight deferring of maintenance is a bit noticeable to frequent users in areas that haven't been touched for a while (especially south of the 6-9 widening project).
It also prevents major projects that could've been funded today from getting constructed. They've invested heavily into their 2 roads over the past decade, and due to a $200 million savings in the 6-9 widening they actually bumped up some other capital projects. But that doesn't mean other projects haven't been deferred.
NJTA does not subsidize NJDOT. They only contribute money to projects that benefit the Turnpike (for example, the Pulaski Skyway reconstruction).
I read someplace that there was some sort of systematic diversion of revenue to NJDOT, but I also know that you know better than someplace.
Heh. Reminds me of the interstate mileage of the Thruway being used by NYSDOT and FHWA to determine the old Interstate Maintenance funding (and any other funding where it was a factor)...and then NYSDOT keeping it without giving any to the Thruway. Worked pretty well; too bad Interstate Maintenance went the way of the dodo with MAP-21 (absorbed into National Highway Performance Program funding).
(personal opinion expressed)
The NJTA HEAVILY subsidizes NJDOT, to the tune of over $300 million a year. Is that money going to the Puluski Skyway project? Maybe....but the NJTA Financials don't specify that. They simply show it as a cash outflow from the NJTA to NJDOT.Yeah, it's not just a blanket payment. There may be some money tied up in other things like the exchange of the free I-80 section and the free Parkway sections that ended up resulting in certain obligations. That I couldn't swear to or against.
Well, I just came across an interesting article in Lancaster Online, if this holds true there is going to be a TON of traffic using I-80, US 22 and I-68 to get from eastern PA to points west and vice versa in the next 20 years :banghead:
http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/to-cross-pa-on-the-turnpike-it-s-possible-by/article_2d9be5d4-501c-11e6-81cc-439e7e7ee217.html
State lawmakers and ex-Gov. Ed Rendell began feeding off of Pennsylvania Turnpike revenues several years before requiring the agency to pay a $450 million-a-year subsidy for public transit. Those payments have helped drive the turnpike’s debt to an unthinkable $11 billion.
But the 2007 law that remains responsible for toll increases for nine years in a row – with more ahead – initially required the Turnpike Commission to borrow $2.5 billion and turn the money over to PennDOT to fill funding gaps in its highway-bridge programs: $750 million in fiscal 2007-08; $850 million in 2008-09; and $900 million in 2009-10. This, too, must be repaid for decades to come.
At the time, lawmakers were looking to avoid increasing Motor License Fund taxes and fees. Along with Mr. Rendell, they assumed the federal government would OK converting I-80 to a toll road. They rushed to “lease” the east-west interstate to the turnpike in exchange for the $2.5 billion cash advance during a “conversion period.” Business and residents along the corridor protested and the feds said no to the politicos, but the turnpike’s pockets had already been picked.
K.R. Channarasappa knows the proposed Mon-Fayette Expressway project from two perspectives.
Thirty years ago, as an engineer for Mackin Engineering Co., Mr. Channarasappa helped to design the first version of the highway for the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Tuesday night, as a trustee for the Sri Venkateswara Temple in Penn Hills, he reviewed the revised plans at a display at Gateway Middle School in Monroeville.
“On the whole, I think it’s good for the temple,” said Mr. Channarasappa.
The proposed $1.6 billion toll road would extend from Jefferson Hills to the Parkway East in Monroeville and have an interchange on Business Route 22 near Monroeville Mall. The new plan calls for a much narrower median and eliminates a wing from Turtle Creek to Pittsburgh because of the high cost and opposition from Pittsburgh officials and Oakland institutions.
Norristown has assets that other towns would envy: Excellent transportation access, proximity to employment centers, the seat of one of the state's wealthiest counties.
Yet it has not enjoyed the prosperity of its counterparts in Bucks, Chester, and Delaware Counties - Doylestown, West Chester, and Media, respectively - and Norristown has issues that no other town would envy, including high crime, poverty, and property-tax rates.
But after years of false starts, regional planners think that a major highway-construction project could be just the thing that can get the municipality on the road to recovery.
Southwest PA is laced with what I call "minipikes" courtesy of the PTC. Why doesn't the Philly area have any (real or contemplated)?
ixnay
Southwest PA is laced with what I call "minipikes" courtesy of the PTC. Why doesn't the Philly area have any (real or contemplated)?
ixnay
We've had the Northeast Extension for decades. They're just catching up! lol
Actually, they have blessed the Philly area with numerous slip ramps to make getting on and off in certain areas easier. The area is very against building any new highways, so even if another extension was considered, it would have a very hard fight to get approved.
Southwest PA is laced with what I call "minipikes" courtesy of the PTC. Why doesn't the Philly area have any (real or contemplated)?
ixnay
We've had the Northeast Extension for decades. They're just catching up! lol
Actually, they have blessed the Philly area with numerous slip ramps to make getting on and off in certain areas easier. The area is very against building any new highways, so even if another extension was considered, it would have a very hard fight to get approved.
This area drags its feet with expanding any mode of transportation and it's mostly due to politicians easily bowing to NIMBY pressure.
Southwest PA is laced with what I call "minipikes" courtesy of the PTC. Why doesn't the Philly area have any (real or contemplated)?
ixnay
NOW...if they would only widen the 4-lane portion of I-476...and who knows what to do with the Schuylkill...
NOW...if they would only widen the 4-lane portion of I-476...and who knows what to do with the Schuylkill...
Though I am not very trusting of what the political establishment in Harrisburg would do if given the chance, I would turn the Sure-Kill Expressway part of I-76 over to PTC with orders to use tolls to manage the demand that's there. I would take half the toll revenues and use them to reconstruct the freeway (within reason - the amount of space available for a widening is someplace between nothing and a little), and give the rest of the dollars to SEPTA in the form of transit capital subsidies.
No! You are removing the one and only free interstate option for people leaving Philly to the west. For those wanting to avoid tolls, you would overload the existing street system, and making the lives of the residents along those streets a hellish nightmare to go anywhere.
The problem with the PTC is that it's already doing that, and it's starting to make tolls cost-prohibitive. PA's gas taxes are also the highest in the nation. There's no reason to have the PTC add tolls to Schuykill Expressway when there's very little they can do anyway, and give half that money to SEPTA.
The decision in a federal case in New York state has thrown a new element into the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission’s attempt to get out from under a $450 million annual payment to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for public transit: The payments may not be legal.
In a case filed by the American Trucking Associations, the court ruled Aug. 10 that the New York Thruway Authority can’t use tolls charged to interstate truckers to support the state’s canal system because truckers don’t benefit from the canal. As a result, the trucking group says it will review similar situations in other states that use highway tolls “like a piggy bank” to fund other items.
That could include Pennsylvania, where the turnpike commission is required to use tolls from the turnpike to pay $450 million a year to PennDOT to fund public transit in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. The turnpike has raised tolls for nine years and borrowed money annually, partially to make the PennDOT payment.
or headed to King of Prussia, or the massive corporate parks around Wayne and Malvern, or to the Main Line, or the northwest suburbs via US 422...
No! You are removing the one and only free interstate option for people leaving Philly to the west. For those wanting to avoid tolls, you would overload the existing street system, and making the lives of the residents along those streets a hellish nightmare to go anywhere.
If someone is headed west from Philadelphia, they are likely headed to the Pennsylvania Turnpike's East-West Mainline. Not exactly free.
The Schuylkill is bad enough as it is - It would add insult to injury to put tolls on it. I actually kind of like driving it (off peak of course) instead of looping around the City on the turnpike when passing to and from points west from NJ. Great views and that free-for-all go-kart-track ride zipping around the curves.or headed to King of Prussia, or the massive corporate parks around Wayne and Malvern, or to the Main Line, or the northwest suburbs via US 422...
No! You are removing the one and only free interstate option for people leaving Philly to the west. For those wanting to avoid tolls, you would overload the existing street system, and making the lives of the residents along those streets a hellish nightmare to go anywhere.
If someone is headed west from Philadelphia, they are likely headed to the Pennsylvania Turnpike's East-West Mainline. Not exactly free.
yes, of all the many times i've headed west on the Schuylkill from the city, only once have I gone out to the Turnpike. of the region's many commuters, i'm definitely not the only one, either.
or headed to King of Prussia, or the massive corporate parks around Wayne and Malvern, or to the Main Line, or the northwest suburbs via US 422...
No! You are removing the one and only free interstate option for people leaving Philly to the west. For those wanting to avoid tolls, you would overload the existing street system, and making the lives of the residents along those streets a hellish nightmare to go anywhere.
If someone is headed west from Philadelphia, they are likely headed to the Pennsylvania Turnpike's East-West Mainline. Not exactly free.
yes, of all the many times i've headed west on the Schuylkill from the city, only once have I gone out to the Turnpike. of the region's many commuters, i'm definitely not the only one, either.
The Schuylkill is bad enough as it is - It would add insult to injury to put tolls on it. I actually kind of like driving it (off peak of course) instead of looping around the City on the turnpike when passing to and from points west from NJ. Great views and that free-for-all go-kart-track ride zipping around the curves.or headed to King of Prussia, or the massive corporate parks around Wayne and Malvern, or to the Main Line, or the northwest suburbs via US 422...
No! You are removing the one and only free interstate option for people leaving Philly to the west. For those wanting to avoid tolls, you would overload the existing street system, and making the lives of the residents along those streets a hellish nightmare to go anywhere.
If someone is headed west from Philadelphia, they are likely headed to the Pennsylvania Turnpike's East-West Mainline. Not exactly free.
yes, of all the many times i've headed west on the Schuylkill from the city, only once have I gone out to the Turnpike. of the region's many commuters, i'm definitely not the only one, either.
PITTSBURGH - The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's level of debt is "potentially unsustainable" because projected toll increases could lead motorists to find free alternatives, the state auditor general's office said in an audit released Tuesday.
Auditor General Eugene DePasquale said at a news conference in Pittsburgh that his auditors found the turnpike's financial health has deteriorated substantially since 2007, when the state legislature began requiring the agency to make payments of $450 million a year to PennDOT. The commission has had to borrow a substantial part of that money, and its annual debt payments comprise abut $600 million of its $980 million annual budget.
The audit found the commission's net position - total assets minus liabilities - has "spiraled" from $1.76 billion in 2007 to negative $4.11 billion in 2015. This has occurred despite the commission raising tolls nine years in a row.
...
Well, I just came across an interesting article in Lancaster Online, if this holds true there is going to be a TON of traffic using I-80, US 22 and I-68 to get from eastern PA to points west and vice versa in the next 20 years :banghead:
http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/to-cross-pa-on-the-turnpike-it-s-possible-by/article_2d9be5d4-501c-11e6-81cc-439e7e7ee217.html
Well, I just came across an interesting article in Lancaster Online, if this holds true there is going to be a TON of traffic using I-80, US 22 and I-68 to get from eastern PA to points west and vice versa in the next 20 years :banghead:
http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/to-cross-pa-on-the-turnpike-it-s-possible-by/article_2d9be5d4-501c-11e6-81cc-439e7e7ee217.html
Act 44 should be repealed. PTC should not have to pay close to half a billion to repair roads other than the turnpike. People driving on the turnpike should only be paying to maintain the road they're driving on.
Hmm...Well, I just came across an interesting article in Lancaster Online, if this holds true there is going to be a TON of traffic using I-80, US 22 and I-68 to get from eastern PA to points west and vice versa in the next 20 years :banghead:
http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/to-cross-pa-on-the-turnpike-it-s-possible-by/article_2d9be5d4-501c-11e6-81cc-439e7e7ee217.html
Act 44 should be repealed. PTC should not have to pay close to half a billion to repair roads other than the turnpike. People driving on the turnpike should only be paying to maintain the road they're driving on.
I think a fair compromise would be that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission keeps all of its revenue, but forfeits all revenue from Act 89, which was passed in 2013 to increase funding for road projects across the Commonwealth. Act 89 should be for PennDOT only. Act 44 should be repealed yesterday. How that bill ever saw the light of day is crazy. Even worse, Ohio is now doing the same damn thing (http://www.toledoblade.com/MarilouJohanek/2015/05/09/Injustice-of-using-turnpike-revenue-elsewhere-is-taking-a-toll-on-public-1.html). Monkey see, monkey do, I guess. Are any other states bleeding their toll roads dry?
Hmm...Well, I just came across an interesting article in Lancaster Online, if this holds true there is going to be a TON of traffic using I-80, US 22 and I-68 to get from eastern PA to points west and vice versa in the next 20 years :banghead:
http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/to-cross-pa-on-the-turnpike-it-s-possible-by/article_2d9be5d4-501c-11e6-81cc-439e7e7ee217.html
Act 44 should be repealed. PTC should not have to pay close to half a billion to repair roads other than the turnpike. People driving on the turnpike should only be paying to maintain the road they're driving on.
I think a fair compromise would be that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission keeps all of its revenue, but forfeits all revenue from Act 89, which was passed in 2013 to increase funding for road projects across the Commonwealth. Act 89 should be for PennDOT only. Act 44 should be repealed yesterday. How that bill ever saw the light of day is crazy. Even worse, Ohio is now doing the same damn thing (http://www.toledoblade.com/MarilouJohanek/2015/05/09/Injustice-of-using-turnpike-revenue-elsewhere-is-taking-a-toll-on-public-1.html). Monkey see, monkey do, I guess. Are any other states bleeding their toll roads dry?
Texas has several toll roads, some are part of a P3 partnership, and both companies (Cintra in this case) get money whenever they pay the toll.
Indiana and the ITR went bankrupt, and something is being done.
But we just have to hope, that something happens that can stop Acts 44 and 89.
1. PennDOT is no longer recieving money from the PTC (that ended with Act 89); the PTC money now goes exclusively to transit.
2. Act 89 won't help PA WHEN (not if) the PTC goes bankrupt.
The toll increases aren't sustainable. The Pennsylvania Turnpike costs roughly double what the Thruway does per mile. It's not at Confederation Bridge levels yet, but at the current rate, it will get there eventually (without the 10 mile long bridge to justify it).
And what would the cost per mile on the Thruway be if they had to widen it to 6 lanes between Buffalo and Syracuse, and Albany and NYC?
Not quite, the 407 is more expensive. Here's a comparison (this is 14 kilometers by the way):1. PennDOT is no longer recieving money from the PTC (that ended with Act 89); the PTC money now goes exclusively to transit.
2. Act 89 won't help PA WHEN (not if) the PTC goes bankrupt.
The toll increases aren't sustainable. The Pennsylvania Turnpike costs roughly double what the Thruway does per mile. It's not at Confederation Bridge levels yet, but at the current rate, it will get there eventually (without the 10 mile long bridge to justify it).
The PA Turnpike is almost as expensive as 407 now and will likely surpass it pretty soon if the increases continue. The difference is that 407 is tolled at such high rates to ensure free-flow speeds.
Not quite, the 407 is more expensive. Here's a comparison (this is 14 kilometers by the way):1. PennDOT is no longer recieving money from the PTC (that ended with Act 89); the PTC money now goes exclusively to transit.
2. Act 89 won't help PA WHEN (not if) the PTC goes bankrupt.
The toll increases aren't sustainable. The Pennsylvania Turnpike costs roughly double what the Thruway does per mile. It's not at Confederation Bridge levels yet, but at the current rate, it will get there eventually (without the 10 mile long bridge to justify it).
The PA Turnpike is almost as expensive as 407 now and will likely surpass it pretty soon if the increases continue. The difference is that 407 is tolled at such high rates to ensure free-flow speeds.
https://www.407etr.com/en/tolls/tolls/toll-calculator.html
https://www.paturnpike.com/toll/tollmileage.aspx
Commonwealth officials would be wise to review a recent court ruling in New York state, which could have implications across the border with Pennsylvania’s Turnpike system and its tolls.
Last month, a federal court ruled the New York Thruway Authority cannot use tolls charged to truck drivers to fund the state’s canal system, which the truckers obviously are not using. The case was filed by the American Trucking Association, and bolstered by the ruling, the association will now survey other states to see if similar situations are present.
“We certainly see the decision as a warning shot to any jurisdiction that tries to use tolls from interstate truckers as a kind of piggy bank,” said Rich Pianka, general counsel for the trucking group. “We will be aggressively looking at these situations across the country to see what other action we might take.”
Daily Item editorial (Sunbury, Pennsylvania): Pick-pocketing Pennsylvania drivers (http://www.dailyitem.com/opinion/today-s-editorial-pick-pocketing-pennsylvania-drivers/article_20ded40e-5065-56a4-acca-aef181381162.html)QuoteCommonwealth officials would be wise to review a recent court ruling in New York state, which could have implications across the border with Pennsylvania’s Turnpike system and its tolls.QuoteLast month, a federal court ruled the New York Thruway Authority cannot use tolls charged to truck drivers to fund the state’s canal system, which the truckers obviously are not using. The case was filed by the American Trucking Association, and bolstered by the ruling, the association will now survey other states to see if similar situations are present.Quote“We certainly see the decision as a warning shot to any jurisdiction that tries to use tolls from interstate truckers as a kind of piggy bank,” said Rich Pianka, general counsel for the trucking group. “We will be aggressively looking at these situations across the country to see what other action we might take.”
It's going to be very important to see what the courts feel is a beneficial use of those toll dollars. In NY State, the Canal system appeared to have nothing to do with transportation. In Pennsy, there's an argument that mass transit assists with transportation in that it reduces traffic on the roads. But will they say the toll money must remain the toll system, and only be used on projects that physically benefit those using the roadway?Let's be honest; most of the PA Turnpike, including its respective branches, runs nowhere near any mass transit centers/hubs in the Keystone State. I.e. increased ridership along SEPTA or equivalent will not translate to a decrease of vehicles using the Turnpike.
The DRPA got themselves into trouble when they were using toll money in the 1990's and early 2000's on "economic development", where upwards of a half-billion dollars flew out the door to help with constructing and demolishing buildings and whatnot that had absolutely nothing to do with traffic. The most the DRPA could say was that by contributing millions of dollars to projects, the new building would assist in creating a reason for more traffic top use their bridges. Even today a fair portion of the tolls collected goes to support the PATCO High Speed line, which the DRPA controls. If the Truckers Association files a lawsuit against the PTC on the basis that toll money shouldn't support mass transit, it's possible they could then go after the DRPA and numerous other authorities.It's worth noting that the diversion of DRPA bridge tolls to unrelated development projects started during the time when a certain individual was Mayor of Philadelphia; this individual would later become Governor of PA circa 2003 and I'll leave it at that.
Let's be honest; most of the PA Turnpike, including its respective branches, runs nowhere near any mass transit centers/hubs in the Keystone State. I.e. increased ridership along SEPTA or equivalent will not translate to a decrease of vehicles using the Turnpike.I won't dispute your honesty, as you are quite correct in the larger sense, but an elimination of SEPTA regional rail would have a VERY large impact on the PA Turnpike in Montgomery and Bucks County. From the Lansdale, Ft Washington, & Philadelphia interchanges there is not a particularly attractive option to get into Philly from points to the North-West. That being said, most other PATP interchanges have a free expressway nearby that isn't the turnpike (although they would be overwhelmed very quickly).
but an elimination of SEPTA regional rail would have a VERY large impact on the PA Turnpike in Montgomery and Bucks County.Who said anything about elimination of Regional Rail service? Most people that commute by rail to/from Philly from those two counties would use (when driving) either I-76 or 95 depending on their origin/destination. Like other mass transit systems, especially commuter rail, SEPTA's system is largely a hub-and-spoke model. Commuters using the Turnpike for more than between 2 exits, at least the I-276 portion, are typically suburb-to-suburb commuters aka point-to-point. They're not the Regional Rail's clientele.
From the Lansdale, Ft Washington, & Philadelphia interchanges there is not a particularly attractive option to get into Philly from points to the North-West. That being said, most other PATP interchanges have a free expressway nearby that isn't the turnpike (although they would be overwhelmed very quickly).The nearest parallel route to the Northeast Extension is PA 309; which has two 7-8 mile stretches of freeway between its southern terminus in Cheltenham and a point just north of Perkasie. While not ideal, at least the arterial portions of 309 are not narrow 2-laners. If one's heading to Center City from 309 & the Fort Washington area & north; they would likely use I-276 between Fort Washington & Mid-County and then take I-476 South to I-76 East. Unless their place of employment is located in Northeast Philly; I doubt that one coming from 309 would use I-276 East to US 1 South (to PA 63 East to I-95 South).
Change the tolls to something politically insane but instructive: Drop the truck tolls to compliance, add $5 to every auto ticket between Valley forge and the Delaware river. Add $3 to every auto ticket from Irwin to Warrendale with the collected amount in a lockbox to their respective transit agencies, see how long the PTC is expected to continue the contribution.
Change the tolls to something politically insane but instructive: Drop the truck tolls to compliance, add $5 to every auto ticket between Valley forge and the Delaware river. Add $3 to every auto ticket from Irwin to Warrendale with the collected amount in a lockbox to their respective transit agencies, see how long the PTC is expected to continue the contribution.
I did not do the calculations, but I assert anyway that these do not provide nearly enough money to be poured into Pennsylvania's transit agencies (remember that the Act 44/Act 89 dollars that the PTC gives to PennDOT go to all or nearly all transit providers across the state, not just the big two, SEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County).
Much better to fund transit operating deficits and transit capital subsidies out of higher taxes on motor fuels.
Buried in last week’s report about the deepening debt of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (http://www.paauditor.gov/Media/Default/Reports/spe92364PennsylvaniaTurnpikeCommission.pdf) was an early warning for the thousands of people in the Pittsburgh area who rely on public transit for rides to work or the grocery store.
The Port Authority of Allegheny County could be in jeopardy of losing more than half of its annual funding in just six years, according to state Auditor General Eugene DePasquale.
By fiscal year 2022-2023, the Turnpike Commission will be allowed to drastically cut its payment to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation [PennDOT]. Right now, the commission pays $450 million a year to PennDOT to pay for public transit. In six years, it will only be responsible for $50 million annually.
Since the 2007-2008 fiscal year, the Port Authority of Allegheny County has received between 50 and 60 percent of its funding each year through PennDOT. Two laws, Act 44 and Act 89, set up this payment structure.
Well then, maybe it's time that the Metropolitan Pittsburgh region should increase the sales tax or license fee to pay for THEIR area's public transportation. Why should people hundreds of miles away on the other end of the Penna Pike be partially be footing their bill?
Well then, maybe it's time that the Metropolitan Pittsburgh region should increase the sales tax or license fee to pay for THEIR area's public transportation. Why should people hundreds of miles away on the other end of the Penna Pike be partially be footing their bill?
Good questions.
IMO, Pennsylvania should allow regions around the state to levy a tax on motor fuels to subsidize transit. It would (at least to some extent) tax the parts of the state that have these expensive transit systems and (at least in current practice) need to have most or all capital spending funded by non-transit users, and subsidize transit operating deficits.
Note that I have no idea what the charge per gallon of gasoline and Diesel fuel would be for such subsidies, especially in the areas served by the Port Authority of Allegheny County and SEPTA.
So when is that mess along the Northeast Extension going to be gone? You know what I'm talking about. The Plymouth Meeting-Lansdale-Quakertown construction???
The part between Plymouth Mtg to Lansdale is listed is completing this fall, but I think that's a little bit of a stretch, so I'd say spring.It's worth noting that new supplemental E-ZPass ONLY slip ramps at the Lansdale interchange are also being constructed concurrently with the Lansdale to Mid-County widening. The southernmost 5-miles of that widening project has since been completed a while ago.
Now hold on here guys..........Three years ago I last drove that stretch of the Northeast Ext. between Lansdale and the Turnpike main-line and there was construction on that stretch going on then. Are you saying that project is still not done three years later? What is it with the PTC? Can they get anything done in a timely manner? How long did it take New Jersey to double the width of their Turnpike down to the Pennsy Pike? And that was probably a bigger project.
Now hold on here guys..........Three years ago I last drove that stretch of the Northeast Ext. between Lansdale and the Turnpike main-line and there was construction on that stretch going on then. Are you saying that project is still not done three years later? What is it with the PTC? Can they get anything done in a timely manner? How long did it take New Jersey to double the width of their Turnpike down to the Pennsy Pike? And that was probably a bigger project.
As stated earlier (& on the previous page); the widening of the southern 5 miles of the Northeast Extension (MM 20.0 to MM 25.0) is complete. At present, all widening-related construction work for the Mid-County/Lansdale stretch is taking place along the northern 5-6 miles (MM 25.0 to MM 30.0-31.0). Work includes replacing the original overpasses with wider ones as well as widening the mainline corridor. At the Lansdale interchange itself, a concurrent project involving the construction of additional slip-ramps (E-ZPass ONLY) is also taking place.Now hold on here guys..........Three years ago I last drove that stretch of the Northeast Ext. between Lansdale and the Turnpike main-line and there was construction on that stretch going on then. Are you saying that project is still not done three years later? What is it with the PTC? Can they get anything done in a timely manner? How long did it take New Jersey to double the width of their Turnpike down to the Pennsy Pike? And that was probably a bigger project.
Not completely familiar with the exact part of the project going on, but it's a 10 - 15 mile project that they're doing portions at a time. Yeah, it's slow, but not abnormally slow, given the terrain and the room they have to work with.
At the Lansdale interchange itself, a concurrent project involving the construction of additional slip-ramps (E-ZPass ONLY) is also taking place.
When I was last in the area over a month ago, the concrete for the new northbound exit slip ramp was already poured.
One has to wonder... once the Turnpike goes fully AET; would the new E-Z-Pass Only ramps at this interchange even be needed?At the Lansdale interchange itself, a concurrent project involving the construction of additional slip-ramps (E-ZPass ONLY) is also taking place.
When I was last in the area over a month ago, the concrete for the new northbound exit slip ramp was already poured.
Wish the PTC would stop referring to these as "slip ramps," which they are not. They are EZ-Pass only or ETC-only exit ramps.
One has to wonder... once the Turnpike goes fully AET; would the new E-Z-Pass Only ramps at this interchange even be needed?I drove through that interchange on PA63 for many years on a daily basis. The extra capacity for the interchange is badly needed, although I'm not a fan of the new design.
Here's a link to the interchange btw.. https://www.patpconstruction.com/mpA20toA31/lib/img/overview/lansdale-interchange.jpg (https://www.patpconstruction.com/mpA20toA31/lib/img/overview/lansdale-interchange.jpg)Once this interchange becomes fully AET; Ramp F-1 can probably replace the old northbound exit ramp in terms of function.
Ramp B-1 will be the troublemaker I suspect.
Ramp F-1 takes up the space I would have used for an underpass exit from 63East into the toll plaza.
(There's a pretty nice incline from Old Forty foot road to where ramp F-1 dumps out on 63.)
It appears that AET Ramp B-1 will allow those heading east along PA 63 to get on I-476 South earlier than the present interchange.Agreed, but there is (and will be) very little room for left turning traffic to approach the intersection with B-1.
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-toll-collectors-will-accept-credit-cards.html"it's not a preferred method" = everyone will now do it.
Haven't seen this done in any other states!
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-toll-collectors-will-accept-credit-cards.html"it's not a preferred method" = everyone will now do it.
Haven't seen this done in any other states!
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-toll-collectors-will-accept-credit-cards.html
Haven't seen this done in any other states!
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-toll-collectors-will-accept-credit-cards.html
Haven't seen this done in any other states!
Actually, the Kansas Turnpike has accepted credit cards at the toll plazas for a while. I always thought it was a bit silly, but apparently someone with the Kansas Turnpike Authority thought it was worth it to accept them.
Cl94, nobody carries cash anymore? Ya' sure about that? I still carry cash, aka United States Currency and my rule of thumb is if a purchase is under $20, I pay cash; over $20 I usually use a credit card. Paying cash is not going to fall by the wayside anytime soon.
Cl94, nobody carries cash anymore? Ya' sure about that?
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-toll-collectors-will-accept-credit-cards.html
Haven't seen this done in any other states!
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-toll-collectors-will-accept-credit-cards.html"it's not a preferred method" = everyone will now do it.
Haven't seen this done in any other states!
Seems like it would be worthwhile for a pike authority to be able to collect $$ immediately from the cardholder or the issuer rather than wait for remittance via pay-by-plate, as is done with AET for non-subscribers/passholders.
...my rule of thumb is if a purchase is under $20, I pay cash; over $20 I usually use a credit card.
...my rule of thumb is if a purchase is under $20, I pay cash; over $20 I usually use a credit card.
Then by your own rules, you’d be using a credit card for any sizable trip on the PA Turnpike. The non-E-ZPass toll from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh is $23.15, from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh is $32.90, and from border to border is $49.05.
In an age when you can walk into 7-Eleven and buy a pack of gum with a Visa, I think many people find it legitimately surprising that they can’t use a credit card for a nearly fifty-dollar toll.
Pretty sure the Thruway accepts credit cards, as does the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority.
Well it looks like the PTC is full steam ahead on its capital projects, even with its financial situation.
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2016/11/16/Financial-concerns-won-t-halt-Pa-turnpike-road-projects/stories/201611160095
The agency noted that since 2007, when payments to PennDOT began, it has spent about $5 billion for off-turnpike projects and $4.4 billion on turnpike improvements.
A PennDOT study found the beltway could remove 2,500 vehicles a day from I-81 northbound and 2,200 southbound, with more than 80 percent of that truck traffic – though a turnpike official cautioned they are only estimates and traffic diversion projections “are still all over the map.”
Those interchanges definitely need improvement, but if traffic is shunpiking now, I don't see how that alone will stop them from shunpiking. Maybe a little improvement with AET, but I think the main reason traffic doesn't go there is because the PTC tolls are sky high (like that bridge over US 11!).2500 a day would take the numbers in the article barely anywhere from where they are now. So yeah.
I-81 could use a widening. It seems odd that it's only two lanes through a metro area of that size.
Those interchanges definitely need improvement, but if traffic is shunpiking now, I don't see how that alone will stop them from shunpiking. Maybe a little improvement with AET, but I think the main reason traffic doesn't go there is because the PTC tolls are sky high (like that bridge over US 11!).2500 a day would take the numbers in the article barely anywhere from where they are now. So yeah.
I-81 could use a widening. It seems odd that it's only two lanes through a metro area of that size.
For whatever reason I'm part of the rare non EZPass members. My dad is just too stubborn in order to convince him that we need an EZPass.Keep in mind that the PTC charges an annual fee of $3 for each transponder. While the difference in toll rates (cash vs. EZ-Pass) for a longer one-way trip (or a short round-trip) would offset that fee and thensome; it does not take into consideration that most if not all EZ-Pass account holders need to place an minimum upfront balance of $35 in order to activate the account & have a balance. Such is fine for frequent Turnpike (& other toll road) users but not necessarily okay for one that only uses a short stretch of the Turnpike (or any toll road) say once a year. Not everybody likes fronting up $35 and then not tapping into it for over a period of years.
I was just on the recently widened portion (mp220-226) near Carlisle the other day and noticed that part of that stretch seems to have been reconstructed with only 4' median shoulders (but still 6 lanes) rather than a full 10 or 12' shoulder. Anyone have some idea why this might have been done? Just some way to cut costs? Something else?
It also appears that preliminary work has begun on the last section between Carlisle and Blue Mtn. Saw a couple of bridges being reconstructed, and tree clearing in the right of way zone.
The E-ZPass auxiliary ramps at Lansdale, at least Northbound, are now open. There is signage indicating E-ZPass only for exit 31-A, Cash/Tickets/E-ZPass 31-B. It looked like the southbound ramps from PA-63 are open as well..
So why isn't the connector open from U.S. 130 (NJTP exit 6A) east to exit 6? (According to Google Maps) That doesn't make sense.
ixnay
Delaware River Bridge was closed today after NJ TPK inspectors found a crack on a truss. It's creating a travel nightmare right now with everyone trying to use the smaller bridges or squeezing across the Scudder Falls Bridge. There's no word on when it will reopen.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Delaware-River-Bridge-closed.html
So why isn't the connector open from U.S. 130 (NJTP exit 6A) east to exit 6? (According to Google Maps) That doesn't make sense.
ixnay
They also closed the 130 Interchange in full about a year ago when that westbound dump truck slammed into the new AET overhead reader and caught fire. When it happened, i snooped around with friends that might know and the general consensus is that Interchange 6 has to close completely because there is no way to know who is destined to go west and who is destined to go east. So if you entered and they closed at the ramp split AND you wanted to go west but only had the option to go east, you would be sent to an unfounded U Turn at the cost of an unnecessary toll. So they also don't want anyone backing up back to 130 when they found out they were screwed.
So why isn't the connector open from U.S. 130 (NJTP exit 6A) east to exit 6? (According to Google Maps) That doesn't make sense.
ixnay
They also closed the 130 Interchange in full about a year ago when that westbound dump truck slammed into the new AET overhead reader and caught fire. When it happened, i snooped around with friends that might know and the general consensus is that Interchange 6 has to close completely because there is no way to know who is destined to go west and who is destined to go east. So if you entered and they closed at the ramp split AND you wanted to go west but only had the option to go east, you would be sent to an unfounded U Turn at the cost of an unnecessary toll. So they also don't want anyone backing up back to 130 when they found out they were screwed.
You mean that dump truck was so high that it failed to clear the reader? What was in that truck that made it cook? Or did it careen out of control and hit the shoulder stanchion?
ixnay
So why isn't the connector open from U.S. 130 (NJTP exit 6A) east to exit 6? (According to Google Maps) That doesn't make sense.
ixnay
They also closed the 130 Interchange in full about a year ago when that westbound dump truck slammed into the new AET overhead reader and caught fire. When it happened, i snooped around with friends that might know and the general consensus is that Interchange 6 has to close completely because there is no way to know who is destined to go west and who is destined to go east. So if you entered and they closed at the ramp split AND you wanted to go west but only had the option to go east, you would be sent to an unfounded U Turn at the cost of an unnecessary toll. So they also don't want anyone backing up back to 130 when they found out they were screwed.
You mean that dump truck was so high that it failed to clear the reader? What was in that truck that made it cook? Or did it careen out of control and hit the shoulder stanchion?
ixnay
Third possibility, said dump truck could have been driving with its hopper raised (seen that happen way too often).
So it's closed between Delaware Valley (US 13) in PA and US 130 in NJ? I'll mark it as under construction in OSM if it's not already.
If I were to guess...and it's just a guess...the majority of traffic entering at 130 heads towards PA. Thus, it's easier just to keep the entire interchange closed to prevent confusion. The detour to Exit 7 is very simple, and is actually cheaper for the motorist.
Bridge was built almost at the same time (Jan 1954-May 1956) as old Tappan Zee bridge (March 1952-Dec 1955). Deficit of steel during construction was mentioned as a reason why TZB is being rebuild right now. I wonder if there is any link in terms of amount/quality of steel between these situations.
Yes - but as far as I remember it was "they used wood because there was no steel".Bridge was built almost at the same time (Jan 1954-May 1956) as old Tappan Zee bridge (March 1952-Dec 1955). Deficit of steel during construction was mentioned as a reason why TZB is being rebuild right now. I wonder if there is any link in terms of amount/quality of steel between these situations.
Bigger issue with TZB is the foundations. Wood piles that are rotting.
Bridge was built almost at the same time (Jan 1954-May 1956) as old Tappan Zee bridge (March 1952-Dec 1955). Deficit of steel during construction was mentioned as a reason why TZB is being rebuild right now. I wonder if there is any link in terms of amount/quality of steel between these situations.That's an interesting question. Different agencies, different restrictions. Maybe this one didn't have to "Buy American"? The Newark Bay Bridge is a twin to the Delaware River Bridge, and has much heavier loading, but... well, I can't say it's really in better shape, but it's open. (It gets much heavier repair due to the trucks.)
Yes - but as far as I remember it was "they used wood because there was no steel".Bridge was built almost at the same time (Jan 1954-May 1956) as old Tappan Zee bridge (March 1952-Dec 1955). Deficit of steel during construction was mentioned as a reason why TZB is being rebuild right now. I wonder if there is any link in terms of amount/quality of steel between these situations.
Bigger issue with TZB is the foundations. Wood piles that are rotting.
Incidentally, I have a role with detour signing in this project (for local roads on the PA side). If anyone intends to go down toward Bristol to see what's going on, please do see how they look. For that matter, if anyone has any local knowledge about traffic patterns, hit me up.I live within 10 or so minutes of that area. I also have a role in some of the traffic mitigation discussions -- I imagine our folks are working with your folks in some way.
A co-worker of mine said it took about 15 minutes longer for her coming in today, but she lives on the PA side of the bridges, and uses US 13, so I imagine her delay may have involved that route.My commute was also about 15 minutes, give or take, longer, and I use the Trenton-Morrisville Bridge (northbound). I get on U.S. 1 from Business U.S. 1 or U.S. 13, depending on what I need to do on the way up. Bumper-to-bumper but moving. Backup to Route 29 ramp was all the way across the bridge.
An apparent construction error six decades ago could have caused the fracture discovered Friday in a steel beam that forced the closure of the Delaware River Bridge, an engineering expert who viewed pictures of the cracked truss said Sunday.
An image of the cracked truss - a supporting piece - on the bridge that runs between Bucks County in Pennsylvania and Burlington County in New Jersey shows signs of holes that had been mistakenly drilled into the steel beam and then filled with plug welds, a typical solution in the 1950s when the bridge was built, said Karl Frank, professor emeritus of engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. His areas of study include fractures and fatigues in metal structures and welded and bolted joints, according to the university website.
Philly.com: Decades-old mistake may have caused bridge beam to fail (http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20170123_Decades-old_mistake_may_have_caused_bridge_beam_to_fail.html)QuoteAn apparent construction error six decades ago could have caused the fracture discovered Friday in a steel beam that forced the closure of the Delaware River Bridge, an engineering expert who viewed pictures of the cracked truss said Sunday.QuoteAn image of the cracked truss - a supporting piece - on the bridge that runs between Bucks County in Pennsylvania and Burlington County in New Jersey shows signs of holes that had been mistakenly drilled into the steel beam and then filled with plug welds, a typical solution in the 1950s when the bridge was built, said Karl Frank, professor emeritus of engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. His areas of study include fractures and fatigues in metal structures and welded and bolted joints, according to the university website.
Yes. Beam is designed to a certain lifespan based on number of loading cycles (as traffic passes over). Weakness/defect in the beam reduces the lifespan because there is less cross sectional area to withstand the stresses, strains, and minute undetectable cracks that form over time. That will always be the first place to go.Philly.com: Decades-old mistake may have caused bridge beam to fail (http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20170123_Decades-old_mistake_may_have_caused_bridge_beam_to_fail.html)QuoteAn apparent construction error six decades ago could have caused the fracture discovered Friday in a steel beam that forced the closure of the Delaware River Bridge, an engineering expert who viewed pictures of the cracked truss said Sunday.QuoteAn image of the cracked truss - a supporting piece - on the bridge that runs between Bucks County in Pennsylvania and Burlington County in New Jersey shows signs of holes that had been mistakenly drilled into the steel beam and then filled with plug welds, a typical solution in the 1950s when the bridge was built, said Karl Frank, professor emeritus of engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. His areas of study include fractures and fatigues in metal structures and welded and bolted joints, according to the university website.
Something here seems uncomfortable to me. Maybe I am dead wrong... Actually I hope I am wrong! But - What exactly caused the failure at the holes? Crack around a hole propagating through? Then what prevents same problem at properly drilled hole? Weakening of the structure due to loss of material? - Doesn't that mean that structure has eaten entire safety factor over the years and demolition had to start last year? Weakening of material due to weld/overheat? Oh, and did they use welds elsewhere in the construction? See demolition rant above..
I can understand that - all other things equal - failure occurred at defective spot. But saying that defect have caused the failure...
Per Philly.com, you will be able to access the NJ Turnpike Extension eastbound from 130 today. I also saw in the story several local roads in PA under the bridge will be closed as well.The Trenton Makes and Calhoun St. bridges will get some more traffic than usual if US 1 gets that much heavier.
A few stories said to expect very heavy traffic on other nearby bridges. While this make sense, 2 of the bridges mentioned include the Trenton Makes and Calhoun Street bridges. I can't see much traffic that would have normally used the PA & NJ Turnpike making their way to these very small bridges. I do think 1, 95, 195 and NJ 29 to be much heavier today though. I'll gauge the traffic when I'm in the Trenton area around 7:45am.
Yes. Beam is designed to a certain lifespan based on number of loading cycles (as traffic passes over). Weakness/defect in the beam reduces the lifespan because there is less cross sectional area to withstand the stresses, strains, and minute undetectable cracks that form over time. That will always be the first place to go.Sure, weakest point is where it gives. But looking at the pictures - those holes were taking maybe 5% of cross-section, probably less. Even if it weakens the beam by 20% - what was the safety margin assumed during design, at least 2x? As far as I understand that should be more, at least 3-5, and holes should be well accommodated by that factor. Of course, this is overly simplistic.... still my feeling is that there were non-designed loads in the system. After all backfilling those holes was deemed acceptable, some PE should have signed it off, and it worked fine for 50 years. Probably someone run the numbers and beam strength was still within the spec...
Isn't that bridge supposed to be either rehabilitated or replaced as part of the Interchange Project? I know that a parallel bridge was part of the plans....
If just the entire 95/PA TPK interchange was completed already, it would have migrated the effects of the detour. In a way though, since the interchange isn't done even in part, traffic isn't trying to use the "new" 95. So the bridge beam failure happened before traffic could've been a lot heavier on that bridge.
If just the entire 95/PA TPK interchange was completed already, it would have migrated the effects of the detour. In a way though, since the interchange isn't done even in part, traffic isn't trying to use the "new" 95. So the bridge beam failure happened before traffic could've been a lot heavier on that bridge.
This closure also highlights another missing freeway connection - in New Jersey.
If NJTA and NJDOT had built an interchange on the New Jersey Turnpike south of Exit 3 (presumably it would be marked Exit 2A) to directly connect the Pike to NJ-42/I-76/I-676 and the ACE, there would have been added network redundancy that would have be useful. As it is, making that trip now involves a trip through Bellmawr, Breezewood-style from the Turnpike to I-295 via NJ-168.
I have posted my dislike of this breezewood (I believe the only major breezewood in New Jersey) in the past, and I can understand that NJTA would not want to build a double-trumpet interchange, but at this point they might be able to simplify matters by building an E-ZPass Only Exit 2A.
...Do I-95 and I-895 in Baltimore cross w/o an Interchange also?
The other missing movement highlighted here, somewhat, is the lack of interchange between I-295 and the NJTP extension - which I know was completely intentional.I can bring it more on topic: 76 and the western 376 interchange are Breezewooded, if you count that.
BUT...that prompts a trivia question: once I-95 gets routed on here, will this be the only case where a 2di crosses a related 3di without an interchange? Do I-95 and I-895 in Baltimore cross w/o an Interchange also?
(...and should I have posted this on the PA Tnpk board though this is an NJ point?)
Engineers working on the closed Delaware River Bridge face the task of determining whether a failed beam was an isolated case or something that could happen elsewhere on the structure.
“They’d be interested in knowing if this is a systemic issue,” said Carl DeFebo Jr., spokesman for the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission.
The crack completely sheared through a truss beneath the westbound deck of the 1.2-mile-long bridge on the Pennsylvania side of the structure and has forced the closure of the bridge, which carries about 42,000 vehicles a day.
Authorities could not estimate when the bridge might reopen, and are reserving judgment on what caused the crack. But engineering experts say pictures of the fissure show signs of holes mistakenly drilled into the beams and then filled with plug welds. That was an approach not uncommon in the 1950s, when the bridge was built, but one modern engineers do not recommend because it can create a weak point in a steel beam. The bridge opened to traffic in May 1956.
The other missing movement highlighted here, somewhat, is the lack of interchange between I-295 and the NJTP extension - which I know was completely intentional.I can bring it more on topic: 76 and the western 376 interchange are Breezewooded, if you count that.
BUT...that prompts a trivia question: once I-95 gets routed on here, will this be the only case where a 2di crosses a related 3di without an interchange? Do I-95 and I-895 in Baltimore cross w/o an Interchange also?
(...and should I have posted this on the PA Tnpk board though this is an NJ point?)
As PTC and PennDOT were removing the breezewood at I-176 (Morgantown, Exit 298), they built another (!) breezewood down the Turnpike at U.S. 222 (Denver, Exit 286).Upon looking at historic topographic mapping (type "Denver, PA" & compare 1976 vs. 1978 topo mapping) (http://www.historicaerials.com/); the current Reading interchange (Exit 286/originally Exit 21) was constructed circa 1977; years before the Morgantown (I-176) Breezewood was removed. Given the era and that this was a connection to a non-Interstate; the Feds likely didn't raise a stink.
Not sure why the Federal Highway Administration division office does not step in and firmly tell PennDOT (at least) that there will be no federal dollars to fund any new breezewoods.
As PTC and PennDOT were removing the breezewood at I-176 (Morgantown, Exit 298), they built another (!) breezewood down the Turnpike at U.S. 222 (Denver, Exit 286).Upon looking at historic topographic mapping (type "Denver, PA" & compare 1976 vs. 1978 topo mapping) (http://www.historicaerials.com/); the current Reading interchange (Exit 286/originally Exit 21) was constructed circa 1977; years before the Morgantown (I-176) Breezewood was removed. Given the era and that this was a connection to a non-Interstate; the Feds likely didn't raise a stink.
Not sure why the Federal Highway Administration division office does not step in and firmly tell PennDOT (at least) that there will be no federal dollars to fund any new breezewoods.
While I'm not crazy about Breezewoods per say, the one at the Reading interchange is more tolerable because such was built with a connector-feeder road as well (as opposed to utilizing an existing street w/developments alongside them). Additionally, the movement to US 222 northbound from the Turnpike can be done without stopping for a red light.
Note: the original Reading interchange trumpet is still in tact (Pepperidge Drive) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2215888,-76.0901717,17.49z)
I dislike all breezewoods (I know, that's a shock, right?) - mostly for reasons of safety (motorists not familiar with the area are not expecting a stoplight or driveways), but also because of congestion and capacity.Then you probably don't like the I-90 (Mass Pike)/US 20/MA 146 interchange (Exit 10A) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Millbury,+MA/@42.2079233,-71.7920013,15.75z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e405694ee685c1:0xb1a9cda7e3a0fc72!8m2!3d42.1920719!4d-71.761522) which was built during the previous decade.
Wonder if PTC might re-open the ramps at Pepperidge Drive once they have converted to cashless tolling. Might be a little too close to the "new" interchange at U.S. 222 (Exit 286), but maybe not.They could probably do cashless 'slip-ramps' but such would require a traffic signal installation at the intersection of Pepperidge Drive and Col. Howard Blvd. (the connector road linking PA 272 to the Turnpike).
I dislike all breezewoods (I know, that's a shock, right?) - mostly for reasons of safety (motorists not familiar with the area are not expecting a stoplight or driveways), but also because of congestion and capacity.Then you probably don't like the I-90 (Mass Pike)/US 20/MA 146 interchange (Exit 10A) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Millbury,+MA/@42.2079233,-71.7920013,15.75z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e405694ee685c1:0xb1a9cda7e3a0fc72!8m2!3d42.1920719!4d-71.761522) which was built during the previous decade.
Motorists who typically use the Delaware River Bridge connecting the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Turnpikes should make new driving plans for the foreseeable future, officials urged Tuesday.
It will be at least two weeks before the nature of the bridge repairs is known, and making the fix will take longer, they said. As engineers attempt to diagnose and then repair the crack that forced the bridge's shutdown Friday, commuters likely will continue to experience significant delays on alternative routes.
Joseph Donnelly, Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission spokesman, said Tuesday that Route 1 commuters traveling on the Trenton-Morrisville Bridge saw traffic backed up for about five miles, adding more than 20 minutes to the trip. On the Scudder Falls Bridge, commuters are experiencing delays of about 18 minutes.
Traffic has adapted quite well.
Traffic has adapted quite well.
Yes. I thought that part of the Delaware Valley/NYC-Philly corridor was in for an East Coast carmageddon. Those affected adapted, as you say, quite well. What helped was the fact that the closure happened on the cusp of a weekend and that those affected had the weekend to prepare for Monday.
ixnay
Channel 6 in Philly reports the bridge will be closed until at least April.
Channel 6 in Philly reports the bridge will be closed until at least April.
Eight more weeks, per the PTC, which is early April.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2017/20170203155951.htm
J&N you are so right! And yes we're lucky it was discovered when it was, lest we would have had another Connecticut Tpk. 1983 type disaster if you remember that.
J&N you are so right! And yes we're lucky it was discovered when it was, lest we would have had another Connecticut Tpk. 1983 type disaster if you remember that.
That I don't remember, but the I-35 collapse in Minneapolis I do.
J&N you are so right! And yes we're lucky it was discovered when it was, lest we would have had another Connecticut Tpk. 1983 type disaster if you remember that.
That I don't remember, but the I-35 collapse in Minneapolis I do.
I remember both. And wasn't there a bridge collapse on the NYS Thruway west of Schenectady in the late '80s as well?
Well, there was another fairly close call in Albany as wellJ&N you are so right! And yes we're lucky it was discovered when it was, lest we would have had another Connecticut Tpk. 1983 type disaster if you remember that.
That I don't remember, but the I-35 collapse in Minneapolis I do.
I remember both. And wasn't there a bridge collapse on the NYS Thruway west of Schenectady in the late '80s as well?
Yes, although that was a problem with the footings, not the structural members.
J&N you are so right! And yes we're lucky it was discovered when it was, lest we would have had another Connecticut Tpk. 1983 type disaster if you remember that.
That I don't remember, but the I-35 collapse in Minneapolis I do.
I remember both. And wasn't there a bridge collapse on the NYS Thruway west of Schenectady in the late '80s as well?
Yes, although that was a problem with the footings, not the structural members.
J&N you are so right! And yes we're lucky it was discovered when it was, lest we would have had another Connecticut Tpk. 1983 type disaster if you remember that.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the-probable cause of the collapse of the Schoharie Creek Bridge was the failure of the New York State Thruway Authority to maintain adequate riprap around the bridge piers, which led to severe erosion in the soil beneath the spread footings. Contributing to the accident were ambiguous plans and specifications used for construction of the bridge, an inadequate NYSTA bridge inspection program, and inadequate oversight by the New York State Department of. Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Contributing to the severity of the accident was the lack of structural redundancy in the bridge.
J&N you are so right! And yes we're lucky it was discovered when it was, lest we would have had another Connecticut Tpk. 1983 type disaster if you remember that.
There was also the 1987 total and catastrophic failure (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/06/nyregion/bridge-collapses-on-the-thruway-trapping-vehicles.html?pagewanted=all) of the bridge that carried the I-90 part of the New York State Thruway over Schoharie Creek near Amsterdam, resulting in ten fatalities. This happened after a very heavy rain event in the area (and upstream), that caused the piers of the bridge to be swept away.
NTSB report summary here (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HAR8802.aspx). A scanned .pdf copy of the NTSB report can be downloaded off this page (https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB88916202.xhtml).QuoteThe National Transportation Safety Board determines that the-probable cause of the collapse of the Schoharie Creek Bridge was the failure of the New York State Thruway Authority to maintain adequate riprap around the bridge piers, which led to severe erosion in the soil beneath the spread footings. Contributing to the accident were ambiguous plans and specifications used for construction of the bridge, an inadequate NYSTA bridge inspection program, and inadequate oversight by the New York State Department of. Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Contributing to the severity of the accident was the lack of structural redundancy in the bridge.
There was also the 1987 total and catastrophic failure (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/06/nyregion/bridge-collapses-on-the-thruway-trapping-vehicles.html?pagewanted=all) of the bridge that carried the I-90 part of the New York State Thruway over Schoharie Creek near Amsterdam, resulting in ten fatalities. This happened after a very heavy rain event in the area (and upstream), that caused the piers of the bridge to be swept away.
I believe empirestate and yours truly already mentioned that incident earlier on this page, although with not nearly as much detail (detail for which we thank you, cpzilliacus).
So the Pearl Harbor Extension is entirely closed westbound, but is it open eastbound from US 130 to the mainline NJTP? Google Maps' traffic listing seems to indicate that it is.
I've added them back to the blog and updated some information as a lot has and hasn't changed since 1999.
I've added them back to the blog and updated some information as a lot has and hasn't changed since 1999.
Those photos were probably the first glimpses of the Abandoned Turnpike I ever had as an under 16 roadgeek who rarely ever got out of his hometown. I can’t count the number of times I’ve visited there in the second half of my life that has passed since then.
Other than the overpass removals, which are obvious, the creeping change that strikes me most when I visit today is how overgrown it is becoming—particularly in the summer months. Trees encroach ever closer from the shoulders. Shrubs grow outward from the median in all directions. Crumbling pavements yield to bristle-like grasses piercing through cracks. In a few places, the road almost disappears entirely.
I wonder if nature will reclaim it all within another few decades.
I also wonder about the legal status of the Abandoned Turnpike these days. The Southern Alleghenies Conservancy’s website went dead years ago, and a search for the organization doesn’t seem to bring up much beyond some press releases and news articles in the roughly 2000-2005 time frame in which SAC acquired the property and sent a representative to Jeff Kitsko’s 2004 SWPA roadgeek meet. If they’re trying to raise money or rehabilitate the Abandoned Turnpike, I’m not finding the evidence of it.
What i find interesting in the Fulton County document is that - Fulton County was not as receptive to the trail because they saw Breezewood and Bedford County getting the majority of the economic impact and in said such in 2006.
I drove east towards New Jersey for the first time and was shocked with the lack of detour signage up for the Delaware River Bridge closure. All the VMS signs mentioned thru traffic had to exit at US 1, but there were no temporary signs reminding traffic that all traffic must exit, nor were there any "detour" signs after exiting. I know most people have GPS these days that will re-route them, but you would think they would create construction style signage for such an extended closure. I know Delaware had detour signs up and everything when I-495 was closed.Stark contrast between agencies, eh? :-P
At other times, the Abandoned Turnpike could be rented out as a film set–this time not as a post-apocalyptic wasteland road but as a flexible suburban/rural freeway.
At other times, the Abandoned Turnpike could be rented out as a film set–this time not as a post-apocalyptic wasteland road but as a flexible suburban/rural freeway.
I think this is one of its most promising uses. If the state took it over, and improved it just to a basic state that production companies could dress to their own needs (they'd prefer that over a fully-realized historic recreation, in most cases)–and if the state had a program of incentives for film and TV production, as states like NY, GA and NM do–they might see a lot of use for this purpose and easily recoup the costs of rudimentary rehabilitation.
Saying he wants to pursue other public service opportunities, the chairman of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission abruptly resigned Thursday.
Sean Logan, of Plum, Allegheny County, announced he is resigning, effective immediately, said turnpike spokesman Carl DeFebo Jr.
"It is with mixed emotions that I step down from the PA Turnpike Commission, as I have come to know and respect my fellow commissioners and the entire senior-staff team. I've also had the privilege of meeting many of the folks who make the turnpike run day in and day out: our toll collectors," he said.
Logan was first appointed to the PTC in July 2013 and named chairman in January 2015.
During his tenure, Logan ensured the commission remained focused on its core duties: operating more efficiently; investing in rebuilding; and expanding its system and managing its Act-44 funding obligations to PennDOT, DeFebo said.
DeFebo added that Logan handled significant, national-headline grabbing events in 2016.
He was referring to the January blizzard that stranded hundreds of motorists on the turnpike in the Allegheny Mountains and an armed robbery attempt at the Fort Littleton interchange in March. A toll collector and security contractor were killed and the suspect, a retired state trooper, was shot to death.
In the coming weeks, Gov. Tom Wolf expects to nominate a new turnpike commissioner. That nominee must be confirmed by at least a two-thirds majority of the state Senate.
Crews began the "very deliberate and delicate process" early Friday morning of returning the Delaware River Bridge to its original position.
The structure was displaced about 2 inches after a 14-inch I-beam was severed below the bridge's road surface along the Pennsylvania side of the structure.
The crews are using hydraulic jacks, supported by eight heavy-duty temporary towers that were recently installed beneath the bridge, to coax the structure back into place. They will work from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Friday and then again either Saturday or Sunday, weather-permitting, to finish returning the span to its original position, Brad Heigel, the turnpike's chief engineer, said Thursday. "We are very optimistic that it will work," he said of the estimated $9 million-plus repositioning effort.
The 1.25-mile bridge that carries Interstate 276 from Bristol Township in Bucks County across the Delaware River to Florence in Burlington County, New Jersey, has been closed since the fracture was discovered Jan. 20. "It happened quickly," Heigel said. "It was a sudden fracture – a clean break."
An emergency engineering task force that includes Pennsylvania and New Jersey turnpike representatives and academics from Lehigh and Purdue universities and the University of Texas is trying to determine what caused the beam to sever and what is the best way to fix it.
ADVERTISING
Right after the fracture was discovered a temporary splice was put on the beam to hold it together.
During the repositioning work, crews are using about 100 sensors all along the bridge to monitor the span, Heigel said. The observations will help the engineers determine how much stress the bridge, and especially the damaged beam, will be able to handle when the permanent repairs are made.
The still to-be-determined repairs could range from constructing a permanent splice to reconnect the fractured section to possibly a total replacement of the damaged area, Heigel said. The task force has not come up with an estimate for the total cost of the repair project.
The "best-case-scenario" estimate is that the bridge will reopen in early April if only a permanent splice is needed, the engineer said. No time estimates are available in the event more extensive repairs are needed, he said.
The 61-year-old toll bridge, which typically serves about 42,000 vehicles per day, will remain closed until it is permanently repaired. The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority are each losing between $1 million to $2 million in revenue per week while it is closed, spokesman Carl DeFebo said previously.
While the bridge is closed, traffic is being rerouted to the Scudder Falls Bridge, which carries Interstate 95 between Lower Makefield and Ewing in Mercer County, New Jersey. Motorists also have been using the Calhoun Street, Route 1 and Trenton Makes bridges in Morrisville, the Burlington-Bristol Bridge in Bristol Township and the Interstate 78 bridge in the Lehigh Valley.
Updates about the closure and detour routes are posted at www.paturnpike.com/DRBAlert.aspx.
During a speech about road improvements to the Lower Bucks County Chamber of Commerce on Thursday morning, the executive director of TMA Bucks encouraged chamber members to give themselves enough travel time because of the extra traffic congestion created by the bridge closure.
"Put an extra 15 minutes into your trip (schedule)," said Bill Brady, the TMA Bucks executive director, during the breakfast in Middletown. "Plan for it and be patient."
Patience will be required for the next several years as multiple road improvement projects are completed throughout Bucks County, Brady said. They include the project connecting the turnpike to Interstate 95 that should be completed by 2022; planned improvements along the Route 1 expressway from Bensalem up to Middletown that could be done by 2025; and, the three- to four-year construction project of a new Scudder Falls Bridge that is set to begin in the spring.
How far away is the signage for the I-276 detour? I use 83 south past the turnpike (Exit 242) a few times a week and the VMS has the detour noted from 83. I think this is good, but am curious how far west this is posted.
Also, regarding the Abandoned Turnpike, I thought it was already a bike trail? I went in May using Oregon Rd as an access and went into the Sideling Hill Tunnel. I saw at least 10 other people. It was a pretty cool experience.
I saw it on I-81 south near exit 52. That's about how far west I saw it, since I can't check VMS' along the Turnpike, thanks to broken links on the website. It's 134 miles west, in case you were wondering.How far away is the signage for the I-276 detour? I use 83 south past the turnpike (Exit 242) a few times a week and the VMS has the detour noted from 83. I think this is good, but am curious how far west this is posted.
The detour was also noted on US 322 WB heading to the Eisenhower Interchange when I drove back to Harrisburg from Hershey a few weeks ago. I do not think I mentioned it.
I drove east towards New Jersey for the first time and was shocked with the lack of detour signage up for the Delaware River Bridge closure. All the VMS signs mentioned thru traffic had to exit at US 1, but there were no temporary signs reminding traffic that all traffic must exit, nor were there any "detour" signs after exiting. I know most people have GPS these days that will re-route them, but you would think they would create construction style signage for such an extended closure. I know Delaware had detour signs up and everything when I-495 was closed.I had to loop around the bridge closure westbound via NJ 29 and US 1 in Trenton this past weekend and was surprised to see almost no signage indicating the closure entering from US 1 (Bensalem interchange). At most, there may have been one VMS indicating the closure on Route 1 in advance of the interchange, but there was absolutely nothing after the tolls at the split to enter EB or WB.
http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/local/heavy-duty-trucks-being-used-in-bristol-township-to-test/article_69eb30cc-0376-11e7-857e-efb55e4486b9.htmlAs far as I understand, the big question "why that happened?" is not answered...
The repair project continues to go well, from the sounds of it. They tested the bridge with 40 ton trucks and will await the results of those tests later this week. As long as everything goes well, an opening later this month isn't out of the question.
If you don't care about the project, at least open the link to view the pic of the frustrated man speaking at the meeting! :biggrin:
http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/local/heavy-duty-trucks-being-used-in-bristol-township-to-test/article_69eb30cc-0376-11e7-857e-efb55e4486b9.htmlAs far as I understand, the big question "why that happened?" is not answered...
The repair project continues to go well, from the sounds of it. They tested the bridge with 40 ton trucks and will await the results of those tests later this week. As long as everything goes well, an opening later this month isn't out of the question.
If you don't care about the project, at least open the link to view the pic of the frustrated man speaking at the meeting! :biggrin:
And hopefully not learn the answer when next one fails... Some mysteries go unsolved, but I would also setup some monitoring to keep an eye on the thing...http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/local/heavy-duty-trucks-being-used-in-bristol-township-to-test/article_69eb30cc-0376-11e7-857e-efb55e4486b9.htmlAs far as I understand, the big question "why that happened?" is not answered...
The repair project continues to go well, from the sounds of it. They tested the bridge with 40 ton trucks and will await the results of those tests later this week. As long as everything goes well, an opening later this month isn't out of the question.
If you don't care about the project, at least open the link to view the pic of the frustrated man speaking at the meeting! :biggrin:
Yep. It's only a guess as to when and what time. Several theories are out there: Overloaded truck; cold weather, residents hearing a loud noise, etc. But most likely they're never going to truly know.
Well, they thoroughly scoured the bridge for evidence of more similar plug welds, so the fact it's reopening so quickly suggests it's not going to be a problem.And hopefully not learn the answer when next one fails... Some mysteries go unsolved, but I would also setup some monitoring to keep an eye on the thing...http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/local/heavy-duty-trucks-being-used-in-bristol-township-to-test/article_69eb30cc-0376-11e7-857e-efb55e4486b9.htmlAs far as I understand, the big question "why that happened?" is not answered...
The repair project continues to go well, from the sounds of it. They tested the bridge with 40 ton trucks and will await the results of those tests later this week. As long as everything goes well, an opening later this month isn't out of the question.
If you don't care about the project, at least open the link to view the pic of the frustrated man speaking at the meeting! :biggrin:
Yep. It's only a guess as to when and what time. Several theories are out there: Overloaded truck; cold weather, residents hearing a loud noise, etc. But most likely they're never going to truly know.
I still don't believe those plugs were the root cause.And hopefully not learn the answer when next one fails... Some mysteries go unsolved, but I would also setup some monitoring to keep an eye on the thing...Well, they thoroughly scoured the bridge for evidence of more similar plug welds, so the fact it's reopening so quickly suggests it's not going to be a problem.
I follow the Design and Construction turnpike site, several projects with specific start dates are now "tbd" after the Delaware bridge closure, I hope that the Irwin to New Kensington section does not hit the chopping block.
I still don't believe those plugs were the root cause.And hopefully not learn the answer when next one fails... Some mysteries go unsolved, but I would also setup some monitoring to keep an eye on the thing...Well, they thoroughly scoured the bridge for evidence of more similar plug welds, so the fact it's reopening so quickly suggests it's not going to be a problem.
I follow the Design and Construction turnpike site, several projects with specific start dates are now "tbd" after the Delaware bridge closure, I hope that the Irwin to New Kensington section does not hit the chopping block.
They were a contributing factor beyond any doubt. But there had to be some other factors, some reason for high stress.. Structure was fine for 50+ years, and then decided to fail... It doesn't look deteriorated....I still don't believe those plugs were the root cause.And hopefully not learn the answer when next one fails... Some mysteries go unsolved, but I would also setup some monitoring to keep an eye on the thing...Well, they thoroughly scoured the bridge for evidence of more similar plug welds, so the fact it's reopening so quickly suggests it's not going to be a problem.
A licensed engineer I have spoken with feels that the plug welds were a contributing factor.
Might a badly overweight truck have been the factor that triggered the fracture? Possibly, as there was at least one media report describing a loud bang sometime in December from the vicinity of the bridge.
In the article it is stated that the bridge will reopen to car traffic.
The PA/NJ Turnpike Bridge is opening tonight! http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/Turnpike-bridge-over-the-Delaware-will-reopen-tonight-cracked-truss-repaired.html?mobi=true
“Everyone feels very sure it’s going to be able to support weight,” DeFebo said.
Limiting bridge traffic to automobiles eliminates the danger of overloading the structure.Another quote from the article:
if weight is confirmed as a factor in the crack officials would consider adjusting police enforcement to prevent trucks that exceed the bridge’s weight limits from crossing.That sounds to me as if trucks are / maybe / will be allowed..
Limiting bridge traffic to automobiles eliminates the danger of overloading the structure.Another quote from the article:Quoteif weight is confirmed as a factor in the crack officials would consider adjusting police enforcement to prevent trucks that exceed the bridge’s weight limits from crossing.That sounds to me as if trucks are / maybe / will be allowed..
In the article it is stated that the bridge will reopen to car traffic.
Yeah J&N, did you even bother to read past the headline???
ixnay
Limiting bridge traffic to automobiles eliminates the danger of overloading the structure.
In the article it is stated that the bridge will reopen to car traffic.
Yeah J&N, did you even bother to read past the headline???
ixnay
When you read news articles, you need to understand that these articles are written by people that have absolutely no knowledge of the situation, quickly type out a story, and rush it past an editor before it's posted online.
I actually saw a tv news story about the bridge before I pulled up the newspaper story. Along with the press releases on the NJ & PA Turnpikes, not a single other story said car traffic only.
Also, if you think it's only going to be open to car traffic, do you really think a single mention of it in a single article will suffice? Do you think that it would be a pretty big issue to try to limit an interstate highway bridge to just cars? Imagine the enforcement and manpower required to limit such a bridge to just cars.
Seriously...use your fricken heads and surmise that the 'car' part was written by a hurried reporter..and look at the overall big picture that not a single other mention of a truck limitation or weight limitation was mentioned anywhere.
KYW this morning is saying that the bridge is indeed open with no mention of any vehicle restrictions.
OTOH Google Maps is still showing the bridge as closed.
ixnay
Proof that one should not solely rely on internet/electronic maps for info.KYW this morning is saying that the bridge is indeed open with no mention of any vehicle restrictions.
OTOH Google Maps is still showing the bridge as closed.
ixnay
It took awhile before Google maps showed US 11/US 15 south of Marysville as open after the closure for the rock fence project ended last June.
Do you mean paper maps were more up to date?Proof that one should not solely rely on internet/electronic maps for info.KYW this morning is saying that the bridge is indeed open with no mention of any vehicle restrictions.
OTOH Google Maps is still showing the bridge as closed.
ixnay
It took awhile before Google maps showed US 11/US 15 south of Marysville as open after the closure for the rock fence project ended last June.
Well, my paper map has it open.Do you mean paper maps were more up to date?Proof that one should not solely rely on internet/electronic maps for info.KYW this morning is saying that the bridge is indeed open with no mention of any vehicle restrictions.
OTOH Google Maps is still showing the bridge as closed.
ixnay
It took awhile before Google maps showed US 11/US 15 south of Marysville as open after the closure for the rock fence project ended last June.
Well, my paper map has it open.Do you mean paper maps were more up to date?Proof that one should not solely rely on internet/electronic maps for info.KYW this morning is saying that the bridge is indeed open with no mention of any vehicle restrictions.
OTOH Google Maps is still showing the bridge as closed.
ixnay
It took awhile before Google maps showed US 11/US 15 south of Marysville as open after the closure for the rock fence project ended last June.
SM-T230NU
As of right now, Google is very strange along that entire area. The I-95 to 276 interchange is shown as if it already exists, but shows up closed to traffic. The extension is shown closed WB but not EB. Various ramps are closed or open depending on zoom level
The Pennsylvania Turnpike will be getting rid of the familiar red, yellow and green traffic lights used to tell E-ZPass drivers that their transponders are working correctly.
Starting March 17, the Turnpike Commission will gradually replace the lights with more simplified signage due to a change in federal guidelines. The old signals glowed green when the transponder was working and yellow when the customer's balance was low.
PennLIVE: E-ZPass signal lights to disappear from the Pa. Turnpike (http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/e-zpass_lights_to_get_a_makeov.html#incart_most-read_)QuoteThe Pennsylvania Turnpike will be getting rid of the familiar red, yellow and green traffic lights used to tell E-ZPass drivers that their transponders are working correctly.
Starting March 17, the Turnpike Commission will gradually replace the lights with more simplified signage due to a change in federal guidelines. The old signals glowed green when the transponder was working and yellow when the customer's balance was low.
I am unsure how to react to this.
Traffic control signals or devices that closely resemble traffic control signals that use red or green circular indications should not be used for new or reconstructed installations at toll plazas to indicate the success or failure of electronic toll payments or to alternately direct drivers making cash toll payments to stop and then proceed.
It will probably look like the "EZ-Pass GO" / "Low Bal" display signs that a number of NY Thruway plazas have
It will probably look like the "EZ-Pass GO" / "Low Bal" display signs that a number of NY Thruway plazas haveExcept those signs supplement the traffic lights at MOST toll booths on the Thruway. The PTC ones would presumably be stand-alone. In any case, I don't see why the PTC would spend the money when they're supposed to be going all electronic soon. Looks like Act 44 isn't the only thing bleeding the agency dry - this would seem to indicate that financial mismanagement is a big problem too.
"Signal light technology currently in use has become outdated and cumbersome," said PTC Chief Operating Officer Craig Shuey. "As the Commission prepares to update toll equipment in the lanes with more modern hardware and software, we are incorporating new federal signage standards. While the removal of signals may cause some initial confusion, it will soon become the norm as our customers adjust to the change."
4K.01 Paragraph 02 of the 2009 MUTCD (which is only a should statement, and not really new anymore)?Quote from: 2009 MUTCDTraffic control signals or devices that closely resemble traffic control signals that use red or green circular indications should not be used for new or reconstructed installations at toll plazas to indicate the success or failure of electronic toll payments or to alternately direct drivers making cash toll payments to stop and then proceed.
Even so, why invest anything in the existing booths when they're switching to AET soon? Or did that get cancelled?Quote"Signal light technology currently in use has become outdated and cumbersome," said PTC Chief Operating Officer Craig Shuey. "As the Commission prepares to update toll equipment in the lanes with more modern hardware and software, we are incorporating new federal signage standards. While the removal of signals may cause some initial confusion, it will soon become the norm as our customers adjust to the change."
It seems to me that they are not replacing the signals just for the sake of replacing the signals...but related to other changes which may make these signal changes actually cost efficient.
And the article mentioned that this will be gradual...not an immediate widespread change.
4K.01 Paragraph 02 of the 2009 MUTCD (which is only a should statement, and not really new anymore)?If the signals reached the end of their useful lives, it makes more sense to replace them with one of those blankout signs than put up new signals, based on MUTCD. If this was any other state/agency, I'd probably assume that was the case. This being PA, who knows!Quote from: 2009 MUTCDTraffic control signals or devices that closely resemble traffic control signals that use red or green circular indications should not be used for new or reconstructed installations at toll plazas to indicate the success or failure of electronic toll payments or to alternately direct drivers making cash toll payments to stop and then proceed.
4K.01 Paragraph 02 of the 2009 MUTCD (which is only a should statement, and not really new anymore)?If the signals reached the end of their useful lives, it makes more sense to replace them with one of those blankout signs than put up new signals, based on MUTCD. If this was any other state/agency, I'd probably assume that was the case. This being PA, who knows!Quote from: 2009 MUTCDTraffic control signals or devices that closely resemble traffic control signals that use red or green circular indications should not be used for new or reconstructed installations at toll plazas to indicate the success or failure of electronic toll payments or to alternately direct drivers making cash toll payments to stop and then proceed.
Even so, why invest anything in the existing booths when they're switching to AET soon? Or did that get cancelled?Quote"Signal light technology currently in use has become outdated and cumbersome," said PTC Chief Operating Officer Craig Shuey. "As the Commission prepares to update toll equipment in the lanes with more modern hardware and software, we are incorporating new federal signage standards. While the removal of signals may cause some initial confusion, it will soon become the norm as our customers adjust to the change."
It seems to me that they are not replacing the signals just for the sake of replacing the signals...but related to other changes which may make these signal changes actually cost efficient.
And the article mentioned that this will be gradual...not an immediate widespread change.
I wonder how soon that'll truly be. The NJ/PA Turnpike is probably a good trial to see how many actually pay those bills. If there's a significant non-collection of those payments, I'd think the PTC will hold off until they figure out how to improve on those collections.
Also, remember they just built a new toll plaza for tickets/cash payments just west of I-95, so I think they know there's probably going to be a bit of time before the conversion occurs.
The original plan by PTC was to build a cash/E-ZPass toll plaza for traffic coming west (I-95 south) off the bridge between the bridge landing and Exit 358 (U.S. 13). It would presumably have been similar to the eastbound barrier (GSV here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2%B054'14.7%22N+80%C2%B029'43.4%22W/@40.9040736,-80.4955171,3a,75y,111.65h,75.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMaJ988U1lgSFv7KBwWJaKQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DMaJ988U1lgSFv7KBwWJaKQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D211.16206%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.904076!4d-80.49539)) entering the Pennsylvania Turnpike from the Ohio Turnpike in Lawrence County.
The original plan by PTC was to build a cash/E-ZPass toll plaza for traffic coming west (I-95 south) off the bridge between the bridge landing and Exit 358 (U.S. 13). It would presumably have been similar to the eastbound barrier (GSV here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2%B054'14.7%22N+80%C2%B029'43.4%22W/@40.9040736,-80.4955171,3a,75y,111.65h,75.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMaJ988U1lgSFv7KBwWJaKQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DMaJ988U1lgSFv7KBwWJaKQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D211.16206%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.904076!4d-80.49539)) entering the Pennsylvania Turnpike from the Ohio Turnpike in Lawrence County.Curious... When did the ticket system on the west side of the turnpike move to Warrendale? What was the rationale behind that and the one way toll at Gateway?
Never mind!
Curious... When did the ticket system on the west side of the turnpike move to Warrendale? What was the rationale behind that and the one way toll at Gateway?
The move took place just over a year ago and the rationale for the one-way toll at the bridge was to match/mimic what has been done at the other tolled Delaware River crossings.The original plan by PTC was to build a cash/E-ZPass toll plaza for traffic coming west (I-95 south) off the bridge between the bridge landing and Exit 358 (U.S. 13). It would presumably have been similar to the eastbound barrier (GSV here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2%B054'14.7%22N+80%C2%B029'43.4%22W/@40.9040736,-80.4955171,3a,75y,111.65h,75.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMaJ988U1lgSFv7KBwWJaKQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DMaJ988U1lgSFv7KBwWJaKQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D211.16206%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.904076!4d-80.49539)) entering the Pennsylvania Turnpike from the Ohio Turnpike in Lawrence County.Curious... When did the ticket system on the west side of the turnpike move to Warrendale? What was the rationale behind that and the one way toll at Gateway?
Curious... When did the ticket system on the west side of the turnpike move to Warrendale? What was the rationale behind that and the one way toll at Gateway?
It moved sometime between 2000 and 2008 (not sure when). This (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2005/07/31/Pa-Turnpike-adopts-one-way-tolling-at-Gateway-Plaza/stories/200507310282) from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette in 2005 discusses some of the relevant dates associated with the west end of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
As part of the elimination of that breezewood, the ticket system's west terminus was moved to a point just east of I-79, and the old Gateway toll plaza was converted to a one-way barrier toll for traffic entering Pennsylvania from Ohio.
As the PTC replaces its equipment with enhanced technology, customers may temporarily see the decommissioned light stations wrapped in yellow plastic at certain Harrisburg-area interchanges and at “E-ZPass Only” interchanges north and east of Philadelphia. Thereafter, the signals – which have been in service since E-ZPass was launched in 2001 – will go away at several interchanges each month until the upgrade is completed by the end of 2017.
Actually, it took place way back in 2003, so we're talking nearly 14 years now! There was a series of changes that occurred over the next few years after that, including widening toll plazas and installing express EZ Pass lanes.Monday-morning brain freeze at work. I thought MrDisco99 was asking about the Turnpike's eastern end conversions. I've since corrected my earlier post.
Curious... When did the ticket system on the west side of the turnpike move to Warrendale? What was the rationale behind that and the one way toll at Gateway?
It moved sometime between 2000 and 2008 (not sure when). This (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2005/07/31/Pa-Turnpike-adopts-one-way-tolling-at-Gateway-Plaza/stories/200507310282) from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette in 2005 discusses some of the relevant dates associated with the west end of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
As part of the elimination of that breezewood, the ticket system's west terminus was moved to a point just east of I-79, and the old Gateway toll plaza was converted to a one-way barrier toll for traffic entering Pennsylvania from Ohio.
IIRC, the entire Westgate toll barrier was completely rebuilt (eastbound & westbound) only a few years before they decided to tear down the "new" westbound booths (wasting money there) and turning the eastbound border entrance into a flat-rate-per-class toll barrier.
Curious... When did the ticket system on the west side of the turnpike move to Warrendale? What was the rationale behind that and the one way toll at Gateway?
It moved sometime between 2000 and 2008 (not sure when). This (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2005/07/31/Pa-Turnpike-adopts-one-way-tolling-at-Gateway-Plaza/stories/200507310282) from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette in 2005 discusses some of the relevant dates associated with the west end of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
As part of the elimination of that breezewood, the ticket system's west terminus was moved to a point just east of I-79, and the old Gateway toll plaza was converted to a one-way barrier toll for traffic entering Pennsylvania from Ohio.
IIRC, the entire Westgate toll barrier was completely rebuilt (eastbound & westbound) only a few years before they decided to tear down the "new" westbound booths (wasting money there) and turning the eastbound border entrance into a flat-rate-per-class toll barrier.
Pretty Much. Both Warrendale & the state line plazas were built as part of the "Cranberry Connector" project to make Cranberry free-flowing. The state line plaza was for both directions, but was always flat-rate from the first rebuilt. The PTC did not have the right-of-way to accommodate Express EZ-Pass lanes and booths for both directions, so their solution was to demo half of it and double the tolls for EB traffic.
IMPORTANT - Changes for PTC E-ZPass Customers
We’re writing to notify you of important changes to the E-ZPass system that will be made by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (Commission or PTC) starting this month. The Commission will begin installing new Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) equipment at toll plazas. The new equipment will be installed incrementally through the end of the calendar year; it is part of the Commission’s strategic plan to upgrade our toll technology infrastructure.
How will this change affect me?
As the Commission prepared to update toll equipment in the lanes, we were required to incorporate new Federal Highway Administration standards. The biggest change that E-ZPass customers will notice is the removal of the Feedback Signal or Traffic Light that customers have used to verify their transponder was read. Federal guidelines prohibit the use of such signals at toll plazas. No change is ever “E-Z,” and this one is no exception. The Commission has been advising E-ZPass customers to look for the signal over the past 16 years, and we understand their removal may cause some initial confusion.
Customers should continue to travel through E-ZPass lanes at the posted speeds for their own safety as well as the safety of our toll collectors and other motorists. If you have questions about your E-ZPass account, including whether your transponder is working properly, contact the PTC E-ZPass Customer Service Center at 1.877.736.6727.
What should I do?
To minimize the impact of this change, we urge all PTC E-ZPass customers to take the following steps:
- Mount the transponder properly as required by the E-ZPass Terms of Agreement.
- Review your E-ZPass account activity monthly.
- Keep your account up-to-date including your address, license plate and payment information.
Following these steps will ensure you keep your account in good standing and avoid violations. If you replenish your E-ZPass account manually, closely monitor your account. When your account reaches low-balance status, an email will be sent advising you that a payment is required.
Other E-ZPass News
Over the last few years, the PTC E-ZPass Customer Service Center has implemented several changes to improve customer service, including:
- Expanded Call-Center Hours – The PTC E-ZPass Customer Service Center is open Mondays - Thursdays from 8 am to 7 pm EST and 8 am to 5 pm on Fridays. The website is available 24/7 at www.paturnpike.com.
- Add Rental Vehicles in One Step – Access your account online to add a rental vehicle. Click the button to identify it as a rental, and the system will prompt you to enter the start and end dates. Customers can also contact the PTC E-ZPass Customer Service Center and speak to a representative.
- License-Plate Verification – When entering a license plate via our website, customers are now required to enter the information twice to verify it is correct and avoid erroneous toll charges.
I received an email from the PTC this morning alerting me (as a PTC E-ZPass holder) about the gradual removal of payment status traffic lights from toll plazas.QuoteBlah Blah Blah...
The Commission has been advising E-ZPass customers to look for the signal over the past 16 years, and we understand their removal may cause some initial confusion.
Customers should continue to travel through E-ZPass lanes at the posted speeds for their own safety as well as the safety of our toll collectors and other motorists. If you have questions about your E-ZPass account, including whether your transponder is working properly, contact the PTC E-ZPass Customer Service Center at 1.877.736.6727.
...blah blah blah
Once upon a time, in gated EZpass lane, my pass refused to read - and I got stuck blocking lane (gate bar in front, few cars behind, some concrete left and right) until a friendly cop took the pass and put it on a second antenna.I received an email from the PTC this morning alerting me (as a PTC E-ZPass holder) about the gradual removal of payment status traffic lights from toll plazas.QuoteBlah Blah Blah...
The Commission has been advising E-ZPass customers to look for the signal over the past 16 years, and we understand their removal may cause some initial confusion.
Customers should continue to travel through E-ZPass lanes at the posted speeds for their own safety as well as the safety of our toll collectors and other motorists. If you have questions about your E-ZPass account, including whether your transponder is working properly, contact the PTC E-ZPass Customer Service Center at 1.877.736.6727.
...blah blah blah
So, based on what I'm reading, there's going to be nothing indicating whether the toll is paid. Which means, and this pertains to Val's points, that no extra money is going into adding something that may be removed within several years anyway.
Personally, this is how it should've been all along. Regardless of what the signal shows, you're not supposed to be stopping in the lane in the first place.
Once upon a time, in gated EZpass lane, my pass refused to read - and I got stuck blocking lane (gate bar in front, few cars behind, some concrete left and right) until a friendly cop took the pass and put it on a second antenna.I received an email from the PTC this morning alerting me (as a PTC E-ZPass holder) about the gradual removal of payment status traffic lights from toll plazas.QuoteBlah Blah Blah...
The Commission has been advising E-ZPass customers to look for the signal over the past 16 years, and we understand their removal may cause some initial confusion.
Customers should continue to travel through E-ZPass lanes at the posted speeds for their own safety as well as the safety of our toll collectors and other motorists. If you have questions about your E-ZPass account, including whether your transponder is working properly, contact the PTC E-ZPass Customer Service Center at 1.877.736.6727.
...blah blah blah
So, based on what I'm reading, there's going to be nothing indicating whether the toll is paid. Which means, and this pertains to Val's points, that no extra money is going into adding something that may be removed within several years anyway.
Personally, this is how it should've been all along. Regardless of what the signal shows, you're not supposed to be stopping in the lane in the first place.
SOmewhere around NYC. Just saying about "not stopping"
Once upon a time, in gated EZpass lane, my pass refused to read - and I got stuck blocking lane (gate bar in front, few cars behind, some concrete left and right) until a friendly cop took the pass and put it on a second antenna.I received an email from the PTC this morning alerting me (as a PTC E-ZPass holder) about the gradual removal of payment status traffic lights from toll plazas.QuoteBlah Blah Blah...
The Commission has been advising E-ZPass customers to look for the signal over the past 16 years, and we understand their removal may cause some initial confusion.
Customers should continue to travel through E-ZPass lanes at the posted speeds for their own safety as well as the safety of our toll collectors and other motorists. If you have questions about your E-ZPass account, including whether your transponder is working properly, contact the PTC E-ZPass Customer Service Center at 1.877.736.6727.
...blah blah blah
So, based on what I'm reading, there's going to be nothing indicating whether the toll is paid. Which means, and this pertains to Val's points, that no extra money is going into adding something that may be removed within several years anyway.
Personally, this is how it should've been all along. Regardless of what the signal shows, you're not supposed to be stopping in the lane in the first place.
SOmewhere around NYC. Just saying about "not stopping"
Gates are worse than lights. Because now you're affecting everyone behind you, and no one can do a damn thing until someone comes over.
The DRPA bridges have gates, but they're only there to slow you down. Once you enter the lane, no matter if you have a valid EZ Pass or not, they'll raise up. The DRJTBC had gates but got rid of them.
The Ohio Turnpike has them, and they're like a big "FU" to those with EZ Pass, as Ohio never wanted the system in the first place but so many people kept running the toll plaza they had to put the system in. And those gates rise slower than molasses.
IMO having a prohibition on any form of notice that the toll was paid successfully is a very, very stupid policy. What is FHWA smoking? Do they want people to get hit with more violation notices and fees when the battery in their transponder eventually dies? At least with the indicator, it will only happen ONCE before you find out there's a problem.
IMO having a prohibition on any form of notice that the toll was paid successfully is a very, very stupid policy. What is FHWA smoking? Do they want people to get hit with more violation notices and fees when the battery in their transponder eventually dies? At least with the indicator, it will only happen ONCE before you find out there's a problem.
PTC just launched a webpage for the last section of widening between Blue Mountain and Carlisle.
https://www.patpconstruction.com/mp202to206/default.aspx
The email posted from the PTC insinuated that they were replacing them with nothing.But that's not the FHWA policy, to which you initially overreacted.
IMO having a prohibition on any form of notice that the toll was paid successfully is a very, very stupid policy. What is FHWA smoking? Do they want people to get hit with more violation notices and fees when the battery in their transponder eventually dies? At least with the indicator, it will only happen ONCE before you find out there's a problem.
I would hope next generation of ezpass would get an indicator. There are provisions in the chip for that, as far as I remember - limitation likely being battery powered nature of the tag.IMO having a prohibition on any form of notice that the toll was paid successfully is a very, very stupid policy. What is FHWA smoking? Do they want people to get hit with more violation notices and fees when the battery in their transponder eventually dies? At least with the indicator, it will only happen ONCE before you find out there's a problem.
Highway-speed toll gantries don't have an indicator indicating toll was paid; they're leaving it up to the user to check their account routinely. The EZ-Pass Only Exit 320 on the PA Turnpike doesn't have the indicators, either.
I would hope next generation of ezpass would get an indicator. There are provisions in the chip for that, as far as I remember - limitation likely being battery powered nature of the tag.IMO having a prohibition on any form of notice that the toll was paid successfully is a very, very stupid policy. What is FHWA smoking? Do they want people to get hit with more violation notices and fees when the battery in their transponder eventually dies? At least with the indicator, it will only happen ONCE before you find out there's a problem.
Highway-speed toll gantries don't have an indicator indicating toll was paid; they're leaving it up to the user to check their account routinely. The EZ-Pass Only Exit 320 on the PA Turnpike doesn't have the indicators, either.
Overall, you're trying to satisfy a very large group of people that consists of:
A) Regulars that don't care at all and never look at the signage/indicator
B) Regulars/Occasional users that like the reassurance the toll was properly collected.
C) Newbees that don't know if their tag actually registered the toll (these are the people that slow down the most)
The best thing would be an indicator (visual and/or sound) on the tag itself, as it would be nearly impossible to post effective signage for highway-speed tolls. It would also prevent the slowing down the most as people won't be looking for a sign or signal.
Me, personally, I fall into the A group. I should do a better job of checking my statement online, but I get a paper statement every 2 months and quickly check it then for any unusual charges. The only times I caught something was at the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Twice, they charged me for a 5 Axle Truck toll ($20) rather than the typical car toll.
Add my total mistrust to EZpass into the mix - and a bunch of critical situations like rental car in company name with personal EZpass..
EZpass was well known for non-existing customer service, where things could take months and years to go through (and "years" comes from personal experience). Although my last complain was resolved at amazing speed, in just over 2 weeks, all via e-mail...
Rental cars are a big annoyance to the EZ Pass World. Let's say you have a car rental this week: You even register the car's license plate with EZ Pass, and de-register the plate when you return the car. If the tag works, that's great...everything flows smoothly. But if the tag didn't work, by the time they check the video for the car's plate, you may have already de-registered the plate, so they won't find a match. That means the car rental agency gets the notice, and they'll hit up your card for the tolls and fees. Also, if a previous renter of that car went thru the EZ Pass lane without a working EZ Pass, and they check the license plate during the week you have the car and have the tag registered, they'll hit your account with the toll as it's registered under your account.
Rental cars are a big annoyance to the EZ Pass World. Let's say you have a car rental this week: You even register the car's license plate with EZ Pass, and de-register the plate when you return the car. If the tag works, that's great...everything flows smoothly. But if the tag didn't work, by the time they check the video for the car's plate, you may have already de-registered the plate, so they won't find a match. That means the car rental agency gets the notice, and they'll hit up your card for the tolls and fees. Also, if a previous renter of that car went thru the EZ Pass lane without a working EZ Pass, and they check the license plate during the week you have the car and have the tag registered, they'll hit your account with the toll as it's registered under your account.
Im pretty sure the E-ZPass account match-up is based on the date and time that the photo was takennot when the highway agency gets around to processing the toll.
Add my total mistrust to EZpass into the mix - and a bunch of critical situations like rental car in company name with personal EZpass..
EZpass was well known for non-existing customer service, where things could take months and years to go through (and "years" comes from personal experience). Although my last complain was resolved at amazing speed, in just over 2 weeks, all via e-mail...
This is often a State/Agency-specific issue (much like a Visa card...one Visa bank may be lousy at customer service, whereas another picks up the phone and resolves the issue the first time everytime). NJ's first EZ Pass vendor/installer was a political favor, and along with it came bad equipment, lousy customer service, and customers getting violation notices even though they had working transponders and registered license plates. I believe the next administration came in, changed vendors to another company who had much better success with EZ Pass, and everything was fixed. There's been very few complaints since, although there's always going to be a few unhappy customers (and of course we'll hear one side of the story and not the other).
So, when EZ Pass had non-existing customer service, that could very well be true for one state, but other states may not have that issue.
Rental cars are a big annoyance to the EZ Pass World. Let's say you have a car rental this week: You even register the car's license plate with EZ Pass, and de-register the plate when you return the car. If the tag works, that's great...everything flows smoothly. But if the tag didn't work, by the time they check the video for the car's plate, you may have already de-registered the plate, so they won't find a match. That means the car rental agency gets the notice, and they'll hit up your card for the tolls and fees. Also, if a previous renter of that car went thru the EZ Pass lane without a working EZ Pass, and they check the license plate during the week you have the car and have the tag registered, they'll hit your account with the toll as it's registered under your account.
But the PTC at the very least implied that it was, which is what I reacted based on. I wasn't expecting the PTC to lie like that. If they're just not replacing them with something else because they don't want to waste money on a new system prior to switching to AET (a logical decision), they should just say so, not mislead people into thinking that their hands were tied by FHWA.The email posted from the PTC insinuated that they were replacing them with nothing.But that's not the FHWA policy, to which you initially overreacted.
The PA/NJ Turnpike Bridge is opening tonight! http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/Turnpike-bridge-over-the-Delaware-will-reopen-tonight-cracked-truss-repaired.html?mobi=trueQuoteEveryone feels very sure its going to be able to support weight, DeFebo said.
Somehow that statement lacks something in reassurance. You go first, buddy.
“The repaired truss member is now much sturdier than the original because of the splice,” Heigel explained.
Between Exits 242 and 247, the current setup is 2 lanes each way with Trucks/Buses only allowed in the left lane due to the work zone...does this reverse the normal left lane passing/right lane travel rule?This setup is common when traffic is rerouted onto right shoulders. Most states build shoulders thinner than travel lanes, so they want heavier vehicles to stay in the lane that was built better.
This was discussed previously in this thread. Check up-thread for a good explanation. (Hint:It has to do with both the durability and undulating nature of the shoulder.)
Between Exits 242 and 247, the current setup is 2 lanes each way with Trucks/Buses only allowed in the left lane due to the work zone...does this reverse the normal left lane passing/right lane travel rule?This setup is common when traffic is rerouted onto right shoulders. Most states build shoulders thinner than travel lanes, so they want heavier vehicles to stay in the lane that was built better.
This was discussed previously in this thread. Check up-thread for a good explanation. (Hint:It has to do with both the durability and undulating nature of the shoulder.)How does either of these posts address the question of whether one should pass on the left or the right in these work zones?
Between Exits 242 and 247, the current setup is 2 lanes each way with Trucks/Buses only allowed in the left lane due to the work zone...does this reverse the normal left lane passing/right lane travel rule?I would treat it that way, though I had the misfortune of being stuck behind someone who clearly believed the opposite (to the point of slowing down when the truck in the left lane did to avoid passing it) when I was last on the Turnpike.
Since we're talking about it, way down on page 50 of 52 of the latest NJTA Meeting Minutes: http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/BM_Minutes_2017-02-28.pdf , the NJTA will spend up to $1 million on approximately 396 Display 'Kits', the displays being the new LED message signs for the toll lanes...which is approximately $2,500 per message display. Also, these are just retro kits to replace the existing message signs. For the NJTA, the wiring, posts, foundations, etc are already installed. For the PTC, they would probably have to install all of this. If the same were to be done for the PA Turnpike, costs may be quite a bit higher due to them not having the same equipment already installed.
The NJTA uses these displays for both EZ Pass and Cash customers.
This was discussed previously in this thread. Check up-thread for a good explanation. (Hint:It has to do with both the durability and undulating nature of the shoulder.)
There's 71 pages In this topic. If you're going to tell someone to look upthread, you're gonna have to be more specific.
No, I don't. If I don't have time to search myself, I can at least point someone in the right general direction and not feel bad about it. Feel free to provide more specific direction yourself.
Also...using that picture above, you can see the transponder readers are back under the entry signs, which is why it read your towed car's EZ Pass before you reached the actual booth.No, I don't. If I don't have time to search myself, I can at least point someone in the right general direction and not feel bad about it. Feel free to provide more specific direction yourself.
This is like the people in online newspaper comment sections, where they try making some obscene or obscure point without any proof of its accuracy...then when other people question it, they throw the blame on them, telling them to look it up.
It literally takes as much time to research and link the actual post, as it does to write the comment that you don't have the time to research your thought for accuracy.
You're in the wrong here, so how about we just stop this discussion and go back to the topic plzkthxAlso...using that picture above, you can see the transponder readers are back under the entry signs, which is why it read your towed car's EZ Pass before you reached the actual booth.No, I don't. If I don't have time to search myself, I can at least point someone in the right general direction and not feel bad about it. Feel free to provide more specific direction yourself.
This is like the people in online newspaper comment sections, where they try making some obscene or obscure point without any proof of its accuracy...then when other people question it, they throw the blame on them, telling them to look it up.
It literally takes as much time to research and link the actual post, as it does to write the comment that you don't have the time to research your thought for accuracy.
No, it would've taken substantially longer and I was nearly out the door. Howzabout I decide how long it takes me to type versus search through the thread?
I made a quick judgment call to do something I thought would be at least a little helpful and don't appreciate you criticizing me for it. So just put down the hair-trigger and we'll all be fine.
You're in the wrong here, so how about we just stop this discussion and go back to the topic plzkthxAlso...using that picture above, you can see the transponder readers are back under the entry signs, which is why it read your towed car's EZ Pass before you reached the actual booth.No, I don't. If I don't have time to search myself, I can at least point someone in the right general direction and not feel bad about it. Feel free to provide more specific direction yourself.
This is like the people in online newspaper comment sections, where they try making some obscene or obscure point without any proof of its accuracy...then when other people question it, they throw the blame on them, telling them to look it up.
It literally takes as much time to research and link the actual post, as it does to write the comment that you don't have the time to research your thought for accuracy.
No, it would've taken substantially longer and I was nearly out the door. Howzabout I decide how long it takes me to type versus search through the thread?
I made a quick judgment call to do something I thought would be at least a little helpful and don't appreciate you criticizing me for it. So just put down the hair-trigger and we'll all be fine.
It’s my understanding that a personal E-ZPass transponder can be used for only the lowest vehicle classes (basically passenger cars and light trucks), so I already anticipated that I wouldn’t be able to use it on a 26,000-lb. truck and would therefore need to pay cash.
This was discussed previously in this thread. Check up-thread for a good explanation. (Hint:It has to do with both the durability and undulating nature of the shoulder.)
There's 71 pages In this topic. If you're going to tell someone to look upthread, you're gonna have to be more specific.
No, I don't. If I don't have time to search myself, I can at least point someone in the right general direction and not feel bad about it. Feel free to provide more specific direction yourself.
Turns out though, as other contributors here have noted, I may have misunderstood the thrust of sbeaver's original question anyway. :rolleyes:
It’s my understanding that a personal E-ZPass transponder can be used for only the lowest vehicle classes (basically passenger cars and light trucks), so I already anticipated that I wouldn’t be able to use it on a 26,000-lb. truck and would therefore need to pay cash.
Don't you need a commercial drivers license (https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/commercial-drivers-license) (CDL) to drive a truck weighing 26,001 pounds or more? Note that up to 26,000 pounds does not require a CDL.
Don't you need a commercial drivers license (https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/commercial-drivers-license) (CDL) to drive a truck weighing 26,001 pounds or more? Note that up to 26,000 pounds does not require a CDL.
Correct, so Penske’s largest non-CDL trucks have a nominal GVWR of 26,000 lbs.–squeaking in just under the limit.
I posted a photo of a CAT Scale ticket I got in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19815.msg2216704#msg2216704) I had going related to my relocation trip. The actual weight of the combination was 25,140 lbs., just over 800 shy of CDL territory.
Don't you need a commercial drivers license (https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/commercial-drivers-license) (CDL) to drive a truck weighing 26,001 pounds or more? Note that up to 26,000 pounds does not require a CDL.
Correct, so Penske’s largest non-CDL trucks have a nominal GVWR of 26,000 lbs.–squeaking in just under the limit.
I posted a photo of a CAT Scale ticket I got in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19815.msg2216704#msg2216704) I had going related to my relocation trip. The actual weight of the combination was 25,140 lbs., just over 800 shy of CDL territory.
It took a small army a little less than two years to build the original Turnpike, from Irwin to the outskirts of Carlisle.
Working almost around the clock from 1938 to 1940, 18,000 men bored through the Allegheny Mountains, leveled farmers' fields and paved their way across the valleys. They contended with tunnel collapses, labor unrest and irate farmers angered over the taking of their fields, and yet moved at a remarkable pace, paving a mile a day with solid concrete slabs over the compacted earth.
It was a breathtaking pace, made possible in part by the lack of modern regulation (there were no environmental considerations or stormwater drainage systems) and construction specifications that were somewhat rudimentary -- if groundbreaking at the time -- and largely developed as the road was planned and built.
In the end it was an unprecedented ribbon of concrete, unrolled across half of Pennsylvania. It marked not just a new road, but a new way of thinking about roads.
Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald is dropping his opposition to the proposed $2 billion Mon-Fayette Expressway extension from Jefferson Hills to Monroeville because the money can’t be used for any other projects in the Mon Valley.
Mr. Fitzgerald said Friday he would encourage the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission to add the highway to its list of approved Transportation Improvement Projects when it meets in June. Mr. Fitzgerald, secretary-treasurer of the 10-county group, led the move to table the project last month while officials checked whether money for the highway could be used for other Mon Valley projects that would be less expensive and could be accomplished sooner than the 20-year highway plan.
Mark Compton, CEO of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, told Mr. Fitzgerald in a letter dated March 31 that the state Legislature specifically earmarked funding for the expressway extension in 2007. The commission was charged with building the 14-mile toll road.
If that project doesn’t proceed, Mr. Compton wrote, the money could be used only for other turnpike extensions – not new projects – unless the law was changed. The estimated cost of the highway, which was proposed more than 40 years ago and has gone through several design changes, is now at $2 billion, up from $1.6 billion last year.
Good thinking. Going over 26,000 pounds gross without a CDL is a remarkably bad idea. Police that enforce motor carrier size and weight laws as well as commercial vehicle safety laws are usually on the lookout for larger box trucks with a stated GVW of just under 26,001 pounds.
Also of note, the PTC isn't planning on any extra fees/charges for the Bill-By-Plate, just the already higher cash toll (vs EZ-Pass) rate that you'd be paying with cash anyway.
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2017/04/30/cashless-tolling-beaver-valley-expressway/ (http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2017/04/30/cashless-tolling-beaver-valley-expressway/)
KDKA article about the cashless tolling.
With a nod to a classic movie, “the Pennsylvania Turnpike is mad as &*%$ and it’s not going to take it anymore.”
For as long as tolls have been collected on the turnpike, there have been drivers trying to evade the tolls and the lost dollars are adding up.
“Two years ago, we were chasing $30 million [in unpaid tolls], and of that we were writing off on an annual basis $3.5 million,” says PA Turnpike CEO Mark Compton. “Last year, we were chasing $40 million and we wrote off $5.4 million.”
“It continues to climb in large part due to the Delaware River Bridge, which is under the AET or cashless tolling,” he said. “Also we have interchanges that have come onto the system that are unmanned and E-ZPass only.”
I was contacted today by the Bedford County Commissioner who is/has revived the Abandoned Turnpike Pike 2 Bike concept. He also informed me that a Half and Full marathon will be ran on the abandoned Pike this october - including running through the tunnels. The link to the race event is here.I'm gonna see how many miles I can run tomorrow. If it's something more than 2 I might join you.
I may need to make time to start running again.
http://triviumracing.com/event/endoftheroad/
Earlier this week, I mentioned how there is new life and momentum on the project to create the Pike2Bike Trail. (Converting 8.5 miles of the abandoned PA Turnpike to a multi-use trail.) In addition to the planned half and full marathons, there are car enthusiast meetings, clean up days and other events planned for fundraising and awareness. Learn about the new progress here:Just curious... hos is it possible to setup 26.2 mile marathon on a 8.5 mile stretch? It is almost 3 times shorter...
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/06/2017-sees-new-interest-and-new-promise.html
Earlier this week, I mentioned how there is new life and momentum on the project to create the Pike2Bike Trail. (Converting 8.5 miles of the abandoned PA Turnpike to a multi-use trail.) In addition to the planned half and full marathons, there are car enthusiast meetings, clean up days and other events planned for fundraising and awareness. Learn about the new progress here:Just curious... hos is it possible to setup 26.2 mile marathon on a 8.5 mile stretch? It is almost 3 times shorter...
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/06/2017-sees-new-interest-and-new-promise.html
Because of today’s action, the most common toll for a passenger vehicle will increase next year from $1.23 to $1.30 for E-ZPass customers and from $1.95 to $2.10 for cash customers. The most common toll for a Class-5 vehicle – a prevalent tractor-trailer class – will increase from $10.17 to 10.78 for E-ZPass and from $14.45 to $15.35 for cash.
The toll increase will apply to all portions of the PA Turnpike system with these exceptions:
there will be no 2018 increase for E-ZPass or Toll-By-Plate customers at the Delaware River Bridge westbound cashless tolling point (#359) in Bucks County;
toll rates at the Keyser Avenue (#122) and Clarks Summit (#131) toll plazas on the Northeastern Extension (I-476) in Lackawanna County will not increase until April 2018 as a part of the planned conversion to cashless tolling (rates will be set closer to the conversion date using a new vehicle-classification system); and
toll rates at the Findlay Connector (PA Turnpike 576, Allegheny and Washington counties) will not increase until April 2018 as a part of the planned conversion to cashless tolling (rates will be set closer to the conversion date using a new vehicle-classification system)
^ Hard to believe that it costs about $8.30 for a car to go from U.S. 130 in Florence, NJ, to U.S. 13 in Bristol, PA, on the Turnpikes. Burlington County Bridge Commission should be thanking the turnpike authorities for the extra westbound traffic (revenue) on the Burlington-Bristol Bridge.
True, but when the majority of the Delaware River bridge tolls from the Turnpike crossing southward range from $4 to $5; $8.30 is indeed very steep for the region.^ Hard to believe that it costs about $8.30 for a car to go from U.S. 130 in Florence, NJ, to U.S. 13 in Bristol, PA, on the Turnpikes. Burlington County Bridge Commission should be thanking the turnpike authorities for the extra westbound traffic (revenue) on the Burlington-Bristol Bridge.
You want to talk criminally high toll rates, look at the port authority and the GWB/Holland Tunnel/Outerbridge/etc.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court's 2016 finding that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission wrongfully fired former employee Ralph Bailets after he challenged the work of a preferred IT contractor.
The court's order, according to Bailets' attorneys, requires the commission to pay $2.48 million, including $1.6 million for lost wages, all attorney fees stemming from his lengthy whistleblower action, and interest earned during the appeal.
The high court did grant the Turnpike Commission a partial victory, however, in agreeing to hear oral arguments on Commonwealth Court Judge Rochelle Friedman's award of an additional $1.6 million in non-economic damages to Bailets.
The commission's attorneys have argued that state law providing protection for whistleblowers does not provide for non-economic damages - money that's awarded as compensation for public humiliation, anxiety, etc.
Here's your chance to bid on a genuine used Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission call box. So far, no bids on any of them (10 are up for auction).
PA Turnpike Commission: Emergency Call Boxes (http://auctionsbygov.com/General/AuctionDetail/AuctionID/12127)
On the PTC wedsite under Design and Construction, the PTC has announced that they will be replacing 2 mainline bridges using the Accelerated Bridge Construction method. One on each side of the state. They expect in each case for the mainline to only be shut down for a weekend.
On the PTC wedsite under Design and Construction, the PTC has announced that they will be replacing 2 mainline bridges using the Accelerated Bridge Construction method. One on each side of the state. They expect in each case for the mainline to only be shut down for a weekend.
The closing in the West will be this weekend. Turnpike will be closed from 9 p.m. Friday to 4 a.m. Monday between I-376 (New Castle) and I-79
http://triblive.com/local/allegheny/12748809-74/weekend-turnpike-closure-means-long-detour-for-motorists
If I was going that way, I would use the combination of I-79 and I-70 to avoid this. It is about 50 miles on the Turnpike and the detour is about 92 miles, even though I-70 between New Stanton and Washington, Pennsylvania is having some construction work done but still has a high suck factor.On the PTC wedsite under Design and Construction, the PTC has announced that they will be replacing 2 mainline bridges using the Accelerated Bridge Construction method. One on each side of the state. They expect in each case for the mainline to only be shut down for a weekend.The closing in the West will be this weekend. Turnpike will be closed from 9 p.m. Friday to 4 a.m. Monday between I-376 (New Castle) and I-79
http://triblive.com/local/allegheny/12748809-74/weekend-turnpike-closure-means-long-detour-for-motorists
If I was going that way, I would use the combination of I-79 and I-70 to avoid this. It is about 50 miles on the Turnpike and the detour is about 92 miles, even though I-70 between New Stanton and Washington, Pennsylvania is having some construction work done but still has a high suck factor.On the PTC wedsite under Design and Construction, the PTC has announced that they will be replacing 2 mainline bridges using the Accelerated Bridge Construction method. One on each side of the state. They expect in each case for the mainline to only be shut down for a weekend.The closing in the West will be this weekend. Turnpike will be closed from 9 p.m. Friday to 4 a.m. Monday between I-376 (New Castle) and I-79
http://triblive.com/local/allegheny/12748809-74/weekend-turnpike-closure-means-long-detour-for-motorists
How about using I-79 and I-80 to bypass the segment? That is an extra 25 miles and is all-Interstate.
For through traffic on the Turnpikes, that is the approach to take. Eastbound exits the Ohio Turnpike west of Youngstown on i-80 East to 79 South in Pittsburgh and then pick up the Pennsylvania Turnpike again. Reverse the approach heading West. Much quicker than the posted detour.How about using I-79 and I-80 to bypass the segment? That is an extra 25 miles and is all-Interstate.If I was going that way, I would use the combination of I-79 and I-70 to avoid this. It is about 50 miles on the Turnpike and the detour is about 92 miles, even though I-70 between New Stanton and Washington, Pennsylvania is having some construction work done but still has a high suck factor.On the PTC wedsite under Design and Construction, the PTC has announced that they will be replacing 2 mainline bridges using the Accelerated Bridge Construction method. One on each side of the state. They expect in each case for the mainline to only be shut down for a weekend.The closing in the West will be this weekend. Turnpike will be closed from 9 p.m. Friday to 4 a.m. Monday between I-376 (New Castle) and I-79
http://triblive.com/local/allegheny/12748809-74/weekend-turnpike-closure-means-long-detour-for-motorists
For through traffic on the Turnpikes, that is the approach to take. Eastbound exits the Ohio Turnpike west of Youngstown on i-80 East to 79 South in Pittsburgh and then pick up the Pennsylvania Turnpike again. Reverse the approach heading West. Much quicker than the posted detour.
Sounds like the PTC wants to financially screw through traffic with more tolls by suggesting the 376/80/79 detour. This includes those entering PA from the west, paying full price at the border to go one exit then more tolls on I-376 either way. And those coming from I-79 will have to drop some coin somewhere if they follow the detour into Ohio.
Sounds like the PTC wants to financially screw through traffic with more tolls by suggesting the 376/80/79 detour. This includes those entering PA from the west, paying full price at the border to go one exit then more tolls on I-376 either way. And those coming from I-79 will have to drop some coin somewhere if they follow the detour into Ohio.
Well yeah, PTC doesn't want to lose money off of this detour. Note that the closed section is free, but exiting at I-376 requires paying a toll unless you utilize PA 351. They may actually MAKE money off of this thing (as shocking as that sounds).
Sounds like the PTC wants to financially screw through traffic with more tolls by suggesting the 376/80/79 detour. This includes those entering PA from the west, paying full price at the border to go one exit then more tolls on I-376 either way. And those coming from I-79 will have to drop some coin somewhere if they follow the detour into Ohio.
Well yeah, PTC doesn't want to lose money off of this detour. Note that the closed section is free, but exiting at I-376 requires paying a toll unless you utilize PA 351. They may actually MAKE money off of this thing (as shocking as that sounds).
Sounds like the PTC wants to financially screw through traffic with more tolls by suggesting the 376/80/79 detour. This includes those entering PA from the west, paying full price at the border to go one exit then more tolls on I-376 either way. And those coming from I-79 will have to drop some coin somewhere if they follow the detour into Ohio.
They kind of are
https://twitter.com/OhioTurnpike/status/911292139404918784
They kind of are
https://twitter.com/OhioTurnpike/status/911292139404918784
Heh heh heh. WB traffic will still get screwed over, but EB is good.
The PA TPKE YouTube video says tolls are waived.
The PA TPKE YouTube video says tolls are waived.
The PA TPKE YouTube video says tolls are waived.
I searched "Pennsylvania Turnpike" on YT and couldn't find the vid. Would you mind linking it, please?
ixnay
I searched "Pennsylvania Turnpike" on YT and couldn't find the vid. Would you mind linking it, please?Sure
ixnay
Again, they don't want to lose the toll money at the Ohio border. $7/car adds up ($5 for E-ZPass).
Again, they don't want to lose the toll money at the Ohio border. $7/car adds up ($5 for E-ZPass).
They just can't be that petty. It is only for 3 days and for an extraordinary situation of a full highway closure.
Yes, they can. Act 44 means they need all the money they can get.Again, they don't want to lose the toll money at the Ohio border. $7/car adds up ($5 for E-ZPass).They just can't be that petty. It is only for 3 days and for an extraordinary situation of a full highway closure.
Again, they don't want to lose the toll money at the Ohio border. $7/car adds up ($5 for E-ZPass).
They just can't be that petty. It is only for 3 days and for an extraordinary situation of a full highway closure.
Yes, they can. Act 44 means they need all the money they can get.
Long-distance traffic should just stay on I-80 to US 322 and hop on in Harrisburg. That would avoid the inevitable interchange congestion. With no traffic, difference is 15 minutes.
Long-distance traffic should just stay on I-80 to US 322 and hop on in Harrisburg. That would avoid the inevitable interchange congestion. With no traffic, difference is 15 minutes.
Via exit 161, then taking I-99 down to 322 in State College? State College would be slightly overshot this way.
ixnay
Very quietly, the northern section of the MM20-31 6-lane widening on the NE Ext/i-476, through Exit 31, is fully opened and completed. I didn't see any announcements or anything.I drove on that stretch 3 weeks ago & it was fully open/completed back then.
Even though this is more in the "Ohio Valley" portion of the state, the Trib has run a story saying that the Irwin <-> Monroeville section is "on hold" due to lack of money.
Also of interest, but no real additional information, is the notion of a new ramp touching down at Arona Rd & US-30
http://triblive.com/local/westmoreland/12808786-74/plans-to-widen-the-pennsylvania-turnpike-near-irwin-on-hold (http://triblive.com/local/westmoreland/12808786-74/plans-to-widen-the-pennsylvania-turnpike-near-irwin-on-hold)
Even though this is more in the "Ohio Valley" portion of the state, the Trib has run a story saying that the Irwin <-> Monroeville section is "on hold" due to lack of money.
Also of interest, but no real additional information, is the notion of a new ramp touching down at Arona Rd & US-30
http://triblive.com/local/westmoreland/12808786-74/plans-to-widen-the-pennsylvania-turnpike-near-irwin-on-hold (http://triblive.com/local/westmoreland/12808786-74/plans-to-widen-the-pennsylvania-turnpike-near-irwin-on-hold)
Act 44 and Act 89 strike again?
Then again, maybe the fact that a 5 mile widening project in a relatively rural area will potentially cost $300 million may cause them to rethink this project a bit.
Then again, maybe the fact that a 5 mile widening project in a relatively rural area will potentially cost $300 million may cause them to rethink this project a bit.I think the 300 million is for all 10 miles between Irwin & Monroeville (that looks like they are breaking down into 2 different construction segments, instead of all at once).
I don't know that I would classify it as rural. Part of the stretch has a fairly significant bridge over a valley, railroad tracks and at least one road (that isn't really that old, given it was replaced in the late 80's or early 90s) that is probably a big chunk of the cost.
PA Turnpike is raising the toll prices up 6 percent... AGAIN for the tenth straight year!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Article:
http://www.poconorecord.com/news/20171204/pennsylvania-turnpike-tolls-going-up-again-in-january
PA Turnpike is raising the toll prices up 6 percent... AGAIN for the tenth straight year!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Article:
http://www.poconorecord.com/news/20171204/pennsylvania-turnpike-tolls-going-up-again-in-january
PTC expects annual increases through 2044. They've built up a lot of debt because of transfer payments to PennDOT, and the Turnpike itself is an aging roadway with significant capital improvement needs. http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2015/07/pennsylvania_turnpike_tolls_ri.html
PA Turnpike is raising the toll prices up 6 percent... AGAIN for the tenth straight year!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Article:
http://www.poconorecord.com/news/20171204/pennsylvania-turnpike-tolls-going-up-again-in-january
PTC expects annual increases through 2044. They've built up a lot of debt because of transfer payments to PennDOT, and the Turnpike itself is an aging roadway with significant capital improvement needs. http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2015/07/pennsylvania_turnpike_tolls_ri.html
Another waste of money then. Why can't any state near the coasts seen to fit road funding right. Tolls are for that specific road, not for public transit subsidies, or at least they shouldn't be.PA Turnpike is raising the toll prices up 6 percent... AGAIN for the tenth straight year!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Article:
http://www.poconorecord.com/news/20171204/pennsylvania-turnpike-tolls-going-up-again-in-january
PTC expects annual increases through 2044. They've built up a lot of debt because of transfer payments to PennDOT, and the Turnpike itself is an aging roadway with significant capital improvement needs. http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2015/07/pennsylvania_turnpike_tolls_ri.html
I think it's important to note that those transfer payments are not going to PennDOT to be used for anything having to do with the Pennsylvania Turnpike, but to be spent on transit subsidies across the state, starting with SEPTA (Philadelphia) and the Port Authority of Allegheny County (Pittsburgh). As best as I can tell, none of the transit service being subsidized by Turnpike customers has anything to do with the Turnpike either.
Another waste of money then. Why can't any state near the coasts seen to fit road funding right. Tolls are for that specific road, not for public transit subsidies, or at least they shouldn't be.Welcome to PA... SEPTA was always the pauper before ACT 44 passed through, and I appreciate it because I take their regional rail every day. Tripping down memory lane, the PATP wasn't in the most generous mood for expansions before ACT44. That seems to have opened the floodgates for all sorts of expansion/reconstruction projects, since they are "allowed" to increase tolls every year without needing a new justification.
Hurricane Rex, I believe all of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority's toll revenues stay with the roads they control, the Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway. As a a result, the NJ Turnpike is extremely well engineered and maintained and it's my favorite American Autobahn. :)
Hurricane Rex, I believe all of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority's toll revenues stay with the roads they control, the Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway. As a result, the NJ Turnpike is extremely well engineered and maintained and it's my favorite American Autobahn. :)
NJTA hasn't built any extensions since the 1960s, and PTC has built 90 miles since the 1990s. That said, the 16-mile Beaver Valley Expwy. is the only actual extension of the Turnpike, the others are off the system and are subsidized by mainline toll revenues.The NJTA built the 6-9 widening just now. From Ints. 6-8A was brand new dualized roadways in a very expensive state for new right-of-way. They've also widening large swaths of the Garden State Parkway and built several new interchanges. The key is absolutely Act 44, it has nothing to do with where the money goes in the toll system.
PTC has made a lot of progress on the original turnpike, may reach 30% of the mileage upgraded to modern 6-lane standards in about 5 to 7 years. That said, a lot of toll revenue is siphoned off to off-system toll highway extensions and to mass transit systems, and as SignBridge said the NJTP is built and maintained to much higher standards.
The NJTA actually diverts a significant amount of money to the state. In 2016, $294,000,000 was paid to the State from the NJTA. See Page 42 (PDF page 54) of the audited financial statements: http://www.njta.com/media/3448/2016-annual-report-final-complete.pdf . You'll see the line item "Payments to the State of New Jersey". It should be noted that the payment in 2016 was down quite a bit from 2015's payment of $354 million.The money that has gone to the State is for projects like Pulaski Skyway. The NJTA is only allowed to pay the state for projects that demonstrate a direct benefit to the NJTA's assets. The ARC tunnel was an example. Demonstrating the benefit is key, and individual to each project.
Because the NJTA is flush with money, it doesn't require the toll increases that the PA Turnpike needs to do. However, while it still works well, there's a noticeable decline in some of the maintenance that's normally done. In the past, one would never see ruts in the lanes. And there's a significant amount of paving work that needs to get done in the very heavily traveled portions of the Turnpike North of Exit 14.
The money that has gone to the State is for projects like Pulaski Skyway. The NJTA is only allowed to pay the state for projects that demonstrate a direct benefit to the NJTA's assets. The ARC tunnel was an example. Demonstrating the benefit is key, and individual to each project.
As for your noted lack of maintenance - there's a very good reason for that. The entire system of both Turnpike and Parkway largely dates to the early 1950s. All of the bridges are now hitting their end of lives and need significant work. So a) with such a large volume of bridges, money gets spread thinner, and b) the bridges are a much higher priority (structural integrity) than pavement quality.
The next widening project on the NE Ext/I-476 is beginning - MM31-38.
https://www.paturnpike.com/Press/2018/20180206113455.htm (https://www.paturnpike.com/Press/2018/20180206113455.htm)
Will it eventually be six lanes all the way to exit 56?
I had thought not, but apparently they are. In any event, PennDOT’s 2016 maps show a slight bump over the numbers in the PTC’s 2015 report: 65K, 51K, and 46K.
I had thought not, but apparently they are. In any event, PennDOT’s 2016 maps show a slight bump over the numbers in the PTC’s 2015 report: 65K, 51K, and 46K.
I was only able to find it by searching “pa turnpike aadt” , and I came up with a few deep links to PDFs on the PTC’s servers. 2015 is the most recent year for which I could find reports.
Here’s a report for through traffic: https://www.paturnpike.com/yourTurnpike/Reports-Main/2015%20Reports/2015_Mainline_AADT_Report.pdf (https://www.paturnpike.com/yourTurnpike/Reports-Main/2015%20Reports/2015_Mainline_AADT_Report.pdf)
And here’s one for exit traffic: https://www.paturnpike.com/yourTurnpike/Reports-Main/2015%20Reports/2015_Interchange_AADT_Report.pdf (https://www.paturnpike.com/yourTurnpike/Reports-Main/2015%20Reports/2015_Interchange_AADT_Report.pdf)
They provide some nice detail in that traffic counts are broken down by direction (EB vs. WB or entering vs. exiting), and the percentage of truck traffic is given for each reporting location. Not surprisingly, traffic volume is highest in metro Philadelphia and peaks between Mid-County and Fort Washington (120,088), which is also where the truck percentage bottoms out (11%). Truck volume peaks around 33% between Breezewood and Carlisle which is also where mainline volume tanks–hovering around 23K total.
Traffic volume drops by about a third north of the Lehigh Valley Interchange, so I doubt widening will extend beyond that point in the near future. Also, I previously noted that a couple of recent construction projects–the new Lehigh River bridges near Lehighton and the new Hickory Run Interchange–allow more shoulder room than previous NE Extension facilities, but neither is wide enough to accommodate six lanes. So apparently, the PTC doesn’t consider widening the road to Pocono or beyond in the cards within the serviceable life of those new facilities.
I saw that in the 2014 report, very high volumes between Mid-County and Fort Washington. Those are 8-lane warrants. Is it seriously congesting during peak hours with the existing 6 lanes?
And even if they did, that would create an occasionally h u g e bottleneck at the Lehigh tubes, right?
I saw that in the 2014 report, very high volumes between Mid-County and Fort Washington. Those are 8-lane warrants. Is it seriously congesting during peak hours with the existing 6 lanes?
In the afternoon rush, eastbound especially, traffic is usually very heavy coming out of the Valley Forge Interchange and frequently slowing to a standstill from the Norristown ramps through the merge from I-476 North to I-276 East. It remains slow through Fort Washington and generally starts to pick up speed east of there.
Since I live along I-476 and rarely have reason to drive straight through on I-276, I most often encounter this when attempting to head north on the NE Extension anytime during the PM rush. After getting around the backup that forms on the loop ramp from I-476 North to I-76 West at Conshohocken, traffic bound for I-276 East will back up through the Mid-County toll plaza, sometimes as far back as Conshohocken.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission made a $3.7 million mistake in the way it handled potentially hazardous material as part of the construction of the Southern Beltway in Washington County.
The state Department of Environmental Protection ordered that an acid solution known as pickle liquor sludge found during excavation must be treated as hazardous material. Instead of removing and storing 66,000 tons of pickle liquor sludge found last spring and summer for reuse elsewhere at the site, as turnpike designers called for, workers will have to take it to a licensed landfill as a hazardous material. As a result, the commission board last week approved a $3.7 million change order in the contract for Independence Excavating of Cleveland to cover the cost of hauling and landfill fees, as well as covering the areas where it had been temporarily stored.
Pittsburgh Post Gazette: Pennsylvania Turnpike made $3.7 million mistake in Southern Beltway construction (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2018/03/13/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-Southern-Beltway-3-7-million-mistake-hazardous-pickle-liquor-sludge/stories/201803130166)
Pittsburgh Post Gazette: Pennsylvania Turnpike made $3.7 million mistake in Southern Beltway construction (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2018/03/13/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-Southern-Beltway-3-7-million-mistake-hazardous-pickle-liquor-sludge/stories/201803130166)
It would help if they provided a better description of this material. It has nothing to do with the common definitions of pickles and liquor. Plus there is 66 thousand tons of the stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickling_(metal)
Pickling is a metal surface treatment used to remove impurities, such as stains, inorganic contaminants, rust or scale from ferrous metals, copper, precious metals and aluminum alloys. A solution called pickle liquor, which usually contains acid, is used to remove the surface impurities. It is commonly used to descale or clean steel in various steelmaking processes.
Pickling sludge is the waste product from pickling, and includes acidic rinse waters, iron chlorides, and metallic salts and waste acid. Spent pickle liquor is considered a hazardous waste by the EPA. Pickle sludge from steel processes is usually neutralized with lime and disposed of in a landfill since the EPA no longer deems it a hazardous waste after neutralization. The lime neutralization process raises the pH of the spent acid. The waste material is subject to a waste determination to ensure no characteristic or listed waste is present. Since the 1960s, hydrochloric pickling sludge is often treated in a hydrochloric acid regeneration system, which recovers some of the hydrochloric acid and ferric oxide. The rest must still be neutralized and disposed of in land fills or managed as a hazardous waste based on the waste profile analysis. The by-products of nitric acid pickling are marketable to other industries, such as fertilizer processors.
Pittsburgh Post Gazette: Pennsylvania Turnpike made $3.7 million mistake in Southern Beltway construction (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2018/03/13/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-Southern-Beltway-3-7-million-mistake-hazardous-pickle-liquor-sludge/stories/201803130166)
It would help if they provided a better description of this material. It has nothing to do with the common definitions of pickles and liquor. Plus there is 66 thousand tons of the stuff.
Perhaps because this part of Pennsylvania was once a major producer of steel, the writer and the editor assumed that readers would know what (spent) pickle liquor is?Pittsburgh Post Gazette: Pennsylvania Turnpike made $3.7 million mistake in Southern Beltway construction (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2018/03/13/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-Southern-Beltway-3-7-million-mistake-hazardous-pickle-liquor-sludge/stories/201803130166)It would help if they provided a better description of this material. It has nothing to do with the common definitions of pickles and liquor. Plus there is 66 thousand tons of the stuff.
I knew it was a byproduct of steel production from a project I worked on decades ago that had nothing to do with steel, but did have to do with transport of hazardous materials (a load of this has to be placarded with code 1760). You can see the details here (http://usa.arcelormittal.com/~/media/Files/A/Arcelormittal-USA-V2/what-we-do/product-compliance/safety-data-sheets/201506_FerrousChlorideSolution-SpentPickleLiquorSDSUSA-6002.pdf) or here (http://www.hannasteel.com/HANNA%20Spent%20Pickle%20Liquor%20SDS%206.1.2015.pdf).
As much as I have read about highway EIS related issues, I had never heard about this before. Maybe because it has been decades since it was used and dumped anywhere? Lots of their readers would be too young to remember when it was produced.
The better question might be this - why was there never a circumferential freeway built around Pittsburgh in the first place?
The better question might be this - why was there never a circumferential freeway built around Pittsburgh in the first place?
Without giving the matter a great deal of detailed contemplation, my initial reaction is that the answer seems fairly obvious: Pittsburgh is already bypassed by all of the major through routes that come anywhere near it (I-70, I-76, I-79).
The better question might be this - why was there never a circumferential freeway built around Pittsburgh in the first place?
Without giving the matter a great deal of detailed contemplation, my initial reaction is that the answer seems fairly obvious: Pittsburgh is already bypassed by all of the major through routes that come anywhere near it (I-70, I-76, I-79).
I'm sure the biggest, and most obvious answer to the question is: Money (or lack of)
Yes–according to most planning maps I’ve seen, at least a couple of beltway-type routes were planned at various points, including the ones shown on the 1963 map below that Jeff Kitsko has on his website.
The better question might be this - why was there never a circumferential freeway built around Pittsburgh in the first place?Without giving the matter a great deal of detailed contemplation, my initial reaction is that the answer seems fairly obvious: Pittsburgh is already bypassed by all of the major through routes that come anywhere near it (I-70, I-76, I-79). So a beltway would serve little purpose other than to facilitate suburb-to-suburb commuting–and accelerate patterns of migration and development which are dependent on that kind of suburban access.
Yes–according to most planning maps I’ve seen, at least a couple of beltway-type routes were planned at various points, including the ones shown on the 1963 map below that Jeff Kitsko has on his website.
So my guess is that, since suburb-to-suburb beltways weren’t among the region’s most pressing transportation needs in the 1950s and ’60s, those projects were deferred as PennDOT prioritized the routes to and through downtown Pittsburgh. Then by the time those routes were completed in the 1970s, there was no additional funding available, so the beltway routes (and others) were scrapped indefinitely.
(http://www.pahighways.com/graphics/maps/pgh1963.jpg)
As most know, the Southern Beltway is under construction down to I79, also I understand that ROW work for PA 43 up to the Kennywood area will start soon.
I do recall that the rerouting of U.S. 15 and U.S. 11 near Shamokin Dam was impacted by massive deposits of coal ash (nasty stuff) from a coal-fired generating station there. PennDOT ended up changing the route because of the cost associated with remediating the coal ash dump.
The better question might be this - why was there never a circumferential freeway built around Pittsburgh in the first place? I realize that there is the (rough) outline of such a road by combining the awful part of I-70 between Washington and New Stanton, I-76 (Penna. Turnpike), and I-79 (or part of I-376), but none of those appear to have been routed to be a circumferential, and just combining I-70, I-76 and I-79 into a "beltway" is almost 130 miles (example here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.1844936,-80.2285737/40.2199741,-79.6001912/40.6748038,-80.0960914/40.1847784,-80.2291832/@40.3273544,-80.5494935,9z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0)).
The next phase of the widening project is starting up, with about 8 or 9 miles of new cattle chute in place starting north of ExitFTFY2031 (Lansdale).
The next phase of the widening project is starting up, with about 8 or 9 miles of new cattle chute in place starting north of ExitFTFY2031 (Lansdale).
Two major trucking groups have filed a multi-billion dollar class action lawsuit against Pennsylvania for imposing “excessive tolls” on drivers.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and the National Motorists Association filed suit against the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission in a federal court in Harrisburg last week, according to PennLive (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2018/03/truckers_lawsuit_pa_turnpike_t.html).
CDLLife.com: Truckers sue Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission for $6 billion in unconstitutional tolls - "Truckers and motorists are not ATMs to fund everything under the sun." (https://cdllife.com/2018/truckers-sue-pennsylvania-turnpike-commission-for-6-billion-in-unconstitutional-tolls/)
Two major trucking groups have filed a multi-billion dollar class action lawsuit against Pennsylvania for imposing excessive tolls on drivers.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and the National Motorists Association filed suit against the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission in a federal court in Harrisburg last week, according to PennLive (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2018/03/truckers_lawsuit_pa_turnpike_t.html).
I don't know if they have much of a fight. There's numerous roads around where tolls don't go exclusively to the toll road. I believe the PA Turnpike doesn't even have an out-of-state penalty like other systems have. And at 13.2 cents per mile (for cars), it's not even the most expensive toll road by far by the mile. What the PA Turnpike suffers from is simply it's a very long roadway.
Also, when truckers start to complain they are paying more money but aren't the majority of traffic, they again shift the blame away from the damage they cause. Trucking agencies for years have tried to complain, sue and do anything they can to sway the public mind...and public officials...and courts...that they are paying more than need be. It generally hasn't worked.
PA Turnpike is certainly the most expensive long-distance toll road in the area. Comparing to bridges/tunnels or to HOT/express lanes is apples-oranges. The Delaware Turnpike is certainly an outlier, though. Even using the full length rather than just the tolled section yields a very high per-mile rate.CDLLife.com: Truckers sue Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission for $6 billion in unconstitutional tolls - "Truckers and motorists are not ATMs to fund everything under the sun." (https://cdllife.com/2018/truckers-sue-pennsylvania-turnpike-commission-for-6-billion-in-unconstitutional-tolls/)
Two major trucking groups have filed a multi-billion dollar class action lawsuit against Pennsylvania for imposing excessive tolls on drivers.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and the National Motorists Association filed suit against the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission in a federal court in Harrisburg last week, according to PennLive (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2018/03/truckers_lawsuit_pa_turnpike_t.html).
I don't know if they have much of a fight. There's numerous roads around where tolls don't go exclusively to the toll road. I believe the PA Turnpike doesn't even have an out-of-state penalty like other systems have. And at 13.2 cents per mile (for cars), it's not even the most expensive toll road by far by the mile. What the PA Turnpike suffers from is simply it's a very long roadway.
Also, when truckers start to complain they are paying more money but aren't the majority of traffic, they again shift the blame away from the damage they cause. Trucking agencies for years have tried to complain, sue and do anything they can to sway the public mind...and public officials...and courts...that they are paying more than need be. It generally hasn't worked.
PA Turnpike is certainly the most expensive long-distance toll road in the area. Comparing to bridges/tunnels or to HOT/express lanes is apples-oranges. The Delaware Turnpike is certainly an outlier, though. Even using the full length rather than just the tolled section yields a very high per-mile rate.
And if the Truckers win what is there to stop the PTC from going "no trucks"?Obstruction of (Interstate) Commerce.
Wasn't there a lawsuit recently by truckers against the NYS Thruway over toll rates regarding its financial support of the Barge Canal?Also all the other canals. I presume that one disappeared when the Canal Corporation was transferred to the Power Authority, rendering the lawsuit moot.
And if the Truckers win what is there to stop the PTC from going "no trucks"?
Wow. Just wow.
https://www.wpxi.com/news/trending-now/woman-faces-charges-after-racking-up-almost-92000-in-unpaid-turnpike-tolls-fees/731190036 (https://www.wpxi.com/news/trending-now/woman-faces-charges-after-racking-up-almost-92000-in-unpaid-turnpike-tolls-fees/731190036)
Wow. Just wow.
https://www.wpxi.com/news/trending-now/woman-faces-charges-after-racking-up-almost-92000-in-unpaid-turnpike-tolls-fees/731190036 (https://www.wpxi.com/news/trending-now/woman-faces-charges-after-racking-up-almost-92000-in-unpaid-turnpike-tolls-fees/731190036)
And that was just from one trip end to end :-D
Wow. Just wow.
https://www.wpxi.com/news/trending-now/woman-faces-charges-after-racking-up-almost-92000-in-unpaid-turnpike-tolls-fees/731190036 (https://www.wpxi.com/news/trending-now/woman-faces-charges-after-racking-up-almost-92000-in-unpaid-turnpike-tolls-fees/731190036)
So once that's done, all that's left will be PA 66, the Mon-Fayette Expressway, the Southern Beltway (coming soon,) and Gateway. Then it's onto the ticket system.
So once that's done, all that's left will be PA 66, the Mon-Fayette Expressway, the Southern Beltway (coming soon,) and Gateway. Then it's onto the ticket system.
The Southern Beltway is going AET on April 29 as well. Here, they are going to remove the ramp toll plazas. An overhead gantry has been installed along the mainline south of US 30.
So once that's done, all that's left will be PA 66, the Mon-Fayette Expressway, the Southern Beltway (coming soon,) and Gateway. Then it's onto the ticket system.
The Southern Beltway is going AET on April 29 as well. Here, they are going to remove the ramp toll plazas. An overhead gantry has been installed along the mainline south of US 30.
If/When the mainline does go to AET, what will the PTC do for the odd "mostly-free" section that runs between I-79 and the Ohio Turnpike? Unless you are entering the Penna Pike eastbound from the Ohio Turnpike, you can currently go anywhere on the westernmost section no charge.
I would assume the free-rides would go bye-bye when AET happens?
If/When the mainline does go to AET, what will the PTC do for the odd "mostly-free" section that runs between I-79 and the Ohio Turnpike? Unless you are entering the Penna Pike eastbound from the Ohio Turnpike, you can currently go anywhere on the westernmost section no charge.
I would assume the free-rides would go bye-bye when AET happens?
Southern Beltway conversion has been delayed for additional testingSo once that's done, all that's left will be PA 66, the Mon-Fayette Expressway, the Southern Beltway (coming soon,) and Gateway. Then it's onto the ticket system.
The Southern Beltway is going AET on April 29 as well. Here, they are going to remove the ramp toll plazas. An overhead gantry has been installed along the mainline south of US 30.
I'm curious to know if anyone has noticed how just like many of the interchanges on I 95 in Maryland, the Reading interchange had its high mast lights replaced by low level lighting within this past decade?FTE is doing that here in Florida too. Do not know why as high mast light up a much larger area and use less candle power. I guess with the new LED lights it does not matter, however even when the orange sodium lights were king, some agencies in the Sunshine State also chose the lower traditional lights over the tall ones as well.
I would assume the lowering of the lights' height is to keep the light on the roadway it was intended to illuminate. High mast lights probably cast a decent amount of light on adjacent neighborhoods, much to residents' chagrin.I'm curious to know if anyone has noticed how just like many of the interchanges on I 95 in Maryland, the Reading interchange had its high mast lights replaced by low level lighting within this past decade?FTE is doing that here in Florida too. Do not know why as high mast light up a much larger area and use less candle power. I guess with the new LED lights it does not matter, however even when the orange sodium lights were king, some agencies in the Sunshine State also chose the lower traditional lights over the tall ones as well.
I would assume the lowering of the lights' height is to keep the light on the roadway it was intended to illuminate. High mast lights probably cast a decent amount of light on adjacent neighborhoods, much to residents' chagrin.I'm curious to know if anyone has noticed how just like many of the interchanges on I 95 in Maryland, the Reading interchange had its high mast lights replaced by low level lighting within this past decade?FTE is doing that here in Florida too. Do not know why as high mast light up a much larger area and use less candle power. I guess with the new LED lights it does not matter, however even when the orange sodium lights were king, some agencies in the Sunshine State also chose the lower traditional lights over the tall ones as well.
Ten years after the failure of an SAP enterprise software installation at the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission that exposed a pay-to-play bribery scandal, Ciber Inc. has agreed to pay the commission just $2 million of the $45 million that the agency demanded in a 2012 lawsuit.
The complaint accused Ciber of overcharging the commission by tens of millions of dollars above the actual cost of the installation. Ciber also failed to get the system working to run the turnpike’s finance, accounting, service, maintenance, purchasing, and other systems. The failure forced the turnpike to hire SAP employees and use its own staff to do work it had already paid Ciber for, the turnpike commission said in its complaint.
That is just part of the fallout from the turnpike’s notorious software case. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in March ordered the agency to pay $4.2 million in damages, costs, and interest to whistleblower Ralph Bailets, the turnpike’s former manager of financial systems and reporting, for unfairly firing him.
I would assume the lowering of the lights' height is to keep the light on the roadway it was intended to illuminate. High mast lights probably cast a decent amount of light on adjacent neighborhoods, much to residents' chagrin.I'm curious to know if anyone has noticed how just like many of the interchanges on I 95 in Maryland, the Reading interchange had its high mast lights replaced by low level lighting within this past decade?FTE is doing that here in Florida too. Do not know why as high mast light up a much larger area and use less candle power. I guess with the new LED lights it does not matter, however even when the orange sodium lights were king, some agencies in the Sunshine State also chose the lower traditional lights over the tall ones as well.
Has anyone seen an official statement from a DOT as to why they are replacing high mast lighting with standard luminaires?
I thought I read a few years ago that many the masts were reaching the end of their useful lives, and there was a risk of them falling, AND it was cheaper to replace with standard lights vs new high-mast lights. There were several in the Philadelphia area where the lights were lowered for quite a while before removed.
I'm curious to know if anyone has noticed how just like many of the interchanges on I 95 in Maryland, the Reading interchange had its high mast lights replaced by low level lighting within this past decade?FTE is doing that here in Florida too. Do not know why as high mast light up a much larger area and use less candle power. I guess with the new LED lights it does not matter, however even when the orange sodium lights were king, some agencies in the Sunshine State also chose the lower traditional lights over the tall ones as well.
Question: Once the ticketed parts of the turnpike go AET, will the EZ-Pass-only exits stay that way, or will they be accessible to anyone?
Speaking of speed limits, is the section east of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel still that bad that it's still only 55 mph, even with the realignments and improvements? It seems like it could be at least 60, though I know the PTC likes to keep their 55-70 thing going. I wonder what the actual traffic speeds through here are?
Speaking of speed limits, is the section east of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel still that bad that it's still only 55 mph, even with the realignments and improvements? It seems like it could be at least 60, though I know the PTC likes to keep their 55-70 thing going. I wonder what the actual traffic speeds through here are?
I don't recall it being 55 MPH the last time I was through there (Fall 2017), though GSV captured a 55 MPH speed limit sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9575976,-78.8243992,3a,75y,187.25h,78.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snfOfvjjzKwdMvJ6wH-U6jA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in October 2016 on the eastbound side (downhill) partway between the eastern portal of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel and the church at New Baltimore.
After that sign, there are two more 55 signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9557683,-78.822449,3a,75y,158.73h,82.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbQsj4L_MxgSJP7w7JsW30g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), which are about a work zone ahead, apparently for a turnpike widening project (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.971804,-78.8034526,3a,29.1y,61.48h,84.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMNbFA-XVsQOO3p5BCpNZtg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Speaking of speed limits, is the section east of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel still that bad that it's still only 55 mph, even with the realignments and improvements? It seems like it could be at least 60, though I know the PTC likes to keep their 55-70 thing going. I wonder what the actual traffic speeds through here are?It was when I went through there on Friday, though not well signed. It leaves one to wonder if the signage for the speed limit returning to 70 is simply missing only to throw in a 55 sign miles later.
HARRISBURG, PA (May 29, 2018) – The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) today announced that Cashless Tolling will go live June 3 on the Findlay Connector section of the Southern Beltway (PA Turnpike 576) in Washington and Allegheny counties. “Cashless” means there will be no coin baskets along the roadway; cash will no longer be accepted.
Customers who use the Findlay Connector will no longer pay at the six on/off ramp toll plazas, which will be removed. Beginning June 3, they will pay electronically at a new location on the Findlay Connector mainline – an “open-road” toll zone at milepost 2.6 where equipment is suspended from an overhead gantry. Findlay Connector trips which are now tolled between Exits 1-2 and Exits 4-6 will become free after conversion.
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).
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 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).
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.
PA Turnpike Commission Approves Toll Increase for 2019. Six percent increase for all vehicles will start Jan. 6 next year. (https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2018/20180703144436.htm)
Bold emphasis added in the below-quote:Quote from: PA Turnpike WebsiteThe 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.
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).
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).
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).
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?
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'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?
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?
Had Willow Hill been unstaffed? It's about a decade since I've used that interchange.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.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.
Another thing that dates it is the use of I-81E instead of I-380, which Wikipedia tells me changed in 1973.
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.
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.
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.
And there’s no mention of the PA 9 designation on the NE Extension that was added in 1974.:confused: I thought the PA 9 designation for the NE Extension didn't happen until 1980.
And there’s no mention of the PA 9 designation on the NE Extension that was added in 1974.:confused: I thought the PA 9 designation for the NE Extension didn't happen until 1980.
If one clicks on the PA 9 link (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA1-50.html#PA9) further down in your posted link; one reads (bold emphasis added below):And there’s no mention of the PA 9 designation on the NE Extension that was added in 1974.:confused: I thought the PA 9 designation for the NE Extension didn't happen until 1980.
I’m going by the PAHighways page on I-476 (http://www.pahighways.com/interstates/I476.html) which at the bottom lists “Former Designations...PA 9 (1974-1996)” .
In 1980, it was revived to designate the Northeast Extension of the Turnpike.
On another topic, I'm curious as to why the Zelienople service plaza closed. Ever since the closure, there is an 82 mile gap in westbound services between New Stanton and Mahoning Valley (on the Ohio Turnpike). I could understand it being closed eastbound because of the nearby Oakmont Plum, but not westbound. Was it closed due to finances, or Turnpike work in the area (such as widening)?
Given that the now long-gone porcelain button-copy BGS' from the 1970s for the NE Extension displayed only the PA Turnpike shield & no other route shield; it's a reasonable assumption that 1980 was the correct date.Was this the case on signage on the mainline as well? Rarely would I hear people in PA refer to "476" or "76," it was always just "the Turnpike" and "the Extension."
Example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania001/us-022_wb_at_pa-309_sb.jpg)
This one at the Norristown interchange had a PA 9 shield slapped on it during the early 90s:
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-76-276.jpg)
Then & now, the PTC hardly use pull-through signs for its mainline corridors; it only uses such at locations where a route number changes (example: Valley Forge I-76/276, route numbers are used). Even at locations where a route enters/exits the Turnpike (example: I-70 at both Breezwood & New Stanton interchanges); the PTC rarely uses pull-through signage.Given that the now long-gone porcelain button-copy BGS' from the 1970s for the NE Extension displayed only the PA Turnpike shield & no other route shield; it's a reasonable assumption that 1980 was the correct date.Was this the case on signage on the mainline as well? Rarely would I hear people in PA refer to "476" or "76," it was always just "the Turnpike" and "the Extension."
Example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania001/us-022_wb_at_pa-309_sb.jpg)
This one at the Norristown interchange had a PA 9 shield slapped on it during the early 90s:
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-76-276.jpg)
Sorry, I meant to ask if that was the case on signage approaching the turnpike (i.e. after you pass through the toll booth but before entering the highway).Then & now, the PTC hardly use pull-through signs for its mainline corridors; it only uses such at locations where a route number changes (example: Valley Forge I-76/276, route numbers are used). Even at locations where a route enters/exits the Turnpike (example: I-70 at both Breezwood & New Stanton interchanges); the PTC rarely uses pull-through signage.Given that the now long-gone porcelain button-copy BGS' from the 1970s for the NE Extension displayed only the PA Turnpike shield & no other route shield; it's a reasonable assumption that 1980 was the correct date.Was this the case on signage on the mainline as well? Rarely would I hear people in PA refer to "476" or "76," it was always just "the Turnpike" and "the Extension."
Example:
<photo>
This one at the Norristown interchange had a PA 9 shield slapped on it during the early 90s:
<photo>
The use of pull-through signage at the I-376/Pittsburgh interchange (Exit 57) is a carry-over from when I-76 used to exit off the Turnpike and follow the current I-376 into Pittsburgh (the Turnpike west of there was I-80S) prior to 1972.
Sorry, I meant to ask if that was the case on signage approaching the turnpike (i.e. after you pass through the toll booth but before entering the highway).Old-school signage beyond the toll plaza simply listed a control city (in all-CAPS button-copy) & direction cardinal. Prior to the NE Extension receiving the I-476 designation; these old signs did not have PA 9 trailblazer signage. As a matter of fact, there was very little PA 9 signage posted along the Extension even through the mid-1990s.
Sorry, I meant to ask if that was the case on signage approaching the turnpike (i.e. after you pass through the toll booth but before entering the highway).Old-school signage beyond the toll plaza simply listed a control city (in all-CAPS button-copy) & direction cardinal. Prior to the NE Extension receiving the I-476 designation; these old signs did not have PA 9 trailblazer signage. As a matter of fact, there was very little PA 9 signage posted along the Extension even through the mid-1990s.
When the NE Extension became I-476, supplemental I-476 trailblazer signage was added to the surviving old-school signs (usually posted underneath the main signage). Most of these old signs were replaced during the early 2000s with more standard MUTCD-compliant BGS'.
I went to college from 1996-2000; my usual route from Long Island was to take I-80 through NJ to I-380 to I-81 to NY-79. Near Scranton (and I think on I-80 and I-380 as well if memory serves), signage pointing out the Northeast Extension had a PA-9 keystone maker thrown on the sign almost as an afterthought. In one case, I distinctly remember a rural BGS on the side of the road with a PA-9 keystone slapped under the BGS on one of the support posts. It's almost as if PennDOT and/or PTC resisted signing the PA-9 designation.It's quite possible that PA may have been anticipating seeking an Interstate designation for the NE Extension long before 1996; they may have wanted to wait and see if/when the Blue Route portion of I-476 would ever connect to the Turnpike (it did circa 1992). As result, the PTC was likely directed to erect minimal PA 9 signage. No sense placing a whole bunch of route shields along a road if they're going to be taken down a relatively short time later.
I noticed the same pattern on the old 70s-style button copy signs on I-80 at PA-940/I-476 when I was growing up, likewise with the pictures. Again, I personally feel like the PA Turnpike signage just said that because all people cared about was that it was the Turnpike and nothing else.Sorry, I meant to ask if that was the case on signage approaching the turnpike (i.e. after you pass through the toll booth but before entering the highway).Old-school signage beyond the toll plaza simply listed a control city (in all-CAPS button-copy) & direction cardinal. Prior to the NE Extension receiving the I-476 designation; these old signs did not have PA 9 trailblazer signage. As a matter of fact, there was very little PA 9 signage posted along the Extension even through the mid-1990s.
When the NE Extension became I-476, supplemental I-476 trailblazer signage was added to the surviving old-school signs (usually posted underneath the main signage). Most of these old signs were replaced during the early 2000s with more standard MUTCD-compliant BGS'.
I went to college from 1996-2000; my usual route from Long Island was to take I-80 through NJ to I-380 to I-81 to NY-79. Near Scranton (and I think on I-80 and I-380 as well if memory serves), signage pointing out the Northeast Extension had a PA-9 keystone maker thrown on the sign almost as an afterthought. In one case, I distinctly remember a rural BGS on the side of the road with a PA-9 keystone slapped under the BGS on one of the support posts. It's almost as if PennDOT and/or PTC resisted signing the PA-9 designation.
I was 2 when PA-9 was turned over to I-476 so I've just been dying to see photos of signs with the designation. I remember back in 2003 or so we were driving on I-476 around Villanova (where my uncle lived at the time) and there was a sign that said "I-476 Formerly PA-9" or something like that.I went to college from 1996-2000; my usual route from Long Island was to take I-80 through NJ to I-380 to I-81 to NY-79. Near Scranton (and I think on I-80 and I-380 as well if memory serves), signage pointing out the Northeast Extension had a PA-9 keystone maker thrown on the sign almost as an afterthought. In one case, I distinctly remember a rural BGS on the side of the road with a PA-9 keystone slapped under the BGS on one of the support posts. It's almost as if PennDOT and/or PTC resisted signing the PA-9 designation.It's quite possible that PA may have been anticipating seeking an Interstate designation for the NE Extension long before 1996; they may have wanted to wait and see if/when the Blue Route portion of I-476 would ever connect to the Turnpike (it did circa 1992). As result, the PTC was likely directed to erect minimal PA 9 signage. No sense placing a whole bunch of route shields along a road if they're going to be taken down a relatively short time later.
(and of course I'm wrong since I just checked Steve Alpert's site, notice the signage at US-11/I-76: http://alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-81/n.html)
(what IS Del Water Gap anyway? it's not a town...)
Yeah, I remember that too back when I started really paying attention to roads. What really got me were the ancient signs on I-81/83 in Harrisburg when we went on a field trip there in 5th grade. I just remember thinking, "why does the state capital have such old worn out signs?" Also remember the ones on I-180 in Williamsport...and US-1 north of Philadelphia (Yardley/Newtown area). I didn't really like them much as a kid, thinking that they just made the road look like PennDOT stopped caring about it, but then I grew to like those signs.(and of course I'm wrong since I just checked Steve Alpert's site, notice the signage at US-11/I-76: http://alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-81/n.html)
I remember a metric crap-ton of those center-tabbed, button-copy BGSs from 1996-2000 on the section of I-80 from the NJ state line (what IS Del Water Gap anyway? it's not a town...) to I-380. Even back then I thought "holy crap those look OLD." Of course they didn't have the new exit numbers pasted haphazardly on the signs, since PA hadn't changed to milepost-based exit numbers yet. I remember also thinking it incredibly stupid that PA didn't assign exit numbers to interstate-interstate junctions, so it was something like exit 53 down to exit 49, junction I-380, then exit 48 or something dumb like that. I'd think... "Okay, exit 52... what exit is I-380? It isn't an exit? WTF mate?"
I was 2 when PA-9 was turned over to I-476 so I've just been dying to see photos of signs with the designation. I remember back in 2003 or so we were driving on I-476 around Villanova (where my uncle lived at the time) and there was a sign that said "I-476 Formerly PA-9" or something like that.Found this one from 1993 while doing a Google Search (for PA Route 9):
(what IS Del Water Gap anyway? it's not a town...)
Technically, there is a borough with that name in PA: https://www.delawarewatergap.com/
Otherwise, Delaware Water Gap is referring to a National Recreation Area.
I was 2 when PA-9 was turned over to I-476 so I've just been dying to see photos of signs with the designation. I remember back in 2003 or so we were driving on I-476 around Villanova (where my uncle lived at the time) and there was a sign that said "I-476 Formerly PA-9" or something like that.Found this one from 1993 while doing a Google Search (for PA Route 9):
...img snip...
This one shows a PA 9 shield underneath the I-476 shield (at the PA 100/Downingtown interchange):
..img snip...
Not much else.
Another example at the Norristown Interchange, that was even moved to the new monotube (before those were replaced).Containing the erroneous 76 WEST message. Thankfully, the replacement sign has the correct (for this location) 276 WEST message.
https://goo.gl/maps/82T2odygPdv
Aha...I'd been wondering about that one for a while, wasn't sure where it disappeared to.I was 2 when PA-9 was turned over to I-476 so I've just been dying to see photos of signs with the designation. I remember back in 2003 or so we were driving on I-476 around Villanova (where my uncle lived at the time) and there was a sign that said "I-476 Formerly PA-9" or something like that.Found this one from 1993 while doing a Google Search (for PA Route 9):
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-276-pa-9.jpg)
Another example at the Norristown Interchange, that was even moved to the new monotube (before those were replaced).Containing the erroneous 76 WEST message. Thankfully, the replacement sign has the correct (for this location) 276 WEST message.
https://goo.gl/maps/82T2odygPdv
(and of course I'm wrong since I just checked Steve Alpert's site, notice the signage at US-11/I-76: http://alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-81/n.html)
I remember a metric crap-ton of those center-tabbed, button-copy BGSs from 1996-2000 on the section of I-80 from the NJ state line (what IS Del Water Gap anyway? it's not a town...) to I-380. Even back then I thought "holy crap those look OLD."
(what IS Del Water Gap anyway? it's not a town...)
what IS Del Water Gap anyway?
I LOVED that style of BGSs! Ohio had a few like that and so did Colorado, but PA's seemed to last the longest.
Was that center, no-line tab something that the MUTCD (if it was around then) was experimenting with in the early-mid 70s?
The phrase "manual of uniform traffic control devices"On, not of. (:
Earlier this month, I clinched the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The six-lane segments near Pittsburgh and Harrisburg look great, and I look forward to seeing more and more of the Turnpike get reconstructed and widened, especially in western Pennsylvania, where the four-lane segments are in much worse shape than they are in eastern Pennsylvania. I was actually surprised by how well-kept the four-lane segment from Harrisburg to the outer Philadelphia suburbs is, and because of that, I predict that the segment from Harrisburg to near Reading will be the last to get reconstructed and widened.
By the way, if the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and PennDOT are not going to fix Breezewood anytime soon, then they need to build a direct connection between the Turnpike and I-99 in Bedford, and reconstruct and widen the segment from Bedford to Breezewood to six lanes. There was a random traffic jam where the Turnpike climbs the hill just east of Bedford. Another thing to consider is tacking on extra lanes on the four-lane segment from New Stanton to Donegal that was reconstructed 15-20 years ago.
By the way, if the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and PennDOT are not going to fix Breezewood anytime soon, then they need to build a direct connection between the Turnpike and I-99 in Bedford, and reconstruct and widen the segment from Bedford to Breezewood to six lanes. There was a random traffic jam where the Turnpike climbs the hill just east of Bedford. Another thing to consider is tacking on extra lanes on the four-lane segment from New Stanton to Donegal that was reconstructed 15-20 years ago.
On another topic, I'm curious as to why the Zelienople service plaza closed. Ever since the closure, there is an 82 mile gap in westbound services between New Stanton and Mahoning Valley (on the Ohio Turnpike). I could understand it being closed eastbound because of the nearby Oakmont Plum, but not westbound. Was it closed due to finances, or Turnpike work in the area (such as widening)?
I'm guessing because of them making that section of the Turnpike free. More people now get off at US-19/I-79 (Cranberry) to use the services there than they would have in the past do to no toll booths anymore.
and the non-toll roads in Mass.
and the non-toll roads in Mass.
I lived in Mass from 2000-2008 (with the exception of a brief period that I lived in NH). I don't recall a service plaza located anywhere off the Mass Pike. Unless you are counting the free section between exits 1 and 6?
^ I seem to recall reading something about a Howard Johnson’s restaurant formerly having been wedged into a small parcel (such as in the median or within an interchange) directly attached to I-93 near Quincy. Does anyone recall the details?That Hojo's was along I-93 southbound (Southeast Expressway) just prior to the Braintree Split (Exit 7/MA 3). It was torn down when Southeast Expressway was overhauled circa 1984-85.
There's also one along MA 128 northbound in Beverly just beyond Exit 19 (Sohier Rd//Brimbal Ave.)and the non-toll roads in Mass.
I lived in Mass from 2000-2008 (with the exception of a brief period that I lived in NH). I don't recall a service plaza located anywhere off the Mass Pike. Unless you are counting the free section between exits 1 and 6?
There are several (but not many) off the Pike. The ones that come to mind are I-95 southbound in Newton (just north of MA 16), I-95 northbound in Lexington (just south of MA 2A), and both directions of MA 24 just north of the I-495 junction.
OT... but it looks like that area was still used for staging 10 years later according to the historic aerials. I know the whole split was rehabbed in the early 2000s, so maybe it didn't revert to its current green state until after that.^ I seem to recall reading something about a Howard Johnson’s restaurant formerly having been wedged into a small parcel (such as in the median or within an interchange) directly attached to I-93 near Quincy. Does anyone recall the details?That Hojo's was along I-93 southbound (Southeast Expressway) just prior to the Braintree Split (Exit 7/MA 3). It was torn down when Southeast Expressway was overhauled circa 1984-85.
On a slightly different note, the only parts of the PA Turnpike system that aren't AET (and not on the mainline or NE Extension) are the Mon-Fayette Expressway and PA 66. Do you think that the PTC wants all that done before moving on to the main sections?
There are several (but not many) off the Pike. The ones that come to mind are I-95 southbound in Newton (just north of MA 16), I-95 northbound in Lexington (just south of MA 2A), and both directions of MA 24 just north of the I-495 junction.
I drove through there last night around 10 p.m. and the tunnel traffic was reduced to one lane in each direction with southbound traffic directed to crossover to the northbound (old, rectangular) tube. I wondered why–and now I know. Thanks for the update. I’ll be sure to notice the lighting next time through.
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
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
Bumping this conversation up, Google Street View recently drove through and here's what the ticket machines now read (not too much information from it though): https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0941592,-77.8134294,3a,72.6y,84.17h,64.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8kiSMUUmPMqtDDsfViWZrw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
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
Bumping this conversation up, Google Street View recently drove through and here's what the ticket machines now read (not too much information from it though): https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0941592,-77.8134294,3a,72.6y,84.17h,64.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8kiSMUUmPMqtDDsfViWZrw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Looks like they rebuilt one of the self-service machines that were used on the N.E. Extension at Kaiser Rd & Clarks Summit (From 2012: https://goo.gl/maps/RMqs5LPcA7G2)
Since the conversion to AET there, they put plywood over the old machines... You can sort-of see the old LED matrix that was halfway between the upper and lower baskets.
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
Bumping this conversation up, Google Street View recently drove through and here's what the ticket machines now read (not too much information from it though): https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0941592,-77.8134294,3a,72.6y,84.17h,64.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8kiSMUUmPMqtDDsfViWZrw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Looks like they rebuilt one of the self-service machines that were used on the N.E. Extension at Kaiser Rd & Clarks Summit (From 2012: https://goo.gl/maps/RMqs5LPcA7G2)
Since the conversion to AET there, they put plywood over the old machines... You can sort-of see the old LED matrix that was halfway between the upper and lower baskets.
They actually used to be the same machines that were on the Ohio Turnpike. There is still a video of the machine on the Turnpike website
https://www.paturnpike.com/yourTurnpike/multimedia_presentations.aspx
^ Thanks. This is the first I have seen of this schedule.
One note on the timeline . . . is there a future Exit 289 EZPass exit to be constructed (see October 2022 target), or should it say 298? Does not seem like much out there for such an interchange.
So they're just going to have traffic go slowly through the existing barriers at many spots? Wow, they're REALLY cheaping out on this!
Unless there is a future interchange in the pipeline we're not aware of; one would have to assume that the listing was supposed to be Exit 286 (US 222/PA 272).^ Thanks. This is the first I have seen of this schedule.
One note on the timeline . . . is there a future Exit 289 EZPass exit to be constructed (see October 2022 target), or should it say 298? Does not seem like much out there for such an interchange.
I'm hoping that meant Exit 286, as that one IMO should be ORT.
Unless there is a future interchange in the pipeline we're not aware of; one would have to assume that the listing was supposed to be Exit 286 (US 222/PA 272).^ Thanks. This is the first I have seen of this schedule.
One note on the timeline . . . is there a future Exit 289 EZPass exit to be constructed (see October 2022 target), or should it say 298? Does not seem like much out there for such an interchange.
I'm hoping that meant Exit 286, as that one IMO should be ORT.
If the eastern section won't use tickets, they'll have to build a new mainline toll plaza, right? It would get an "exit" number just like Warrendale and Neshaminy Falls.
Unless there is a future interchange in the pipeline we're not aware of; one would have to assume that the listing was supposed to be Exit 286 (US 222/PA 272).^ Thanks. This is the first I have seen of this schedule.
One note on the timeline . . . is there a future Exit 289 EZPass exit to be constructed (see October 2022 target), or should it say 298? Does not seem like much out there for such an interchange.
I'm hoping that meant Exit 286, as that one IMO should be ORT.
If the eastern section won't use tickets, they'll have to build a new mainline toll plaza, right? It would get an "exit" number just like Warrendale and Neshaminy Falls.
I was thinking that the ramps east of Exit 286 would be converted to gantry points at the same place as the current booths, but that wouldn't work with calculating tolls for non-EZPass users, would it? Would the software track entry and exit points for every license plate?
So maybe the plan is to build a new mainline toll plaza around MP 289? Pure speculation on my part...
It looks like the both sections will go AET at the same time (Oct 2022), the difference is in some places the existing plazas will stay, whereas the eastern portion will transition to ORT - no tickets either side.
I was thinking that the ramps east of Exit 286 would be converted to gantry points at the same place as the current booths, but that wouldn't work with calculating tolls for non-EZPass users, would it? Would the software track entry and exit points for every license plate?
So maybe the plan is to build a new mainline toll plaza around MP 289? Pure speculation on my part...
It will be interesting to see if any free-travel zones are created in the ORT section. Or additional "slip ramp" interchanges, (City of) Norristown comes immediately to mind.Personally, I would like to see such happen along the I-276 stretch. At present, many locals avoid using it (for travel between one or two interchanges) due to the high tolls.
It will be interesting to see if any free-travel zones are created in the ORT section. Or additional "slip ramp" interchanges, (City of) Norristown comes immediately to mind.Personally, I would like to see such happen along the I-276 stretch. At present, many locals avoid using it (for travel between one or two interchanges) due to the high tolls.
^ Thanks. This is the first I have seen of this schedule.
One note on the timeline . . . is there a future Exit 289 EZPass exit to be constructed (see October 2022 target), or should it say 298? Does not seem like much out there for such an interchange.
Personally, I would like to see such happen along the I-276 stretch. At present, many locals avoid using it (for travel between one or two interchanges) due to the high tolls.I wonder if this is intentional to keep locals from using the toll road for such a short stretch, which would inevitably invite congestion onto the highway and the interchanges.
The thing is, one of the reasons why much of it was widened (to six lanes) during the 1980s was to somewhat compensate for the absence of the 10-Mile Loop Expressway. Such would've acted in the same manner that I-295 in South Jersey does with respect to the NJ Turnpike. That Expressway was originally planned to be built & completed circa 1985 but was dropped from any further planning circa 1977.It will be interesting to see if any free-travel zones are created in the ORT section. Or additional "slip ramp" interchanges, (City of) Norristown comes immediately to mind.Personally, I would like to see such happen along the I-276 stretch. At present, many locals avoid using it (for travel between one or two interchanges) due to the high tolls.
I wonder if this is intentional to keep locals from using the toll road for such a short stretch, which would inevitably invite congestion onto the highway and the interchanges.
The thing is, one of the reasons why much of it was widened (to six lanes) during the 1980s was to somewhat compensate for the absence of the 10-Mile Loop Expressway. Such would've acted in the same manner that I-295 in South Jersey does with respect to the NJ Turnpike. That Expressway was originally planned to be built & completed circa 1985 but was dropped from any further planning circa 1977.
The thing is, one of the reasons why much of it was widened (to six lanes) during the 1980s was to somewhat compensate for the absence of the 10-Mile Loop Expressway. Such would've acted in the same manner that I-295 in South Jersey does with respect to the NJ Turnpike. That Expressway was originally planned to be built & completed circa 1985 but was dropped from any further planning circa 1977.
The segment between I-476 and PA-309 has grown to beyond 100,000 AADT, and as such has warrants for eight lane (4 each way) widening.
Does the PTC plan to remove the toll plazas from the newly-AET sections at some point?
Does the PTC plan to remove the toll plazas from the newly-AET sections at some point?
Since tolls are no longer being collected at 576's exits, I would assume they will come down. The ones for 376 will probably have the canopies removed and replaced with gantries for the tag readers and cameras.
So they're just going to have traffic go slowly through the existing barriers at many spots? Wow, they're REALLY cheaping out on this!
I don't know exactly when this was put up, but it wasn't there the day the Turnpike-95 flyovers opened when my dad and I went over to drive them. The sign was entirely Highway Gothic, which makes it very likely that the PTC has not switched back to Clearview. (PennDOT I'm not so sure.)"Has not switched back to Clearview"...what do you mean? I thought Clearview was now officially deemed unacceptable? And I thought PennDOT has now switched back to Highway Gothic too?
I don't know exactly when this was put up, but it wasn't there the day the Turnpike-95 flyovers opened when my dad and I went over to drive them. The sign was entirely Highway Gothic, which makes it very likely that the PTC has not switched back to Clearview. (PennDOT I'm not so sure.)"Has not switched back to Clearview"...what do you mean? I thought Clearview was now officially deemed unacceptable? And I thought PennDOT has now switched back to Highway Gothic too?
I don't know exactly when this was put up, but it wasn't there the day the Turnpike-95 flyovers opened when my dad and I went over to drive them. The sign was entirely Highway Gothic, which makes it very likely that the PTC has not switched back to Clearview. (PennDOT I'm not so sure.)"Has not switched back to Clearview"...what do you mean? I thought Clearview was now officially deemed unacceptable? And I thought PennDOT has now switched back to Highway Gothic too?
"Did you ever have to make up your mind
And pick up on one and leave the other behind?"
Make up *your* mind, highway officials!
ixnay
Well I found something that did pass the US House (Title I, Section 125)... https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3354?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22h+res+555%22%5D%7DI don't know exactly when this was put up, but it wasn't there the day the Turnpike-95 flyovers opened when my dad and I went over to drive them. The sign was entirely Highway Gothic, which makes it very likely that the PTC has not switched back to Clearview. (PennDOT I'm not so sure.)"Has not switched back to Clearview"...what do you mean? I thought Clearview was now officially deemed unacceptable? And I thought PennDOT has now switched back to Highway Gothic too?
"Did you ever have to make up your mind
And pick up on one and leave the other behind?"
Make up *your* mind, highway officials!
ixnay
Wasn't it Congress that reinstated approval in a bill or something?
As before, it's up to the states to use it or not. Hopefully PennDOT and/or the PTC realize that maybe there's a reason the FHWA would yank approval.
Just to summarize–this isn't a matter of the FHWA or any DOT being indecisive.And since that happened; three state DOT agencies (KY, TX & VA) have presently since reintroduced usage of the Clearview font per the original IA.
After over a decade of review, FHWA decided to rescind its interim approval of Clearview–and by doing, in effect mandating that state DOTs revert back to using standard FHWA sign alphabets.
A group of legislators representing Texas ramrodded through a line item in a kitchen sink appropriations bill forcing FHWA to allow Clearview once again.
According to the Turnpike's 2019 toll schedule and No Cash Zone website, the Fort Littleton and Blue Mountain interchanges have joined Willow Hill as being unattended. If you don't have E-ZPass, it's toll-by-plate and you get a bill in the mail.
Well, if they didn't, people would be able to take those toll tickets and use them on other trips where they enter from a different interchange. Though it does strike me as odd to spend money on ticket scanners and automatic collection based on tickets when it will be switching to true AET soon.Aren't the tickets time stamped? I doubt PTC would believe someone entering on January 15 at 12pm would be exiting on January 16 at 2pm.
They are dated and time-stamped.Well, if they didn't, people would be able to take those toll tickets and use them on other trips where they enter from a different interchange. Though it does strike me as odd to spend money on ticket scanners and automatic collection based on tickets when it will be switching to true AET soon.Aren't the tickets time stamped? I doubt PTC would believe someone entering on January 15 at 12pm would be exiting on January 16 at 2pm.
They are dated and time-stamped.Well, if they didn't, people would be able to take those toll tickets and use them on other trips where they enter from a different interchange. Though it does strike me as odd to spend money on ticket scanners and automatic collection based on tickets when it will be switching to true AET soon.Aren't the tickets time stamped? I doubt PTC would believe someone entering on January 15 at 12pm would be exiting on January 16 at 2pm.
SM-G965U
(2) The presentation to a State Trooper or toll collector of a toll ticket which indicates that the patron has exceeded the travel time allotted based on the max-time formula, where the patron cannot produce satisfactory physical evidence, including the driver’s record of duty status, demonstrating that the age of the ticket was the result of actual excess time spent legitimately on the Turnpike system by the patron and was not the result of fare evasion or attempted fare evasion.
Yes, there is: The PTC refers to the time limit as the “Max Time Formula” , and being in possession of a toll ticket whose age exceeds the Max Time Formula is considered to be a violation of Pennsylvania Code 601.13 - Evasion of fare:
Yes, there is: The PTC refers to the time limit as the “Max Time Formula” , and being in possession of a toll ticket whose age exceeds the Max Time Formula is considered to be a violation of Pennsylvania Code 601.13 - Evasion of fare:
I've seen many references to it, but I've never seen the actual formula. Does anyone know what it might be?
Yes, there is: The PTC refers to the time limit as the “Max Time Formula” , and being in possession of a toll ticket whose age exceeds the Max Time Formula is considered to be a violation of Pennsylvania Code 601.13 - Evasion of fare:
I've seen many references to it, but I've never seen the actual formula. Does anyone know what it might be?
That's my question, too.
ixnay
Yes, there is: The PTC refers to the time limit as the “Max Time Formula” , and being in possession of a toll ticket whose age exceeds the Max Time Formula is considered to be a violation of Pennsylvania Code 601.13 - Evasion of fare:Quote from: Pennsylvania Code 601.13(2) The presentation to a State Trooper or toll collector of a toll ticket which indicates that the patron has exceeded the travel time allotted based on the max-time formula, where the patron cannot produce satisfactory physical evidence, including the driver’s record of duty status, demonstrating that the age of the ticket was the result of actual excess time spent legitimately on the Turnpike system by the patron and was not the result of fare evasion or attempted fare evasion.
But in reality, they're looking for someone who presents a toll ticket from another day, or an impossible location. If you're ticket shows you got on in Harrisburg, yet you're on the Turnpike in Breezewood heading east to Philly, it's fairly obvious you're intending on using that toll ticket to pay a fare lower than what you should be paying.
You could also be directionally challenged and went west from Harrisburg, then made an illegal U-turn somewhere around Irwin to get back on the right track. :-)
You could also be directionally challenged and went west from Harrisburg, then made an illegal U-turn somewhere around Irwin to get back on the right track. :-)
Or just enter the eastbound lanes at Sideling Hill instead of the westbound lanes.
SM-G965U
Would they even have a way of knowing if you went the wrong direction? The exits are trumpet interchanges with a single toll plaza, so unless you get off at the same exit you got your ticket from, there's no way to know. I'm pretty sure state troopers aren't randomly pulling people over or running checkpoints to look at people's toll tickets.
Would they even have a way of knowing if you went the wrong direction?
Would they even have a way of knowing if you went the wrong direction?
Youre right in that state troopers arent pulling people over, but there is a definite way to know that a motorist is going the wrong direction. In short, you cant be headed toward the interchange from which your toll ticket was issued. Since there are no means of making a legal U-turn within the closed ticket system, you must always be headed away from your point of origin.
My sense is that all of the laws about fare evasion give the PTC and PASP a number of means, not only to fight motorists attempts at evading tolls, but also to keep vagrants off the Turnpike. Not that theyre actively patrolling for fare evaders, but in my admittedly limited experience, law enforcement officers appreciate having as many tools at their disposal as possible.
"They" in this case is the toll collector, since of course the police aren't going to be quizzing you on your toll ticket in normal circumstances.Would they even have a way of knowing if you went the wrong direction?
You’re right in that state troopers aren’t pulling people over, but there is a definite way to know that a motorist is going the wrong direction. In short, you can’t be headed toward the interchange from which your toll ticket was issued. Since there are no means of making a legal U-turn within the closed ticket system, you must always be headed away from your point of origin.
My sense is that all of the laws about fare evasion give the PTC and PASP a number of means, not only to fight motorists’ attempts at evading tolls, but also to keep vagrants off the Turnpike. Not that they’re actively patrolling for fare evaders, but in my admittedly limited experience, law enforcement officers appreciate having as many tools at their disposal as possible.
It's not a mathematical calculation per se. It's a reasonableness formula.
I remember working on the NJTP years back and getting a huge number of same interchange tickets. Everyone was saying something about an accident at Burlington-Mt Holly toll plaza and the cops were turning people around and putting them back on the TP before they could go through the toll plaza and exit. So some people came back to where they had originally entered. Most were annoyed to pay the $4 or whatever it was. I had to show a charge for the vehicle in the system and so it was complain but pay.
It is to tie in to the east of the PA 791/Rodi Road interchange.I thought it was coming into the PA 8 interchange. Is that dead?
It is to tie in to the east of the PA 791/Rodi Road interchange.I thought it was coming into the PA 8 interchange. Is that dead?
It is to tie in to the east of the PA 791/Rodi Road interchange.I thought it was coming into the PA 8 interchange. Is that dead?
https://www.philly.com/transportation/septa-projects-halted-pennsylvania-turnpike-suit-truckers-penndot-20190225.htmlAre the proverbial chickens coming to roost?QuoteSEPTA officials put almost 40 improvement projects on hold this month as it awaits the outcome of a lawsuit that could slash a third of its capital budget by this summer.
Construction that is underway is continuing, but design work on 21 projects has stopped.QuoteIn March, a truckers’ trade association and a drivers’ advocacy group filed a federal lawsuit arguing that turnpike tolls are at least 200 percent more expensive than they should be. The suit also contends that using toll revenue to fund transit violates the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause, which regulates interstate commerce. It claims that toll money should go only toward maintaining the turnpike system and that Pennsylvania was wrong to allocate toll revenue for transit with laws passed in 2007 and 2013. The high tolls interfere with interstate trade, the suit argues.
I can't remember if I asked this before or not, but which service plaza on the turnpike would you say is the most popular?Breezewood.../sarcasm
I can't remember if I asked this before or not, but which service plaza on the turnpike would you say is the most popular?
I'm quite sure I just heard a first on the drive home tonight on WMMR: A Pennsylvania Turnpike commercial informing people, in case of vehicle issues, to dial *11 and look for and utilize the green milepost signs to tell the dispatcher their location! I've never heard milepost signs actually used in such a far-reaching PSA before!
MIDDLETOWN, Pa. –
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is facing an $11 billion debt load and a lawsuit.
Mark Compton, CEO of the Turnpike, said a law passed by the state Legislative more than a decade ago is to blame for part of the debt. The law requires the Turnpike to use toll money to pay PennDOT $450 million per year for highway, bridge and mass transit projects.
https://www.wgal.com/article/pa-turnpike-facing-dollar11-billion-debt-lawsuit/26722047
They also had a picture of an old "Exits" sign.
(https://i.ibb.co/Jq8Qw7M/IMG-20170329-113617715-HDR.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DYmpHCS)
They also had a picture of an old "Exits" sign.
(https://i.ibb.co/Jq8Qw7M/IMG-20170329-113617715-HDR.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DYmpHCS)
Notice the shield for U.S. (now PA) 230. The PATP may have been the first superhighway to use route shields on exit signs. Were route shields used on the Middlesex to Irwin segment in 1940? When did the PTC switch to green exit signs?
ixnay
Hardly unique. Maaaaany other states did that early on.They also had a picture of an old "Exits" sign.
(https://i.ibb.co/Jq8Qw7M/IMG-20170329-113617715-HDR.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DYmpHCS)
Notice the shield for U.S. (now PA) 230. The PATP may have been the first superhighway to use route shields on exit signs. Were route shields used on the Middlesex to Irwin segment in 1940? When did the PTC switch to green exit signs?
ixnay
Something I'm curious about is whether PA's seemingly unique former practice of centered exit tabs came first from the Turnpike as seen in this photo.
Connecticut did it for many, many years until recently.Hardly unique. Maaaaany other states did that early on.They also had a picture of an old "Exits" sign.
(photo)
Notice the shield for U.S. (now PA) 230. The PATP may have been the first superhighway to use route shields on exit signs. Were route shields used on the Middlesex to Irwin segment in 1940? When did the PTC switch to green exit signs?
ixnay
Something I'm curious about is whether PA's seemingly unique former practice of centered exit tabs came first from the Turnpike as seen in this photo.
Hardly unique. Maaaaany other states did that early on.They also had a picture of an old "Exits" sign.
(https://i.ibb.co/Jq8Qw7M/IMG-20170329-113617715-HDR.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DYmpHCS)
Notice the shield for U.S. (now PA) 230. The PATP may have been the first superhighway to use route shields on exit signs. Were route shields used on the Middlesex to Irwin segment in 1940? When did the PTC switch to green exit signs?
ixnay
Something I'm curious about is whether PA's seemingly unique former practice of centered exit tabs came first from the Turnpike as seen in this photo.
Philly Inquirer article: Pa. Auditor: Legislature should end or cut $450 million Turnpike Commission transit payment to PennDotInteresting that the photo in the article is of a New Jersey Turnpike toll plaza and signing . . .
https://www.philly.com/news/pennsylvania-turnpike-commission-eugene-depasquale-tolls-debt-20190321.html
At least one of the comments/commenters below the linked-article stated the same thing.Philly Inquirer article: Pa. Auditor: Legislature should end or cut $450 million Turnpike Commission transit payment to PennDotInteresting that the photo in the article is of a New Jersey Turnpike toll plaza and signing . . .
https://www.philly.com/news/pennsylvania-turnpike-commission-eugene-depasquale-tolls-debt-20190321.html
Philly Inquirer article: Pa. Auditor: Legislature should end or cut $450 million Turnpike Commission transit payment to PennDotThey're right, you know.
https://www.philly.com/news/pennsylvania-turnpike-commission-eugene-depasquale-tolls-debt-20190321.html
Changing subjects, to the ongoing route 283 reconstruction around the PATP, does anybody know if Penndot is lengthening the PA 283 bridges over the Turnpike to allow for the (far) future widening eastward from the new Swatara Creek bridge?
Changing subjects, to the ongoing route 283 reconstruction around the PATP, does anybody know if Penndot is lengthening the PA 283 bridges over the Turnpike to allow for the (far) future widening eastward from the new Swatara Creek bridge?
It didn't look like they did anything more than rehabilitate the bridge when I drove through this weekend.
Officials take steps to clean the PA Turnpike.PA Turnpike declared cleanest highway in America.
PA Turnpike closed between Downington & Valley Forge due to crash involving truck filled with soap.
https://www.philly.com/news/pennsylvania-turnpike-soap-spill-crash-downingtown-valley-forge-20190326.html
https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/judge-rejects-lawsuit-over-pennsylvania-turnpike-toll-hikes/ (https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/judge-rejects-lawsuit-over-pennsylvania-turnpike-toll-hikes/)
Either the article or the judge herself didn't go into too much detail about the decision.
Also, a plaintiffs’ lawyer says they’ll appeal.
Why the FOCK has reconstruction slowed down so much? It was going at a brisk pace for a while, but it's slowed way down in the last year or so.
QuoteWhy the FOCK has reconstruction slowed down so much? It was going at a brisk pace for a while, but it's slowed way down in the last year or so.
They are running out of money. The PTC is behind in their Act 44 payments to PennDOT as well.
QuoteWhy the FOCK has reconstruction slowed down so much? It was going at a brisk pace for a while, but it's slowed way down in the last year or so.
They are running out of money. The PTC is behind in their Act 44 payments to PennDOT as well.
Act 44 should be repealed with extreme prejudice.
Is the Freedom Road Bridge project under way?
Is the Freedom Road Bridge project under way?
This is a fairly specific question dealing with signing on the eastbound approach to the Breezewood interchange.
There are a couple of "Truck Alert" signs with the following messages, apparently the first two in a sequence of three or more:
Truck Alert - Avoid US 30 East Breezewood To McConnellsburg . . . (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9858343,-78.2976242,3a,15y,138.16h,92.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqTF5U1c5fxGT0duGwDU3RA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Truck Alert - . . . 3 1/2 Mile Hill On US 30 East Bad Curves . . . (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9827157,-78.2812077,3a,17.3y,122.62h,94.73t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipMNljM4LaE3wH6qtl_jT60ra-HR1vmmWth-s-8A!2e10!3e11!7i7680!8i3840)
The use of a trailing ellipsis on the second sign suggests that a third was posted at some point, possibly specifying difficult grades in addition to the "bad curves," but I cannot find it in StreetView. Does anyone know if it existed and, if so, what it said?
This is a fairly specific question dealing with signing on the eastbound approach to the Breezewood interchange.
There are a couple of "Truck Alert" signs with the following messages, apparently the first two in a sequence of three or more:
Truck Alert - Avoid US 30 East Breezewood To McConnellsburg . . . (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9858343,-78.2976242,3a,15y,138.16h,92.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqTF5U1c5fxGT0duGwDU3RA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Truck Alert - . . . 3 1/2 Mile Hill On US 30 East Bad Curves . . . (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9827157,-78.2812077,3a,17.3y,122.62h,94.73t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipMNljM4LaE3wH6qtl_jT60ra-HR1vmmWth-s-8A!2e10!3e11!7i7680!8i3840)
The use of a trailing ellipsis on the second sign suggests that a third was posted at some point, possibly specifying difficult grades in addition to the "bad curves," but I cannot find it in StreetView. Does anyone know if it existed and, if so, what it said?
This is a fairly specific question dealing with signing on the eastbound approach to the Breezewood interchange.
There are a couple of "Truck Alert" signs with the following messages, apparently the first two in a sequence of three or more:
Truck Alert - Avoid US 30 East Breezewood To McConnellsburg . . . (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9858343,-78.2976242,3a,15y,138.16h,92.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqTF5U1c5fxGT0duGwDU3RA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Truck Alert - . . . 3 1/2 Mile Hill On US 30 East Bad Curves . . . (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9827157,-78.2812077,3a,17.3y,122.62h,94.73t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipMNljM4LaE3wH6qtl_jT60ra-HR1vmmWth-s-8A!2e10!3e11!7i7680!8i3840)
The use of a trailing ellipsis on the second sign suggests that a third was posted at some point, possibly specifying difficult grades in addition to the "bad curves," but I cannot find it in StreetView. Does anyone know if it existed and, if so, what it said?
Also, I noticed the PTC is installing a new system for two-way operations at the Tuscarora Tunnel. Starting about a mile before the tunnel, they have installed concrete barrier on the left side with automated swinging barriers. They are orange semi-circle barriers with black-on-orange chevron symbols. I'm guessing the purpose is to keep traffic from being in the lane that will handle oncoming traffic inside the tunnel.
The article doesn't indicate if the Turnpike plans to install overhead gantries on the westbound side and have the toll be 2-way again, or if they plan on keeping it the doubled toll 1-way, eastbound, indefinitely.Given that this AET conversion along the PA Turnpike is incremental (aka piece-meal) vs. the instantaneous AET conversions that took place along the entire Mass Pike (I-90) as well as the three Boston Harbor crossings just over 3 years ago; I wouldn't expect to hear any talk of returning of any 2-way conversions, where applicable, until the entire PA Turnpike is AET.
The article doesn't indicate if the Turnpike plans to install overhead gantries on the westbound side and have the toll be 2-way again, or if they plan on keeping it the doubled toll 1-way, eastbound, indefinitely.
The article doesn't indicate if the Turnpike plans to install overhead gantries on the westbound side and have the toll be 2-way again, or if they plan on keeping it the doubled toll 1-way, eastbound, indefinitely.
It makes sense to continue the 1 way tolling. Tolling both directions involve increased costs for equipment, transactions, billings, mailings, 2nd mailings, etc.
Unless there's a huge difference in traffic numbers from people avoiding the 1 way toll, continue with the status quo.
The article doesn't indicate if the Turnpike plans to install overhead gantries on the westbound side and have the toll be 2-way again, or if they plan on keeping it the doubled toll 1-way, eastbound, indefinitely.
It makes sense to continue the 1 way tolling. Tolling both directions involve increased costs for equipment, transactions, billings, mailings, 2nd mailings, etc.
Unless there's a huge difference in traffic numbers from people avoiding the 1 way toll, continue with the status quo.
I have to imagine the $5.50 E-ZPass toll drives some people off the Turnpike. Personally, I'd like to see AET bring 2-way tolling along the entire section from the OH state line to Warrendale. The toll-free zone came about from the difficulty in having a toll plaza at the reconstructed Cranberry interchange. With AET, toll plazas are no longer a concern.
On the eastern end, they built a 1 way AET toll approximately where there was formally a 2 way toll plaza. Clearly they weren't worried about people avoiding the toll, and the issues with 2 way AET tolling were significant enough to simply go one way only.That so-called 2-way toll plaza was actually the eastern end of the PA Turnpike's toll-ticket system. Such was relocated west of the newly-opened I-95 connection.
Will there ever be a direct interchange with I-81?
Will there ever be a direct interchange with I-81?
Will there ever be a direct interchange with I-81?Not in your lifetime.
Will there ever be a direct interchange with I-81?Not in your lifetime.
Will there ever be a direct interchange with I-81?Not in your lifetime.
You'd think they would because 81 is a pretty important route.
Also, they've allowed some serious development right at the overpass. Building a direct interchange is getting more and more difficult.Will there ever be a direct interchange with I-81?Not in your lifetime.
You'd think they would because 81 is a pretty important route.
PA doesn't care about things like that.
Also, they've allowed some serious development right at the overpass. Building a direct interchange is getting more and more difficult.PA doesn't care about things like that.You'd think they would because 81 is a pretty important route.Will there ever be a direct interchange with I-81?Not in your lifetime.
Yeah, I remember that idea. Given the number of years it will be before PA even considers doing something there, I wouldn't be surprised if another distribution center pops up near there.
(http://capital-beltway.com/CarlislePA.jpg)#FarmLivesMatter
http://capital-beltway.com/CarlislePA.jpg#FarmLivesMatter
It would probably be easier to build a new trumpet on the Turnpike pointing the opposite way, with a folded diamond interchange with US 11, and ending at another trumpet on I-81 north of Claremont Road.
It would probably be easier to build a new trumpet on the Turnpike pointing the opposite way, with a folded diamond interchange with US 11, and ending at another trumpet on I-81 north of Claremont Road.
I considered that, and had 3 different schemes. The one above was just one, but was the one that could work well and avoid making PCT move their interchange.
I wonder to what extent the move toward AET may have on the ability of connecting more highways to the turnpike directly. Certainly if toll booths do not need to be constructed, the interchanges can be a lot cheaper. It will also allow for more direct interchanges, rather than the more common double-trumpets that toll roads tend to have.
Of course, I am not on top of whether the PA Turnpike is moving toward AET, even though many toll facilities in the Northeast are in the process of converting.
Yes, the PTC plans to complete the transition to all-electronic tolling in late 2022. Rather than doing an instantaneous conversion, the Commission has been slowly chipping away at the closed ticket system as well as building E-ZPass-only interchanges within it. Recent and upcoming major interchange projects (I-95, Scranton Beltway) have been planned around using high-speed cashless tolling, and I think it’s a foregone conclusion that any future connections at Carlisle, Breezewood, or elsewhere will be as well.
That probably could work. Also, then PennDOT could 'downgrade' the US-11 interchange on I-81 to either a SPUI or a simple diamond as the 3-part cloverleaf there would be overpowered, and free back up some land for new businesses.
That probably could work. Also, then PennDOT could 'downgrade' the US-11 interchange on I-81 to either a SPUI or a simple diamond as the 3-part cloverleaf there would be overpowered, and free back up some land for new businesses.
All the local traffic could be directed to the US-11/I-81 interchange, with no direct connections between the Turnpike and US-11, but I figured that PTC may refuse to go along with that.
That scheme of Brian's was one of the general ideas that I had as to where to connect the two highways.
I played around with On the Turnpike exits in both directions, off-ramps would split into I-81 and US 11 lanes. The existing trumpet at US 11 is retained in this sketch to provide access to/from the Turnpike westbound, but it could be replaced with an at-grade intersection.Disagree regarding using an at-grade intersection at US 11 en lieu of the existing trumpet interchange at this location. The Carlisle Fairgrounds down the road has many events (mostly car shows) throughout the year and US 11 from the grounds to the Turnpike interchange does become a parking lot towards the beginning and ending of those events. One less traffic signal or the need to make a left turn, which forces traffic in the opposite direction to stop, the better IMHO.
Also, they've allowed some serious development right at the overpass. Building a direct interchange is getting more and more difficult.Will there ever be a direct interchange with I-81?Not in your lifetime.
You'd think they would because 81 is a pretty important route.
PA doesn't care about things like that.
I played around with On the Turnpike exits in both directions, off-ramps would split into I-81 and US 11 lanes. The existing trumpet at US 11 is retained in this sketch to provide access to/from the Turnpike westbound, but it could be replaced with an at-grade intersection.Disagree regarding using an at-grade intersection at US 11 en lieu of the existing trumpet interchange at this location. The Carlisle Fairgrounds down the road has many events (mostly car shows) throughout the year and US 11 from the grounds to the Turnpike interchange does become a parking lot towards the beginning and ending of those events. One less traffic signal or the need to make a left turn, which forces traffic in the opposite direction to stop, the better IMHO.
BTW, your above-sketch looks like the best possible solution for that area; especially once the PTC goes fully-AET.
I played around with On the Turnpike exits in both directions, off-ramps would split into I-81 and US 11 lanes. The existing trumpet at US 11 is retained in this sketch to provide access to/from the Turnpike westbound, but it could be replaced with an at-grade intersection.Disagree regarding using an at-grade intersection at US 11 en lieu of the existing trumpet interchange at this location. The Carlisle Fairgrounds down the road has many events (mostly car shows) throughout the year and US 11 from the grounds to the Turnpike interchange does become a parking lot towards the beginning and ending of those events. One less traffic signal or the need to make a left turn, which forces traffic in the opposite direction to stop, the better IMHO.
BTW, your above-sketch looks like the best possible solution for that area; especially once the PTC goes fully-AET.
Using the above example, you're still going thru someone's land - land that someone owns and probably won't give it up without a large sum of money exchanging hands. There's still people's homes in the path. Some of the interchange loops are *extremely* tight. Compare a few of them to the loops at I-81 and US 11, and you see how the radii will probably be quite substandard. Ramp locations near buildings and structures need to be designed to not encroach on those buildings and parking lots. That adds considerable costs to a project.
While we, as a group, are a lot more sensitive as to how roads are built, ultimately we are amateurs at this. We see a picture or an aerial view, we put a line down, and we say "Perfect". In reality, that's much harder said then done.I honestly don't believe that anyone on this board was saying that any implementation of a proposed scheme was going to be easy. Also, do keep in mind there's a sizable number users on this board are indeed either in the civil engineering profession or in some DOT/agency capacity as part of their job/profession. So they have been indeed been exposed to or have been behind the scenes regarding these type of designs as it were.
Using the above example, you're still going thru someone's land - land that someone owns and probably won't give it up without a large sum of money exchanging hands.Any type of interchange reconfiguration and/or modifications will involve land takings. The main objective would be which design offers the best overall operation/efficiency but the minimal amount of land-takings. To be sure, such is a balancing act.
There's still people's homes in the path. Some of the interchange loops are *extremely* tight. Compare a few of them to the loops at I-81 and US 11, and you see how the radii will probably be quite substandard.Looking at Brian's graphic a tad closer and I would agree that some of the ramp radii, mainly the ones from US 11 to I-76 eastbound are indeed tight. I believe that he was trying to avoid a major alteration to the existing US 11 trumpet interchange as well as the Turnpike (I-76) overpass... the latter was just recently replaced with a brand new 6-lane wide mainline structure.
Ramp locations near buildings and structures need to be designed to not encroach on those buildings and parking lots. That adds considerable costs to a project.I don't believe that anyone here was dismissing such. However, while this area does have development on it; it's nowhere near as dense as, say, the Greater Philly area.
When it comes to reconstruction of an area, the existing infrastructure needs to be considered. Apart from completely closing the interchange, a new design needs to take into account what can be done with existing traffic.Such would be known as maintenance/protection of traffic or work zone plans. To be sure, such a project as this would need to be done in phases... just like the I-76/295/NJ 42 interchange project in your neck of the woods.
It's often easier to build a highway from scratch than to work around what's there.Absolutely.
The point is - a location a few miles away from here may actually be a better choice, with a highway connecting the two.Usually when a project of this type is proposed; several configuration options are shown in the study (or studies) with listings of both their pros & cons... as well as the No Build option/alternative.
Of course, in this area, there aren't too many open areas until you go a considerable ways out. But that's not necearially a bad thing - land costs can be cheaper, and better ramps can be built!Looking at the area more closely; one design option would be to build a new dual-trumpet-style w/a connector interchange between I-76/PA Turnpike & I-81 well east of its present trumpet interchange w/US 11 and the I-81 overpass. The connector would run in a southwesterly direction towards I-81. With that option, it would be wise IMHO to leave the existing Carlisle interchange w/US 11 as is and not extend the new connector west of I-81. Such would cut down on the more expensive land takings along the US 11 corridor. OTOH, if the above-example I described included extending the connector further west to US 11 (such could end at a signalized intersection & the interchange w/I-81 would be a diamond or a cloverleaf rather than a trumpet); only then would the existing Turnpike trumpet interchange could be ultimately eliminated and some land space in that former-footprint would be freed up.
It is a shame that this interchange wasn't built along with I-81 backFTFY. I-81 in that area was built during the late 1960s based on looking through historic aerials.4050+ years ago when it would have been a lot simpler with a lot less development in the way.
Of course, in this area, there aren't too many open areas until you go a considerable ways out. But that's not necessarily a bad thing - land costs can be cheaper, and better ramps can be built!Looking at the area more closely; one design option would be to build a new dual-trumpet-style w/a connector interchange between I-76/PA Turnpike & I-81 well east of its present trumpet interchange w/US 11 and the I-81 overpass. The connector would run in a southwesterly direction towards I-81. With that option, it would be wise IMHO to leave the existing Carlisle interchange w/US 11 as is and not extend the new connector west of I-81. Such would cut down on the more expensive land takings along the US 11 corridor. OTOH, if the above-example I described included extending the connector further west to US 11 (such could end at a signalized intersection & the interchange w/I-81 would be a diamond or a cloverleaf rather than a trumpet); only then would the existing Turnpike trumpet interchange could be ultimately eliminated and some land space in that former-footprint would be freed up.
If thinking outside the box with an interchange not right where I-81 and the Turnpike cross, why not look west of Carlisle? There is more open land and not many houses/businesses would need to be taken. Put an interchange just east of the Cumberland Valley Service Plaza and run a 2-mile highway south to I-81 and a new interchange there. The road would be located between Pa. 465 and the Cumberland Golf Club. It would provide a better connection to the turnpike for the distribution centers and other businesses in that area and be an alternative route from Carlisle for those who want to go west on the Turnpike.
Bruce in Blacksburg (but a short-time resident of Carlisle a long time ago)
It is a shame that this interchange wasn't built along with I-81 backFTFY. I-81 in that area was built during the late 1960s based on looking through historic aerials.4050+ years ago when it would have been a lot simpler with a lot less development in the way.
If thinking outside the box with an interchange not right where I-81 and the Turnpike cross, why not look west of Carlisle? There is more open land and not many houses/businesses would need to be taken. Put an interchange just east of the Cumberland Valley Service Plaza and run a 2-mile highway south to I-81 and a new interchange there. The road would be located between Pa. 465 and the Cumberland Golf Club. It would provide a better connection to the turnpike for the distribution centers and other businesses in that area and be an alternative route from Carlisle for those who want to go west on the Turnpike.With that option (if such was ever seriously adopted) IMHO; it would be desirable that the existing Carlisle interchange remain. Even with connecting I-76/81 traffic diverted away from US 11 in this area; there's enough of a demand to access US 11 to/from I-76.
When I stated in that area per my earlier post; I was specifically referring to the stretch of I-81 that crossed the Turnpike; not the stretch north of the US 11/current Exit 52 interchange. 1968 Historic Aerials appears to be the earliest photo that shows I-81 south of Exit 52. Had it not been for that lame prohibition regarding toll roads not funding direct connections to Interstate highways that was in place back then; there would've been no reason not to build a direct connection when those overpasses were built in the mid-to-late 60s.It is a shame that this interchange wasn't built along with I-81 backFTFY. I-81 in that area was built during the late 1960s based on looking through historic aerials.4050+ years ago when it would have been a lot simpler with a lot less development in the way.
Up to the US-11 interchange at Carlisle. The segment north of there opened in the mid-1970s, need to do some research but I recall between 1975 and 1977.
I just did check the 1973 state highway map and that is shown under construction.
The I-81 segment with the most likely location for the Turnpike interchange was completed in 1968. The interchange could have provided southerly I-81 access to the Turnpike, but there was no I-81 northerly access possible because that segment did not yet exist, and was not fully complete until 1976. So I would question whether the PTC would put much importance on building the interchange in the 1960s, whereas getting it built by 1976 was a much more ideal priority.When I stated in that area per my earlier post; I was specifically referring to the stretch of I-81 that crossed the Turnpike; not the stretch north of the US 11/current Exit 52 interchange. 1968 Historic Aerials appears to be the earliest photo that shows I-81 south of Exit 52. Had it not been for that lame prohibition regarding toll roads not funding direct connections to Interstate highways that was in place back then; there would've been no reason not to build a direct connection when those overpasses were built in the mid-to-late 60s.Up to the US-11 interchange at Carlisle. The segment north of there opened in the mid-1970s, need to do some research but I recall between 1975 and 1977.It is a shame that this interchange wasn't built along with I-81 backFTFY. I-81 in that area was built during the late 1960s based on looking through historic aerials.4050+ years ago when it would have been a lot simpler with a lot less development in the way.
I just did check the 1973 state highway map and that is shown under construction.
Also, they've allowed some serious development right at the overpass. Building a direct interchange is getting more and more difficult.Will there ever be a direct interchange with I-81?Not in your lifetime.
You'd think they would because 81 is a pretty important route.
PA doesn't care about things like that.
Lots of interesting concepts to connect the two highways, but the key is right here -- all the businesses around those two interchanges generate tax revenue (and profits) and the various localities will not give that up lightly.
Of course, in this area, there aren't too many open areas until you go a considerable ways out. But that's not necessarily a bad thing - land costs can be cheaper, and better ramps can be built!Looking at the area more closely; one design option would be to build a new dual-trumpet-style w/a connector interchange between I-76/PA Turnpike & I-81 well east of its present trumpet interchange w/US 11 and the I-81 overpass. The connector would run in a southwesterly direction towards I-81. With that option, it would be wise IMHO to leave the existing Carlisle interchange w/US 11 as is and not extend the new connector west of I-81. Such would cut down on the more expensive land takings along the US 11 corridor. OTOH, if the above-example I described included extending the connector further west to US 11 (such could end at a signalized intersection & the interchange w/I-81 would be a diamond or a cloverleaf rather than a trumpet); only then would the existing Turnpike trumpet interchange could be ultimately eliminated and some land space in that former-footprint would be freed up.
If thinking outside the box with an interchange not right where I-81 and the Turnpike cross, why not look west of Carlisle? There is more open land and not many houses/businesses would need to be taken. Put an interchange just east of the Cumberland Valley Service Plaza and run a 2-mile highway south to I-81 and a new interchange there. The road would be located between Pa. 465 and the Cumberland Golf Club. It would provide a better connection to the turnpike for the distribution centers and other businesses in that area and be an alternative route from Carlisle for those who want to go west on the Turnpike.
Bruce in Blacksburg (but a short-time resident of Carlisle a long time ago)
The cashless toll at the westbound Delaware River Bridge will increase from $5.30 to $5.70 for E-ZPass customers and from $7.20 to $7.70 for those who use PA Turnpike TOLL BY PLATE.
Something like that, while somewhat helpful would probably still encourage significant traffic along US 11 to connect the Turnpike to I-81.The Google Maps preferred route between easterly I-76 and southerly I-81 doesn't even use the Carlisle interchange, it uses segments of I-83 and PA-581 to make the connection, and that reduces tolls by 16 miles, and that is all-freeway though it means going thru 2 interchanges. Though the difference is only on the order of 1 mile and 2 minutes.
To an extent, there already are stop-light free connections between I-81 and I-76 in Harrisburg. Yet those aren't used because it involves some backtracking. I'm afraid the connection needs to be closer to the point where they cross over each other.
While not necessarily new news but the upcoming toll increase for next year has become official.
PA Turnpike OKs Six Percent Toll Increase for 2020. Increase is set to start next year at 12:01 a.m. on Jan. 5. (https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2019/20190716155432.htm)
Unfortunately, the increases once again include Delaware River Bridge toll (the 2018 toll increase did not include the bridge).Quote from: PA Turnpike Media & Public Relations News ReleaseThe cashless toll at the westbound Delaware River Bridge will increase from $5.30 to $5.70 for E-ZPass customers and from $7.20 to $7.70 for those who use PA Turnpike TOLL BY PLATE.
Because of today’s action, the most-common toll for a passenger vehicle next year will increase from $1.40 to $1.50 for E-ZPass customers and from $2.30 to $2.50 for cash customers.
Within the linked press release:Yes & no. First & foremost, I do not support nor condone these toll increases.QuoteBecause of today’s action, the most-common toll for a passenger vehicle next year will increase from $1.40 to $1.50 for E-ZPass customers and from $2.30 to $2.50 for cash customers.
A quick look appears that the "most-common" toll is a misleading play on words. Here's the EZ Pass toll schedule: https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/tolls/tolls_2019/2019_EZPass.pdf . If you scan thru the document, you'll notice that $1.40 is often the toll between two interchanges. It has absolutely nothing to do with the most commonly paid toll, which is what they try to allude to.
Within the linked press release:Yes & no. First & foremost, I do not support nor condone these toll increases.QuoteBecause of today’s action, the most-common toll for a passenger vehicle next year will increase from $1.40 to $1.50 for E-ZPass customers and from $2.30 to $2.50 for cash customers.
A quick look appears that the "most-common" toll is a misleading play on words. Here's the EZ Pass toll schedule: https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/tolls/tolls_2019/2019_EZPass.pdf . If you scan thru the document, you'll notice that $1.40 is often the toll between two interchanges. It has absolutely nothing to do with the most commonly paid toll, which is what they try to allude to.
That said, while such is definitely trying to place a spin and/or downplay on the toll increase as much as possible; along the more populated areas where the interchanges are spaced closer together, there is indeed more traffic that uses the Turnpike for only short distances/i.e. to the next interchange.
I have personally made trips along I-276 between I-476 (Mid-County) & PA 309 (Fort Washington) as well as along I-476 (Northeast Extension) between I-276 (Mid-County) and PA 63 (Lansdale) many times over the years. The former was used to head to/from Wyncote while the latter was used as a means to get to/from Harleysville; southern Delaware County being my home origin/destination for said-trips.
Current tolls for both of the above-examples are indeed $1.40 E-ZPass/$2.30 Cash.
Long story short; whether one thinks that the PTC is being deceptive by using the term most-common for their lowest toll between two interchanges is deceptive or not is dependent upon where one resides & which stretch of Turnpike one is using.
But the Turnpike clearly doesn't say that the average user pays $1.40. They simply state what the most common toll (amount) is.To me, the term most common would mean/imply a majority not an average... would it not?
If such is indeed true; then the PTC seems to be insinuating that the majority of their traffic is either going between interchanges and/or is along the southeastern PA portions (I-276 & the lower part of the NE Extension/I-476). The latter wouldn't surprise me given that I-276 essentially does double-duty (local & through traffic) due to absence of the once-proposed 12-Mile Loop Expressway. Had such been built; it would've operated similar to I-295 with respect to the NJ Turnpike.
Obviously, I-276 wasn't originally designed to be part of a metropolitan beltway. It just became such over time. It was widened to 6-lanes during the late 1980s as a result of increased demand and compensation, of sorts, for not building a parallel free highway (the fore-mentioned 12-Mile Loop Expressway).If such is indeed true; then the PTC seems to be insinuating that the majority of their traffic is either going between interchanges and/or is along the southeastern PA portions (I-276 & the lower part of the NE Extension/I-476). The latter wouldn't surprise me given that I-276 essentially does double-duty (local & through traffic) due to absence of the once-proposed 12-Mile Loop Expressway. Had such been built; it would've operated similar to I-295 with respect to the NJ Turnpike.
I-276 could do that if the interchange spacing wasn't so wide. Five segments, 32 miles, average spacing of 6.4 miles, too wide for an metropolitan beltway. If that was 2.5 or 3 mile spacing, it could do the whole job, although part might need 8 lanes.
I agree, it was built as a long-distance turnpike, at a time that the concept of a metropolitan beltway was in its infancy. They can always add more local interchanges.I-276 could do that if the interchange spacing wasn't so wide. Five segments, 32 miles, average spacing of 6.4 miles, too wide for an metropolitan beltway. If that was 2.5 or 3 mile spacing, it could do the whole job, although part might need 8 lanes.Obviously, I-276 wasn't originally designed to be part of a metropolitan beltway. It just became such over time. It was widened to 6-lanes during the late 1980s as a result of increased demand and compensation, of sorts, for not building a parallel free highway (the fore-mentioned 12-Mile Loop Expressway).
As far as interchange spacing is concerned; there are plans to add another E-ZPass Only or AET interchange somewhere between the Norristown & Valley Forge (I-76 East) interchanges (which are roughly 7 miles apart). Then, of course, the I-95 connection and US 13 interchange are only 2 miles apart.
The I-95 connection in the first phase handles I-95 thru traffic only.I'm well aware of that. However, such is not to say that one can use the through-I-95 northbound ramp and then exit off at US 13. Conversely, one can get still get on the Turnpike at US 13 and veer off such following through-I-95 southbound. So, one is still technically on the PA Turnpike for a short distance between the connection and US 13.
It gets better. Apparently the cost of processing cashless tolls is so high that the Gateway toll will go to $12 for those without E-ZPass in October, double the E-ZPass rate.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2019/20190717112134.htm
It gets better. Apparently the cost of processing cashless tolls is so high that the Gateway toll will go to $12 for those without E-ZPass in October, double the E-ZPass rate.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2019/20190717112134.htm
It gets better. Apparently the cost of processing cashless tolls is so high that the Gateway toll will go to $12 for those without E-ZPass in October, double the E-ZPass rate.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2019/20190717112134.htm
The toll for a two-axle passenger vehicle at Gateway, for example, will increase Oct. 27 from $7.90 to $12.20. The new TOLL BY PLATE rates reflect associated invoice-processing and collections costs. The E-ZPass rate at Gateway will increase to $5.50 to $5.90. Charts showing new rates at the three cashless locations can be found here. (No increases will be applied at these locations in January 2020.)That increase from the old cash rate to the new Toll-By-Plate (TBP) rate IMHO is way too extreme. Not even the Delaware River Bridge (I-95) TBP rate (2020 toll of $7.70) is that high. One getting on the NJ side at US 130/Florence and either exiting at US 13 or staying on I-95 south pays a total of $10.70 ($3.00 NJTP + the above $7.70).
That thing is PTC's finances.It gets better. Apparently the cost of processing cashless tolls is so high that the Gateway toll will go to $12 for those without E-ZPass in October, double the E-ZPass rate.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2019/20190717112134.htmQuote from: PA Turnpike Media & Public Relations News ReleaseThe toll for a two-axle passenger vehicle at Gateway, for example, will increase Oct. 27 from $7.90 to $12.20. The new TOLL BY PLATE rates reflect associated invoice-processing and collections costs. The E-ZPass rate at Gateway will increase to $5.50 to $5.90. Charts showing new rates at the three cashless locations can be found here. (No increases will be applied at these locations in January 2020.)That increase from the old cash rate to the new Toll-By-Plate (TBP) rate IMHO is way too extreme. Not even the Delaware River Bridge (I-95) TBP rate (2020 toll of $7.70) is that high. One getting on the NJ side at US 130/Florence and either exiting at US 13 or staying on I-95 south pays a total of $10.70 ($3.00 NJTP + the above $7.70).
Something's very wrong there.
No, it's Act 44.That thing is PTC's finances.It gets better. Apparently the cost of processing cashless tolls is so high that the Gateway toll will go to $12 for those without E-ZPass in October, double the E-ZPass rate.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2019/20190717112134.htmQuote from: PA Turnpike Media & Public Relations News ReleaseThe toll for a two-axle passenger vehicle at Gateway, for example, will increase Oct. 27 from $7.90 to $12.20. The new TOLL BY PLATE rates reflect associated invoice-processing and collections costs. The E-ZPass rate at Gateway will increase to $5.50 to $5.90. Charts showing new rates at the three cashless locations can be found here. (No increases will be applied at these locations in January 2020.)That increase from the old cash rate to the new Toll-By-Plate (TBP) rate IMHO is way too extreme. Not even the Delaware River Bridge (I-95) TBP rate (2020 toll of $7.70) is that high. One getting on the NJ side at US 130/Florence and either exiting at US 13 or staying on I-95 south pays a total of $10.70 ($3.00 NJTP + the above $7.70).
Something's very wrong there.
Per the above-article, this is one of the facilities that will not get an increase this coming January. Can't say that such won't be immune for an increase come 2021.No, it's Act 44.That thing is PTC's finances.It gets better. Apparently the cost of processing cashless tolls is so high that the Gateway toll will go to $12 for those without E-ZPass in October, double the E-ZPass rate.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2019/20190717112134.htmQuote from: PA Turnpike Media & Public Relations News ReleaseThe toll for a two-axle passenger vehicle at Gateway, for example, will increase Oct. 27 from $7.90 to $12.20. The new TOLL BY PLATE rates reflect associated invoice-processing and collections costs. The E-ZPass rate at Gateway will increase to $5.50 to $5.90. Charts showing new rates at the three cashless locations can be found here. (No increases will be applied at these locations in January 2020.)That increase from the old cash rate to the new Toll-By-Plate (TBP) rate IMHO is way too extreme. Not even the Delaware River Bridge (I-95) TBP rate (2020 toll of $7.70) is that high. One getting on the NJ side at US 130/Florence and either exiting at US 13 or staying on I-95 south pays a total of $10.70 ($3.00 NJTP + the above $7.70).
Something's very wrong there.
Apparently in the early '70s there was a plan to widen that segment to 8-10 lanes using a NJTP-esque setup with inner and outer lanes (for cars only and mixed traffic, respectively) until the oil crisis put an end to that.If such is indeed true; then the PTC seems to be insinuating that the majority of their traffic is either going between interchanges and/or is along the southeastern PA portions (I-276 & the lower part of the NE Extension/I-476). The latter wouldn't surprise me given that I-276 essentially does double-duty (local & through traffic) due to absence of the once-proposed 12-Mile Loop Expressway. Had such been built; it would've operated similar to I-295 with respect to the NJ Turnpike.
I-276 could do that if the interchange spacing wasn't so wide. Five segments, 32 miles, average spacing of 6.4 miles, too wide for an metropolitan beltway. If that was 2.5 or 3 mile spacing, it could do the whole job, although part might need 8 lanes.
The original 160 miles of the Turnpike was planned to be rebuilt (http://www.pahighways.com/toll/PATurnpike.html#Chapter10) with 8 to 10 lanes comprised of dual car and truck ROWs in both directions, and even feature holographic signage.The completion of I-80 and I-78 largely postponed the need to widen the Turnpike until beyond 2000.
The original 160 miles of the Turnpike was planned to be rebuilt (http://www.pahighways.com/toll/PATurnpike.html#Chapter10) with 8 to 10 lanes comprised of dual car and truck ROWs in both directions, and even feature holographic signage.
Per the above-article, this is one of the facilities that will not get an increase this coming January. Can't say that such won't be immune for an increase come 2021.No, it's Act 44.That thing is PTC's finances.It gets better. Apparently the cost of processing cashless tolls is so high that the Gateway toll will go to $12 for those without E-ZPass in October, double the E-ZPass rate.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2019/20190717112134.htmQuote from: PA Turnpike Media & Public Relations News ReleaseThe toll for a two-axle passenger vehicle at Gateway, for example, will increase Oct. 27 from $7.90 to $12.20. The new TOLL BY PLATE rates reflect associated invoice-processing and collections costs. The E-ZPass rate at Gateway will increase to $5.50 to $5.90. Charts showing new rates at the three cashless locations can be found here. (No increases will be applied at these locations in January 2020.)That increase from the old cash rate to the new Toll-By-Plate (TBP) rate IMHO is way too extreme. Not even the Delaware River Bridge (I-95) TBP rate (2020 toll of $7.70) is that high. One getting on the NJ side at US 130/Florence and either exiting at US 13 or staying on I-95 south pays a total of $10.70 ($3.00 NJTP + the above $7.70).
Something's very wrong there.
Sorry, Act 44 or no Act 44, PTC's finances or not; going from $7.90 to $12.20 is roughly over a 54% increase. Way too excessive. In contrast, the E-ZPass increase is only about a 7% increase.
Seems to me like they can't afford their "complete Turnpike reconstruction" project then, or to build new roads in Pittsburg. Perhaps they could limit toll increases if they switched their program to preservation mode, like NYSDOT has done.
That too. Act 44 and Act 89 may be big travesties that should never have happened, but the PTC is basically pretending like nothing is wrong, oblivious to the fact that the constant way above inflation toll increases are NOT sustainable.
They have to spend, and they have been looking at cost savings where possible with trying to reduce the Act 44 payments and implement AET to reduce collection costs.That's just it. The fore-mentioned planned toll increase for the Western Gateway will be 54% for non-E-ZPass users once AET becomes live at that plaza. Such seems to be sending the opposite message.
Does that mandate come with a time the legislature wants those freeways done by? If not, I'd think that they could be treated no differently than the dozens of legislated freeways/expressways up here in NY that have never been built. And maybe they could look at whether they really NEED a full reconstruction/widening everywhere or if a resurfacing would work. Sure, it sounds cool to say you're doing a total rebuild of the original Turnpike, but money is very tight.That too. Act 44 and Act 89 may be big travesties that should never have happened, but the PTC is basically pretending like nothing is wrong, oblivious to the fact that the constant way above inflation toll increases are NOT sustainable.
I think PTC is aware of the issue, but they're caught with legislative mandates. The legislature tells them to provide funding under Act 44. It tells them they are to build the Mon-Fayette and Southern Beltway. They have lots of old infrastructure at the end of its service life. They have to spend, and they have been looking at cost savings where possible with trying to reduce the Act 44 payments and implement AET to reduce collection costs.
Not to bring up something unrelated (and I am not encouraging the CT toll discussion here), but it wasn't until I moved out of CT 3 years ago (today!) that I actually got E-ZPass. I very rarely had to use toll roads up there, since there are no toll roads in Connecticut (right now), so I never had a significant enough use for it until I moved to Delaware. You could probably assume a lot of people in Connecticut are the same (I'm not sure of the stats) and I'm sure there are other reasonably large areas of the northeast that don't worry much about tolls, so there's just one group that doesn't have E-ZPass in the area.They have to spend, and they have been looking at cost savings where possible with trying to reduce the Act 44 payments and implement AET to reduce collection costs.That's just it. The fore-mentioned planned toll increase for the Western Gateway will be 54% for non-E-ZPass users once AET becomes live at that plaza. Such seems to be sending the opposite message.
And before one says, "Oh, just sign up for E-ZPass."; one needs to keep in mind that the Turnpike carries traffic from many other states... including those that either don't participate in an E-ZPass program or their own electronic tolling system is not compatible w/E-ZPass (example: Florida's Sun-Pass). Also, there are many once-a-year travelers that don't want to pony up the initial $20 minimum to start up an account and/or pay the annual fee of $3 (PTC-issued unit).
There's also the issue with rental cars in that not every E-ZPass usage agreements within companies are created equal. While most rental agencies have some type of transponder available for use; one needs to check to see if their flat rate is en lieu of any accrued toll charges (I had a rental a while ago that did such) or on top of those charges.
Bottom line & contrary to popular belief, there are still many out drivers/vehicles out there that don't have E-ZPass for whatever reason. Charging such users a little more is one thing but hosing them completely is a whole other matter.
Not to bring up something unrelated (and I am not encouraging the CT toll discussion here), but it wasn't until I moved out of CT 3 years ago (today!) that I actually got E-ZPass. I very rarely had to use toll roads up there, since there are no toll roads in Connecticut (right now), so I never had a significant enough use for it until I moved to Delaware. You could probably assume a lot of people in Connecticut are the same (I'm not sure of the stats) and I'm sure there are other reasonably large areas of the northeast that don't worry much about tolls, so there's just one group that doesn't have E-ZPass in the area.While true, it's probably a reasonable assumption that most CT residents that have E-ZPass are from either the southwestern part of the state (where many commute to the greater NYC area) or the northern or northeastern part of the state where it borders MA (should they use I-90/Mass Pike).
While true, it's probably a reasonable assumption that most CT residents that have E-ZPass are from either the southwestern part of the state (where many commute to the greater NYC area) or the northern or northeastern part of the state where it borders MA (should they use I-90/Mass Pike).
Also, I noticed the PTC is installing a new system for two-way operations at the Tuscarora Tunnel. Starting about a mile before the tunnel, they have installed concrete barrier on the left side with automated swinging barriers. They are orange semi-circle barriers with black-on-orange chevron symbols. I'm guessing the purpose is to keep traffic from being in the lane that will handle oncoming traffic inside the tunnel.
Just noticed this in action on one of the webcams. Kind of neat they can automatically close a lane.
(https://i.ibb.co/K7JYQSD/Annotation-2019-06-18-130714.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
upload (https://imgbb.com/)
This fall, the PTC will launch a four-year, $109 million project to improve and modernize the Tuscarora Tunnel, located on Interstate 76 at mileposts 186-187 between the Fort Littleton and Willow Hill interchanges on the Huntingdon County/Franklin County line.
Some of the major tasks to be completed will entail a nearly eight-month closure of the eastbound tube starting in mid-November. It will be closed Sunday nights at 10 p.m. through Fridays at noon, with all vehicles transitioned to two-way traffic in the westbound tube. All traffic in both directions will merge into one lane approaching the tunnel, with a 40 mph work-zone speed limit. This pattern will continue until Independence Day 2020, with no overweight or over-dimensional (Class-9) vehicles permitted.
During the single-lane, two-way traffic, motorists in this area are cautioned to expect delays of 30 to 60 minutes during peak weekday travel times.
The rehabilitation of the eastbound and the westbound tunnels will include a new ventilation system, new pavement and tunnel lining, new shoulder barriers and walls, a new electronic control and monitoring system, new lighting and improved drainage.
The eastbound tube opened in 1940, and the westbound tube opened in 1968. The two tubes were last renovated in the 1980s.
This fall, the PTC will launch a four-year, $109 million project to improve and modernize the Tuscarora Tunnel, located on Interstate 76 at mileposts 186-187 between the Fort Littleton and Willow Hill interchanges on the Huntingdon County/Franklin County line.
I hope the PTC moves on to another mainline project, I think Irwin to 376 needs it...
It appears that the MP40-48 reconstruction/widening is substantially complete. I hope the PTC moves on to another mainline project, I think Irwin to 376 needs it more than the Warrendale booths to Cranberry, but we will see. I am concerned that this will be it for awhile.
https://www.montcopa.org/1758/Draft-Maps
PA Turnpike
Proposed Interchange Designs
Valley Forge Interchange Modernization
Potential Henderson Road Interchange
Potential Lafayette/Ridge Interchange
Fort Washington (PA 309) Interchange Modernization
Completion of Virginia Drive Interchange
Willow Grove (US 611) Interchange Modernization
Potential Welsh Road (PA 63) Interchange
https://www.montcopa.org/1758/Draft-Maps
PA Turnpike
Proposed Interchange Designs
Valley Forge Interchange Modernization
Potential Henderson Road Interchange
Potential Lafayette/Ridge Interchange
Fort Washington (PA 309) Interchange Modernization
Completion of Virginia Drive Interchange
Willow Grove (US 611) Interchange Modernization
Potential Welsh Road (PA 63) Interchange
I only looked at the Willow Grove Interchange, but wow. That interchange between the toll plaza and 611 is tight already. This engineering company thinks that making tighter curves mere feet from the toll plaza, an exit ramp on the curve, and a tighter radii on the loops is a good idea? I know that it's tough to work within the confines of the existing available area, along with trying to wedge in new bridges and ramps while maintaining traffic on the old infrastructure, but this is just going to create more problems rather than provide a solution.
Has Montgomery County and/or the PTC made more noise about those designs recently, or did you just dig those up again on the county's site? I saw those a while ago and haven't heard much since. The designs don't seem to have changed.I think they are from 2015, so other than Lafayette Street I don't think there is much recent activity.
I hope these interchange concepts get redesigned as part of the plan to go AET.
That is the plan, but instead it will head towards Monroeville only.Wasn't the original plan the US 30/PA 8 interchange?
Wasn't the original plan the US 30/PA 8 interchange?
Should PTC's AET conversion be done in a similar fashion that MassDOT converted the Mass Pike/I-90 (AET gantries only along the mainline between interchanges); many of those proposed mods to the existing interchanges should be redesigned/configured. If tolls are no longer charged/collected at the interchanges; such would allow for more streamlined redesigns.I hope these interchange concepts get redesigned as part of the plan to go AET.They are. All the plans are marked as such.
Should PTC's AET conversion be done in a similar fashion that MassDOT converted the Mass Pike/I-90 (AET gantries only along the mainline between interchanges); many of those proposed mods to the existing interchanges should be redesigned/configured. If tolls are no longer charged/collected at the interchanges; such would allow for more streamlined redesigns.I hope these interchange concepts get redesigned as part of the plan to go AET.They are. All the plans are marked as such.
I wonder if PTC wants to do that, since for political reasons, they probably want to keep the deficient interchanges at places like Bedford, Somerset, Breezewood, Carlisle, Denver, Allentown, Pocono and Wyoming as they are.
Should PTC's AET conversion be done in a similar fashion that MassDOT converted the Mass Pike/I-90 (AET gantries only along the mainline between interchanges); many of those proposed mods to the existing interchanges should be redesigned/configured. If tolls are no longer charged/collected at the interchanges; such would allow for more streamlined redesigns.I hope these interchange concepts get redesigned as part of the plan to go AET.They are. All the plans are marked as such.
I wonder if PTC wants to do that, since for political reasons, they probably want to keep the deficient interchanges at places like Bedford, Somerset, Breezewood, Carlisle, Denver, Allentown, Pocono and Wyoming as they are.
Isn't Wyoming Valley already slated for replacement as part of the "Scranton Beltway" project?
Isn't Wyoming Valley already slated for replacement as part of the "Scranton Beltway" project?
Never clear to me if this was a serious proposal (though it makes some sense, since there's plenty of spare capacity on I-476, as long as the mess at Clark's Summit (I-476 Exit 131) is corrected).
Has it even go to preliminary engineering?
Eh..."developing plans" can be a far cry from actually moving forward.Isn't Wyoming Valley already slated for replacement as part of the "Scranton Beltway" project?
Never clear to me if this was a serious proposal (though it makes some sense, since there's plenty of spare capacity on I-476, as long as the mess at Clark's Summit (I-476 Exit 131) is corrected).
Has it even go to preliminary engineering?
Yes, it is serious and moving forward.
The website for it is here: https://www.patpconstruction.com/scrantonbeltway/default.aspx .
Eh..."developing plans" can be a far cry from actually moving forward.Isn't Wyoming Valley already slated for replacement as part of the "Scranton Beltway" project?
Never clear to me if this was a serious proposal (though it makes some sense, since there's plenty of spare capacity on I-476, as long as the mess at Clark's Summit (I-476 Exit 131) is corrected).
Has it even go to preliminary engineering?
Yes, it is serious and moving forward.
The website for it is here: https://www.patpconstruction.com/scrantonbeltway/default.aspx .
It would be nice to see cost estimates, but they might not be quite there yet --Eh..."developing plans" can be a far cry from actually moving forward.The next tab there: https://www.patpconstruction.com/scrantonbeltway/detail.aspx , is probably more important, which shows construction won't begin until 2022.
But the most important link and document on the PTC website is the actual Capital Plan, which shows the budget for the upcoming 10 years. The current plan, https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/business/FY2020_Capital_Plan.pdf , reveals on Page 6 that funding for this project is continuing, and does confirm that prelim engineering is underway, and based on the costs the project is scheduled to begin in FY 2023, which could mean Calendar Year 2022 (I think their FY is July - June).
...there is a huge line item over many years for the mainline 99-110 work, which I thought was done about 20 years ago. Could this involve additional lanes? ...
It would be nice to see cost estimates, but they might not be quite there yet --Eh..."developing plans" can be a far cry from actually moving forward.The next tab there: https://www.patpconstruction.com/scrantonbeltway/detail.aspx , is probably more important, which shows construction won't begin until 2022.
But the most important link and document on the PTC website is the actual Capital Plan, which shows the budget for the upcoming 10 years. The current plan, https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/business/FY2020_Capital_Plan.pdf , reveals on Page 6 that funding for this project is continuing, and does confirm that prelim engineering is underway, and based on the costs the project is scheduled to begin in FY 2023, which could mean Calendar Year 2022 (I think their FY is July - June).
Preliminary Engineering: Spring 2019 - Fall 2020
Open House Plans Display - Fall 2020
The Act 44 lawsuit has been appealed to the Supreme Court:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2019/12/12/Truckers-turn-to-U-S-Supreme-Court-over-Turnpike-toll-diversion/stories/201912120135
I agree with J&N that the Supreme Court may well decline to hear the case. It's not a matter of real national importance where a precedent or national standard needs to be established. It's a local issue at least local to the Northeast anyway.
The Act 44 lawsuit has been appealed to the Supreme Court:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2019/12/12/Truckers-turn-to-U-S-Supreme-Court-over-Turnpike-toll-diversion/stories/201912120135
I would be surprised if the Supreme Court heard it, and would be even more surprised if they overturn it.
And overturning it could have severe ramifications. What if I applied that to every product I purchase? What benefit am I getting if a company charges more than necessary with the extra money going towards their annual holiday party or bonuses? Does their president flying first class benefit me when he could've done a conference call?
I haven't foreseen these tuckers winning a lawsuit yet, and they're continuing to throw money out the window with these lawsuits.
I agree with J&N that the Supreme Court may well decline to hear the case. It's not a matter of real national importance where a precedent or national standard needs to be established. It's a local issue at least local to the Northeast anyway.
I agree with J&N that the Supreme Court may well decline to hear the case. It's not a matter of real national importance where a precedent or national standard needs to be established. It's a local issue at least local to the Northeast anyway.
Are any of the other long distance toll roads as much of a ripoff as the PA Turnpike?
ixnay?
They do have about a $5.5 billion capital project program in the next 10 years.Are any of the other long distance toll roads as much of a ripoff as the PA Turnpike?The PA Turnpike will roughly be about 18 cents per mile.
I agree with J&N that the Supreme Court may well decline to hear the case. It's not a matter of real national importance where a precedent or national standard needs to be established. It's a local issue at least local to the Northeast anyway.
I'd hardly call I-95 in DE a long-distance toll road. It's more of a border toll. It is a ripoff , though. IMO the feds should have stepped in and forced DE to finish the plan to remove the tolls. Same for all the other northeast toll roads, too.I agree with J&N that the Supreme Court may well decline to hear the case. It's not a matter of real national importance where a precedent or national standard needs to be established. It's a local issue at least local to the Northeast anyway.
Are any of the other long distance toll roads as much of a ripoff as the PA Turnpike?
ixnay?
The PA Turnpike will roughly be about 18 cents per mile.
On a per mile basis, Delaware's I-95 is $4 for 11 miles, or 36.3 cents per mile.
I do not support Federal overreach. The state granted those charters and it's a state's right issue.I'd hardly call I-95 in DE a long-distance toll road. It's more of a border toll. It is a ripoff , though. IMO the feds should have stepped in and forced DE to finish the plan to remove the tolls. Same for all the other northeast toll roads, too.I agree with J&N that the Supreme Court may well decline to hear the case. It's not a matter of real national importance where a precedent or national standard needs to be established. It's a local issue at least local to the Northeast anyway.
Are any of the other long distance toll roads as much of a ripoff as the PA Turnpike?
ixnay?
The PA Turnpike will roughly be about 18 cents per mile.
On a per mile basis, Delaware's I-95 is $4 for 11 miles, or 36.3 cents per mile.
I'd hardly call I-95 in DE a long-distance toll road. It's more of a border toll. It is a ripoff , though. IMO the feds should have stepped in and forced DE to finish the plan to remove the tolls. Same for all the other northeast toll roads, too.I agree with J&N that the Supreme Court may well decline to hear the case. It's not a matter of real national importance where a precedent or national standard needs to be established. It's a local issue at least local to the Northeast anyway.
Are any of the other long distance toll roads as much of a ripoff as the PA Turnpike?
ixnay?
The PA Turnpike will roughly be about 18 cents per mile.
On a per mile basis, Delaware's I-95 is $4 for 11 miles, or 36.3 cents per mile.
All for that rather than live with the historically sketchy finances of public authorities.I'd hardly call I-95 in DE a long-distance toll road. It's more of a border toll. It is a ripoff , though. IMO the feds should have stepped in and forced DE to finish the plan to remove the tolls. Same for all the other northeast toll roads, too.I agree with J&N that the Supreme Court may well decline to hear the case. It's not a matter of real national importance where a precedent or national standard needs to be established. It's a local issue at least local to the Northeast anyway.
Are any of the other long distance toll roads as much of a ripoff as the PA Turnpike?
ixnay?
The PA Turnpike will roughly be about 18 cents per mile.
On a per mile basis, Delaware's I-95 is $4 for 11 miles, or 36.3 cents per mile.
If the feds forced toll removal, then to make up the difference to the states the feds will likely have to increase transportation funding, or take from other states. So in the long run it hurts the feds, and being it comes out of our pockets, it hurts us too!
All for that rather than live with the historically sketchy finances of public authorities.I'd hardly call I-95 in DE a long-distance toll road. It's more of a border toll. It is a ripoff , though. IMO the feds should have stepped in and forced DE to finish the plan to remove the tolls. Same for all the other northeast toll roads, too.I agree with J&N that the Supreme Court may well decline to hear the case. It's not a matter of real national importance where a precedent or national standard needs to be established. It's a local issue at least local to the Northeast anyway.
Are any of the other long distance toll roads as much of a ripoff as the PA Turnpike?
ixnay?
The PA Turnpike will roughly be about 18 cents per mile.
On a per mile basis, Delaware's I-95 is $4 for 11 miles, or 36.3 cents per mile.
If the feds forced toll removal, then to make up the difference to the states the feds will likely have to increase transportation funding, or take from other states. So in the long run it hurts the feds, and being it comes out of our pockets, it hurts us too!
If the feds forced toll removal, then to make up the difference to the states the feds will likely have to increase transportation funding, or take from other states. So in the long run it hurts the feds, and being it comes out of our pockets, it hurts us too!Go for it. I'm very much supportive of Eisenhower's vision of a national toll-free network of highways.
Vdeane, in a perfect world I might well agree with you (and the state of California). But in the real world of highways, you can't escape the fact that the toll turnpikes in the Northeast are generally better maintained and provide better services than the toll-free Interstates. The New Jersey Turnpike is probably the best example.Pfft. Yes, you can escape that fact. I remember this argument being made ten years ago as the Thruway started taking about themselves as a "premium" service. I don't see a different level of maintenance between the Thruway and say, I-81 or the Northway. In fact, there are a whole host of bridges over the Thruway that have had signs of neglect.
At least for the I-95 toll situation in DE, truckers do have a short & easy option to legally bypass that I-95 toll by using US 40 & MD 213 between DE 896 & MD 279. Yes, such is a slower route than staying on I-95; but the savings in tolls may be justified. Note: the northern DE 896 to DE/MD 279 bypass route has a through-truck prohibition imposed on it.I'd hardly call I-95 in DE a long-distance toll road. It's more of a border toll. It is a ripoff , though.I agree with J&N that the Supreme Court may well decline to hear the case. It's not a matter of real national importance where a precedent or national standard needs to be established. It's a local issue at least local to the Northeast anyway.
Are any of the other long distance toll roads as much of a ripoff as the PA Turnpike?
ixnay?
The PA Turnpike will roughly be about 18 cents per mile.
On a per mile basis, Delaware's I-95 is $4 for 11 miles, or 36.3 cents per mile.
But in the real world of highways, you can't escape the fact that the toll turnpikes in the Northeast are generally better maintained and provide better services than the toll-free Interstates. The New Jersey Turnpike is probably the best example.It's also worth noting that prior to the 2007 collapse of I-35W in Minneapolis; most of the non-earthquake or non-weather-related highway collapses occurred on tolled facilities. Two examples:
At least for the I-95 toll situation in DE, truckers do have a short & easy option to legally bypass that I-95 toll by using US 40 & MD 213 between DE 896 & MD 279. Yes, such is a slower route than staying on I-95; but the savings in tolls may be justified. Note: the northern DE 896 to DE/MD 279 bypass route has a through-truck prohibition imposed on it.
...So tolled highways don't always mean better condition highways.
At least for the I-95 toll situation in DE, truckers do have a short & easy option to legally bypass that I-95 toll by using US 40 & MD 213 between DE 896 & MD 279. Yes, such is a slower route than staying on I-95; but the savings in tolls may be justified. Note: the northern DE 896 to DE/MD 279 bypass route has a through-truck prohibition imposed on it.I'd hardly call I-95 in DE a long-distance toll road. It's more of a border toll. It is a ripoff , though.I agree with J&N that the Supreme Court may well decline to hear the case. It's not a matter of real national importance where a precedent or national standard needs to be established. It's a local issue at least local to the Northeast anyway.
Are any of the other long distance toll roads as much of a ripoff as the PA Turnpike?
ixnay?
The PA Turnpike will roughly be about 18 cents per mile.
On a per mile basis, Delaware's I-95 is $4 for 11 miles, or 36.3 cents per mile.
In contrast & depending on origin & destination; it's not always easy to fully-bypass the PA Turnpike While there is I-80 to the north and I-68/70 to the south & west; such only are beneficial for long-distance through traffic.But in the real world of highways, you can't escape the fact that the toll turnpikes in the Northeast are generally better maintained and provide better services than the toll-free Interstates. The New Jersey Turnpike is probably the best example.It's also worth noting that prior to the 2007 collapse of I-35W in Minneapolis; most of the non-earthquake or non-weather-related highway collapses occurred on tolled facilities. Two examples:
1. The 1983 collapse of the Mianus River Bridge of the then-tolled CT Turnpike (I-95) due to a failure of two pin and hanger assemblies. A condition to receive federal funding to replace the collapsed span was that the tolls for that road were to be removed within 2 years (such were).
2. The 2006 tunnel ceiling collapse of one of the fairly new Big Dig ramp tunnels linking I-90 in Boston. The I-90 portion, including the Ted Williams Tunnel is a tolled facility even though there was only one toll booth at the westbound tunnel entrance (pre-AET conversion).
Years prior to Act 44, the PA Turnpike has had a reputation for years if not decades of being one of the most expensive toll-road facilities in the nation but in being not in the best condition.
So tolled highways don't always mean better condition highways.
Ayup. Contractor didn't have a good enough foundation for the piers and they got scoured out by the river.At least for the I-95 toll situation in DE, truckers do have a short & easy option to legally bypass that I-95 toll by using US 40 & MD 213 between DE 896 & MD 279. Yes, such is a slower route than staying on I-95; but the savings in tolls may be justified. Note: the northern DE 896 to DE/MD 279 bypass route has a through-truck prohibition imposed on it.I'd hardly call I-95 in DE a long-distance toll road. It's more of a border toll. It is a ripoff , though.I agree with J&N that the Supreme Court may well decline to hear the case. It's not a matter of real national importance where a precedent or national standard needs to be established. It's a local issue at least local to the Northeast anyway.
Are any of the other long distance toll roads as much of a ripoff as the PA Turnpike?
ixnay?
The PA Turnpike will roughly be about 18 cents per mile.
On a per mile basis, Delaware's I-95 is $4 for 11 miles, or 36.3 cents per mile.
In contrast & depending on origin & destination; it's not always easy to fully-bypass the PA Turnpike While there is I-80 to the north and I-68/70 to the south & west; such only are beneficial for long-distance through traffic.But in the real world of highways, you can't escape the fact that the toll turnpikes in the Northeast are generally better maintained and provide better services than the toll-free Interstates. The New Jersey Turnpike is probably the best example.It's also worth noting that prior to the 2007 collapse of I-35W in Minneapolis; most of the non-earthquake or non-weather-related highway collapses occurred on tolled facilities. Two examples:
1. The 1983 collapse of the Mianus River Bridge of the then-tolled CT Turnpike (I-95) due to a failure of two pin and hanger assemblies. A condition to receive federal funding to replace the collapsed span was that the tolls for that road were to be removed within 2 years (such were).
2. The 2006 tunnel ceiling collapse of one of the fairly new Big Dig ramp tunnels linking I-90 in Boston. The I-90 portion, including the Ted Williams Tunnel is a tolled facility even though there was only one toll booth at the westbound tunnel entrance (pre-AET conversion).
Years prior to Act 44, the PA Turnpike has had a reputation for years if not decades of being one of the most expensive toll-road facilities in the nation but in being not in the best condition.
So tolled highways don't always mean better condition highways.
And didn't the Schoharie Bridge on the Thruway collapse sometime in the late '80s? (Looking at you, Rothman)
ixnay
... the toll roads still have better motorist services than toll-free highways. That includes well equipped service areas you can access without leaving the highway and more resources to assist you with a car breakdown. NY Thruway Authority is particularly efficient in that regard. I imagine the NJTA is too. And Penn. Turnpike for years had emergency call boxes at frequent intervals. Don't know if they still do.The PA Turnpike has either been phasing out or already phased out their call boxes.
Those service areas aren't because the roads are collecting tolls, though.Actually, those service plazas were indeed initially built as part of the toll road system regardless of whether such had an Interstate number from day one (DE & MD) or was grandfathered in later on (MA, NY & PA).
I initially though of jotting that one down (incident happened in 1987); but from what I've further read, the scouring by the river was the result torrential rains & high water levels that took place prior to the collapse... i.e. a weather-related collapse. Such was why I didn't include such in my earlier-listings.And didn't the Schoharie Bridge on the Thruway collapse sometime in the late '80s? (Looking at you, Rothman)Ayup. Contractor didn't have a good enough foundation for the piers and they got scoured out by the river.
Where were the state construction inspectors and the resident engineer?And didn't the Schoharie Bridge on the Thruway collapse sometime in the late '80s? (Looking at you, Rothman)Ayup. Contractor didn't have a good enough foundation for the piers and they got scoured out by the river.
J&N, I'm impressed by your observation that ten or twenty years ago the NJTA would not have allowed the pavement to deteriorate so badly on the Turnpike. What would you attribute this change to nowadays? Is the Turnpike Authority getting sloppy or just tighter with spending or both?
Exactly: The public authority didn't do its job, which means the argument that they somehow are always better maintained isn't well founded.Where were the state construction inspectors and the resident engineer?And didn't the Schoharie Bridge on the Thruway collapse sometime in the late '80s? (Looking at you, Rothman)Ayup. Contractor didn't have a good enough foundation for the piers and they got scoured out by the river.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collapse of the Schoharie Creek Bridge was the failure of the New York State Thruway Authority to maintain adequate riprap around the bridge piers, which led to severe erosion in the soil beneath the spread footings. Contributing to the accident were ambiguous plans and specifications used for construction of the bridge, an inadequate NYSTA bridge inspection program, and inadequate oversight by the New York State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Contributing to the severity of the accident was the lack of structural redundancy in the bridge.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HAR8802.aspx
Actually, those service plazas were indeed initially built as part of the toll road system regardless of whether such had an Interstate number from day one (DE & MD) or was grandfathered in later on (MA, NY & PA).They were still grandfathered in no matter how long the corridors were in the plan. My understanding is that MD and DE tolled I-95 not just for the heck of it (which wouldn't have been legal, anyways) but because they needed those portions done immediately and couldn't wait for the interstate construction funds to become available.
I don't see how FHWA would be responsible, it was a state-built turnpike.https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HAR8802.aspxExactly: The public authority didn't do its job, which means the argument that they somehow are always better maintained isn't well founded.
Given the time period, NYSTA and other public authorities had great legal separation from the State (just like the CBBT -- heck, they still do). Although the NTSB made those recommendations for NYSDOT and FHWA to have more oversight, given the legal framework, they amounted to a paper tiger.
Careful what you're reading. NJTA partners with NJDOT on many projects. These payments include the Pulaski rebuild and 139.J&N, I'm impressed by your observation that ten or twenty years ago the NJTA would not have allowed the pavement to deteriorate so badly on the Turnpike. What would you attribute this change to nowadays? Is the Turnpike Authority getting sloppy or just tighter with spending or both?
While the Acts 44 & 89 of the PA Turnpike are very well known, much less known (possibly due to it not being a law or statute) is that the NJTA give a payment to the State of New Jersey every year. Deep down in their annual budget report https://www.njta.com/media/4878/2020-annual-budget-final.pdf , on Page 160 (Page 168 of the PDF), shows that in 2018 the NJTA paid the State $198 million. If repaving averages $1 million per mile, that's 198 lane miles that couldn't be repaved; or $198 million of other projects that couldn't be done that year. On the next 2 pages, the payment has actually gone down slightly to $179.5 million and 178.5 million budgeted for Fiscal Years 2019 & 2020, respectively.
Side question here, and totally unrelated to the topic at hand, but why are service plazas prohibited on Interstate highways?
I suspect there's probably legal shenanigans at play (don't want to commercialize Interstates? (though in that case, billboards shouldn't be on the highways...) some obscure commercial laws I don't know?), but people enter and exit a service plaza no different than they do entering or exiting the highway.
And considering how quite a bit of the Interstate system is based off of freeway systems in Europe, which likely already had service areas, I'm not sure why those were excised when creating (or revising) Interstate Highway standards.
Val, With all due respect, just where in my earlier posts did I state that such wasn't grandfathered?
Additionally, I am very well aware of the reasoning why I-95 in DE & MD were built as tolled facilities even though such was part of the Interstate system from conception.
I guess the question here is (despite this being a PA Turnpike thread): has the prohibition of service plazas on newly-built Interstates existed from day one, or did such come along later as an amendment? The fact that the Delaware Turnpike & JFK Memorial Highway portions of I-95 were built with service plazas would indicate that the answer to that question is the latter. Is such a correct assumption?
Sure looks like this post is trying to make a distinction between the northeast toll roads and I-95 in MD and DE.Those service areas aren't because the roads are collecting tolls, though.Actually, those service plazas were indeed initially built as part of the toll road system regardless of whether such had an Interstate number from day one (DE & MD) or was grandfathered in later on (MA, NY & PA).
Although looking in to the history of I-95 in DE and MD, it looks like the toll portions were constructed far later than I would have thought. I thought they were built because MD and DE couldn't wait for Congress to finish wheeling and dealing and get the Interstate Highway Act passed, similar to the story for the NY Thruway. Instead they were built well after the interstate system had begun because the states couldn't come up with the local match, which begs the question... how was any of that stuff allowed? Wasn't the whole point of the interstate system that it was supposed to be a free network of highways?There were federal funding limitations as well, that would have either delayed I-95 or delayed some other Interstate highway segment, at least in Maryland.
Sure looks like this post is trying to make a distinction between the northeast toll roads and I-95 in MD and DE.The only distinction I was trying to convey in that post was that unlike other toll facilities that were either built or already under construction prior to the Interstate Highway Act becoming law; the Delaware Turnpike & JFK Memorial Highway was designated as an Interstate when both were built. If I wasn't too clear on such, I apologize.
However, based on Beltway's above-recent post; the JFK Memorial Highway was planned a year prior to the Interstate Highway Act being signed, and the planning for the Delaware Turnpike dates as far back as 1951 (after doing some quick research). Such was probably why both facilities included service plazas in those facilities' original construction even though both received the I-95 designation well before the construction phases. So, the inclusion of service plazas were indeed other grandfathered cases even though their construction was much later than other tolled highways.Even though built during the post-1956 Interstate era (begun by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956), they still were funded with state-issued toll revenue bonds and (presumably) no federal-aid funding.
Careful what you're reading. NJTA partners with NJDOT on many projects. These payments include the Pulaski rebuild and 139.J&N, I'm impressed by your observation that ten or twenty years ago the NJTA would not have allowed the pavement to deteriorate so badly on the Turnpike. What would you attribute this change to nowadays? Is the Turnpike Authority getting sloppy or just tighter with spending or both?
While the Acts 44 & 89 of the PA Turnpike are very well known, much less known (possibly due to it not being a law or statute) is that the NJTA give a payment to the State of New Jersey every year. Deep down in their annual budget report https://www.njta.com/media/4878/2020-annual-budget-final.pdf , on Page 160 (Page 168 of the PDF), shows that in 2018 the NJTA paid the State $198 million. If repaving averages $1 million per mile, that's 198 lane miles that couldn't be repaved; or $198 million of other projects that couldn't be done that year. On the next 2 pages, the payment has actually gone down slightly to $179.5 million and 178.5 million budgeted for Fiscal Years 2019 & 2020, respectively.
How would there be delays on the federal end? Didn't the federal government pay their 90% as interstate segments were built?Although looking in to the history of I-95 in DE and MD, it looks like the toll portions were constructed far later than I would have thought. I thought they were built because MD and DE couldn't wait for Congress to finish wheeling and dealing and get the Interstate Highway Act passed, similar to the story for the NY Thruway. Instead they were built well after the interstate system had begun because the states couldn't come up with the local match, which begs the question... how was any of that stuff allowed? Wasn't the whole point of the interstate system that it was supposed to be a free network of highways?There were federal funding limitations as well, that would have either delayed I-95 or delayed some other Interstate highway segment, at least in Maryland.
Planning for the Northeastern Expressway, as the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway was called originally, began in 1955. The turnpike was envisioned as 42 miles of four-lane, divided highway running from White Marsh Boulevard to the Maryland-Delaware line. Today, the highway, designated Interstate 95 as part of the national interstate highway system, is a popular travel route for interstate and commuter traffic.
The highway was developed as an interstate toll facility to hasten the construction of a safe and convenient thoroughfare through the northeastern part of Maryland. If the highway had been built using traditional federal highway-funding programs, the turnpike would have been completed seven years later than planned.
The highway was dedicated at 4 p.m. on Nov. 14, 1963. President John F. Kennedy, with Governor Millard Tawes of Maryland and Governor Carvel of Delaware, officiated the ceremony.
https://mdta.maryland.gov/Toll_Facilities/JFK.html
So the state government didn't think it was worth waiting until 1970.
How would there be delays on the federal end? Didn't the federal government pay their 90% as interstate segments were built?
J&N, I'm impressed by your observation that ten or twenty years ago the NJTA would not have allowed the pavement to deteriorate so badly on the Turnpike. What would you attribute this change to nowadays? Is the Turnpike Authority getting sloppy or just tighter with spending or both?
While the Acts 44 & 89 of the PA Turnpike are very well known, much less known (possibly due to it not being a law or statute) is that the NJTA give a payment to the State of New Jersey every year. Deep down in their annual budget report https://www.njta.com/media/4878/2020-annual-budget-final.pdf , on Page 160 (Page 168 of the PDF), shows that in 2018 the NJTA paid the State $198 million. If repaving averages $1 million per mile, that's 198 lane miles that couldn't be repaved; or $198 million of other projects that couldn't be done that year. On the next 2 pages, the payment has actually gone down slightly to $179.5 million and 178.5 million budgeted for Fiscal Years 2019 & 2020, respectively.
J&N, I'm impressed by your observation that ten or twenty years ago the NJTA would not have allowed the pavement to deteriorate so badly on the Turnpike. What would you attribute this change to nowadays? Is the Turnpike Authority getting sloppy or just tighter with spending or both?
While the Acts 44 & 89 of the PA Turnpike are very well known, much less known (possibly due to it not being a law or statute) is that the NJTA give a payment to the State of New Jersey every year. Deep down in their annual budget report https://www.njta.com/media/4878/2020-annual-budget-final.pdf , on Page 160 (Page 168 of the PDF), shows that in 2018 the NJTA paid the State $198 million. If repaving averages $1 million per mile, that's 198 lane miles that couldn't be repaved; or $198 million of other projects that couldn't be done that year. On the next 2 pages, the payment has actually gone down slightly to $179.5 million and 178.5 million budgeted for Fiscal Years 2019 & 2020, respectively.
I assume that this is probably a subsidy payment to New Jersey Transit..
Still, unlike Act 44 and Act 89, I am not aware of NJTA having to issue new debt to make this payment to NJDOT and (presumably) on to NJT.
So did states have to coordinate what got built when with FHWA or something? I was under the impression that they just built stuff and stuck the feds with the bill.
A long and detailed webpage, but this details how the Interstate highway system was funded from 1956 to 1991.So did states have to coordinate what got built when with FHWA or something? I was under the impression that they just built stuff and stuck the feds with the bill.Yes. FHWA is involved from the start as the state allocates construction funding, and also reviews the plans, specifications, and estimates. During construction FHWA uses a voucher system to release funding incrementally as the work progresses to completion.
Interesting. Looks like many of the same bureaucracies created around federal funding for projects today were used even in the initial funding/construction of the interstate system. Makes sense that they would want to review plans, to make sure everything was built to standards.
Re: the funding, it probably would have been easier for the states (especially in situations like MD and DE) if it was done as a "must pay" similar to Social Security, Medicare, etc., which would have worked back when the Highway Trust Fund was solvent. Just put a disclaimer that "all bills for approved work will be paid on a first-come, first-served basis as money becomes available" and have some bureaucrats do the accounting. Then they could have just built the roads and been paid back as gas tax money flowed in.
The whole difference between authorization and appropriation has always struck me as a little strange. Why even have the authorization in the budget if it doesn't actually mean a whole lot in practice? I'd just get rid of Congressional bills to appropriate funds and have a non-partisan legislative office do the accounting and distribute funds relative to revenue and the budget on a quarterly basis. Then the agencies wouldn't be held hostage in political fights as often.
Just a friendly reminder that our annual toll increase is upon us:
https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/pennsylvania-turnpike-tolls-increasing-for-12th-straight-year/
Just a friendly reminder that our annual toll increase is upon us:
https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/pennsylvania-turnpike-tolls-increasing-for-12th-straight-year/
Getting a lot of news all over being the toll will be over $50 now!
The question becomes at what point does 81/70/68 make sense versus the Turnpike west of Carlisle?
The question becomes at what point does 81/70/68 make sense versus the Turnpike west of Carlisle?
All depends where you're coming from. For many 80 makes sense.
Just a friendly reminder that our annual toll increase is upon us:
https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/pennsylvania-turnpike-tolls-increasing-for-12th-straight-year/
Just a friendly reminder that our annual toll increase is upon us:
https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/pennsylvania-turnpike-tolls-increasing-for-12th-straight-year/
Clearly stated at the beginning of the article, but probably ignored by many, is that the toll increases are at least partially due to legislatively-mandated payments to PennDOT for projects that have no connection whatsoever to the turnpike.
The question becomes at what point does 81/70/68 make sense versus the Turnpike west of Carlisle?
All depends where you're coming from. For many 80 makes sense.
Here are the variables i use when in a car, PHL-OHIO
Just a friendly reminder that our annual toll increase is upon us:
https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/pennsylvania-turnpike-tolls-increasing-for-12th-straight-year/
Clearly stated at the beginning of the article, but probably ignored by many, is that the toll increases are at least partially due to legislatively-mandated payments to PennDOT for projects that have no connection whatsoever to the turnpike.
Because, honestly, its irrelevant. A motorist paying a toll doesn't have any say where that money goes, just like when you buy any other product anywhere. When you buy a candy bar, or a new sofa, your money is going to advertising, salaries, development, cleaning the parking lot, the CEO's private jet, etc. Because the news ain't reporting that doesn't mean it's not happening.
I wonder how the interchanges between I-70 and the mainline will be affected by the going cashless (I might call it the "Plating" or "EZ-Passing"). Would the Bedford intersection finally be eliminated?
And how would I-76 leave the mainline turnpike under this Cashless system? Actually, how would any freeway-freeway connections be made?
I wonder how the interchanges between I-70 and the mainline will be affected by the going cashless (I might call it the "Plating" or "EZ-Passing"). Would the Bedford intersection finally be eliminated?
I doubt the PTC would eliminate any interchanges, especially Bedford which is the only connection to I-99 and north from the Turnpike. If anything, with AET, more interchanges can be added like simple slip ramps such as Exit 340/Virginia Drive up to full ones like Exit 320/PA 29.And how would I-76 leave the mainline turnpike under this Cashless system? Actually, how would any freeway-freeway connections be made?
The interchanges would be the same, except there would just be a gantry with E-ZPass readers and cameras where the toll plazas are currently located.
SM-G965U
I wonder how the interchanges between I-70 and the mainline will be affected by the going cashless (I might call it the "Plating" or "EZ-Passing"). Would the Bedford intersection finally be eliminated?
I doubt the PTC would eliminate any interchanges, especially Bedford which is the only connection to I-99 and north from the Turnpike. If anything, with AET, more interchanges can be added like simple slip ramps such as Exit 340/Virginia Drive up to full ones like Exit 320/PA 29.And how would I-76 leave the mainline turnpike under this Cashless system? Actually, how would any freeway-freeway connections be made?
The interchanges would be the same, except there would just be a gantry with E-ZPass readers and cameras where the toll plazas are currently located.
SM-G965U
Yeah if anything, they could more cheaply build interchanges without the need for trumpets, just adding standard ramps and toll readers.
By "Bedford," I meant "Breezewood." As in, I-70 would actually leave onto the I-70 mainline and eliminate the US 30 overlap. The existing segment on 70 WB to US 30 could be designated as BS-70 or something.
But about Bedford, a cloverleaf at I-99 would be nice, or at I-81 (though that might not happen due to development).
I ask this because of a website I found regarding a hypothetical all-electronic NYS Thruway: http://www.nysroads.com/fic-thwy-aet.php
It seems like the setup MassDOT went with for the Mass Pike is a good option for cashless on a ticketed system. It went it well. And as a user, there was a good plan once the conversion occurred with traffic passing through the booths for a couple of weeks at 15 mph while outer lanes were demolished and prepared for temporary usage at 35 mph and then the inner portions converted into normal travel lanes and all completed within 1 year.One reason why MassDOT's AET conversion along the Pike went fairly smoothly was because its toll collection system, Allston/Brighton, Weston & Newton mainline toll plazas aside, completely changed from a closed-system (payment at the exiting interchange) to AET gantries placed only along the Turnpike mainline... i.e. a toll-barrier system. Had the Pike's prior toll collection system been all mainline plazas from its inception similar to what the Garden State Parkway has; the AET transition IMHO would not have been as smooth.
By "Bedford," I meant "Breezewood." As in, I-70 would actually leave onto the I-70 mainline and eliminate the US 30 overlap. The existing segment on 70 WB to US 30 could be designated as BS-70 or something.
But about Bedford, a cloverleaf at I-99 would be nice, or at I-81 (though that might not happen due to development).
I ask this because of a website I found regarding a hypothetical all-electronic NYS Thruway: http://www.nysroads.com/fic-thwy-aet.php
It's not hypothetical; it's being implemented right now.
If the PTC not even immediately removing toll plazas is any indication, actually reconfiguring any interchanges is still a long way off.
If the PTC not even immediately removing toll plazas is any indication, actually reconfiguring any interchanges is still a long way off.
I think they're so in debt that immediate removal is not feasible at all.
If the PTC not even immediately removing toll plazas is any indication, actually reconfiguring any interchanges is still a long way off.
I think they're so in debt that immediate removal is not feasible at all.
Upon my regular review of the projects listed on the PTC website, a few projects that had their schedule status changed to TBD over the last 3 years now have rescheduled dates shown such as mainline reconstruction near New Bethlehem. It will be interesting to see if any more projects start sporting realistic schedules due to this ruling.
Also, I could be wrong, but doesn’t the MUTCD prohibit the use of state names as control cities?
https://goo.gl/maps/aCLFXrDeWGAxoWki7
It seems PTC always uses cities that are quite far at tool booths. For example, at the Allegheny Valley interchange, they use Harrisburg and Ohio. To me, it would make much more sense to use Monroeville and Irwin instead of Harrisburg, and Cranberry and Beaver instead of Ohio....
I have a question regarding the Turnpike’s control cities. It seems PTC always uses cities that are quite far at tool booths. For example, at the Allegheny Valley interchange, they use Harrisburg and Ohio. To me, it would make much more sense to use Monroeville and Irwin instead of Harrisburg, and Cranberry and Beaver instead of Ohio. I could see even using Harrisburg and Ohio as the secondary city, but as primary cities, it just seems odd to me. Is there a reason for this? Also, I could be wrong, but doesn’t the MUTCD prohibit the use of state names as control cities?
https://goo.gl/maps/aCLFXrDeWGAxoWki7
Westbound is slightly problematic because the Ohio Turnpike bypasses Youngstown, Akron, and Cleveland without serving any of them directly.
I have a question regarding the Turnpike’s control cities. It seems PTC always uses cities that are quite far at tool booths. For example, at the Allegheny Valley interchange, they use Harrisburg and Ohio. To me, it would make much more sense to use Monroeville and Irwin instead of Harrisburg, and Cranberry and Beaver instead of Ohio. I could see even using Harrisburg and Ohio as the secondary city, but as primary cities, it just seems odd to me. Is there a reason for this? Also, I could be wrong, but doesn’t the MUTCD prohibit the use of state names as control cities?
https://goo.gl/maps/aCLFXrDeWGAxoWki7
Generally, most highway's entrance ramps don't list the next exit's towns. Highways Control Cities are designed to direct people towards larger cities.Westbound is slightly problematic because the Ohio Turnpike bypasses Youngstown, Akron, and Cleveland without serving any of them directly.
Note: The PA Turnpike doesn't serve Harrisburg directly either. :cool:
It's not absolutely necessary for a highway to go into the control city's town. Youngstown is decent, although I would prefer Cleveland, even though that involves continuing from I-76 to I-80.
PennDOT also uses state names...in this particular case, on I-78, where Newark and New York would both be suitable control cities:I've seen that concept on Interstate highways around the Chicago area, use of state names for controls -- Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois.
PennDOT also uses state names...in this particular case, on I-78, where Newark and New York would both be suitable control cities:I've seen that concept on Interstate highways around the Chicago area, use of state names for controls -- Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois.
I think that can be more useful than city names in some cases.
Using "I-80 West - Iowa" is very clear when you are heading west on I-80 in NW Indiana.
Would "Quad Cities" be a no-no for I-80 as well? Does it go through or near, say, Davenport, IA?
Would "Quad Cities" be a no-no for I-80 as well? Does it go through or near, say, Davenport, IA?
None of which is large enough to really "stand out" in the minds of travelers that are not familiar with the area. The whole metro isn't very large.Would "Quad Cities" be a no-no for I-80 as well? Does it go through or near, say, Davenport, IA?Quad Citirs would be meaningless. Heck, it doesn't even show up on a Google Maps search. You'll need to pick an actual city.
None of which is large enough to really "stand out" in the minds of travelers that are not familiar with the area. The whole metro isn't very large.Would "Quad Cities" be a no-no for I-80 as well? Does it go through or near, say, Davenport, IA?Quad Citirs would be meaningless. Heck, it doesn't even show up on a Google Maps search. You'll need to pick an actual city.
The Quad Cities is a region of five cities in the U.S. states of Iowa and Illinois: Davenport and Bettendorf in southeastern Iowa, and Rock Island, Moline, and East Moline in northwestern Illinois. These cities are the center of the Quad Cities metropolitan area, which as of 2013 had a population estimate of 383,781 and a CSA (Combined Statistical Area) population of 474,937, making it the 90th-largest CSA in the nation.
Even worse when Quad Cities doesn't even mean 4 cities!!!
In this case, just use Davenport as the main city, then afterwords use one of the other cities along the route if necessary. But the reality I would suspect is they move on to Chicago or Iowa City, based on the direction one is travelling.
The PA Turnpike is signed using Youngstown OH as a control city on US 19 at the Cranberry Interchange (This might be PennDOT's doing, though).
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6817443,-80.1006858,3a,75y,184.52h,89.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss4z0Nc1DtZoFsNIyuqgMdQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
The PA Turnpike is signed using Youngstown OH as a control city on US 19 at the Cranberry Interchange (This might be PennDOT's doing, though).
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6817443,-80.1006858,3a,75y,184.52h,89.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss4z0Nc1DtZoFsNIyuqgMdQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Signage for the Turnpike on PennDOT roadways in western Pennsylvania almost always uses actual control cities such as on SR 3091 in New Stanton (https://goo.gl/maps/h8CTUMzjDqgv9t7v6). One deviation is in Monroeville on I-376 and US 22 where Ohio is used, just as on the PTC's own Toll I-376 (https://goo.gl/maps/Hze3n9j3SKLM8FjW8).
There are places on the mainline where actual control cities are used such as before both New Stanton (https://goo.gl/maps/U2ouQdcUZz9rpJEd7) and Irwin (https://goo.gl/maps/csjZup69BF87nmcH7) heading westbound, unlike the "Ohio and West" which was used at Exit 57 (https://goo.gl/maps/rdFGjYepiz6WCsv17) until the gantry was taken down.
One other question; was there ever an eastbound off-ramp to US 30 east of I-76? Because it looks like it here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.013577,-78.200836,690m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.013577,-78.200836,690m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)
And I have to say that if the Pike2Bike group takes over the whole ROW, there ought to be new parking areas along the turnpike where the old turnpike splits off. Something that would include a pedestrian/cycling bride over the turnpike between the two parking areas and bike racks both westbound and eastbound.
A couple of other things; The two links to Brian Troutman's Abandoned PA Turnpike...are dead
Do you know what URL it was linking to? My 15-year-old Abandoned Turnpike pages are still online (http://briantroutman.com/land/http:/briantroutman.com/land/highways/abandonedturnpike/). (Though they really need to be updated and overhauled–or put out of their misery.)This one:
I have a question regarding the Turnpike’s control cities. It seems PTC always uses cities that are quite far at tool booths. For example, at the Allegheny Valley interchange, they use Harrisburg and Ohio. To me, it would make much more sense to use Monroeville and Irwin instead of Harrisburg, and Cranberry and Beaver instead of Ohio. I could see even using Harrisburg and Ohio as the secondary city, but as primary cities, it just seems odd to me. Is there a reason for this? Also, I could be wrong, but doesn’t the MUTCD prohibit the use of state names as control cities?
https://goo.gl/maps/aCLFXrDeWGAxoWki7
Generally, most highway's entrance ramps don't list the next exit's towns. Highways Control Cities are designed to direct people towards larger cities.Westbound is slightly problematic because the Ohio Turnpike bypasses Youngstown, Akron, and Cleveland without serving any of them directly.
Note: The PA Turnpike doesn't serve Harrisburg directly either. :cool:
It's not absolutely necessary for a highway to go into the control city's town. Youngstown is decent, although I would prefer Cleveland, even though that involves continuing from I-76 to I-80.
I have a question regarding the Turnpike’s control cities. It seems PTC always uses cities that are quite far at tool booths. For example, at the Allegheny Valley interchange, they use Harrisburg and Ohio. To me, it would make much more sense to use Monroeville and Irwin instead of Harrisburg, and Cranberry and Beaver instead of Ohio. I could see even using Harrisburg and Ohio as the secondary city, but as primary cities, it just seems odd to me. Is there a reason for this? Also, I could be wrong, but doesn’t the MUTCD prohibit the use of state names as control cities?
https://goo.gl/maps/aCLFXrDeWGAxoWki7
Generally, most highway's entrance ramps don't list the next exit's towns. Highways Control Cities are designed to direct people towards larger cities.Westbound is slightly problematic because the Ohio Turnpike bypasses Youngstown, Akron, and Cleveland without serving any of them directly.
Note: The PA Turnpike doesn't serve Harrisburg directly either. :cool:
It's not absolutely necessary for a highway to go into the control city's town. Youngstown is decent, although I would prefer Cleveland, even though that involves continuing from I-76 to I-80.
In the Northeast and Midwest, I think it'd be good to double up on the control cities, honestly, due to the number of major and decent-sized cities. On the Turnpike in the Pittsburgh area, I'd double up and use Youngstown/Cleveland as the westbound control cities, and Harrisburg/Philadelphia as the eastbound control cities. Also, in the Philadelphia area, I'd double up and use Harrisburg/Pittsburgh as the westbound control cities. That way, you're tying both ends of the Commonwealth together.
In the Harrisburg area, though, only one control city is needed: Pittsburgh westbound and Philadelphia eastbound. Also, I'd drop Cleveland as a westbound control city in New Stanton. Cleveland doesn't need to become a control city until Pittsburgh. Washington PA/Columbus are fine as double control cities westbound on I-70, though, because Columbus is the next major city on the route.
Also, on I-376 eastbound near the Turnpike in Monroeville, a TO I-70 East Baltimore/Washington DC trailblazer is a good idea, as is a TO I-70 West Wheeling WV/Columbus trailblazer on I-376 westbound near I-79. Lastly, I'd rename Exits 28 and 57 on the Turnpike as Pittsburgh North and Pittsburgh East, respectively. :spin:
Good news: Three weeks ago, there was a public meeting about the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel project (https://www.patpconstruction.com/allegtunn/media/Allegheny%20Tunnel%20Jan%2016%202020%20Public%20Display%20Boards.pdf) in Somerset. They now have the exact alignments for all three corridors designed, both as a "cut" and a tunnel, and color coded: brown for a north alignment, gray for the south alignment, and yellow for an alignment closest to the existing tunnel.Cuts don't require much money to maintain if done properly. Gray seems to be the most environmentally conscious and yellow seems to be the straightest. Brown is in there to show they looked at three alternatives. I find it interesting they need a new tunnel here. They have two tunnels. I see the curves, but really?
The brown tunnel would be the most expensive tunnel to construct, and the brown cut would be the most expensive cut to construct. The gray tunnel would be the least expensive tunnel to construct, and the yellow cut would be the least expensive cut to construct. The yellow tunnel would be the most expensive tunnel to maintain, but the yellow cut would be the least expensive cut to maintain. The gray tunnel would be the least expensive tunnel to maintain, but the gray cut would be the most expensive cut to maintain.
Finally, there appears to be some real movement on this project after five or six years of delays.
Good news: Three weeks ago, there was a public meeting about the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel project (https://www.patpconstruction.com/allegtunn/media/Allegheny%20Tunnel%20Jan%2016%202020%20Public%20Display%20Boards.pdf) in Somerset. They now have the exact alignments for all three corridors designed, both as a "cut" and a tunnel, and color coded: brown for a north alignment, gray for the south alignment, and yellow for an alignment closest to the existing tunnel.Cuts don't require much money to maintain if done properly. Gray seems to be the most environmentally conscious and yellow seems to be the straightest. Brown is in there to show they looked at three alternatives. I find it interesting they need a new tunnel here. They have two tunnels. I see the curves, but really?
The brown tunnel would be the most expensive tunnel to construct, and the brown cut would be the most expensive cut to construct. The gray tunnel would be the least expensive tunnel to construct, and the yellow cut would be the least expensive cut to construct. The yellow tunnel would be the most expensive tunnel to maintain, but the yellow cut would be the least expensive cut to maintain. The gray tunnel would be the least expensive tunnel to maintain, but the gray cut would be the most expensive cut to maintain.
Finally, there appears to be some real movement on this project after five or six years of delays.
Good news: Three weeks ago, there was a public meeting about the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel project (https://www.patpconstruction.com/allegtunn/media/Allegheny%20Tunnel%20Jan%2016%202020%20Public%20Display%20Boards.pdf) in Somerset. They now have the exact alignments for all three corridors designed, both as a "cut" and a tunnel, and color coded: brown for a north alignment, gray for the south alignment, and yellow for an alignment closest to the existing tunnel.Those cuts are massive and in the range of where tunnels are chosen instead.
Finally, there appears to be some real movement on this project after five or six years of delays.
The slides include the gray cut alternative at the end in addition to where they're depicting all of them, so I would assume that it's the preferred alternative.
The slides include the gray cut alternative at the end in addition to where they're depicting all of them, so I would assume that it's the preferred alternative.I would hope not.
Finally, there appears to be some real movement on this project after five or six years of delays.
It has been talked about off-and-on since the mid-1990s (https://www.pahighways.com/toll/PATurnpike.html#Chapter12").
Finally, there appears to be some real movement on this project after five or six years of delays.
It has been talked about off-and-on since the mid-1990s (https://www.pahighways.com/toll/PATurnpike.html#Chapter12").
They haven't had design details until now.
It's all been done before: 5 alternatives proposed in the '90s shown on the map on my Turnpike page via the link, and 6 back in 2013 to name a few. All of them ended up getting shelved after a certain period of time, which is why I am cautiously optimistic over these newest alternatives.
The Turnpike won't do the tunnels because of money, and there's a local sportsmen's group that doesn't want a highway cut to disturb the area. No doubt there will be legal action added to the PTC's financial difficulties to delay this a bit longer.I see that there is a 7-mile widening project in design just west of the Tuscarora Tunnel --
The Turnpike won't do the tunnels because of money, and there's a local sportsmen's group that doesn't want a highway cut to disturb the area. No doubt there will be legal action added to the PTC's financial difficulties to delay this a bit longer.I see that there is a 7-mile widening project in design just west of the Tuscarora Tunnel --
https://www.patpconstruction.com/mp180to186/
PROJECT SUMMARY: Total reconstruction and widening to three lanes in each direction from the Fort Littleton Interchange to the Tuscarora Tunnel.
. . . . . . . .
The Tuscarora Tunnel itself has a major rehab project under construction --
https://www.patpconstruction.com/mp186tunnel/
This $110M project provides for the rehabilitation of Tuscarora Tunnel and portal buildings including upgrade of fire/life safety/ communication systems, upgrade of electrical systems including new back-up generators, new ventilation system, new lighting system, mechanical upgrades and new Tunnel Control System. Scope of work also includes improvements of the entrances to tunnels.
. . . . . . . .
So this would indicate that there are no plans to replace this tunnel with an open cut or with new 3-lane tunnels, even though there are plans to widen the highway just to the west.
I wonder what the long range plans are here?
On Google Maps it looks like the original turnpike. But sometimes their photography is not fully up to date.So this would indicate that there are no plans to replace this tunnel with an open cut or with new 3-lane tunnels, even though there are plans to widen the highway just to the west. I wonder what the long range plans are here?I believe the section east of the Tuscarora Tunnel to the Kittatinny/Blue Mountain Tunnels was reconstructed about 15 years ago. With all this being said, it looks like the Tuscarora Tunnel is here to stay for a while.
The Turnpike won't do the tunnels because of money, and there's a local sportsmen's group that doesn't want a highway cut to disturb the area. No doubt there will be legal action added to the PTC's financial difficulties to delay this a bit longer.I see that there is a 7-mile widening project in design just west of the Tuscarora Tunnel --
https://www.patpconstruction.com/mp180to186/
PROJECT SUMMARY: Total reconstruction and widening to three lanes in each direction from the Fort Littleton Interchange to the Tuscarora Tunnel.
. . . . . . . .
The Tuscarora Tunnel itself has a major rehab project under construction --
https://www.patpconstruction.com/mp186tunnel/
This $110M project provides for the rehabilitation of Tuscarora Tunnel and portal buildings including upgrade of fire/life safety/ communication systems, upgrade of electrical systems including new back-up generators, new ventilation system, new lighting system, mechanical upgrades and new Tunnel Control System. Scope of work also includes improvements of the entrances to tunnels.
. . . . . . . .
So this would indicate that there are no plans to replace this tunnel with an open cut or with new 3-lane tunnels, even though there are plans to widen the highway just to the west.
I wonder what the long range plans are here?
On Google Maps it looks like the original turnpike. But sometimes their photography is not fully up to date.So this would indicate that there are no plans to replace this tunnel with an open cut or with new 3-lane tunnels, even though there are plans to widen the highway just to the west. I wonder what the long range plans are here?I believe the section east of the Tuscarora Tunnel to the Kittatinny/Blue Mountain Tunnels was reconstructed about 15 years ago. With all this being said, it looks like the Tuscarora Tunnel is here to stay for a while.
What about the two tunnels near Blue Mountain, I can't find anything online about replacing them. From just east of there (about 1/2 mile) all the way to Carlisle has been rebuilt to 6 lanes.
My hope would be that if the traffic needs are for 6 lanes between Fort Littleton and Carlisle, that they would widen that area between the Tuscarora Tunnel and the Blue Mountain Tunnel inclusive.So this would indicate that there are no plans to replace this tunnel with an open cut or with new 3-lane tunnels, even though there are plans to widen the highway just to the west.My guess is that the segment between the Tuscarora Tunnel and the Blue Mountain Tunnel will remain four lanes while the rest of the Turnpike will be widened to six lanes.
I wonder what the long range plans are here?
The earliest Turnpike reconstruction projects did not involve widening. Such would include MP 38-40 (the short 4-lane section at the Butler Valley interchange), MP 75-99, MP 109-121, and MP 186-199.The MP 186-199 was 61 years old in 2001, and it had aged out by then.
https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/travel/Total_Recon_2019.pdf
If I had to guess, the next set of tunnels to see work after the Allegheny Tunnel will be the Lehigh Tunnel...backups are common there on weekends with traffic to/from the Poconos.Nothing in design yet for 6 lane widening north of Quakertown. I don't know why they would expand the tunnels to 6 lanes if the adjoining highway wasn't widened.
I wonder if an alternative was ever considered that proposed using the two existing tunnels for one direction, and a new 3-lane tunnel for the other. For example, use the current westbound tunnel for trucks, the current eastbound tunnel for westbound cars, and a new tunnel for eastbound traffic.
To build a tunnel correctly they should really be adding shoulders. As it stands now, the 2 lanes in the tunnels are narrow or feel narrow, which contributes to motorists slowing down. And without permission to pass, it just clogs up the lanes.I don't know of any mountain tunnels in the U.S. of a mile long or more, having full continuous shoulders. Modern incident management systems have at least partly alleviated the need.
Unless the tunnels were to be approximately 5 lanes wide (3 travel lanes, 2 full shoulders), they should be skipped. And tunnels that wide are surely gonna be unjustifiably costly with other, non-tunnel options available.
To build a tunnel correctly they should really be adding shoulders. As it stands now, the 2 lanes in the tunnels are narrow or feel narrow, which contributes to motorists slowing down. And without permission to pass, it just clogs up the lanes.I don't know of any mountain tunnels in the U.S. of a mile long or more, having full continuous shoulders. Modern incident management systems have at least partly alleviated the need.
Unless the tunnels were to be approximately 5 lanes wide (3 travel lanes, 2 full shoulders), they should be skipped. And tunnels that wide are surely gonna be unjustifiably costly with other, non-tunnel options available.
However, what I was referring to doesn't have anything to do with incidents. It has to do with people's insecurities, especially when it comes to claustrophobia. Enclosed areas freak some drivers out, and they start slowing down. They may enter at or above the speed limit, but by the time they get to the other side they've slowed down to 40 or 45 mph. Happens all the time in these tunnels. And once they slow down, everyone behind them is forced to slow down. On heavily traveled weekend and holiday periods, congestion is quite common in many of these tunnels, even though it's the same number of lanes before and after the tunnels.That is an inherent problem with tunnels. They are needed, but due to cross-sectional issues, even a 3-lane tube with the typical round cross-section creates wasted space.
And when an incident does occur, it's not easy to deal with. If something blocks the entire tunnel, there's only one way emergency personnel can easily get to it - via the opposing direction. There's no option to ride the shoulder in a tunnel; no option to have people move over in the tunnel. If the police are far away, or dealing with another incident, it can be a while before they can get to the incident within the tunnel.The current state-of-the-art is for that tunnel to have its own incident management system, vehicles and crew, so that they can arrive within a few minutes.
Even when bypassing/cutting the mountain is more expensive up-front than building a tunnel, there are numerous other benefits that can outweigh the inconvenience of a tunnel.In general, yes, but the Alleghany three open cut alternatives are massive, in terms of cubic yards of excavation, 10 million, 18 million and 25 million.
That is an inherent problem with tunnels. They are needed, but due to cross-sectional issues, even a 3-lane tube with the typical round cross-section creates wasted space.
In general, yes, but the Alleghany three open cut alternatives are massive, in terms of cubic yards of excavation, 10 million, 18 million and 25 million.
That may be far more massive than will be accepted by the public and the resource agencies. The data I saw on the project site didn't seem to say how much surplus excavation that would create and where it would be deposited.
I've looked around and haven't found any for bored tunnels; there may be, but for example the Seattle tunnel and the bored Hampton Roads tunnel alternatives utilized a round cross-section as that best resists the enormous pressures underground.That is an inherent problem with tunnels. They are needed, but due to cross-sectional issues, even a 3-lane tube with the typical round cross-section creates wasted space.Elliptical cross-sections for highway tunnels are pretty much the norm these days, though this still entails a certain amount of wasted space.
I wonder if the cost for the tunnel options reflects opportunities for amortization of a TBM over multiple contracts (which can significantly influence the cost) and includes capitalization of operating and incident management costs.Good questions.
The implied alternative may be the one with 18 million cubic yards. Staggering to even think of a cut that large over 1 mile of highway.In general, yes, but the Alleghany three open cut alternatives are massive, in terms of cubic yards of excavation, 10 million, 18 million and 25 million.The PDF linked to implies that permitting considerations influenced the choice of the apparently preferred alternative. My question is whether they have taken into account the possibility of acid rock in the excavation, which would have the potential to lead to a replay of the I-99 acid rock disposal debacle.
That may be far more massive than will be accepted by the public and the resource agencies. The data I saw on the project site didn't seem to say how much surplus excavation that would create and where it would be deposited.
Of course they have been toying with this project for over 20 years of studies and have not yet officially declared.
Like, what do you even expect from them?Of course they have been toying with this project for over 20 years of studies and have not yet officially declared.
Same agency that took 30 years to begin working to construction 25% of a relatively common interchange with 95.
On Google Maps it looks like the original turnpike. But sometimes their photography is not fully up to date.So this would indicate that there are no plans to replace this tunnel with an open cut or with new 3-lane tunnels, even though there are plans to widen the highway just to the west. I wonder what the long range plans are here?I believe the section east of the Tuscarora Tunnel to the Kittatinny/Blue Mountain Tunnels was reconstructed about 15 years ago. With all this being said, it looks like the Tuscarora Tunnel is here to stay for a while.
What about the two tunnels near Blue Mountain, I can't find anything online about replacing them. From just east of there (about 1/2 mile) all the way to Carlisle has been rebuilt to 6 lanes.
The earliest Turnpike reconstruction projects did not involve widening. Such would include MP 38-40 (the short 4-lane section at the Butler Valley interchange), MP 75-99, MP 109-121, and MP 186-199.
https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/travel/Total_Recon_2019.pdf
If I had to guess, the next set of tunnels to see work after the Allegheny Tunnel will be the Lehigh Tunnel...backups are common there on weekends with traffic to/from the Poconos.
CDOT has proven that you CAN widen a 2-lane tunnel with the Veterans Memorial Tunnels near Idaho Springs. However those tunnels are much shorter than the one on the Penna Turnpike.Shorter, like 730 feet long, and they had an easily constructible detour around the hill that the tunnel passes thru.
I've looked around and haven't found any for bored tunnels; there may be, but for example the Seattle tunnel and the bored Hampton Roads tunnel alternatives utilized a round cross-section as that best resists the enormous pressures underground.
How many lanes? A 2-lane tunnel roadway has about 26 feet of horizontal clearance and 16 feet of vertical clearance, so generally that would fit in a circular cross-section.I've looked around and haven't found any for bored tunnels; there may be, but for example the Seattle tunnel and the bored Hampton Roads tunnel alternatives utilized a round cross-section as that best resists the enormous pressures underground.I've downloaded a bunch of expressway construction plans for Gansu province, China, and as far as I can tell, they are using only elliptical cross-sections for mountain tunnels. I think the Germans are also using an elliptical cross-section for the A44 Sontra tunnel (part of the Kassel-Herleshausen "missing link"). They did use a circular cross-section for the A7 Elbe Tunnel fourth bore, as did the Spanish for all four bores of the SE-40 tunnel--both of these were subaqueous projects.
Since this is a mountain location, I'm betting the Turnpike Commission will go with an elliptical cross-section if they develop the tunnel alternatives any further, which they may not.The shield-driven TBM is by nature a circular device in cross-section. Seems like an elliptical cross-section would need a lot of shaping and work after the passage of possibly 2 TBMs.
How many lanes? A 2-lane tunnel roadway has about 26 feet of horizontal clearance and 16 feet of vertical clearance, so generally that would fit in a circular cross-section.
The shield-driven TBM is by nature a circular device in cross-section. Seems like an elliptical cross-section would need a lot of shaping and work after the passage of possibly 2 TBMs.
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/caltrans/fourthbore2.phpThe shield-driven TBM is by nature a circular device in cross-section. Seems like an elliptical cross-section would need a lot of shaping and work after the passage of possibly 2 TBMs.Yes. An alternative is to use a roadheader, which is not limited to a circular cross-section. This is what Caltrans did for the Caldecott Tunnel fourth bore, which was finished in 2013.
https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Tunneling_FactSheet.pdf
CDOT has proven that you CAN widen a 2-lane tunnel with the Veterans Memorial Tunnels near Idaho Springs. However those tunnels are much shorter than the one on the Penna Turnpike.Shorter, like 730 feet long, and they had an easily constructible detour around the hill that the tunnel passes thru.
One idea that I have for the Turnpike tunnels, rather than build two new 3-lane tubes, build one new 3-lane tube, move that directional traffic there, close one of the older tunnels, bore it out and reline it to 3-lane size, and then move that directional traffic there.
That way only one older tunnel would need to be abandoned.
I wonder if an alternative was ever considered that proposed using the two existing tunnels for one direction, and a new 3-lane tunnel for the other. For example, use the current westbound tunnel for trucks, the current eastbound tunnel for westbound cars, and a new tunnel for eastbound traffic.
CDOT has proven that you CAN widen a 2-lane tunnel with the Veterans Memorial Tunnels near Idaho Springs. However those tunnels are much shorter than the one on the Penna Turnpike.Shorter, like 730 feet long, and they had an easily constructible detour around the hill that the tunnel passes thru.
One idea that I have for the Turnpike tunnels, rather than build two new 3-lane tubes, build one new 3-lane tube, move that directional traffic there, close one of the older tunnels, bore it out and reline it to 3-lane size, and then move that directional traffic there.
That way only one older tunnel would need to be abandoned.
I wonder if an alternative was ever considered that proposed using the two existing tunnels for one direction, and a new 3-lane tunnel for the other. For example, use the current westbound tunnel for trucks, the current eastbound tunnel for westbound cars, and a new tunnel for eastbound traffic.
Too bad neither of these ideas are in the list of alternatives. Makes sense to me to use as much existing infrastructure as possible. I wonder if the PTC ever considered either of these options, and if they did, what the reasons were for dismissing them.
Maybe so, but I believe that they have 24-foot roadways.Probably undersized for modern standards. Maintenance costs are much higher. Remember than many if these tunnels were originally designed as train tunnels, so there may be other issues not visible and unknown to the general public.I wonder if an alternative was ever considered that proposed using the two existing tunnels for one direction, and a new 3-lane tunnel for the other. For example, use the current westbound tunnel for trucks, the current eastbound tunnel for westbound cars, and a new tunnel for eastbound traffic.Too bad neither of these ideas are in the list of alternatives. Makes sense to me to use as much existing infrastructure as possible. I wonder if the PTC ever considered either of these options, and if they did, what the reasons were for dismissing them.
Probably undersized for modern standards. Maintenance costs are much higher. Remember than many if these tunnels were originally designed as train tunnels, so there may be other issues not visible and unknown to the general public.
Does the Turnpike use internal letter designations for the extensions? I recall seeing somewhere the the Northeast Extension is A, and the Mon Fayette is M. PA Tpk 576 seems to be S per the toll guide.
Very cool, thanks!Does the Turnpike use internal letter designations for the extensions? I recall seeing somewhere the the Northeast Extension is A, and the Mon Fayette is M. PA Tpk 576 seems to be S per the toll guide.
Yes--the PTC uses internal letter designations for the mainline (T) as well as the extensions. They also form part of contract numbers for contracts that are specific to particular segments of road.
I don't know the letters for 66 or 376. There haven't been any recent PTC contracts involving them (the I-376 redesignation was a PennDOT project), and the mile markers are not helpful.
Be advised the 24 hour Tuscarora Tunnel closures start this weekendEach closure will be 8 p.m. to 9 a.m. the next morning --
Be advised the 24 hour Tuscarora Tunnel closures start this weekendEach closure will be 8 p.m. to 9 a.m. the next morning --
Starting Tuesday, Dec. 3 from 8 p.m. to Friday Dec. 6 at 9 a.m., crews will implement nightly traffic stoppages of no more than 15 minutes in both directions to establish a crossover pattern, directing all traffic into the eastbound tunnel. By 8 p.m. each night, the westbound tunnel will be closed and all traffic diverted into the eastbound tunnel until 9 a.m. when the patterns are lifted.
The following week, weekly nighttime crossovers will begin Sunday, Dec. 8 from 8 p.m. to Friday, Dec. 13 at 9 a.m. This will occur at night each week – Sunday to Friday from 8 p.m. to 9 a.m. – through January.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2019/20191202120505.htm
Starting Tuesday, Dec. 3 from 8 p.m. to Friday Dec. 6 at 9 a.m., crews will implement nightly traffic stoppages of no more than 15 minutes in both directions to establish a crossover pattern, directing all traffic into the eastbound tunnel. By 8 p.m. each night, the westbound tunnel will be closed and all traffic diverted into the eastbound tunnel until 9 a.m. when the patterns are lifted.That was the last stage. This stage is continuous closures from 9 PM Sunday to Noon Friday.
The following week, weekly nighttime crossovers will begin Sunday, Dec. 8 from 8 p.m. to Friday, Dec. 13 at 9 a.m. This will occur at night each week – Sunday to Friday from 8 p.m. to 9 a.m. – through January.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2019/20191202120505.htm
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200220151650.htm
Starting Tuesday, Dec. 3 from 8 p.m. to Friday Dec. 6 at 9 a.m., crews will implement nightly traffic stoppages of no more than 15 minutes in both directions to establish a crossover pattern, directing all traffic into the eastbound tunnel. By 8 p.m. each night, the westbound tunnel will be closed and all traffic diverted into the eastbound tunnel until 9 a.m. when the patterns are lifted.That was the last stage. This stage is continuous closures from 9 PM Sunday to Noon Friday.
The following week, weekly nighttime crossovers will begin Sunday, Dec. 8 from 8 p.m. to Friday, Dec. 13 at 9 a.m. This will occur at night each week – Sunday to Friday from 8 p.m. to 9 a.m. – through January.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2019/20191202120505.htm
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200220151650.htm
So closed for 6 1/2 24-hour days?
Some posters in another roads forum complained about this being pay-walled, so I am posting the entire article.
This is the Grey Cut alternative, and has 18.4 million cubic yards of excavation, 249 feet deep and costs $332 million.
Nothing in the article about the massive size of this cut.
The question is where does all that excavation go, can they somehow balance the cuts and fills on the project?
Like to see renderings of what it would look like from various vantage points, it might look horrendous due to the massive size.
I can't imagine what a cut of 18 million cubic yards of excavation, 250 feet deep, over a mile of route, would look like. That is 5 times the cubic yards of the Sideling Hill Cut on I-68.
This is truly the "tunnel territory" for such a transportation barrier.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[snippage]
How does this compare with the tunnel bypass cut on the West Virginia Turnpike (I-64/77)?
This cut moved 10 million cubic yards of earth, and yielded about 300,000 tons of coal from the mountain.
The PA Turnpike will begin temporary AET operations tonight...
https://www.pennlive.com/coronavirus/2020/03/pa-turnpike-will-temporarily-not-accept-cash-or-credit-cards-because-of-coronavirus.html
News Release
March 16, 2020
PA Turnpike Temporarily Will Not Accept Cash To Safeguard Employee and Traveler Health
Cash customers should NOT stop at tollbooths; they’ll be invoiced by mail starting at 8 p.m.
HARRISBURG, PA (MARCH 16, 2020) — The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) is alerting motorists that cash will not be accepted at any interchange statewide beginning tonight at 8 p.m. This is a temporary safety measure to keep travelers moving with no need to stop at tollbooths or interact with tolling personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Gonna ask a really dumb questionThe PA Turnpike will begin temporary AET operations tonight...
https://www.pennlive.com/coronavirus/2020/03/pa-turnpike-will-temporarily-not-accept-cash-or-credit-cards-because-of-coronavirus.html
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200316132828.htmQuoteNews Release
March 16, 2020
PA Turnpike Temporarily Will Not Accept Cash To Safeguard Employee and Traveler Health
Cash customers should NOT stop at tollbooths; they’ll be invoiced by mail starting at 8 p.m.
HARRISBURG, PA (MARCH 16, 2020) — The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) is alerting motorists that cash will not be accepted at any interchange statewide beginning tonight at 8 p.m. This is a temporary safety measure to keep travelers moving with no need to stop at tollbooths or interact with tolling personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic.
ixnay
Gonna ask a really dumb question
If they have to technology to do this temporarily, why delay the full scale implementation until late 2021?
The PTC is also starting to limit services at the service plazas - for now only the 3 closest to Philadelphia, but I wouldn't be surprised if they expand it to all service plazas.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200316114826.htm
The PTC is also starting to limit services at the service plazas - for now only the 3 closest to Philadelphia, but I wouldn't be surprised if they expand it to all service plazas.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200316114826.htm
Okay, I'm stupid, but could someone please explain the point of closing the restrooms and instead making porta-potties available? Those things aren't exactly known for their hygienic properties. And when you gotta, you gotta, so it's not going to increase "social distancing."
The PTC is also starting to limit services at the service plazas - for now only the 3 closest to Philadelphia, but I wouldn't be surprised if they expand it to all service plazas.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200316114826.htm
"The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is implementing operational changes in response to Governor Wolf's mitigation guidance regarding COVID-19."The PTC is also starting to limit services at the service plazas - for now only the 3 closest to Philadelphia, but I wouldn't be surprised if they expand it to all service plazas.This is the most asinine, fucked up, ridiculous response to this crisis. Are we not supposed to be washing our hands with soap and water!?! Instead, the totally brain-dead PTC decides to replace clean washroom, with soap and water, with dirty, nasty, disgusting potable toilets that lack water and use that god-awful hand sanitizer shit instead. That is, if they're even stocked with the had sanitizer in the first fucking place.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200316114826.htm
Okay, I'm stupid, but could someone please explain the point of closing the restrooms and instead making porta-potties available?
I'll just go and take a shit behind the building, then.The PTC is also starting to limit services at the service plazas - for now only the 3 closest to Philadelphia, but I wouldn't be surprised if they expand it to all service plazas.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200316114826.htm
Okay, I'm stupid, but could someone please explain the point of closing the restrooms and instead making porta-potties available? Those things aren't exactly known for their hygienic properties. And when you gotta, you gotta, so it's not going to increase "social distancing."
Traveling?I'll just go and take a shit behind the building, then.The PTC is also starting to limit services at the service plazas - for now only the 3 closest to Philadelphia, but I wouldn't be surprised if they expand it to all service plazas.Okay, I'm stupid, but could someone please explain the point of closing the restrooms and instead making porta-potties available? Those things aren't exactly known for their hygienic properties. And when you gotta, you gotta, so it's not going to increase "social distancing."
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200316114826.htm
I'll just go and take a shit behind the building, then.The PTC is also starting to limit services at the service plazas - for now only the 3 closest to Philadelphia, but I wouldn't be surprised if they expand it to all service plazas.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200316114826.htm
Okay, I'm stupid, but could someone please explain the point of closing the restrooms and instead making porta-potties available? Those things aren't exactly known for their hygienic properties. And when you gotta, you gotta, so it's not going to increase "social distancing."
I'll just go and take a shit behind the building, then.The PTC is also starting to limit services at the service plazas - for now only the 3 closest to Philadelphia, but I wouldn't be surprised if they expand it to all service plazas.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200316114826.htm
Okay, I'm stupid, but could someone please explain the point of closing the restrooms and instead making porta-potties available? Those things aren't exactly known for their hygienic properties. And when you gotta, you gotta, so it's not going to increase "social distancing."
Is that what you do when you travel on roads without service plazas?
Considering they're telling you to cut out all non-essential travel anyway, why would you be crying over this in the first place?
Is that what you do when you travel on roads without service plazas?Depends on what a person considers "non-essential travel," as while something may not be life-or-death, there are any number of things that would impose a major hardship on a person if they are not able to make the trip.
Considering they're telling you to cut out all non-essential travel anyway, why would you be crying over this in the first place?
Obviously someone forgot that we have truckers out there who need these facilities.
We have been made aware of an issue at a few restaurants open to drive thru traffic only.
Many Truck Drivers, EMT/Paramedics, Firefighters and Rescue Squad members have been turned away by some establishments. This is due to them walking up to the drive thru window to order food.
These folks need to eat and CANNOT pull their vehicles through. We hope that this post reaches Owners and Managers of these establishments.
Please allow our working folks to eat! Supplies need delivered and 911 calls need answered.
The PTC is also starting to limit services at the service plazas - for now only the 3 closest to Philadelphia, but I wouldn't be surprised if they expand it to all service plazas.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200316114826.htm
This is the most asinine, fucked up, ridiculous response to this crisis. Are we not supposed to be washing our hands with soap and water!?! Instead, the totally brain-dead PTC decides to replace clean washroom, with soap and water, with dirty, nasty, disgusting potable toilets that lack water and use that god-awful hand sanitizer shit instead. That is, if they're even stocked with the had sanitizer in the first fucking place.
From what I've read, the PTC has kept the service plaza parking areas open, while PennDOT has closed its rest areas to parking. What are truckers supposed to do when they reach their service hours limitations? Will Pennsylvania cops not write tickets when the truckers park on the shoulders or along entrance/exit ramps at interchanges? When they have to stop, they have to stop.
From what I've read, the PTC has kept the service plaza parking areas open, while PennDOT has closed its rest areas to parking. What are truckers supposed to do when they reach their service hours limitations? Will Pennsylvania cops not write tickets when the truckers park on the shoulders or along entrance/exit ramps at interchanges? When they have to stop, they have to stop.
IMO, this is a dumb, dumb idea by PennDOT (I have not heard that MDOT or VDOT are closing their rest areas on the Interstate (and in some cases arterial) systems.
I'll just go and take a shit behind the building, then.The PTC is also starting to limit services at the service plazas - for now only the 3 closest to Philadelphia, but I wouldn't be surprised if they expand it to all service plazas.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200316114826.htm
Okay, I'm stupid, but could someone please explain the point of closing the restrooms and instead making porta-potties available? Those things aren't exactly known for their hygienic properties. And when you gotta, you gotta, so it's not going to increase "social distancing."
Is that what you do when you travel on roads without service plazas?
Considering they're telling you to cut out all non-essential travel anyway, why would you be crying over this in the first place?
Obviously someone forgot that we have truckers out there who need these facilities.
Service plazas are re-opening on a limited basis
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200319140629.htm
Do motorists have the ability to use these rest areas and plazas? I am driving down into the South this weekend.
In better news, the PTC has posted some details about the upcoming reconstruction and widening of the NE Extension between the Quakertown and Lehigh Valley interchanges:That would be great … the first time I have seen a plan to widen and rebuild that third segment up to US-22.
https://www.patpconstruction.com/mpa44toa57/
In better news, the PTC has posted some details about the upcoming reconstruction and widening of the NE Extension between the Quakertown and Lehigh Valley interchanges:That would be great … the first time I have seen a plan to widen and rebuild that third segment up to US-22.
https://www.patpconstruction.com/mpa44toa57/
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is planning to reconstruct and widen the Northeastern Extension from milepost (MP) A44 in Bucks County to MP A57 in Lehigh County.
What about adding lanes from Lansdale to Quakertown?The one time I drove I-476 from Lansdale to Allentown it was bumper-to-bumper.
ixnay
Thanksgiving weekend when I went to visit my grandparents in NEPA, I didn't encounter much traffic at all. But then again, I left Dover at 6am.What about adding lanes from Lansdale to Quakertown?The one time I drove I-476 from Lansdale to Allentown it was bumper-to-bumper.
ixnay
The southern NE Extension has surprisingly high volumes considering the very wide interchange spacing and the fact that it is not a major superhighway on the order of the east-west turnpike.What about adding lanes from Lansdale to Quakertown?The one time I drove I-476 from Lansdale to Allentown it was bumper-to-bumper.
2017 data AADT --
67,000 between I-276 and Lansdale
51,000 between Lansdale and Quakertown
46,000 between Quakertown and US-22
The southern NE Extension has surprisingly high volumes considering the very wide interchange spacing and the fact that it is not a major superhighway on the order of the east-west turnpike.What about adding lanes from Lansdale to Quakertown?The one time I drove I-476 from Lansdale to Allentown it was bumper-to-bumper.
2017 data AADT --
67,000 between I-276 and Lansdale
51,000 between Lansdale and Quakertown
46,000 between Quakertown and US-22
All warrants the total rebuild to modern 6-lane cross-section, IMHO, even by today's volumes, let alone the needs on a 20-year design horizon, and it is an antiquated highway that was opened in 1957.
I drove it in 2019 and the newly widened section is super.
I drove it in 2019 and the newly widened section is super.
I have driven nearly all of the PTC system (I am missing at least one section in Southwest Pennsylvania that goes to the airport), and the reconstructed part of I-476 north of I-276 is a gigantic improvement over most of the rest of the Turnpike's roads - even some sections that have already been through total reconstruction are not as good as the reconstructed part of the Northeast Extension.The standard is three 12-foot lanes each way and 12-foot right and left shoulders, and a tall concrete median barrier.
The PTC is reviewing its spending in light of current events:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2020/04/16/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-COVID-19-low-traffic-revenue-capital-transit-payments/stories/202004160144
PTC toll revenue for March 2020:
https://www.paturnpike.com/business/investors_fcr.aspx
The PTC is reviewing its spending in light of current events:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2020/04/16/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-COVID-19-low-traffic-revenue-capital-transit-payments/stories/202004160144
PTC toll revenue for March 2020:
https://www.paturnpike.com/business/investors_fcr.aspx
Wonder if anyone in power in Pennsylvania will consider the suspension of transit subsidy payments from PTC to PennDOT for the duration of the current public health and economic crisis?
The PTC is reviewing its spending in light of current events:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2020/04/16/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-COVID-19-low-traffic-revenue-capital-transit-payments/stories/202004160144
PTC toll revenue for March 2020:
https://www.paturnpike.com/business/investors_fcr.aspx
Wonder if anyone in power in Pennsylvania will consider the suspension of transit subsidy payments from PTC to PennDOT for the duration of the current public health and economic crisis?
That's a tough call...less money for PennDOT and the transit agencies...or less money for the PTC. I'm betting most local politicians want to keep that money flowing into the local roadways and local mass transit.
That's a tough call...less money for PennDOT and the transit agencies...or less money for the PTC. I'm betting most local politicians want to keep that money flowing into the local roadways and local mass transit.
Not sure if this is the correct thread but it falls under the Turnpike system, though it could apply to the general PA thread.
I've always wondered why the PTC built the Greensburg Bypass (PA 66 between I-70/Turnpike and US 22). A brief history on the road doesn't say much, other than it being constructed from 1990-1993. I'm assuming prior to 1993 I-70 traffic wishing to travel to US 22 would use US 119.
Now here's the thing: there's not many people shunpiking via US 22. Long distance traffic is either on I-68 or I-80. US 22 shunpikers are likely regional, and I can't see many reasons why one would need to use this corridor. I could see why it might be expanded based on traffic; US 119 between US 30 and US 22 is a humble 2 lane road, currently carrying 4300 AADT. PA 66 between those two points carries 17-18K AADT, reaching as high as 37K shy of US 22 (source (https://gis.penndot.gov/BPR_PDF_FILES/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/County_Maps/Westmoreland_tv.pdf)).
Furthering confounding me is that PennDOT did upgrade US 119 to 4 lanes between I-70 and US 30 meaning they anticipated decent amounts of traffic to Greensburg, but not north of Greensburg. Based on Google's aerial imagery, it wouldn't even be terribly difficult to extend US 30's bypass to also act as a bypass of US 119 (see here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3060622,-79.5183793,2501m/data=!3m1!1e3)) though upgrading US 119 north of town would be harder.
Which raises the question: why couldn't PennDOT upgrade US 119 to freeway status and bypass Greensburg? Why did the PTC have to build PA 66 to act as the bypass?
Overall PA 66 seems like a waste of money ($282 million in 1993, according to PAHighways (http://www.pahighways.com/toll/PATurnpike66.html)) and IMO could've been pocketed or used elsewhere (say the NE Extension, Turnpike upgrades, maybe even start the Mon-Fay).
It looks like a current style NJTP VMS is going up near the former toll plaza at the Delaware River Bridge going East. Saw the footings already in place, and the VMS laying in the former toll plaza convergance point.
If you think Turnpike 66 was a waste, let me introduce you to the Mon-Fayette Expressway which gets half the traffic.
It looks like a current style NJTP VMS is going up near the former toll plaza at the Delaware River Bridge going East. Saw the footings already in place, and the VMS laying in the former toll plaza convergance point.
If you think Turnpike 66 was a waste, let me introduce you to the Mon-Fayette Expressway which gets half the traffic.
Turnpike 43 had very low traffic volumes before the section to I-68 south of the Pennsylvania/West Virginia border was completed. Have they gone up since that section opened?
Do the projected traffic volumes on 43 south of PA-51 increase with a connection to I-376?
If you think Turnpike 66 was a waste, let me introduce you to the Mon-Fayette Expressway which gets half the traffic.
Turnpike 43 had very low traffic volumes before the section to I-68 south of the Pennsylvania/West Virginia border was completed. Have they gone up since that section opened?
Somewhat, but it's still lowly traveled on the toll section (about 7500 ADT). You can see on the traffic counts there are several thousand cars a day bypassing the toll part and then getting back on.Do the projected traffic volumes on 43 south of PA-51 increase with a connection to I-376?
Probably not much until you get a tie-in with the Southern Beltway. For traffic coming from Morgantown/Uniontown, it's still better to take US 119 to the Turnpike to I-376 if you're going to Monroeville. If you're heading towards downtown, I think PA 51 would still be better since you'd avoid Squirrel Hill Tunnel and going out of the way. Once the Southern Beltway is built, this would be useful as a bypass of downtown for people coming from the Washington County area.
I don't think anything without a 76 is going to be upgraded.If you think Turnpike 66 was a waste, let me introduce you to the Mon-Fayette Expressway which gets half the traffic.
Turnpike 43 had very low traffic volumes before the section to I-68 south of the Pennsylvania/West Virginia border was completed. Have they gone up since that section opened?
Somewhat, but it's still lowly traveled on the toll section (about 7500 ADT). You can see on the traffic counts there are several thousand cars a day bypassing the toll part and then getting back on.Do the projected traffic volumes on 43 south of PA-51 increase with a connection to I-376?
Probably not much until you get a tie-in with the Southern Beltway. For traffic coming from Morgantown/Uniontown, it's still better to take US 119 to the Turnpike to I-376 if you're going to Monroeville. If you're heading towards downtown, I think PA 51 would still be better since you'd avoid Squirrel Hill Tunnel and going out of the way. Once the Southern Beltway is built, this would be useful as a bypass of downtown for people coming from the Washington County area.
If Turnpike 43 gets an Interstate designation (which it very well may), what would it be? X68? X70? X76? X79?
If Turnpike 43 gets an Interstate designation (which it very well may), what would it be? X68? X70? X76? X79?
I thought the game plan was that when the Southern Beltway was fully complete that the PTC was running 576 all the way to monroeville.
I thought the game plan was that when the Southern Beltway was fully complete that the PTC was running 576 all the way to monroeville.
IIRC, that was the plan originally, with 43 following the western leg toward downtown and 576 following the eastern leg to Monroeville. With the cancellation of the western leg, though, they may end 576 at 43.
While looking over the PTC Design and Construction site this evening, I note that the mainline MP 28 to MP 31 project indicates that it went out to bid in December, contract has been awarded and NTP given in March, this a total mainline reconstruction to 6 lanes from the Cranberry Interchange to the Warrendale mainline booths.
Drove on the Turnpike for the first time since they went cashless temporarily. For the first time, all of the cash/ticket lanes on the mainline Turnpike are mixed mode (tickets or E-ZPass), whereas the exit lanes were previously Cash Only or E-ZPass Only. IMO they should always have been mixed mode lanes to avoid all the jockeying at the toll plazas (like NJ and NY have done). Hopefully they stay that way in preparation for the cashless tolling conversion.
Drove on the Turnpike for the first time since they went cashless temporarily. For the first time, all of the cash/ticket lanes on the mainline Turnpike are mixed mode (tickets or E-ZPass), whereas the exit lanes were previously Cash Only or E-ZPass Only. IMO they should always have been mixed mode lanes to avoid all the jockeying at the toll plazas (like NJ and NY have done). Hopefully they stay that way in preparation for the cashless tolling conversion.
It should be EZ Pass only or mixed mode. Purpose of EZ Pass is to keep moving. If you have all the lanes set to mixed mode you won't know if the person in front will stop or not.
Drove on the Turnpike for the first time since they went cashless temporarily. For the first time, all of the cash/ticket lanes on the mainline Turnpike are mixed mode (tickets or E-ZPass), whereas the exit lanes were previously Cash Only or E-ZPass Only. IMO they should always have been mixed mode lanes to avoid all the jockeying at the toll plazas (like NJ and NY have done). Hopefully they stay that way in preparation for the cashless tolling conversion.
It should be EZ Pass only or mixed mode. Purpose of EZ Pass is to keep moving. If you have all the lanes set to mixed mode you won't know if the person in front will stop or not.
Drove on the Turnpike for the first time since they went cashless temporarily. For the first time, all of the cash/ticket lanes on the mainline Turnpike are mixed mode (tickets or E-ZPass), whereas the exit lanes were previously Cash Only or E-ZPass Only. IMO they should always have been mixed mode lanes to avoid all the jockeying at the toll plazas (like NJ and NY have done). Hopefully they stay that way in preparation for the cashless tolling conversion.
It should be EZ Pass only or mixed mode. Purpose of EZ Pass is to keep moving. If you have all the lanes set to mixed mode you won't know if the person in front will stop or not.
Drove on the Turnpike for the first time since they went cashless temporarily. For the first time, all of the cash/ticket lanes on the mainline Turnpike are mixed mode (tickets or E-ZPass), whereas the exit lanes were previously Cash Only or E-ZPass Only. IMO they should always have been mixed mode lanes to avoid all the jockeying at the toll plazas (like NJ and NY have done). Hopefully they stay that way in preparation for the cashless tolling conversion.
It should be EZ Pass only or mixed mode. Purpose of EZ Pass is to keep moving. If you have all the lanes set to mixed mode you won't know if the person in front will stop or not.Drove on the Turnpike for the first time since they went cashless temporarily. For the first time, all of the cash/ticket lanes on the mainline Turnpike are mixed mode (tickets or E-ZPass), whereas the exit lanes were previously Cash Only or E-ZPass Only. IMO they should always have been mixed mode lanes to avoid all the jockeying at the toll plazas (like NJ and NY have done). Hopefully they stay that way in preparation for the cashless tolling conversion.
It should be EZ Pass only or mixed mode. Purpose of EZ Pass is to keep moving. If you have all the lanes set to mixed mode you won't know if the person in front will stop or not.
There are still E-ZPass Only lanes. The mixed mode lanes are new since cashless tolling was temporarily enabled. While you do have to be prepared to stop for a cash customer (even though each plaza has digital signs to keep moving), it does save you from having to cut across lanes if you aren’t near an E-ZPass Only lane and you can’t go through a cash lane. NY had all its cash lanes mixed mode from Day 1 and even NJ changed to mixed mode a few years back. Can’t think of another E-ZPass agency that doesn’t have all its cash lanes mixed mode.
Can confirm this was removed. Drove that segment of I-95 last July. Before that I drove it in January (same year) and it was still up.It looks like a current style NJTP VMS is going up near the former toll plaza at the Delaware River Bridge going East. Saw the footings already in place, and the VMS laying in the former toll plaza convergance point.
There was a classic-style neon NJTP VMS (https://goo.gl/maps/J5oVHPzui4EsxJjE6) still standing just after the toll plaza, at least when I was last there to check out the I-95 connection. I think it was the last neon NJTP VMS still standing, but it clearly hadn't been maintained in years, so I don't know when it was last used. It was removed sometime between October 2018 and September 2019. Apparently the NJTA still wants a VMS there.
The Mass Pike went full AET several years ago. All the toll plazas were taken down & replaced with mainline AET gantries. Cash toll collections ended when all the AET gantries were erected & went live.Drove on the Turnpike for the first time since they went cashless temporarily. For the first time, all of the cash/ticket lanes on the mainline Turnpike are mixed mode (tickets or E-ZPass), whereas the exit lanes were previously Cash Only or E-ZPass Only. IMO they should always have been mixed mode lanes to avoid all the jockeying at the toll plazas (like NJ and NY have done). Hopefully they stay that way in preparation for the cashless tolling conversion.
It should be EZ Pass only or mixed mode. Purpose of EZ Pass is to keep moving. If you have all the lanes set to mixed mode you won't know if the person in front will stop or not.
The Mass Pike has already done this. Why not Pennsylvania?
The last time I drove the NE Extension, I noticed that the exit numbers seem to have been fudged downward by a mile at both Lehigh Valley (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5919674,-75.5661847,3a,45.1y,351.88h,89.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scBF2iGoh4ZFKtBLGGlcsHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) and Mahoning Valley (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8351004,-75.6730176,3a,41.2y,61.77h,87.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGLb_G_q_SirsXePPDIotFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en). I was curious if the PTC did this, when renumbering exits to mileage-based, in order to avoid matching the exit numbers at Pittsburgh & New Stanton on the mainline? Which are far away and (most likely) never going to be passed in the same turnpike trip, but maybe the PTC didn't want to have 2 57's and 2 75's on the toll ticket?I believe that you are correct in your assessment of why Lehigh Valley is Exit 56 and Mahoning Valley is Exit 74--no duplication of Interchanges 57 and 75 on the toll ticket.
The last time I drove the NE Extension, I noticed that the exit numbers seem to have been fudged downward by a mile at both Lehigh Valley (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5919674,-75.5661847,3a,45.1y,351.88h,89.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scBF2iGoh4ZFKtBLGGlcsHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) and Mahoning Valley (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8351004,-75.6730176,3a,41.2y,61.77h,87.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGLb_G_q_SirsXePPDIotFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en). I was curious if the PTC did this, when renumbering exits to mileage-based, in order to avoid matching the exit numbers at Pittsburgh & New Stanton on the mainline? Which are far away and (most likely) never going to be passed in the same turnpike trip, but maybe the PTC didn't want to have 2 57's and 2 75's on the toll ticket?I believe that you are correct in your assessment of why Lehigh Valley is Exit 56 and Mahoning Valley is Exit 74--no duplication of Interchanges 57 and 75 on the toll ticket.
The last time I drove the NE Extension, I noticed that the exit numbers seem to have been fudged downward by a mile at both Lehigh Valley (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5919674,-75.5661847,3a,45.1y,351.88h,89.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scBF2iGoh4ZFKtBLGGlcsHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) and Mahoning Valley (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8351004,-75.6730176,3a,41.2y,61.77h,87.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGLb_G_q_SirsXePPDIotFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en). I was curious if the PTC did this, when renumbering exits to mileage-based, in order to avoid matching the exit numbers at Pittsburgh & New Stanton on the mainline? Which are far away and (most likely) never going to be passed in the same turnpike trip, but maybe the PTC didn't want to have 2 57's and 2 75's on the toll ticket?I believe that you are correct in your assessment of why Lehigh Valley is Exit 56 and Mahoning Valley is Exit 74--no duplication of Interchanges 57 and 75 on the toll ticket.
Then why not just mark them as A57 and A75?
The PTC will lay off its toll collectors and make cashless tolling permanent, effective immediately:
https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/pennsylvania-turnpike-to-lay-off-500-employees-make-cashless-tolling-permanent/
Cash will not be accepted anywhere on the PA Turnpike’s ticket system
How were the EZ-Pass only exits affected by this so far? Did they still remain EZ-Pass only when the rest of the system went to temporary (now permanent) cashless, or are they allowing toll by plate at these exits too?
This whole decision by the PTC stinks. They're going to throw 500 employees out in the street at a time like this when unemployment is already breaking records because of the Coronavirus. Where are these people supposed to find work?Do keep in mind that this is the same agency that thinks the inflation rate is 6% (https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2019/12/29/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-toll-increase-6-transit-funding-lower-increase-2023/stories/201912190185).
Statement from the PTC regarding the immediate change to permanent AET:
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200602154151.htm
Statement from the PTC regarding the immediate change to permanent AET:
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2020/20200602154151.htm
I think this comes as a surprise to no one.
Nice to hear that unlike the Penn. Turnpike Commission, the NYSTA will not be throwing hundreds of employees out the door onto the unemployment line during a period of record high unemployment.NYSTA didn't go full all-electronic anyways. They still had people in the exit booths to collect a person's licence plate and entry location so they can be billed during the emergency toll procedures. I think the career toll takers are already gone, anyways - what's left is part-time temps who can keep the booths staffed before they go all-electronic later this year.
I would suggest that they adopt mainline tolling sometime though.Nice to hear that unlike the Penn. Turnpike Commission, the NYSTA will not be throwing hundreds of employees out the door onto the unemployment line during a period of record high unemployment.NYSTA didn't go full all-electronic anyways. They still had people in the exit booths to collect a person's licence plate and entry location so they can be billed during the emergency toll procedures. I think the career toll takers are already gone, anyways - what's left is part-time temps who can keep the booths staffed before they go all-electronic later this year.
That's what I said. The conversion project is ongoing. Many of the gantries are already up. NYSTA is not the PTC or MTA.I would suggest that they adopt mainline tolling sometime though.Nice to hear that unlike the Penn. Turnpike Commission, the NYSTA will not be throwing hundreds of employees out the door onto the unemployment line during a period of record high unemployment.NYSTA didn't go full all-electronic anyways. They still had people in the exit booths to collect a person's licence plate and entry location so they can be billed during the emergency toll procedures. I think the career toll takers are already gone, anyways - what's left is part-time temps who can keep the booths staffed before they go all-electronic later this year.
That's what I said. The conversion project is ongoing. Many of the gantries are already up. NYSTA is not the PTC or MTA.I would suggest that they adopt mainline tolling sometime though.Nice to hear that unlike the Penn. Turnpike Commission, the NYSTA will not be throwing hundreds of employees out the door onto the unemployment line during a period of record high unemployment.NYSTA didn't go full all-electronic anyways. They still had people in the exit booths to collect a person's licence plate and entry location so they can be billed during the emergency toll procedures. I think the career toll takers are already gone, anyways - what's left is part-time temps who can keep the booths staffed before they go all-electronic later this year.
According to the No Cash Zone site, the Mon-Fayette has also gone cashless, effective immediately.
https://www.nocashzone.com/
The big question right now is when the PTC will have enough money to even consider putting up gantries across the rest of the system.
That's what I said. The conversion project is ongoing. Many of the gantries are already up. NYSTA is not the PTC or MTA.I would suggest that they adopt mainline tolling sometime though.Nice to hear that unlike the Penn. Turnpike Commission, the NYSTA will not be throwing hundreds of employees out the door onto the unemployment line during a period of record high unemployment.NYSTA didn't go full all-electronic anyways. They still had people in the exit booths to collect a person's licence plate and entry location so they can be billed during the emergency toll procedures. I think the career toll takers are already gone, anyways - what's left is part-time temps who can keep the booths staffed before they go all-electronic later this year.
The big question right now is when the PTC will have enough money to even consider putting up gantries across the rest of the system.
PTC is considering enacting several measures to mitigate the revenue loss due to self-quarantine orders during the coronavirus pandemic. The Commission plans to bring forward the planned January 2021 toll increase to October 2020, increase the magnitude from 5% to 6%, and include a 45% surcharge for toll by plate customers, making toll by plate rates approximately double E-ZPass rates. The proposed additional surcharge for toll by plate customers accounts for the increased processing costs associated with this collection method and the increase of toll by plate transactions due to the switch to AET
Also buried in a release about the rating of the Turnpike's debt is bad news about a likely double whammy of toll increases this year. Because of COVID, the next 6% increase may be effective in October instead of January 2021. This is on top of the 6% increase in January.
Also, toll-by-plate rates would jump (another?) 45% to account for cashless tolling (effectively creating a 2x spread between E-ZPass and toll-by-plate rates). Effectively, a cross state toll (Pittsburgh to Valley Forge) without E-ZPass could cost $64 one-way.
https://www.fitchratings.com/research/infrastructure-project-finance/fitch-rates-penn-turnpike-sen-rev-bonds-2nd-ser-of-2020-a-affirms-outstanding-bonds-12-06-202
At some point the seemingly endless stream of cash from PTC to Pennsylvania transit agencies is going to cause something to break. Either the PTC will not be able to issue more debt because questions will arise about its ability to pay it back (perhaps due to a crash in revenue-paying traffic), or maybe there will be a voter revolt against the ever-higher tolls to subsidize transit projects that have nothing to do with the Turnpike.
Or maybe something else. But I do not think the Act 44/Act 89 payments will continue forever.
At some point the seemingly endless stream of cash from PTC to Pennsylvania transit agencies is going to cause something to break. Either the PTC will not be able to issue more debt because questions will arise about its ability to pay it back (perhaps due to a crash in revenue-paying traffic), or maybe there will be a voter revolt against the ever-higher tolls to subsidize transit projects that have nothing to do with the Turnpike.
Or maybe something else. But I do not think the Act 44/Act 89 payments will continue forever.
The PA General Assembly went with payments from the Turnpike specifically because they were trying to avoid the voters by increasing other taxes and fees. Tapping out the PTC money machine might stop the payments, but I don't think concerns regarding voters will.
At some point the seemingly endless stream of cash from PTC to Pennsylvania transit agencies is going to cause something to break. Either the PTC will not be able to issue more debt because questions will arise about its ability to pay it back (perhaps due to a crash in revenue-paying traffic), or maybe there will be a voter revolt against the ever-higher tolls to subsidize transit projects that have nothing to do with the Turnpike.
Or maybe something else. But I do not think the Act 44/Act 89 payments will continue forever.
The PA General Assembly went with payments from the Turnpike specifically because they were trying to avoid the voters by increasing other taxes and fees. Tapping out the PTC money machine might stop the payments, but I don't think concerns regarding voters will.
My cynical view agrees with you. In spite of claims from transit advocates, transit subsidy funding is not especially popular with the elected officials that have to come up with the dollars to pay for it. If the politicians can come up with ways to make other people make the subsidy payments (and the Pennsylvania Turnpike does carry a lot of out-of-state traffic) then clearly they will do that. The scheme to toll I-80 was also about getting those subsidies from Other People. The originator of Act 44, disgraced state ex-Sen. Vince Fumo (D-Philadelphia) clearly understood this.
Other popular ways of getting subsidy payments from out-of-state people include taxes on rental cars and bed taxes on hotels and other lodging (these are taxes on people that generally do not place much demand on government services in the places they are visiting). Transit promoters will often suggest these as "painless" ways to pay for expensive (to build and to operate) passenger rail projects.
It doesn't help when goods have to be shipped using the Turnpike or businesses have to use it between job sites. The Philly area also has significant commuter traffic on the Turnpike. Traveling across state by car to visit family is costing me well over $100 round trip now.
It doesn't help when goods have to be shipped using the Turnpike or businesses have to use it between job sites. The Philly area also has significant commuter traffic on the Turnpike. Traveling across state by car to visit family is costing me well over $100 round trip now.
You have an excellent point.
I think the powers-that-be in the Pennsylvania legislature are so would up in getting large amounts of subsidy dollars to SEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County (and the smaller Pennsylvania transit operators) that they lose sight of the human impact of these jumbo-sized tolls on people that live inside and outside Pennsylvania.
And if all that money was going to things like Turnpike widenings and repair and rehabilitation of the PTC's many tunnels, it might be less painful. But pouring it down the black hole of transit subsidies means most Turnpike patrons never see the impact of that money.
In a fictional world the subsidies from Pennsylvania Turnpike customers would end and the cost of subsidizing transit would be shifted to higher taxes on motor fuels in the counties served by those transit agencies. Of course, even if that were happen today, the bonds sold by the PTC to make those black hole payments would still be on the books, and they will take decades to amortize down to zero, so tolls on Turnpike patrons are not going to be lower anytime soon.
The good news is that, unless something changes, FY 2022 is the last year that the PTC will owe $450 million to PennDOT. Starting in FY 2023 that payment goes down to $50 million. Of course the debt from over a decade of excessive Act 44 payments will take much longer to be paid off...
Finding funding for mass transit is more complex in PA than simply raising the gas tax, and is partly the reason for Act 44 in the first place. In PA, gas taxes, car registration fees, and some other funding sources are constitutionally limited to roads and cannot be used for transit. So, even if a regional gas tax were implemented (which would be a hard sell in a state with the second-highest gas taxes to begin with), those revenues would only be able to go to roads. Act 89 (which partially sunsets the Act 44 transfers in 2022) will use motor vehicle sales taxes to make up the $400 million that the Turnpike will no longer provide. Those are revenues that may need to be made up elsewhere i.e. higher taxes...
Are all the guide signs at ramps now going to be purple like PA 903 in Carbon County at the AET interchange there?No.
The good news is that, unless something changes, FY 2022 is the last year that the PTC will owe $450 million to PennDOT. Starting in FY 2023 that payment goes down to $50 million. Of course the debt from over a decade of excessive Act 44 payments will take much longer to be paid off...
I think that is correct on all points.Finding funding for mass transit is more complex in PA than simply raising the gas tax, and is partly the reason for Act 44 in the first place. In PA, gas taxes, car registration fees, and some other funding sources are constitutionally limited to roads and cannot be used for transit. So, even if a regional gas tax were implemented (which would be a hard sell in a state with the second-highest gas taxes to begin with), those revenues would only be able to go to roads. Act 89 (which partially sunsets the Act 44 transfers in 2022) will use motor vehicle sales taxes to make up the $400 million that the Turnpike will no longer provide. Those are revenues that may need to be made up elsewhere i.e. higher taxes...
My understanding from a friend who is a transit geek (especially SEPTA) is that the prohibition on diversion of fuel taxes away from highways applies to taxes collected at the retail level (pump), but that the prohibition does not apply to taxes collected at the wholesale level.
Virginia passed a large increase in the Commonwealth's motor fuel tax and imposed all of it at the wholesale level for similar reasons.
Maybe it's just luck but I seem to be having a ton of E-ZPass billing issues with the Turnpike this month. I use the North Carolina E-ZPass but also have a New York E-ZPass for travel to that state (my car has been registered to both for years). I made a trip on July 1 and just noticed that my NC transponder was read (and billed) but I was also charged on my NY account via license plate lookup a week later (transaction times were identical). I was also overcharged for another trip in the Philly area (the amount didn't even match up to a different axle count, and my return toll was correct).It probably read both transponders. I have a WV E-ZPass and always see the license plate shown in records from PA reads.
Maybe it's just luck but I seem to be having a ton of E-ZPass billing issues with the Turnpike this month. I use the North Carolina E-ZPass but also have a New York E-ZPass for travel to that state (my car has been registered to both for years). I made a trip on July 1 and just noticed that my NC transponder was read (and billed) but I was also charged on my NY account via license plate lookup a week later (transaction times were identical). I was also overcharged for another trip in the Philly area (the amount didn't even match up to a different axle count, and my return toll was correct).Two transponders? Penny wise...
Maybe it's just luck but I seem to be having a ton of E-ZPass billing issues with the Turnpike this month. I use the North Carolina E-ZPass but also have a New York E-ZPass for travel to that state (my car has been registered to both for years). I made a trip on July 1 and just noticed that my NC transponder was read (and billed) but I was also charged on my NY account via license plate lookup a week later (transaction times were identical). I was also overcharged for another trip in the Philly area (the amount didn't even match up to a different axle count, and my return toll was correct).It probably read both transponders. I have a WV E-ZPass and always see the license plate shown in records from PA reads.
Maybe it's just luck but I seem to be having a ton of E-ZPass billing issues with the Turnpike this month. I use the North Carolina E-ZPass but also have a New York E-ZPass for travel to that state (my car has been registered to both for years). I made a trip on July 1 and just noticed that my NC transponder was read (and billed) but I was also charged on my NY account via license plate lookup a week later (transaction times were identical). I was also overcharged for another trip in the Philly area (the amount didn't even match up to a different axle count, and my return toll was correct).Two transponders? Penny wise...
I suspect these cases of double-billing where the same car is registered to two different transponders under the same interoperability network are the result of license plates receiving priority over transponders in the toll processing control flow. I wonder what would happen if the license plate number was temporarily changed for the transponder that is not currently being used, so that in-network license plate lookup (if used as an alternative to a read from the transponder being used) lands on the account that is intended to be charged.
This situation is actually another argument for a ban on transponder discrimination since it eliminates the incentive to have multiple transponders from the same interoperability network.
Saw the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's E-ZPass test site on the I-476 Northeast Extension of the Turnpike. It spans the Turnpike between the Keyser Avenue interchange (Exit 122) and Clarks Summit (I-81, U.S. 11, U.S. 6) (Exit 131). I was not able to safely stop and snap an image, but its appearance was different from other gantries on the PTC network.
More can be found here (https://www.paturnpike.com/yourTurnpike/TRA_tests_new_vcs.aspx).
License plates are only supposed to be viewed if the tag isn't read when the car goes thru the tolling area. This process usually take a few days as well to go thru the back office. There's not enough staff to monitor the hundreds of thousands of tag reads every day.
License plates are only supposed to be viewed if the tag isn't read when the car goes thru the tolling area. This process usually take a few days as well to go thru the back office. There's not enough staff to monitor the hundreds of thousands of tag reads every day.
Masternc says he did not have the transponder for the North Carolina account in his car when he was charged the "foreign" E-ZPass toll. This is why I hypothesize they were searching for his license plate number and found it first with the NC account.
Life was so damned much simpler before E-Z Pass when we just paid cash and exchanged greetings with the collector........
Life was so damned much simpler before E-Z Pass when we just paid cash and exchanged greetings with the collector........
Also much more expensive. Staffing toll collection points 24/7/365 is not cheap, and on the Pennsylvania Turnpike there were a lot of them. Collecting, counting, securing, transporting and processing all of that cash is also expensive.
Life was so damned much simpler before E-Z Pass when we just paid cash and exchanged greetings with the collector........
Also much more expensive. Staffing toll collection points 24/7/365 is not cheap, and on the Pennsylvania Turnpike there were a lot of them. Collecting, counting, securing, transporting and processing all of that cash is also expensive.
I think SignBridge meant for the consumer. Yes, cpz, what you listed is true - expensive for the agency operating the road or crossing.
But in the COVID-19 era, are we to consider AET a blessing (in disguise or otherwise), since there is no cash to be handled?
ixnay
Life was so damned much simpler before E-Z Pass when we just paid cash and exchanged greetings with the collector........
Also much more expensive. Staffing toll collection points 24/7/365 is not cheap, and on the Pennsylvania Turnpike there were a lot of them. Collecting, counting, securing, transporting and processing all of that cash is also expensive.
I think SignBridge meant for the consumer. Yes, cpz, what you listed is true - expensive for the agency operating the road or crossing.
But in the COVID-19 era, are we to consider AET a blessing (in disguise or otherwise), since there is no cash to be handled?
ixnay
I think it's much easier for the consumer as well. You fly thru a lane and keep going.
I think back to how much time was wasted waiting on line to pay the tolls in the cash-only era. My father's strategy was always to go as far to the right at the toll plaza as possible. Reason: Trucks are almost always directed to stay to the right. There are far fewer trucks per line than there are cars and you often got through faster in those lanes even though trucks are slower to accelerate away than cars are.
Look at what a mess you get when the E-ZPass Only lanes are simply converted cash lanes with no significant barrier separation from the cash lanes. The Tydings Bridge toll plaza in Maryland was long a good example of that, as cash-payers would bomb down the approach to the E-ZPass lanes and then block everyone trying to shove right to cut the line.
From a time saved perspective, perhaps, but it introduces issues. If you don't have a transponder, you have to hope everything works properly with bill by mail, lest you get late and nonpayment fees (often exorbitant) added on top of your bill by mail and plate lookup surcharges (themselves often on top of a higher bill by mail toll rate). Even if you do have a transponder, there are often tag deposits and/or annual fees, and transponder discrimination is more common than not. Back when cash was king, the toll was the toll was the toll - everybody paid the same rate, nothing added on top. That is unfortunately no longer. While discounts for transponder users do make sense from the perspective that it costs less to collect tolls from them, it has gotten well out of hand.Life was so damned much simpler before E-Z Pass when we just paid cash and exchanged greetings with the collector........
Also much more expensive. Staffing toll collection points 24/7/365 is not cheap, and on the Pennsylvania Turnpike there were a lot of them. Collecting, counting, securing, transporting and processing all of that cash is also expensive.
I think SignBridge meant for the consumer. Yes, cpz, what you listed is true - expensive for the agency operating the road or crossing.
But in the COVID-19 era, are we to consider AET a blessing (in disguise or otherwise), since there is no cash to be handled?
ixnay
I think it's much easier for the consumer as well. You fly thru a lane and keep going.
2) Mounting the device on your car. Having to get new mounting strips when you get a new car.
Even if you have to get the Front License Plate mount transponder, due to windshield/car issues with having it inside the glass, it STILL saves time over 1 rush hour wait at a Cash Only booth. It doesn’t take that long to find a screwdriver, unscrew two screws, and then tighten them back down2) Mounting the device on your car. Having to get new mounting strips when you get a new car.
How much f'ing time does it take you to mount the EZ Pass that this could possibly have been thought of as an excuse?
I think back to how much time was wasted waiting on line to pay the tolls in the cash-only era.
It does take time - and sometimes money - to dispute a billing mistake. A lot of time, sometimes.Even if you have to get the Front License Plate mount transponder, due to windshield/car issues with having it inside the glass, it STILL saves time over 1 rush hour wait at a Cash Only booth. It doesn’t take that long to find a screwdriver, unscrew two screws, and then tighten them back down2) Mounting the device on your car. Having to get new mounting strips when you get a new car.
How much f'ing time does it take you to mount the EZ Pass that this could possibly have been thought of as an excuse?
I remember as a kid, sitting in extremely long holiday waits at the 82nd/83rd St and 163rd St Tolls on ISTHA’s Tri-State. Guess what? Even when Low Speed I-Pass Only lanes were first installed at 82nd/83rd St, and then at 163 St, it made a difference. When the I-Pass Express/ORT conversion occurred, it was a night and day difference compared to Cash only tolling
The turnpike bridge replacement over PA 380 Saltsburg road in Plum borough is in the final phase. PA 380 is closed for the next 30 days or so while final work wraps up.Was it built to carry 6 lanes?
Thank you vdeane for those good points! All of you have made good points too. It's worth noting however that some of the time saved on the road with E-Z Pass is lost in other ways.
1) Setting up your account, passwords etc.
2) Mounting the device on your car. Having to get new mounting strips when you get a new car.
3) Checking your statement when you receive it. Potential billing errors requiring corrective action, etc.
I was fortunate that most of my long distance toll-road trips thru the years were made mid-week/mid-day so luckily I didn't encounter many toll plaza back-ups, so I don't have those bad memories. And yeah, I have to agree it's nice to just glide thru those express E-Z Pass lanes where they exist. But being an old school kind of guy, I just preferred the older less complicated ways.
Not sure about the other EZ Pass agencies, but ISTHA has cash options for I-Pass. Either stop at the I-Pass service centers at ISTHA HQ in Downers Grove or at the I-Pass service centers at the Oases and buy an I-Pass “gift card” /replinishment card with cash. Those cards can also be purchased at Jewel-Osco stores in the Chicagoland area, and purchased with cash
Then you have to call the 800 number or log into your account on the getipass.com website to have the value of the card added to your transponder account
Yes, it adds more steps. But Cash travel is still available via this process, no CC required
Anyway, billing mistakes can happen anywhere. Narrowing it down to just electronic tolling is micro nitpicking of it.Billing mistakes can happen anywhere, including issues with lost ticket on a cash toll. Problem is that EZpass family used to be one of the worst vendors to fix such mistakes. Being quazi-government agencies allowed them to be very heavy-handed without a path to hold the agency responsible. Looks like they improved, my last billing error was resolved with a single e-mail, though.
My transactions pop up online very quickly, so I don't know about this idea that it takes days or weeks to see them. Perhaps if you're only sitting around waiting for a paper statement? That'd be odd for someone who purchases an E-ZPass, which requires the account to be filled to be tolled against.
My transactions pop up online very quickly, so I don't know about this idea that it takes days or weeks to see them. Perhaps if you're only sitting around waiting for a paper statement? That'd be odd for someone who purchases an E-ZPass, which requires the account to be filled to be tolled against.
Not that I usually look, but my EZ Pass transactions are all posted within a few days at the very most.Great points - this is exactly where differences are!
If someone is waiting weeks to see a transaction posted, that indicated more of an issue with their own account and not a system-wide issue.
I always think of EZ Pass like a Visa or Mastercard. If you have an issue with a transaction, it's not "Visa" that has the issue, it's the card company you hold the card with (Chase, Capital One, etc). And it's not that ALL Visa transactions take forever to post; it's almost always a localized issue with either the person's account, or maybe the store where the transactions occurred.
So, before you go thinking that the entire industry countrywide is screwing people over, maybe just check to make sure your tag is working properly...
As for read confirmation - "successful read" signal is implemented on chip level, but not used on a tag level. You never know when, or if, your tag is read. Which is, I believe, the only situation when money are deducted from the account without me being explicitly informed about it. Which is IMHO a problematic approach. I certainly don't want to log into account after each trip to check for billing errors. I had 4 so far that I know of, more than what I had over the same period on credit cards which I use much more often.
I had a toll billed on a then-toll free stretch of Masspike. It wasn't a lot, like 45 cents - that is 45 cents more than it should be. The only way to appeal a toll at that point was by sending a physical letter - and stamp cost was 42 cents or so.As for read confirmation - "successful read" signal is implemented on chip level, but not used on a tag level. You never know when, or if, your tag is read. Which is, I believe, the only situation when money are deducted from the account without me being explicitly informed about it. Which is IMHO a problematic approach. I certainly don't want to log into account after each trip to check for billing errors. I had 4 so far that I know of, more than what I had over the same period on credit cards which I use much more often.
How did these errors make themselves evident? Are we talking wrong classification, wrong entry or exit, or . . . ?
My problems with KTA have all involved wrong entry/exit. I've had one toll from OTA that was marked as "irregular" and one toll gate transit in Illinois where the light flashed yellow instead of blue for a new transponder but the toll posted normally (no video toll).
I had a toll billed on a then-toll free stretch of Masspike. It wasn't a lot, like 45 cents - that is 45 cents more than it should be. The only way to appeal a toll at that point was by sending a physical letter - and stamp cost was 42 cents or so.
The turnpike bridge replacement over PA 380 Saltsburg road in Plum borough is in the final phase. PA 380 is closed for the next 30 days or so while final work wraps up.Was it built to carry 6 lanes?
Kalvado, I wouldn't even bother disputing any toll charge under a couple of dollars. I agree that it is a matter of principle, but in my opinion just not worth the effort, aggravation and TIME.Full length Thruway charge is now $17, plus they can happily add something on top of that
Kalvado, I wouldn't even bother disputing any toll charge under a couple of dollars. I agree that it is a matter of principle, but in my opinion just not worth the effort, aggravation and TIME.
Full length Thruway charge is now $17, plus they can happily add something on top of that
[If someone does and gives the board members an earful about electronic toll reliability issues, that will really make people sit up and pay attention.
Problem is, there is no leverage. At least for NY Thruway authority - it is somewhere between government and private - it is non-government enough not to care about elections, but government enough not to care about BBB and all that. On the contrary, their leverage is huge. NY law allows toll agencies to suspend vehicle registration over unpaid tolls - no court, no due process. It is on you to prove what the issue is and resolve it.Kalvado, I wouldn't even bother disputing any toll charge under a couple of dollars. I agree that it is a matter of principle, but in my opinion just not worth the effort, aggravation and TIME.
Full length Thruway charge is now $17, plus they can happily add something on top of that
The time cost of disputing erroneous tolls is the main reason I haven't challenged a misattributed entry point that resulted in me paying about a dollar more in toll, let alone performed a full audit of all of my toll transactions (which I can do because I have GPS logs showing where my car actually travelled). But it is not just the extra cost of a specific transaction that is at stake: it is also the possibility of paying much more through future instances of the same error.
I have been thinking more in terms of activism. Going before the supervisory board is one way to stand on agency leadership's toes. The New York Thruway Authority meets once every two months and every meeting has a public comment period; judging from recent meeting minutes (https://www.thruway.ny.gov/news/meetings/minutes.html), nobody shows up to offer comment. If someone does and gives the board members an earful about electronic toll reliability issues, that will really make people sit up and pay attention.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
No it won't.
They're hearing from one person regarding a possible single issue, or hearsay about other people's issues, in which the person speaking probably has no proof the toll authority was in the wrong. The public comment period is for people to voice their concerns or issues. Rarely will something be investigated.
If you want investigation, file a lawsuit.
Problem is, there is no leverage. At least for NY Thruway authority - it is somewhere between government and private - it is non-government enough not to care about elections, but government enough not to care about BBB and all that. On the contrary, their leverage is huge. NY law allows toll agencies to suspend vehicle registration over unpaid tolls - no court, no due process. It is on you to prove what the issue is and resolve it.
So I'm afraid federal regulation is the only thing which can straighten things up.
I speak from experience as a member of a board,I would say the main difference between your experience and NYSTA is that library board takes declared mission at face value, even if if there is a conflict of different approaches - vs. NYSTA, where I would expect things to be less straightforward.
...and there are TV cameras and newspaper reporters present, you'd better believe we sit up and pay attention.
The turnpike bridge replacement over PA 380 Saltsburg road in Plum borough is in the final phase. PA 380 is closed for the next 30 days or so while final work wraps up.Was it built to carry 6 lanes?
Also, I noticed the PTC is installing a new system for two-way operations at the Tuscarora Tunnel. Starting about a mile before the tunnel, they have installed concrete barrier on the left side with automated swinging barriers. They are orange semi-circle barriers with black-on-orange chevron symbols. I'm guessing the purpose is to keep traffic from being in the lane that will handle oncoming traffic inside the tunnel.
Just noticed this in action on one of the webcams. Kind of neat they can automatically close a lane.
(https://i.ibb.co/K7JYQSD/Annotation-2019-06-18-130714.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
upload (https://imgbb.com/)
But what gave me a brief start was a new setup of directional LEDs embedded in the pavement. At first, I thought my headlights were reflecting off of some broken glass or metallic debris and I bolted to attention. As I got closer, I realized that I was seeing white LEDs forming a large forward-pointing arrow in the direction of travel–two white arrows side-by-side since both lanes were open to westbound traffic. On a subsequent eastbound trip (when both directions of traffic shared the WB tube), I discovered that each LED “button” actually consists of two LED arrays, with red lights pointing in one direction and white pointing the other–much like the double-sided reflectors on many freeways.
I’m still driving between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh weekly, and on my most recent eastbound trip, I noticed that the Turnpike’s two Steak n Shake locations at service plazas (South Midway, Highspire) have been replaced with Roy Rogers. The PTC’s website has not yet been updated to reflect the change, although the ground signage has.When were you last on the Turnpike?
If I’m not mistaken, now every Pennsylvania Turnpike service plaza has either a Roy Rogers or a Burger King as the burger-and-fries anchor of its foodservice operation–except North Midway, which for whatever reason has only a Subway.
When were you last on the Turnpike?
I've stopped at the Highspire plaza last month while coming back from a Harrisburg trip and noticed that the Steak n Shake was still there & open. Such must've been a very recent change.
If I’m not mistaken, now every Pennsylvania Turnpike service plaza has either a Roy Rogers or a Burger King as the burger-and-fries anchor of its foodservice operation–except North Midway, which for whatever reason has only a Subway.
Looks like our tradition of getting shakes from the Steak n Shake at South Midway on the way home from western PA is over...but then again, it's not surprising to see it go. We got food from another location once, and that was enough.If I’m not mistaken, now every Pennsylvania Turnpike service plaza has either a Roy Rogers or a Burger King as the burger-and-fries anchor of its foodservice operation–except North Midway, which for whatever reason has only a Subway.
Easy fix for that: Re-open the tunnel between North and South Midway. :-D
If I’m not mistaken, now every Pennsylvania Turnpike service plaza has either a Roy Rogers or a Burger King as the burger-and-fries anchor of its foodservice operation–except North Midway, which for whatever reason has only a Subway.Easy fix for that: Re-open the tunnel between North and South Midway. :-D
If I’m not mistaken, now every Pennsylvania Turnpike service plaza has either a Roy Rogers or a Burger King as the burger-and-fries anchor of its foodservice operation–except North Midway, which for whatever reason has only a Subway.Easy fix for that: Re-open the tunnel between North and South Midway. :-D
You're going to make me dig out my pics of the tunnel, aren't you! OK, twist my arm…
In 2009, when I was working for PennDOT District 6, my son (Roadsguy) and I took a road trip around Pennsylvania. I arranged to have someone show it to us.
(https://i.imgur.com/7Wjpwvm.jpg)
The tunnel beneath the Turnpike mainline, looking toward Midway South. I included this pic for scale. Roadsguy was 11 years old at this time. (Today he's taller than me.) He was a roadgeek pretty much out of the womb. As you can see from the look on his face, on this day he was in heaven!
(https://i.imgur.com/4BvFa9x.jpeg)
Just the tunnel. You can see what its condition was in 2009. Not terrible, but it's very narrow. Judging from my height (5'9") in the previous pic, the tunnel looks like it's six feet wide and eight feet high. Utility conduits have been strung along the ceiling. The light fixtures are original.
(https://i.imgur.com/FFYe4TM.jpg)
The southern end of the tunnel, under Midway South (the eastbound side). Definitely not handicapped-accessible. (Looks like UPS delivers in the tunnel. Who knew? :-D)
(https://i.imgur.com/PW6votj.jpg)
This is the original stairway at the southern end, providing access up to the Midway South building. It was still in use by Turnpike and concession employees in 2009. I don't know if it was torn out during the recent renovation.
(https://i.imgur.com/DHrVfZ5.jpg)
The northern end of the tunnel, under Midway North (the westbound side). As you can see, the orginal stairway was removed and replaced by modified access in a different configuration. One can see the wall scar of the original stairway.
(https://i.imgur.com/gnEKBFX.jpg)
A diffent view of the southern end. Behind the door is the bottom of a newer stairway which provides access to the tunnel from the Midway North building.
(https://i.imgur.com/PT9NZ3v.jpg)
A closer look at the modification. The white PCV pipes look like sewer connections. I don't know about the others.
(https://i.imgur.com/c0TzdPb.jpg)
For comparison, here's Roadsguy with me two years ago at the PA Turnpike/I-95 road meet.
Wonder what will happen to it once this part of the Turnpike is reconstructed...
^ Don’t worry: You weren’t missing anything, in my opinion.
Actually, I remember reading some comments about the supposed “decline of Steak ’n Shake” on one of the threads on AARoads (perhaps it was “Roadside chains with at least one foot in the grave” ), and I debated seeking out that thread and posting the closure news there.
I’ve never had much of a relationship with Steak ’n Shake outside of some generally positive memories of a few visits during trips through in the Midwest in the early 2000s. During the year I lived in Tampa, I had a few S’nS locations nearby and stopped in from time to time. At best, the visits to those Tampa locations were “just OK” , and more often than not, the orders took forever to be filled, the fries were cold and stale, I was charged incorrectly, or there was some other problem. The rather megalomaniacal “by Biglari” signature on the Florida Steak ’n Shake signs wasn’t lost on me, and when I did searches online for “steak ’n shake sucks now” , I found post after post (especially from old-time Midwesterners) claiming that Sardar Biglari, who bought the chain in 2008, was running the venerable brand into the ground–Eddie Lampert style–through “value extraction” : cost cutting, loose franchising, and other operational changes.
Along those lines, the PA Turnpike Steak ’n Shakes were no more than a pale imitation of the authentic, original restaurants, with a stripped down menu (none of the diner-like fare–and obviously not served on china), indifferent employees, and lax standards. Lots of “we’re out of that” .
The decline of Steak 'N' Shake is not just a Turnpike/Pennsylvania thing....
If I had to make a guess, I'd guess that Steak 'N' Shake was purchased about 10 years ago by a private equity firm or some other company that owns a bunch of different restaurants.
...when I did searches online for “steak ’n shake sucks now” , I found post after post (especially from old-time Midwesterners) claiming that Sardar Biglari, who bought the chain in 2008, was running the venerable brand into the ground–Eddie Lampert style–through “value extraction” : cost cutting, loose franchising, and other operational changes.
Wonder what will happen to it once this part of the Turnpike is reconstructed...
That comment got me wondering: Do we know for certain that the Turnpike through Midway was not reconstructed already? I recall that some 1940-vintage segments were completely reconstructed beginning in the late ”˜90s, and though the early projects were full-depth reconstructions, the resulting road was still four lanes–albeit with a more robust base, better drainage, and other structural improvements. I assume that it was some point later that the PTC decided to include a six-lane widening in its reconstruction projects. The underpass at the Bedford Interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/gM9HAjpF6zsraufb8) is clearly original 1940 equipment, as is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/beUZLGiBySqKQ8tS9)east of Midway over Sunny Side Road, so I assume the 2.5 miles in between was not reconstructed.
Regardless–considering the six lane widenings that have been taking place virtually systemwide, I was a little surprised when North Midway was demolished and rebuilt a few years ago that its site wasn’t refigured somewhat to allow more room for an eventual widening of the Turnpike between the two plaza buildings. By a quick measurement estimation on Google Earth, the two plazas’ parking areas are separated by just 125 feet, curb-to-curb. That’s just enough room for the six-lane Turnpike’s 120-foot cross section, assuming that a retaining wall replaces the grass embankment in front of South Midway and the plazas’ ramps are reconfigured to accommodate the increased width.
Wonder what will happen to it once this part of the Turnpike is reconstructed...
That comment got me wondering: Do we know for certain that the Turnpike through Midway was not reconstructed already? I recall that some 1940-vintage segments were completely reconstructed beginning in the late ”˜90s, and though the early projects were full-depth reconstructions, the resulting road was still four lanes–albeit with a more robust base, better drainage, and other structural improvements. I assume that it was some point later that the PTC decided to include a six-lane widening in its reconstruction projects. The underpass at the Bedford Interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/gM9HAjpF6zsraufb8) is clearly original 1940 equipment, as is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/beUZLGiBySqKQ8tS9)east of Midway over Sunny Side Road, so I assume the 2.5 miles in between was not reconstructed.
Regardless–considering the six lane widenings that have been taking place virtually systemwide, I was a little surprised when North Midway was demolished and rebuilt a few years ago that its site wasn’t refigured somewhat to allow more room for an eventual widening of the Turnpike between the two plaza buildings. By a quick measurement estimation on Google Earth, the two plazas’ parking areas are separated by just 125 feet, curb-to-curb. That’s just enough room for the six-lane Turnpike’s 120-foot cross section, assuming that a retaining wall replaces the grass embankment in front of South Midway and the plazas’ ramps are reconfigured to accommodate the increased width.
I'm almost totally positive that this stretch hasn't had a full-on reconstruction yet. They did stretches in Westmoreland County & Somerset County in the late 90's or so that are just 4 lanes - before they decided it was worth it to just 6-lane what they reconstruct going forward. I don't know that they've done any full-reconstruction in Bedford County yet.
Also in this general area, another pinch point is a fairly new (at least it still seems fairly new) 4-lane overpass over US-30 - where they dualized US-30 between Bedford and Everett ( https://goo.gl/maps/tk19ddK8k6LnoQAX6 ) - Not being an engineer, I don't know if that structure can be modified for a 6 lane Turnpike - if it can't, I don't see it getting replaced with an even newer structure for many years. (Also, if you look at the PTC websites future projects, the one around Everett stops just east of here, shortly after the Turnpike crosses the Juniata).
Another week; another Philadelphia to Pittsburgh round trip; another Turnpike update:
The Tuscarora Mountain Tunnel’s eastbound tube, which had been closed as of August 10th, was reopened when I drove through last night. The tunnel's concrete ceiling (separating the upper exhaust duct from the travel lanes below) has been removed, leaving an open arched cross section, much like the revamped tunnels in Pittsburgh.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50238083212_942451f5d7_b.jpg)
Another week; another Philadelphia to Pittsburgh round trip; another Turnpike update:
The Tuscarora Mountain Tunnel’s eastbound tube, which had been closed as of August 10th, was reopened when I drove through last night. The tunnel's concrete ceiling (separating the upper exhaust duct from the travel lanes below) has been removed, leaving an open arched cross section, much like the revamped tunnels in Pittsburgh.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50238083212_942451f5d7_b.jpg)
Wonder what will happen to it once this part of the Turnpike is reconstructed...
That comment got me wondering: Do we know for certain that the Turnpike through Midway was not reconstructed already? I recall that some 1940-vintage segments were completely reconstructed beginning in the late ”˜90s, and though the early projects were full-depth reconstructions, the resulting road was still four lanes–albeit with a more robust base, better drainage, and other structural improvements. I assume that it was some point later that the PTC decided to include a six-lane widening in its reconstruction projects. The underpass at the Bedford Interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/gM9HAjpF6zsraufb8) is clearly original 1940 equipment, as is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/beUZLGiBySqKQ8tS9)east of Midway over Sunny Side Road, so I assume the 2.5 miles in between was not reconstructed.
Regardless–considering the six lane widenings that have been taking place virtually systemwide, I was a little surprised when North Midway was demolished and rebuilt a few years ago that its site wasn’t refigured somewhat to allow more room for an eventual widening of the Turnpike between the two plaza buildings. By a quick measurement estimation on Google Earth, the two plazas’ parking areas are separated by just 125 feet, curb-to-curb. That’s just enough room for the six-lane Turnpike’s 120-foot cross section, assuming that a retaining wall replaces the grass embankment in front of South Midway and the plazas’ ramps are reconfigured to accommodate the increased width.
I'm almost totally positive that this stretch hasn't had a full-on reconstruction yet. They did stretches in Westmoreland County & Somerset County in the late 90's or so that are just 4 lanes - before they decided it was worth it to just 6-lane what they reconstruct going forward. I don't know that they've done any full-reconstruction in Bedford County yet.
Also in this general area, another pinch point is a fairly new (at least it still seems fairly new) 4-lane overpass over US-30 - where they dualized US-30 between Bedford and Everett ( https://goo.gl/maps/tk19ddK8k6LnoQAX6 ) - Not being an engineer, I don't know if that structure can be modified for a 6 lane Turnpike - if it can't, I don't see it getting replaced with an even newer structure for many years. (Also, if you look at the PTC websites future projects, the one around Everett stops just east of here, shortly after the Turnpike crosses the Juniata).
Here's a map of the PA Turnpike's reconstruction projects, current as of January 2020. The section at the Midway plazas has yet to be reconstructed, nor is anything planned until just east of there, as mentioned.
https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/travel/Total_Recon_2019.pdf
That longitudinal space above the ceiling (in tunnels that have one) is called a ventilation plenum.
1. Are there fans to replace the plenum's ventilation function (as in the southbound Lehigh Tunnel)?
2. Could you tell if the overhead wires visible in your photograph are similar radio repeaters or did they just look like utility wires?
Also in this general area, another pinch point is a fairly new (at least it still seems fairly new) 4-lane overpass over US-30 - where they dualized US-30 between Bedford and Everett ( https://goo.gl/maps/tk19ddK8k6LnoQAX6 ) - Not being an engineer, I don't know if that structure can be modified for a 6 lane Turnpike - if it can't, I don't see it getting replaced with an even newer structure for many years. (Also, if you look at the PTC websites future projects, the one around Everett stops just east of here, shortly after the Turnpike crosses the Juniata).
I believe Interstate highways are required to have continuous shoulders. In any case it would be unsafe not to have them.
I thought they still are excepted, but more agencies aren't taking advantage.I believe Interstate highways are required to have continuous shoulders. In any case it would be unsafe not to have them.
I think the continuous-shoulder requirement applies to the whole system except tunnels. Bridges over a certain length used to be excepted too, but this is no longer true.
I thought they still are excepted, but more agencies aren't taking advantage.I believe Interstate highways are required to have continuous shoulders. In any case it would be unsafe not to have them.
I think the continuous-shoulder requirement applies to the whole system except tunnels. Bridges over a certain length used to be excepted too, but this is no longer true.
I thought they still are excepted, but more agencies aren't taking advantage.
Yes, the 4' width is what I was referring to. Those aren't shoulders, those are safety margins.I thought they still are excepted, but more agencies aren't taking advantage.
This inspired me to do a little checking.
AIUI, current standards do require provision of shoulders on bridges, but if they are 200 ft or longer, shoulder width on both sides can be reduced to 4 ft. Older bridges that do not meet this standard are grandfathered in as long as shoulders are at least 3.5 ft wide with 12 ft lanes. Tunnels are similar with the added requirement that a raised pedestrian walkway be provided for emergency evacuation that is at least 4 ft wide.
I'm not sure how common it was to build bridges completely without shoulders during the period of peak Interstate construction. I'm aware of a few bridges (such as I-80 over the Meander Creek Reservoir in Mahoning County, Ohio) that didn't have any shoulders until they were replaced after 2000, at which point the full cross-section width was carried over even though they were well over the 200 ft length at which relaxed standards apply. Near to me, the I-235 Arkansas River bridges, built circa 1961 as chargeable Interstate to standards then prevailing (no grandfathering of obsolescent features), had shoulders of about 2 ft on both sides until they were completely replaced after 2010, at which point the overground cross-section of 4 ft left shoulder, two 12 ft lanes, and 10 ft right shoulder was carried over onto the deck.
A Rendell era idea resurfaces:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2020/08/26/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-Reason-Foundation-privatization-PennDOT-Gov-Tom-Wolf/stories/202008250138
A Rendell era idea resurfaces:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2020/08/26/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-Reason-Foundation-privatization-PennDOT-Gov-Tom-Wolf/stories/202008250138
Eh, it's the Reason Foundation. They're an arch-fiscal conservative think tank that thinks the government should not have a hand in anything. They released one about the NJTA today as well (https://www.nj.com/news/2020/08/nj-could-make-17b-by-leasing-turnpike-parkway-report-suggests.html).
A Rendell era idea resurfaces:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2020/08/26/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-Reason-Foundation-privatization-PennDOT-Gov-Tom-Wolf/stories/202008250138
Eh, it's the Reason Foundation. They're an arch-fiscal conservative think tank that thinks the government should not have a hand in anything. They released one about the NJTA today as well (https://www.nj.com/news/2020/08/nj-could-make-17b-by-leasing-turnpike-parkway-report-suggests.html).
The actual report referenced the NJ Turnpike, rather than the NJ Turnpike Authority. It was a bit off in saying most of the Turnpike is I-95. So consider this as to how accurate the report was, or the knowledge the author has about various toll rosd systems in the country.
A Rendell era idea resurfaces:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2020/08/26/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-Reason-Foundation-privatization-PennDOT-Gov-Tom-Wolf/stories/202008250138
Eh, it's the Reason Foundation. They're an arch-fiscal conservative think tank that thinks the government should not have a hand in anything. They released one about the NJTA today as well (https://www.nj.com/news/2020/08/nj-could-make-17b-by-leasing-turnpike-parkway-report-suggests.html).
The actual report referenced the NJ Turnpike, rather than the NJ Turnpike Authority. It was a bit off in saying most of the Turnpike is I-95. So consider this as to how accurate the report was, or the knowledge the author has about various toll rosd systems in the country.
It also refers to PTC as the Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority. It's a slipshod piece of work designed basically as clickbait.
I was on the Mon-Fayette Expressway yesterday. PTC hasn't changed the signage to remove references to cash, but they have have removed the overhead signage about each lane at mainline and ramp toll plazas that designated which lane took which type of payment. The payment confirmation signals in each toll lane were gone, and I'm not 100% certain but I think the gates and automated payment machines were also removed.
At the Fairchance mainline plaza, they still have the center (of three) lanes in each direction blocked, with a VMS parked in it announcing pay-by-plate and to keep moving. I was only on the WV-to-Uniontown segment, so I didn't get a chance to see what they did at the other plazas that have high speed lanes with cash payment was handled in a side plaza.
A Pennsylvania trucking company is under fire for $27,000 worth of unpaid tolls, officials say.
Forrsmith Logistics Services in Yeadon owned by 41-year-old Darnell Smith has been accused of 'ripping off' the Pennsylvania Turnpike between May 2012 and July of this year, reported CBS Philly.
According to prosecutors, trucks registered to Forrsmith Logistics Services were caught on camera rolling through the Valley Forge Interchange on the PA Turnpike without an E-Z Pass hundreds of times in the last eight years — $27,000 worth of trips.
I posted this in traffic control, but notice this newer BGS at the Monroeville exit shows an exit speed that differs from the posted exit speed just after the BGS.
I wonder why the turnpike decided to go with a ground mounted BGS instead of a new overhead sign? The sign for “Ohio and West” was not replaced.
(https://i.imgur.com/hP1o9cN.jpg)
Check out the mileage numerals on these new attraction signs at the Donegal interchange on the PA Turnpike. Yikes.
https://imgur.com/a/cikE26n (https://imgur.com/a/cikE26n)
I also posted this in traffic control (good, bad, ugly thread).
Looks like a child in kindergarden drew them.
Check out the mileage numerals on these new attraction signs at the Donegal interchange on the PA Turnpike. Yikes.Looks like a child in kindergarden drew them.
https://imgur.com/a/cikE26n (https://imgur.com/a/cikE26n)
I also posted this in traffic control (good, bad, ugly thread).
I posted this in traffic control, but notice this newer BGS at the Monroeville exit shows an exit speed that differs from the posted exit speed just after the BGS.
I wonder why the turnpike decided to go with a ground mounted BGS instead of a new overhead sign? The sign for “Ohio and West” was not replaced.
(https://i.imgur.com/hP1o9cN.jpg)
Looks like they'll be doing major bridge beam placement this weekend for the new Turnpike bridge over US-19. They'll have US-19 closed this entire weekend.I assume the idea is to scare as many people away as possible since you can't fit all of 19 on Warrendale Bayne, Brush Creek, Thorn Hill, and back. Because that's hardly 10.5 miles.
Looks like they'll be doing major bridge beam placement this weekend for the new Turnpike bridge over US-19. They'll have US-19 closed this entire weekend.I assume the idea is to scare as many people away as possible since you can't fit all of 19 on Warrendale Bayne, Brush Creek, Thorn Hill, and back. Because that's hardly 10.5 miles.
Looks like they'll be doing major bridge beam placement this weekend for the new Turnpike bridge over US-19. They'll have US-19 closed this entire weekend.I assume the idea is to scare as many people away as possible since you can't fit all of 19 on Warrendale Bayne, Brush Creek, Thorn Hill, and back. Because that's hardly 10.5 miles.
What I don't understand is why the NB detour can't use the direct ramp from I-79 to US 19 North since it is north of the Turnpike bridge. I get the SB detour since the ramp to I-79 is after the bridge. The 228 corridor around 19 and 79 is normally a nightmare, so I would think they'd want to minimize the added traffic.
New debt to cover the payments on old dept? Yeah, that's not even remotely sustainable.
Unfortunately I don't think this is unique to the pandemic.New debt to cover the payments on old dept? Yeah, that's not even remotely sustainable.
Not at all. But, given the circumstances, they don't have any other choice at the moment.
Unfortunately I don't think this is unique to the pandemic.New debt to cover the payments on old dept? Yeah, that's not even remotely sustainable.
Not at all. But, given the circumstances, they don't have any other choice at the moment.
Indeed. The fact that nothing's been done to decrease the Act 44 payments sooner than 2022 has a lot to do with it. The pandemic has only served to exacerbate the situation. And now that PennDOT is having its own troubles, they couldn't afford to let the PTC put off its obligations any longer.
Indeed. The fact that nothing's been done to decrease the Act 44 payments sooner than 2022 has a lot to do with it. The pandemic has only served to exacerbate the situation. And now that PennDOT is having its own troubles, they couldn't afford to let the PTC put off its obligations any longer.
Wonder if anyone has asked SEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County to cut spending? I realize that is like leading the sacred cow to the slaughterhouse, but it would be considered.
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2020/11/29/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-Warrendale-toll-booths-E-ZPass-travel-transporation/stories/202011290058
With the Turnpike going to AET now for good, and the 3 mile reconstruction between Cranberry and the Warrendale toll plaza going on, I was wondering about this....
It would be kind of dumb to adapt the new stretch into the current plaza with only 2 lanes (per direction) of EZ-Pass ORT and one lane for now useless toll booths, so this does seem a common-sense move. Good for the PTC.
Unless there is some sort of brief transition period, it does mean that the current plaza that was designed to have 4 lanes of ORT (2 in each direction) EZ-Pass "Express" lanes since it was built as an early-action project for the "Cranberry Connector" (the direct connection between the Turnpike & I-79) in the very early '00's was never fully utilized, as they only ever allowed one lane of ORT in each direction (which I always questioned, especially eastbound - after the 6-lane widening between the plaza and near PA-8).
Septa is in the middle of a fleet renewal, they have 1970s equipment still, the Silverliner IV. So...they need to replace them sooner than later to get more ADA compliance, along with their 1981 trolley fleet that can't be made ADA compliant
(reading from a random textbook) this will be a regressive tax, as those who cannot afford it and living in a city and relying on public transportation would be affected most. Charging affluential long haul travelers is a much more equitable way to fund public transportationSepta is in the middle of a fleet renewal, they have 1970s equipment still, the Silverliner IV. So...they need to replace them sooner than later to get more ADA compliance, along with their 1981 trolley fleet that can't be made ADA compliant
So maybe SEPTA and the Port Authority should be taxing residents of their respective service areas instead of fleecing current and future Pennsylvania Turnpike patrons?
(reading from a random textbook) this will be a regressive tax, as those who cannot afford it and living in a city and relying on public transportation would be affected most. Charging affluential long haul travelers is a much more equitable way to fund public transportationSepta is in the middle of a fleet renewal, they have 1970s equipment still, the Silverliner IV. So...they need to replace them sooner than later to get more ADA compliance, along with their 1981 trolley fleet that can't be made ADA compliant
So maybe SEPTA and the Port Authority should be taxing residents of their respective service areas instead of fleecing current and future Pennsylvania Turnpike patrons?
I am sorry, my [ sarcasm] tag didn't work.(reading from a random textbook) this will be a regressive tax, as those who cannot afford it and living in a city and relying on public transportation would be affected most. Charging affluential long haul travelers is a much more equitable way to fund public transportationSepta is in the middle of a fleet renewal, they have 1970s equipment still, the Silverliner IV. So...they need to replace them sooner than later to get more ADA compliance, along with their 1981 trolley fleet that can't be made ADA compliant
So maybe SEPTA and the Port Authority should be taxing residents of their respective service areas instead of fleecing current and future Pennsylvania Turnpike patrons?
I strongly disagree. Much of the traffic on the Pennsylvania Turnpike should be truck traffic (though I think the Act 44/Act 89 toll rates have driven a fair amount of that traffic to "free" roads), and funding it using your redistribution method means that there are no incentives at all for SEPTA and the Port Authority of Allegheny County to control costs, as the money is "free."
Do you know what the demographics of patrons of SEPTA and the Port Authority area? Especially in terms of per-capita or household incomes?
"Breezewood" should be where the loading/unloading platform is as that's where everyone has to get on and off of the "Turnpike".
Here are a couple more... (images snipped)
"Breezewood" should be where the loading/unloading platform is as that's where everyone has to get on and off of the "Turnpike".
Everyone? What about those just taking I-76?
Speaking of I-76, what *would* a Schuylkill Expressway-themed ride look (and feel) like?
ixnay
Speaking of I-76, what *would* a Schuylkill Expressway-themed ride look (and feel) like?
ixnay
At certain times of the day, the ride wouldn't move at all. :-D
Do people outside of this forum call it the "sure kill"? If so, parents might be scared to let their kids ride something based on it...
The PATC has announced that tomorrow, a new project will begin for the total reconstruction to 6 lanes from MP 101 to 110.
The PATC has announced that tomorrow, a new project will begin for the total reconstruction to 6 lanes from MP 101 to 110.
So between the Laurel Hill Tunnel bypass and the Somerset Interchange. This will, I believe, be the first fully six-lane section of Turnpike on the I-70 concurrency, not counting any climbing lanes.
The PATC has announced that tomorrow, a new project will begin for the total reconstruction to 6 lanes from MP 101 to 110.
So between the Laurel Hill Tunnel bypass and the Somerset Interchange. This will, I believe, be the first fully six-lane section of Turnpike on the I-70 concurrency, not counting any climbing lanes.
This also means there will be no more original 1940 Turnpike remaining west of the Allegheny Tunnel, save for the bypassed Laurel Hill Tunnel. All other sections between Irwin and the Allegheny Tunnel were already reconstructed, if not widened to six lanes.
The section just east of the Allegheny Tunnel (including removal of the church steps) is due to begin reconstruction in early 2022. Replacement of the Tunnel itself...that may be a while yet.
The PATC has announced that tomorrow, a new project will begin for the total reconstruction to 6 lanes from MP 101 to 110.
So between the Laurel Hill Tunnel bypass and the Somerset Interchange. This will, I believe, be the first fully six-lane section of Turnpike on the I-70 concurrency, not counting any climbing lanes.
This also means there will be no more original 1940 Turnpike remaining west of the Allegheny Tunnel, save for the bypassed Laurel Hill Tunnel. All other sections between Irwin and the Allegheny Tunnel were already reconstructed, if not widened to six lanes.
The section just east of the Allegheny Tunnel (including removal of the church steps) is due to begin reconstruction in early 2022. Replacement of the Tunnel itself...that may be a while yet.
I actually like having the exit names be more local to where they are at. For example, technically the interchange in Monroeville is called "Pittsburgh", but I'd change it to "Monroeville". The control cities can be for the bigger, more "important" destinations. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
I'm curious as to how long the names will last once (*if* - I still believe it's the plan) they have free-flowing mainline toll gantries instead of at the interchanges. Not saying they'll even get rid of the names (and I don't really want them to), but over the course of time, I wouldn't be surprised if they get removed for just the exit number.
I hesitate to describe New Baltimore as a "town," but Everett would certainly warrant an interchange.
I actually like having the exit names be more local to where they are at. For example, technically the interchange in Monroeville is called "Pittsburgh", but I'd change it to "Monroeville". The control cities can be for the bigger, more "important" destinations. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
I'm curious as to how long the names will last once (*if* - I still believe it's the plan) they have free-flowing mainline toll gantries instead of at the interchanges. Not saying they'll even get rid of the names (and I don't really want them to), but over the course of time, I wouldn't be surprised if they get removed for just the exit number.
On that note, maybe they'll finally give Mid-County two exit numbers, one for 476 traffic and one for WB 276 traffic (instead of saying it is Exit 20 for both).
I actually like having the exit names be more local to where they are at. For example, technically the interchange in Monroeville is called "Pittsburgh", but I'd change it to "Monroeville". The control cities can be for the bigger, more "important" destinations. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
I'm curious as to how long the names will last once (*if* - I still believe it's the plan) they have free-flowing mainline toll gantries instead of at the interchanges. Not saying they'll even get rid of the names (and I don't really want them to), but over the course of time, I wouldn't be surprised if they get removed for just the exit number.
On that note, maybe they'll finally give Mid-County two exit numbers, one for 476 traffic and one for WB 276 traffic (instead of saying it is Exit 20 for both).
I definitely hope they do this when they eventually move to open-road tolling. "Exit 20" as it exists today may have been a necessity of the ticket system, but it also only makes sense with the ticket system that will no longer exist. (There are already no actual tickets since everything's all-electronic, but everything still behaves like E-ZPass on the ticket system always did.) Logical numbering would be 20 for I-476 and 334 for I-276.
I actually like having the exit names be more local to where they are at. For example, technically the interchange in Monroeville is called "Pittsburgh", but I'd change it to "Monroeville". The control cities can be for the bigger, more "important" destinations. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
I'm curious as to how long the names will last once (*if* - I still believe it's the plan) they have free-flowing mainline toll gantries instead of at the interchanges. Not saying they'll even get rid of the names (and I don't really want them to), but over the course of time, I wouldn't be surprised if they get removed for just the exit number.
On that note, maybe they'll finally give Mid-County two exit numbers, one for 476 traffic and one for WB 276 traffic (instead of saying it is Exit 20 for both).
I definitely hope they do this when they eventually move to open-road tolling. "Exit 20" as it exists today may have been a necessity of the ticket system, but it also only makes sense with the ticket system that will no longer exist. (There are already no actual tickets since everything's all-electronic, but everything still behaves like E-ZPass on the ticket system always did.) Logical numbering would be 20 for I-476 and 334 for I-276.
Actually, true *logical* numbering, if you're on I-476, would be I-276 West is Exit 20B, and I-276 is Exit 20A. I-476 wouldn't have an exit number, because it simply continues as I-476...it doesn't even exit itself like some highways.
I'm not so sure. It looks like fun either way, even if you've been capable of doing the real thing for decades.Here are a couple more... (images snipped)
Hershey needs to update the toll signs now that the PTC eliminated cash :-D
A recent study finds that, driven the greatest end-to-end distance (Gateway to Clarks Summit via Mid-County) and using Toll-By-Plate, the PA Turnpike is the most expensive toll road worldwide.
https://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/story/news/2021/03/03/pa-turnpike-tolls-most-expensive/6902492002/
The biggest issue that I have with this is that the study compares toll facilities without regard to their length, i.e. long-distance turnpikes, toll bridges, and everything in between. A better comparison would be comparing toll facilities by cost per unit of distance, either miles or kilometers, including methods of payment.
For comparison purposes, an example I'll use is the PA Turnpike vs the West Virginia Turnpike. Currently, it costs 13.6 cents/mile to travel the WV Turnpike regardless of payment method (unless you're in the single fee program). The PA Turnpike is more expensive (by a lot) if you pay by mail (25.5 cents/mile), but CHEAPER using EZ Pass (12.6 cents/mile).
Another example using a much shorter distance would be the Delaware Turnpike portion of I-95, which costs 33.3 cents/mile regardless of payment method ($4 to travel from the MD line to I-295).
The Holland Tunnel costs between $11.75 and $16, depending on payment method and time of day, to travel 1.62 miles. That's at least $7.25/mile! Exactly why comparing toll facilities needs to account for distance traveled and other factors.
I noticed yesterday that the tollbooth overhead signage for EZ Pass/Cash were removed from Downingtown and Reading interchanges. Also, I think the 5 MPH speed limit signs were replace with "Keep Moving" signs.
I heard that Maryland has a sign at Hancock, MD on WB I-70 informing motorists that I-68 is free road westward.nope
The closest to that is probably just this "Alt Route West" sign:I heard that Maryland has a sign at Hancock, MD on WB I-70 informing motorists that I-68 is free road westward.nope
Or the MD-68 is not I-68 sign.The closest to that is probably just this "Alt Route West" sign:I heard that Maryland has a sign at Hancock, MD on WB I-70 informing motorists that I-68 is free road westward.nope
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6533096,-78.0477514,3a,80.7y,343.04h,99.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqFM4r56x3NGNKtY2fbZgeQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6533096,-78.0477514,3a,80.7y,343.04h,99.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqFM4r56x3NGNKtY2fbZgeQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
It is amazing the Turnpike hasn't covered up the signs for slip ramps that still say they are for only for E-ZPass customers. They themselves have said in an online newsletter that those are no longer exclusive to tagholders (and you can even calculate Toll by Plate rates for those exits).
It is amazing the Turnpike hasn't covered up the signs for slip ramps that still say they are for only for E-ZPass customers. They themselves have said in an online newsletter that those are no longer exclusive to tagholders (and you can even calculate Toll by Plate rates for those exits).
They've actually opened them up to toll-by-plate? I know they said pre-pandemic that they were going to when they went all-electronic on the mainline, but didn't notice that they had actually done it yet.
I don't think they've actually changed any permanent signage yet for AET. I'm sure they would have on the original timeframe, but now they might just not be in any hurry. They have, however, removed all the overhead signage for each lane at the toll plazas, including the digital displays on newer toll plazas. Now it's just empty spaces; they didn't even bother putting up generic "E-ZPass/Toll by Plate" signs over each lane like they did the Northeast Extension, I-376, PA 43, and PA 66. Maybe they'll fast-track toll plaza removal and open-road tolling conversion now that the mainline is AET, or maybe they're just waiting until they get around to changing all the signage to put those generic over-lane signs up.
The pessimist in me wonders if they'll just leave everything like that figuring "traffic has been coping with it so far, why spend money we don't have?".
The pessimist in me wonders if they'll just leave everything like that figuring "traffic has been coping with it so far, why spend money we don't have?".
The closest to that is probably just this "Alt Route West" sign:I heard that Maryland has a sign at Hancock, MD on WB I-70 informing motorists that I-68 is free road westward.nope
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6533096,-78.0477514,3a,80.7y,343.04h,99.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqFM4r56x3NGNKtY2fbZgeQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6533096,-78.0477514,3a,80.7y,343.04h,99.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqFM4r56x3NGNKtY2fbZgeQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
The closest to that is probably just this "Alt Route West" sign:I heard that Maryland has a sign at Hancock, MD on WB I-70 informing motorists that I-68 is free road westward.nope
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6533096,-78.0477514,3a,80.7y,343.04h,99.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqFM4r56x3NGNKtY2fbZgeQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6533096,-78.0477514,3a,80.7y,343.04h,99.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqFM4r56x3NGNKtY2fbZgeQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Did that sign replace the blue on white "[I-68 shield]/Alternate Route to Ohio and Points West" sign?
ixnay
How does the 31A and 31B work now being cash is eliminated? Is 31B closed to traffic on the NE Extension? Or did they close 31A? Or did they make 31A for PA 63 E Bound and 31B for PA 63 WB?
Does the short connector between the New Stanton Interchange and US 119/PA 66 have a signed number? It looks like it is just SR 3091 or “New Stanton-Youngwood Rd” but naturally Google shows it as PA 66B. I don’t see anything on GSV to suggest 66B is real?
How does the 31A and 31B work now being cash is eliminated? Is 31B closed to traffic on the NE Extension? Or did they close 31A? Or did they make 31A for PA 63 E Bound and 31B for PA 63 WB?
Does the short connector between the New Stanton Interchange and US 119/PA 66 have a signed number? It looks like it is just SR 3091 or “New Stanton-Youngwood Rd” but naturally Google shows it as PA 66B. I don’t see anything on GSV to suggest 66B is real?
Took a ride on the Turnpike today for the first time since they went to AET. My observation is that they really need to step up their signage at the toll plazas that you don't need to stop for a ticket anymore. Got on at the Bensalem interchange, and the guy in front of me came to a complete stop expecting to take a ticket. Luckily everyone else was slowing up to go thru the toll booths, but the only signs there were small ones on the booths themselves that said "Keep Moving". They need some more signs to not stop and that all tolling is electronic until they take the booths down.
Took a ride on the Turnpike today for the first time since they went to AET. My observation is that they really need to step up their signage at the toll plazas that you don't need to stop for a ticket anymore. Got on at the Bensalem interchange, and the guy in front of me came to a complete stop expecting to take a ticket. Luckily everyone else was slowing up to go thru the toll booths, but the only signs there were small ones on the booths themselves that said "Keep Moving". They need some more signs to not stop and that all tolling is electronic until they take the booths down.
Maybe "Do Not Stop" signs would have been better?
Took a ride on the Turnpike today for the first time since they went to AET. My observation is that they really need to step up their signage at the toll plazas that you don't need to stop for a ticket anymore. Got on at the Bensalem interchange, and the guy in front of me came to a complete stop expecting to take a ticket. Luckily everyone else was slowing up to go thru the toll booths, but the only signs there were small ones on the booths themselves that said "Keep Moving". They need some more signs to not stop and that all tolling is electronic until they take the booths down.
Maybe "Do Not Stop" signs would have been better?
Took a ride on the Turnpike today for the first time since they went to AET. My observation is that they really need to step up their signage at the toll plazas that you don't need to stop for a ticket anymore. Got on at the Bensalem interchange, and the guy in front of me came to a complete stop expecting to take a ticket. Luckily everyone else was slowing up to go thru the toll booths, but the only signs there were small ones on the booths themselves that said "Keep Moving". They need some more signs to not stop and that all tolling is electronic until they take the booths down.
Maybe "Do Not Stop" signs would have been better?
When I was coming home one night on 476 north at the Mid County interchange, some doofus nearly caused someone in the right lane (of the toll gantry) to wreck because they thought it was a good idea to STOP AND REVERSE PAST THE GORE POINT TO GET BACK TO THE TOLLBOOTH LANES. The dude had to swerve so aggressively I wasn't sure if he did it or not without wrecking.
There are DO NOT STOP signs and KEEP MOVING signs. People lacking braincells will ignore them regardless.
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Pennslyvania Turnpike?New Stanton to Breezewood. It is so scenic! I love I-70 from Breezewood to MD though. I love it!
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Pennslyvania Turnpike?
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Pennslyvania Turnpike?
Some good news here
Pennsylvania Turnpike adds nearly $200 million to capital spending as commercial traffic returns (https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2021/05/04/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-capital-spending-commercial-traffic-spending-increase/stories/202105040147)
This includes resumption of widening projects and the removal of toll plazas (starting in NE PA). If the Legislature follows through with reducing the annual transit payments, the work will expand to interchange reconfiguration.
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Pennslyvania Turnpike?
On it, not of it.In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Pennslyvania Turnpike?
As you are driving on a free road that runs parallel to it. :colorful:
On it, not of it.In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Pennslyvania Turnpike?
As you are driving on a free road that runs parallel to it. :colorful:
Regarding the 324-326 Valley Forge-Area widening: does anyone know if the bridge carrying the Turnpike over US 422 and N Gulph Road is going to be fully replaced?
The piers underneath have a diagonal portion. Before the County Line Expwy was built (at one time was unnumbered and a portion carried PA 363 briefly), Gulph Road used to travel from northeast to southwest...you can still see the old cut-off end. Because of that pier, I believe US 422 cannot be widened to 6 lanes, even though US 422 gets wider just east (south) of there, and they just completed the widening of the bridge over the Schuylill River. That wider river bridge can handle 8 lanes (6+2). So it would be nice to at least reconfigure those piers and hopefully enable the US 422 widening.
Regarding the 324-326 Valley Forge-Area widening: does anyone know if the bridge carrying the Turnpike over US 422 and N Gulph Road is going to be fully replaced?
The piers underneath have a diagonal portion. Before the County Line Expwy was built (at one time was unnumbered and a portion carried PA 363 briefly), Gulph Road used to travel from northeast to southwest...you can still see the old cut-off end. Because of that pier, I believe US 422 cannot be widened to 6 lanes, even though US 422 gets wider just east (south) of there, and they just completed the widening of the bridge over the Schuylill River. That wider river bridge can handle 8 lanes (6+2). So it would be nice to at least reconfigure those piers and hopefully enable the US 422 widening.
It would be nice but that bridge also doesn't appear that old, so it might be wishful thinking.
Regarding the 324-326 Valley Forge-Area widening: does anyone know if the bridge carrying the Turnpike over US 422 and N Gulph Road is going to be fully replaced?
The piers underneath have a diagonal portion. Before the County Line Expwy was built (at one time was unnumbered and a portion carried PA 363 briefly), Gulph Road used to travel from northeast to southwest...you can still see the old cut-off end. Because of that pier, I believe US 422 cannot be widened to 6 lanes, even though US 422 gets wider just east (south) of there, and they just completed the widening of the bridge over the Schuylill River. That wider river bridge can handle 8 lanes (6+2). So it would be nice to at least reconfigure those piers and hopefully enable the US 422 widening.
Yes, it will be replaced, and this will allow PennDOT to widen 422 later.It would be nice but that bridge also doesn't appear that old, so it might be wishful thinking.
It's still the original bridge; it was just widened in the 1990s to have full outside shoulders and an eastbound exit lane. The inside portion is still the original structure from the early 1950s, just redecked when they widened it. The reason for the diagonal pier is that the bridge predates the US 422 expressway, and before that was built, there was a four-way intersection between Gulph Road and the original County Line Road underneath it. This 1950 imagery of the bridge under construction (https://historicaerials.com/location/40.09012908830635/-75.41422122153386/1950/18) clearly shows this.
Some good news here
Pennsylvania Turnpike adds nearly $200 million to capital spending as commercial traffic returns (https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2021/05/04/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-capital-spending-commercial-traffic-spending-increase/stories/202105040147)
This includes resumption of widening projects and the removal of toll plazas (starting in NE PA). If the Legislature follows through with reducing the annual transit payments, the work will expand to interchange reconfiguration.
First look at new Southern Beltway toll road to connect I-79 to PIT via WPXI
I find it hard to believe PTC still does not have toll rates set.
https://www.wpxi.com/news/top-stories/first-look-new-southern-beltway-toll-road-connect-i79-pit/ZIV4PJYYMBDMXD5KQYKNFGEFJA (https://www.wpxi.com/news/top-stories/first-look-new-southern-beltway-toll-road-connect-i79-pit/ZIV4PJYYMBDMXD5KQYKNFGEFJA)
I noticed today, on PA 63 west, the BPS (Big Purple Signs) for E-Z Pass Only at the slip on-ramp have been replaced with regular BGS and with both the E-Z Pass and Toll-By-Plate logos.
I was on I-476 northbound last weekend, and nothing had changed in terms of how Exits 31A and 31B are signed.
I noticed today, on PA 63 west, the BPS (Big Purple Signs) for E-Z Pass Only at the slip on-ramp have been replaced with regular BGS and with both the E-Z Pass and Toll-By-Plate logos.
I was on I-476 northbound last weekend, and nothing had changed in terms of how Exits 31A and 31B are signed.
Additionally, both the Lansdale and Quakertown exits now have the permanent "E-ZPass or Toll-By-Plate only" BGSes on the entrances to the toll plazas from their respective local roads. I don't know about further up on the Northeast Extension, but I haven't seen any interchange on the mainline with these signs yet. I only regularly drive it east of Harrisburg West, though, and there may be some in the Philly area that have them that I haven't seen yet.
Weirdly, Valley Forge is the only toll plaza I've seen since the AET conversion (mainline or NE Ext) where the signs over each lane are still up, though all have been changed to the old standard "E-ZPass Only" signs and none say cash or tickets. I was just through this toll plaza yesterday and can confirm that the signs are still up in both directions.
Lehigh Valley has the permanent signage, as does Mid-County (southbound). Oddly, there is a separate "E-ZPass or Toll By Plate" sign at the entrance to the Turnpike in Carlisle that I saw in a video. It is next to the Turnpike trailblazer at the gore point of the ramp to the toll plaza.
Lehigh Valley has the permanent signage, as does Mid-County (southbound). Oddly, there is a separate "E-ZPass or Toll By Plate" sign at the entrance to the Turnpike in Carlisle that I saw in a video. It is next to the Turnpike trailblazer at the gore point of the ramp to the toll plaza.
Something like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4785319,-75.6849368,3a,75y,345.16h,85.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2e51Ice9uCoK0Kw6IVTtZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en)? (From Clarks Summit - this one presumably has been around longer since Keyser Ave & Clarks Summit went cashless in April 2018.)
Except that the MD sign is EZPass only. Whereas the PA Turnpike is no longer EZPass only...Lehigh Valley has the permanent signage, as does Mid-County (southbound). Oddly, there is a separate "E-ZPass or Toll By Plate" sign at the entrance to the Turnpike in Carlisle that I saw in a video. It is next to the Turnpike trailblazer at the gore point of the ramp to the toll plaza.
Something like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4785319,-75.6849368,3a,75y,345.16h,85.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2e51Ice9uCoK0Kw6IVTtZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en)? (From Clarks Summit - this one presumably has been around longer since Keyser Ave & Clarks Summit went cashless in April 2018.)
That's it. It's definitely an afterthought and easy to miss. Something like Maryland that has a BGS with "E-ZPass" and "No Cash" on it might be clearer.
https://goo.gl/maps/CjuVBNDHcM7iXkmf6
Except that the MD sign is EZPass only. Whereas the PA Turnpike is no longer EZPass only...Lehigh Valley has the permanent signage, as does Mid-County (southbound). Oddly, there is a separate "E-ZPass or Toll By Plate" sign at the entrance to the Turnpike in Carlisle that I saw in a video. It is next to the Turnpike trailblazer at the gore point of the ramp to the toll plaza.
Something like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4785319,-75.6849368,3a,75y,345.16h,85.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2e51Ice9uCoK0Kw6IVTtZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en)? (From Clarks Summit - this one presumably has been around longer since Keyser Ave & Clarks Summit went cashless in April 2018.)
That's it. It's definitely an afterthought and easy to miss. Something like Maryland that has a BGS with "E-ZPass" and "No Cash" on it might be clearer.
https://goo.gl/maps/CjuVBNDHcM7iXkmf6
Lehigh Valley has the permanent signage, as does Mid-County (southbound). Oddly, there is a separate "E-ZPass or Toll By Plate" sign at the entrance to the Turnpike in Carlisle that I saw in a video. It is next to the Turnpike trailblazer at the gore point of the ramp to the toll plaza.
Something like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4785319,-75.6849368,3a,75y,345.16h,85.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2e51Ice9uCoK0Kw6IVTtZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en)? (From Clarks Summit - this one presumably has been around longer since Keyser Ave & Clarks Summit went cashless in April 2018.)
That's it. It's definitely an afterthought and easy to miss. Something like Maryland that has a BGS with "E-ZPass" and "No Cash" on it might be clearer.
https://goo.gl/maps/CjuVBNDHcM7iXkmf6
Drove through Mid County today and they're prepping to take down the toll gantry. All of the non-EZPass Express lanes are blocked off and they're erecting transponder/plate scanners over those lanes.
One minor thing I noticed - this part of the Mon-Fayette had a complete sign replacement around 2018 using FHWA alphabet. The new signs are using Clearview.Par for the course. Both the PTC & PennDOT have since started reusing Clearview on their newer signs since the Interim Approval was reinstated a few years ago.
Drove through Mid County today and they're prepping to take down the toll gantry. All of the non-EZPass Express lanes are blocked off and they're erecting transponder/plate scanners over those lanes.I've been by there several times in the last 2 months & noticed that the new pull-thorough BGS' for I-476 southbound feature the reverse-order of its two control cities vs. what's on the earlier-installed approach & diagrammatic signs. Chester/Philadelphia as opposed to Philadelphia/Chester.
The E-ZPass Only signage has been removed at the entrance from PA 29 in Malvern (one sign remains but the foundation for a new sign is ready).
I also noticed new wood utility poles along the westbound side between Malvern and Morgantown every one or two tenths of a mile. Only thought is that is for the fiber optic cable they are installing but I thought they were burying that.
The E-ZPass Only signage has been removed at the entrance from PA 29 in Malvern (one sign remains but the foundation for a new sign is ready).
I also noticed new wood utility poles along the westbound side between Malvern and Morgantown every one or two tenths of a mile. Only thought is that is for the fiber optic cable they are installing but I thought they were burying that.
Maybe the fiberoptic lines willbe on the poles until the widening projects start,and then will be buried as part of the widening.
The E-ZPass Only signage has been removed at the entrance from PA 29 in Malvern (one sign remains but the foundation for a new sign is ready).
I also noticed new wood utility poles along the westbound side between Malvern and Morgantown every one or two tenths of a mile. Only thought is that is for the fiber optic cable they are installing but I thought they were burying that.
Maybe the fiberoptic lines willbe on the poles until the widening projects start,and then will be buried as part of the widening.
If there's a project starting soon, most likely those poles will be used for street lighting.
Looks like they're getting ready to replace the PA 441 bridge over the turnpike in the Harrisburg area. I wonder if PTC is eying an extension of the 6-lanes between the Harrisburg east and west interchanges in the not too distant future? Because after they replace this bridge, the only bridges that might need to be replaced to connect that 6 lane section to the widened (though not striped) segment around the Swatara creek bridge is the bridge carrying the airport connector. That would add several miles of 6-lane highway.
Temporary bridge to be put in place in Dauphin County
(https://www.abc27.com/news/traffic/temporary-bridge-to-be-put-in-place-in-dauphin-county/[/url)
I also noticed new wood utility poles along the westbound side between Malvern and Morgantown every one or two tenths of a mile. Only thought is that is for the fiber optic cable they are installing but I thought they were burying that.
I was on I-476 northbound last weekend, and nothing had changed in terms of how Exits 31A and 31B are signed.
I am not sure why the reversal, but it looks like, after another Sunday morning closure of SB I-476 at Mid-County, the toll booths have been reopened. The traffic cameras show a few vehicles going through the old booths, but most using the E-ZPass Express lanes. I assume this was done for traffic relief given the squeeze to two lanes otherwise.
Unless the PTC revamped that cloverleaf ramp to bypass merging with the southbound exiting traffic, I don't believe such is the movement is restricted to PA 63 westbound.I was on I-476 northbound last weekend, and nothing had changed in terms of how Exits 31A and 31B are signed.
On the NE Ext, the former EZ-Pass only ramp northbound at Exit 31 has now been signed as Exit 31A - PA 63 East - Kulpsville, and the advance BGS for the original Exit 31 is now Exit 31B - PA 63 West - Harleysville. At the ramp to Exit 31B, the original BGS is there for just PA 63 - Harleysville / Kulpsville, but is labeled Exit 31B. I wasn't using that exit, so I don't know if turns are restricted at the end of each ramp.
I am not sure why the reversal, but it looks like, after another Sunday morning closure of SB I-476 at Mid-County, the toll booths have been reopened. The traffic cameras show a few vehicles going through the old booths, but most using the E-ZPass Express lanes. I assume this was done for traffic relief given the squeeze to two lanes otherwise.
The PTC has made its "last" $450 million Act 44 payment to PennDOT...
https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/pa-turnpike-makes-last-450m-payment-to-penndot/
The PTC has made its "last" $450 million Act 44 payment to PennDOT...
https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/pa-turnpike-makes-last-450m-payment-to-penndot/
Fixed.
The PTC has made its "last" $450 million Act 44 payment to PennDOT...
https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/pa-turnpike-makes-last-450m-payment-to-penndot/
Fixed.
I wasn't aware my original statement needed to be "fixed". According to current state law, this is the last time they'll pay $450 million. Starting next year, it's only $50 million. They (and I) did not say last payment...
The PTC has made its "last" $450 million Act 44 payment to PennDOT...
https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/pa-turnpike-makes-last-450m-payment-to-penndot/
Fixed.
I wasn't aware my original statement needed to be "fixed". According to current state law, this is the last time they'll pay $450 million. Starting next year, it's only $50 million. They (and I) did not say last payment...
It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, since I doubt PA's transit authorities will suddenly give up $400 million in revenue. I fully expect a new law to be approved to provide more than $50 million next year.
Bad news in an article today: The Turnpike has about $100 million in uncollected Toll-by-Plate revenue. That number is huge.
Good news: they are in the design/engineering stage of converting to gantries. I assume this is the old 2022/2024 schedule they had before the accelerated conversion to cashless tolling.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/pennsylvania-turnpike-losses-free-rides-tolls-20210914.html
Bad news in an article today: The Turnpike has about $100 million in uncollected Toll-by-Plate revenue. That number is huge.
Good news: they are in the design/engineering stage of converting to gantries. I assume this is the old 2022/2024 schedule they had before the accelerated conversion to cashless tolling.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/pennsylvania-turnpike-losses-free-rides-tolls-20210914.html
What percentage of the total collected?
A more interesting number is motorists who don’t use E-ZPass having a nearly 1 in 2 chance of riding without paying under the “toll-by-plate” license plate camera system.What percentage of the total collected?
$100 million is under 10% of total fare revenue (net of discounts)--7.5% for 2019 ($1.327 billion) and 7.8% for 2020 ($1.279 billion), per the 2020 annual report (https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/business/2020_Annual_Report.pdf).
Lack of front plates and obscured back plates (Thule bike racks) are both cited. The latter case should alert police and result in a certain other source of revenue when passing under a gantry.A more interesting number is motorists who don’t use E-ZPass having a nearly 1 in 2 chance of riding without paying under the “toll-by-plate” license plate camera system.What percentage of the total collected?
$100 million is under 10% of total fare revenue (net of discounts)--7.5% for 2019 ($1.327 billion) and 7.8% for 2020 ($1.279 billion), per the 2020 annual report (https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/business/2020_Annual_Report.pdf).
For me, that puts a huge question mark on entire toll-by-plate approach.
And an elephant in the room is, of course, $450M payment for transit which Turnpike struggles with.
UPD: given that toll-by-plate rates are about 2x of EZpass ones, I would say they pretty much break even here with 50% collection efficiency.
Lack of front plates and obscured back plates (Thule bike racks) are both cited. The latter case should alert police and result in a certain other source of revenue when passing under a gantry.A more interesting number is motorists who don’t use E-ZPass having a nearly 1 in 2 chance of riding without paying under the “toll-by-plate” license plate camera system.What percentage of the total collected?
$100 million is under 10% of total fare revenue (net of discounts)--7.5% for 2019 ($1.327 billion) and 7.8% for 2020 ($1.279 billion), per the 2020 annual report (https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/business/2020_Annual_Report.pdf).
For me, that puts a huge question mark on entire toll-by-plate approach.
And an elephant in the room is, of course, $450M payment for transit which Turnpike struggles with.
UPD: given that toll-by-plate rates are about 2x of EZpass ones, I would say they pretty much break even here with 50% collection efficiency.
Punitive attitude towards well-meaning citizens with no easy alternative solutions offered to them - what can go wrong with that?Lack of front plates and obscured back plates (Thule bike racks) are both cited. The latter case should alert police and result in a certain other source of revenue when passing under a gantry.A more interesting number is motorists who don’t use E-ZPass having a nearly 1 in 2 chance of riding without paying under the “toll-by-plate” license plate camera system.What percentage of the total collected?
$100 million is under 10% of total fare revenue (net of discounts)--7.5% for 2019 ($1.327 billion) and 7.8% for 2020 ($1.279 billion), per the 2020 annual report (https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/business/2020_Annual_Report.pdf).
For me, that puts a huge question mark on entire toll-by-plate approach.
And an elephant in the room is, of course, $450M payment for transit which Turnpike struggles with.
UPD: given that toll-by-plate rates are about 2x of EZpass ones, I would say they pretty much break even here with 50% collection efficiency.
I wonder if there is a noticeable difference in image quality at ORT gantry installs vs. the "in-place" toll-booth cameras. Seems there is far more cameras at the ORT gantry as well (more than one per lane).I looked up at what is on the gantries. There are quite a few things there, including pretty fancy camera optimization and vehicle fingerprinting for identification beyond reading the license plate. So if plate reader works on one station but fails on the other, fingerprint can still be used.
It also doesn't help that several people around here have 'altered' plates. I've seen plates where have the reflective coating is gone on just the numbers, all gone, sanded numbers, plates pealing to the bare medal, you name it! Honestly, they should add checking license plates condition to the inspection process. Make those people fail inspection till they get a replacement plate from the state, as some of it is obvious intentional damage to it.
Just a scenario question on the topic of toll by plate scanning in general -- perhaps it has happened to you:
You are driving your own passenger vehicle (license plate ABC-123) but towing a trailer U-Haul or otherwise with a different license plate number (ZYX-987). Who's license plate gets billed, or is it double billed -- once for each plate?
It also doesn't help that several people around here have 'altered' plates. I've seen plates where have the reflective coating is gone on just the numbers, all gone, sanded numbers, plates pealing to the bare medal, you name it! Honestly, they should add checking license plates condition to the inspection process. Make those people fail inspection till they get a replacement plate from the state, as some of it is obvious intentional damage to it.
It's clear some are defacing their plates or placing dark covers over them (the latter is definitely illegal - they must find inspection mechanics that turn a blind eye or they remove them once a year). However, the PA plates have been peeling themselves without doing anything (seems it is a bigger issue with plates within the last 10 years). I had one where the film was delaminating, which created dark spots. I agree about the inspection, as a mechanic can complete a form for a free replacement standard plate. Unfortunately, those with vanity or specialty plates have to pay the full fee for a new one, which is absurd.
The remaining Mon-Fayette Expressway and Southern Beltway projects may not be finished until the 2040s!
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2021/10/17/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-Southern-Beltway-Mon-Fayette-Expressway-long-term-projects/stories/202110170090
The remaining Mon-Fayette Expressway and Southern Beltway projects may not be finished until the 2040s!
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2021/10/17/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-Southern-Beltway-Mon-Fayette-Expressway-long-term-projects/stories/202110170090
I'm whatever the opposite of shocked is.
The remaining Mon-Fayette Expressway and Southern Beltway projects may not be finished until the 2040s!
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2021/10/17/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-Southern-Beltway-Mon-Fayette-Expressway-long-term-projects/stories/202110170090
I'm whatever the opposite of shocked is.
Imagine where these projects would be if the Pennsylvania Legislature had not ordered PTC to pour billions of dollars down the transit subsidy rathole with Act 44.
Also, how important were those highways anyway? Even with Act 44, the money that the PA Turnpike does have winds up being spent on roads of questionable value, whereas the money could be better spent in areas where traffic demands call for widening and construction.
Turnpike to build interchange in Penn Township, Westmoreland County
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2021/10/28/Turnpike-to-build-interchange-in-Penn-Township-Westmoreland-County/stories/202110280153 (https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2021/10/28/Turnpike-to-build-interchange-in-Penn-Township-Westmoreland-County/stories/202110280153)
In here, it's clear the toll plazas won't be gone for five more years. The Thruway was able to get rid of them in less than two.
The PTC has a few ideas to try to reduce the burden of unpaid tolls, including giving those without credit cards the option to pay their Toll-By-Plate bill or add funds to EZ-Pass accounts at convenience stores:
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2022/01/pa-turnpike-officials-say-they-have-plans-to-reduce-unpaid-tolls-which-hit-105m-last-year.html
Also, I wouldn't mind seeing information from the Massachusetts Turnpike, the New York State Thruway Authority, and the Florida's Turnpike Enterprise concerning leakage from cashless tolling, especially considering the Mass Pike has been fully cashless for some time now, and the FTE has had cashless tolling on parts of their system for years as well (I believe most of their system is now cashless).
The PTC has a few ideas to try to reduce the burden of unpaid tolls, including giving those without credit cards the option to pay their Toll-By-Plate bill or add funds to EZ-Pass accounts at convenience stores:
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2022/01/pa-turnpike-officials-say-they-have-plans-to-reduce-unpaid-tolls-which-hit-105m-last-year.html
Also, I wouldn't mind seeing information from the Massachusetts Turnpike, the New York State Thruway Authority, and the Florida's Turnpike Enterprise concerning leakage from cashless tolling, especially considering the Mass Pike has been fully cashless for some time now, and the FTE has had cashless tolling on parts of their system for years as well (I believe most of their system is now cashless).
Mentioned in the article was a claim that NJ drivers account for about half of the unpaid tolls from out-of-state vehicles, which seems to be a surprising claim being so many NJ residents have EZ Passes, and to get to the PA Tpk almost always requires going over a bridge where EZ Pass would be much more convenient than paying cash, or going out of the way to hit a free bridge.
EZ Pass on the NJ Tpk is about 89.5% of all transactions. For commerical vehicles, it's much higher...over 95% of CMVs use EZ Pass. I tried looking up EZ Pass usage on the DRPA and DRJTBC bridges, but those agencies don't appear to publish those figures.
That all said, the PTC never really does hint at what percentage of unpaid tolls are from out of state motorists. It may be the overwhelming majority of unpaid tolls are from their own state's drivers. While NJ residents may be half of the overall out-of-state non-payers, the "get" as they mentioned they're trying to fight for may be smaller than what they're alluding to.
PennDOT should help them a little bit by forcing License Plates to be double checked during inspection to see it they've been 'altered' and fail the car till it's replaced. I've seen TONS of plates locally that have serious damage, including a few where about 95% of the reflective coating/paint is completely gone on the plate. Most of the time, there's no way that isn't intentional, especially when the car looks completely brand new!
PennDOT should help them a little bit by forcing License Plates to be double checked during inspection to see it they've been 'altered' and fail the car till it's replaced. I've seen TONS of plates locally that have serious damage, including a few where about 95% of the reflective coating/paint is completely gone on the plate. Most of the time, there's no way that isn't intentional, especially when the car looks completely brand new!
This is key. The standard replacement plates are free - all you need is a signature from a police officer or mechanic. Unfortunately, you have to pay the full fee for a new specialty plate or vanity plate, which makes little sense.
When PA replaces the standard plates for free, are those replacements with the same number or with a new number? Because if it's with a new number, they can just grab whatever's on hand. If it's the same number, then I have no explanation other than "because they want money", as a new plate would need to be custom fabricated regardless.
Meanwhile in NY, all replacements require paying the full fee, even if the plate is unreadable to the point where you risk a ticket (there's an exception for plates suffering from a specific type of sheeting failure caused by a defect in the manufacturing process by 3M, but mine didn't qualify even though they peeled and faded early).
Looks like the Turnpike is going to open bids for cashless tolling gantries on the NE Extension between the Lehigh Tunnel and just south of Lansdale. No other tolling projects are listed yet, so this would not include the mainline Turnpike in the Philly area yet.
They were all closed for a period of time when the ORT lanes were re-striped to one lane from I-276, and the other for southbound I-476 traffic... I'm guessing it caused too much of a backup, as the striping was reverted (and signage updated again). The old entry lanes are also still in use, guessing again for excess throughput.
Looks like the Turnpike is going to open bids for cashless tolling gantries on the NE Extension between the Lehigh Tunnel and just south of Lansdale. No other tolling projects are listed yet, so this would not include the mainline Turnpike in the Philly area yet.
Now there is a bid advertisement for gantries on the Mainline turnpike between Reading (US 222) and Mid-County (but not east of there, strangely)
When do you think work will commenced. I was just last night reading the 2022 capital plan. Noted the no substantial work between Irwin and Oakmont. But a ramp up of 276/95 phase 2 which seems to be budgeted in 2 parts, also see the ramp up of the Allegheny tunnel and Scranton beltway. But I could not find any line items for the Mon Fayette work that is supposed to start in June.
When do you think work will commenced. I was just last night reading the 2022 capital plan. Noted the no substantial work between Irwin and Oakmont. But a ramp up of 276/95 phase 2 which seems to be budgeted in 2 parts, also see the ramp up of the Allegheny tunnel and Scranton beltway. But I could not find any line items for the Mon Fayette work that is supposed to start in June.
The project website says construction will start this year, though the segment cited is longer than the bid details.
BTW, that Capital Plan is already outdated. Note they do not have the MP 324-326 widening that began recently (the plan shows barely any expenditures).
Is there another bid listing site that would show Mon Fayette bid activity?
The PTC site has been updated to show that the Beaver River Bridge replacement and the reconstruction of MP 312-316 will go to construction next year.
Beaver River Bridge: https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/mileposts-12-14-total-reconstruction
The PTC site has been updated to show that the Beaver River Bridge replacement and the reconstruction of MP 312-316 will go to construction next year.
Beaver River Bridge: https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/mileposts-12-14-total-reconstruction
The project includes reconfiguring the I-76/PA 18 interchange into a folded diamond. I'm not sure if this was already planned as this is in the toll-free section of the Turnpike or if it's a result of the conversion to AET.
The PTC site has been updated to show that the Beaver River Bridge replacement and the reconstruction of MP 312-316 will go to construction next year.
Beaver River Bridge: https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/mileposts-12-14-total-reconstruction
The project includes reconfiguring the I-76/PA 18 interchange into a folded diamond. I'm not sure if this was already planned as this is in the toll-free section of the Turnpike or if it's a result of the conversion to AET.
Also, it's possible that I-95 Interchange Project Section A (I-276 widening around the Bensalem interchange) could go to construction in 2023 as well. The page isn't very clear on this though.
https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/i-95-interchange-project/design-construction-details/section-a
Also, it's possible that I-95 Interchange Project Section A (I-276 widening around the Bensalem interchange) could go to construction in 2023 as well. The page isn't very clear on this though.
https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/i-95-interchange-project/design-construction-details/section-a
"Construction is anticipated in 2023.ng from West of Street Road to Richlieu Road " says the page's not very clear "sentence" that certainly seems to be an incomplete edit.
Once the Beaver River bridge is complete, I think you will see an effort to leap frog Beaver to Cranberry over the Monroeville/Plum section, I hope not.
The PTC's Statewide Total Reconstruction Initiative map has been updated.
https://files.paturnpike.com/production/docs/default-source/resources/traveling-resources/total-recon-map-march-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=d9cf9a14_11
The PTC's Statewide Total Reconstruction Initiative map has been updated.
https://files.paturnpike.com/production/docs/default-source/resources/traveling-resources/total-recon-map-march-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=d9cf9a14_11
Re#5 - I guess I have to take their word for it, but I don't see how that 2 miles (including the PA-8 interchange) was totally reconstructed. It seems to have retained the over/underpasses, is the same narrow footprint, and I don't recall seeing any major construction around that time. I can easily be wrong, but it sounds like a resurfacing exaggerated to "full reconstruction".
The PTC's Statewide Total Reconstruction Initiative map has been updated.
https://files.paturnpike.com/production/docs/default-source/resources/traveling-resources/total-recon-map-march-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=d9cf9a14_11
Re#5 - I guess I have to take their word for it, but I don't see how that 2 miles (including the PA-8 interchange) was totally reconstructed. It seems to have retained the over/underpasses, is the same narrow footprint, and I don't recall seeing any major construction around that time. I can easily be wrong, but it sounds like a resurfacing exaggerated to "full reconstruction".
Wasn't there a time when "total reconstruction" didn't also mean "oh yea; maybe we should make it wider while we're here". Many (most?) of the sections listed as being done in the 20-aughts are currently a total of 4 (or 5) lanes, including the one mile section north of PA-8 up to the bridge that carries Hardt Road over the turnpike. South of PA-8 at milepost 39.2 ties into the 6 lane portion listed as #6 (which "will be completed by 2019"). The previously-mentioned 4 lane section between Beaver Falls (PA-18) (MP14) and Cranberry (I-79) (MP28) isn't shown as a past, present, or future project on the updated Total Reconstruction graphic.
The PTC's Statewide Total Reconstruction Initiative map has been updated.
https://files.paturnpike.com/production/docs/default-source/resources/traveling-resources/total-recon-map-march-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=d9cf9a14_11
Re#5 - I guess I have to take their word for it, but I don't see how that 2 miles (including the PA-8 interchange) was totally reconstructed. It seems to have retained the over/underpasses, is the same narrow footprint, and I don't recall seeing any major construction around that time. I can easily be wrong, but it sounds like a resurfacing exaggerated to "full reconstruction".
Wasn't there a time when "total reconstruction" didn't also mean "oh yea; maybe we should make it wider while we're here". Many (most?) of the sections listed as being done in the 20-aughts are currently a total of 4 (or 5) lanes, including the one mile section north of PA-8 up to the bridge that carries Hardt Road over the turnpike. South of PA-8 at milepost 39.2 ties into the 6 lane portion listed as #6 (which "will be completed by 2019"). The previously-mentioned 4 lane section between Beaver Falls (PA-18) (MP14) and Cranberry (I-79) (MP28) isn't shown as a past, present, or future project on the updated Total Reconstruction graphic.
Yes. When the very first section was rebuilt around Donegal circa 2000, I think it got a climbing lane but otherwise is 2+2 lanes.
-The immediate area of the Pittsburgh interchange (MP 56-57) has been split into its own project, and will cost nearly $300 million. Sounds like a major redesign of the interchange will result! For comparison, the Irwin interchange (MP 66-67) will only cost $61 million.
-The immediate area of the Pittsburgh interchange (MP 56-57) has been split into its own project, and will cost nearly $300 million. Sounds like a major redesign of the interchange will result! For comparison, the Irwin interchange (MP 66-67) will only cost $61 million.
A reconfiguration of the Pittsburgh interchange would be nice. I-376's tie-in here is sort of an afterthought. Unfortunately, with the area being very heavily built-up, a big chunk of that $300M is likely to go to ROW costs.
-The immediate area of the Pittsburgh interchange (MP 56-57) has been split into its own project, and will cost nearly $300 million. Sounds like a major redesign of the interchange will result! For comparison, the Irwin interchange (MP 66-67) will only cost $61 million.
A reconfiguration of the Pittsburgh interchange would be nice. I-376's tie-in here is sort of an afterthought. Unfortunately, with the area being very heavily built-up, a big chunk of that $300M is likely to go to ROW costs.
I-376's tie-in was very much an afterthought (and a pretty imaginative one IMO), being built more than a decade after the original standard double-trumpet interchange with US-22. There's a healthy chunk of unused land inside the ramps that I hope is already owned by either the Turnpike or PennDOT. I assume the highest volume traffic movement is westbound Turnpike to westbound I-376 and vice versa, which could be handled by a pair of nice long (expensive) flyover ramps over the vacant areas. All the other connections could then be made mostly in the existing footprint underneath the new flyovers, with the toll plaza of course no longer being needed.
-The immediate area of the Pittsburgh interchange (MP 56-57) has been split into its own project, and will cost nearly $300 million. Sounds like a major redesign of the interchange will result! For comparison, the Irwin interchange (MP 66-67) will only cost $61 million.
A reconfiguration of the Pittsburgh interchange would be nice. I-376's tie-in here is sort of an afterthought. Unfortunately, with the area being very heavily built-up, a big chunk of that $300M is likely to go to ROW costs.
I-376's tie-in was very much an afterthought (and a pretty imaginative one IMO), being built more than a decade after the original standard double-trumpet interchange with US-22. There's a healthy chunk of unused land inside the ramps that I hope is already owned by either the Turnpike or PennDOT. I assume the highest volume traffic movement is westbound Turnpike to westbound I-376 and vice versa, which could be handled by a pair of nice long (expensive) flyover ramps over the vacant areas. All the other connections could then be made mostly in the existing footprint underneath the new flyovers, with the toll plaza of course no longer being needed.
For traffic exiting the turnpike, I-76 WB to I-376 WB and reverse would be the heaviest, but I think the movements between I-376 and US 22 east of the interchange likely have more traffic overall. That's part of what makes this complex - you can't really just do an interchange with the Turnpike and I-376 and have US 22/Business 22 be an afterthought.
Unless the PTC revamped that cloverleaf ramp to bypass merging with the southbound exiting traffic, I don't believe such is the movement is restricted to PA 63 westbound.I was on I-476 northbound last weekend, and nothing had changed in terms of how Exits 31A and 31B are signed.
On the NE Ext, the former EZ-Pass only ramp northbound at Exit 31 has now been signed as Exit 31A - PA 63 East - Kulpsville, and the advance BGS for the original Exit 31 is now Exit 31B - PA 63 West - Harleysville. At the ramp to Exit 31B, the original BGS is there for just PA 63 - Harleysville / Kulpsville, but is labeled Exit 31B. I wasn't using that exit, so I don't know if turns are restricted at the end of each ramp.
In theory, the end of the Exit 31A ramp could now eliminate the left-turn movements for PA 63 westbound.
March 2022 GSV shows this signage. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2400573,-75.3410632,3a,75y,326.35h,78.84t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPpY6mQkKTlhlrA6hRJjw6n5L5M-hWAoTx9n99B!2e10!3e11!5s20180801T000000!7i7680!8i3840)
March 2022 GSV shows this signage. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2400573,-75.3410632,3a,75y,326.35h,78.84t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPpY6mQkKTlhlrA6hRJjw6n5L5M-hWAoTx9n99B!2e10!3e11!5s20180801T000000!7i7680!8i3840)
Given the somewhat uniqueness of this situation, it may mean nothing, and maybe the fact it's now shown as two separate exits (well, an A/B situation), but I wonder if it's at all telling neither exit sign in that 2022 image has an exit name on it.... and if the exit names will be going away with the change (however gradual) to not just the current AET (as in, either EZ-Pass or Toll-By-Plate), but to eventual ORT.
The nostalgic part of me kind of hopes that they'll mostly stick with the signed named BGS signs on the mainline & NE Extension in the future, but I wouldn't be surprised if they all get phased out over a period of time.
Given the somewhat uniqueness of this situation, it may mean nothing, and maybe the fact it's now shown as two separate exits (well, an A/B situation), but I wonder if it's at all telling neither exit sign in that 2022 image has an exit name on it.... and if the exit names will be going away with the change (however gradual) to not just the current AET (as in, either EZ-Pass or Toll-By-Plate), but to eventual ORT.The previous E-ZPass interchanges did not have names on the BGS when opened, so I imagine there might be some precedent to removing them systemwide.
The nostalgic part of me kind of hopes that they'll mostly stick with the signed named BGS signs on the mainline & NE Extension in the future, but I wouldn't be surprised if they all get phased out over a period of time.
Was just looking at the design and construction page and noted that the 124-135 is project was no longer listed. Wonder what 8s up.
Was just looking at the design and construction page and noted that the 124-135 is project was no longer listed. Wonder what 8s up.
Looking at the graphic linked in reply #2773 above, I see 3 different projects in that mileage range.
It would be items 23 and 25 on that graphic, a week or so ago, those projects were a single line item over at the official PA Turnpike, design and construction section, it had been there for years, now it is completely gone.
Maybe they can actually make I-70 a freeway by using that money to help build an I-70 interchange with I-76/Pennsylvania Turnpike(with no signals or shopping centers off it)there is one, but also with 119 and 66. its in new stanton
Maybe they can actually make I-70 a freeway by using that money to help build an I-70 interchange with I-76/Pennsylvania Turnpike(with no signals or shopping centers off it)
The PTC's FY2023 Capital Plan has been posted.
Notable new listings for reconstruction projects:
-MP 9-12 reconstruction, between the New Castle (I-376) and Beaver Valley (PA 18) interchanges. The section west of here is at six lanes, and east of here is the upcoming Beaver River Bridge replacement.
-MP 38-40 reconstruction. This was reconstructed already about 15-20 years ago, but not widened. The sections immediately east and west of here are at six lanes.
-MP 134-138, MP 138-145, MP 145-150, MP 155-161 reconstruction. Together with the previously listed MP 124-134 and MP 149.5-155.5, this would cover the distance from the Allegheny Tunnel to Breezewood. With the tunnel replacement/bypass, completion of these projects would make the entire I-70/I-76 concurrency fully reconstructed (but not fully at six lanes).
-MP 180-186 is removed. Completion of the above projects west of Breezewood would mean this, along with the section west of here to the east end of the Abandoned PA Turnpike, would be the last remaining significant length (excluding tunnels) of original Turnpike pavement in use.
-MP 248-251 reconstruction, from Harrisburg East (I-283/PA 283) to the Swatara Creek bridge. The section west of here is at six lanes out to Harrisburg West (I-83).
My guess is that most, if not all, of these newly listed projects don't actually go to construction until the 2030s at the earliest.
https://files.paturnpike.com/production/docs/default-source/resources/investor-relations/capital-plan/fy23-capital-plan.pdf?sfvrsn=fe252d1a_4
The PTC's FY2023 Capital Plan has been posted.
Notable new listings for reconstruction projects:
-MP 9-12 reconstruction, between the New Castle (I-376) and Beaver Valley (PA 18) interchanges. The section west of here is at six lanes, and east of here is the upcoming Beaver River Bridge replacement.
-MP 38-40 reconstruction. This was reconstructed already about 15-20 years ago, but not widened. The sections immediately east and west of here are at six lanes.
-MP 134-138, MP 138-145, MP 145-150, MP 155-161 reconstruction. Together with the previously listed MP 124-134 and MP 149.5-155.5, this would cover the distance from the Allegheny Tunnel to Breezewood. With the tunnel replacement/bypass, completion of these projects would make the entire I-70/I-76 concurrency fully reconstructed (but not fully at six lanes).
-MP 180-186 is removed. Completion of the above projects west of Breezewood would mean this, along with the section west of here to the east end of the Abandoned PA Turnpike, would be the last remaining significant length (excluding tunnels) of original Turnpike pavement in use.
-MP 248-251 reconstruction, from Harrisburg East (I-283/PA 283) to the Swatara Creek bridge. The section west of here is at six lanes out to Harrisburg West (I-83).
My guess is that most, if not all, of these newly listed projects don't actually go to construction until the 2030s at the earliest.
https://files.paturnpike.com/production/docs/default-source/resources/investor-relations/capital-plan/fy23-capital-plan.pdf?sfvrsn=fe252d1a_4
The strange thing is there is barely any expenditure for MP 320-326, yet they just started a multi-year widening project for MP 324-326. They did not split out the project in the budget.
In case you're wondering when the next toll increase will be announced...the decision on that has been delayed until August:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2022/07/19/pennsylvania-turnpike-board-reorganization-new-chairman-postpone-toll-hike/stories/202207180086
They say it's because of the PTC board reorganization, but announcing toll increases doesn't go well with news about increasing losses of toll revenue due to nonpayment of Toll by Plate bills, especially when "higher fees" is one of the reasons listed.
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2022/07/18/pennsylvania-turnpike-unpaid-tolls-increase-penndot-more-drivers-higher-fees/stories/202207170045
In case you're wondering when the next toll increase will be announced...the decision on that has been delayed until August:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2022/07/19/pennsylvania-turnpike-board-reorganization-new-chairman-postpone-toll-hike/stories/202207180086
They say it's because of the PTC board reorganization, but announcing toll increases doesn't go well with news about increasing losses of toll revenue due to nonpayment of Toll by Plate bills, especially when "higher fees" is one of the reasons listed.
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2022/07/18/pennsylvania-turnpike-unpaid-tolls-increase-penndot-more-drivers-higher-fees/stories/202207170045
From the looks of the photos, it seems the new Warrendale gantry is already up.
Why is this just accepted and not top priority, fuck Bud Shuster.Maybe they can actually make I-70 a freeway by using that money to help build an I-70 interchange with I-76/Pennsylvania Turnpike(with no signals or shopping centers off it)
Yeah I would not even think about making a post saying that today. I know the situation much better and differently now. Something called maturity is important.
The PA Turnpike exit for PIT Int'l (exit 10) forgot the -h on Pittsburgh :-/
(https://i.ibb.co/g4F5v1p/IMG-2971.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FHqSsvM)
The PA Turnpike exit for PIT Int'l (exit 10) forgot the -h on Pittsburgh :-/
(https://i.ibb.co/g4F5v1p/IMG-2971.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FHqSsvM)
Somebody should get bitch slapped for that mistake. LOL!
The PA Turnpike exit for PIT Int'l (exit 10) forgot the -h on Pittsburgh :-/
(https://i.ibb.co/g4F5v1p/IMG-2971.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FHqSsvM)
Somebody should get bitch slapped for that mistake. LOL!
Back during the late 1800s and early 1900s, Pittsburg was the official spelling of the city's name, decided in part due to the fact that the 1816 city charter omitted the -h. This is most famously seen on the Honus Wagner baseball card from 1909.
However, the original, current, and proper spelling is with the -h. That sign should be changed ASAP.
Fun fact...the guy who named Pittsburgh, General John Forbes, was a Scotsman. He most likely pronounced Pittsburgh like he would (and we still) pronounce Edinburgh. So, have we been saying Pittsburgh incorrectly all this time? :hmmm:
PA Turnpike Planned Detour - The Northeast Extension (Interstate 476) will be closed between the Quakertown Exit 44 and the Lehigh Valley Exit 56, Sat. Sept. 10th at 11:30PM through Sun. Sept. 11th at 6:30AM.
Is this going to be (or is it already) a common thing?
https://goo.gl/maps/HBx8BAxXpWxLFuLK8
The Combination PA Turnpike and 276 shield that is.
An audit of the PTC was recently completed by PA's Auditor General which expresses concern over the PTC's debt level, the sustainability of annual toll increases, and the amount of unpaid Toll-By-Plate invoices:
https://www.penncapital-star.com/blog/audit-recommends-lawmakers-act-to-ease-pa-turnpikes-financial-squeeze-on-motorists/
https://www.paauditor.gov/Media/Default/Reports/Pennsylvania%20Turnpike%20Commission%20-%20Audit%20Period%20June%201,%202018%20to%20June%2013,%202022.pdf
Is this going to be (or is it already) a common thing?
https://goo.gl/maps/HBx8BAxXpWxLFuLK8
The Combination PA Turnpike and 276 shield that is.
An audit of the PTC was recently completed by PA's Auditor General which expresses concern over the PTC's debt level, the sustainability of annual toll increases, and the amount of unpaid Toll-By-Plate invoices:Bad Debt of $104 million and something like 8.3% of operating revenue. Wow. What other industry sees bad debt that high?
https://www.penncapital-star.com/blog/audit-recommends-lawmakers-act-to-ease-pa-turnpikes-financial-squeeze-on-motorists/
https://www.paauditor.gov/Media/Default/Reports/Pennsylvania%20Turnpike%20Commission%20-%20Audit%20Period%20June%201,%202018%20to%20June%2013,%202022.pdf
Is this going to be (or is it already) a common thing?
https://goo.gl/maps/HBx8BAxXpWxLFuLK8
The Combination PA Turnpike and 276 shield that is.
It is a common error that I've been noticing more and more in recent years. The same goes for 76 and 476 elsewhere; never seen any photos of a PA Turnpike 376 shield, so I'm not sure if that mistake has ever been made. It's definitely not a new standard practice by either the PTC or PennDOT; otherwise, it would be universal on new signs, which it definitely isn't.
In a similar vein of one-off mistakes, I noticed one sign (https://goo.gl/maps/CA3DpYMXbowGxF489) put up a few years ago that uses the Turnpike shield alongside the Interstate shield on the mainline (and not just on intersecting roads). I was hoping this would become the PTC's new standard as the NJTA already does on the NJTP (https://goo.gl/maps/L7NxMvL1BHU7VQyq6), but every new sign inside the (former) ticket system that I've seen still omits the Turnpike shield, so it was probably just a fluke.
The "PA Turnpike [route]" combo shield is standard on the non-mainline state route toll roads that the PTC operates: PA Turnpike 43, 66, and 576, all in the Pittsburgh area.
So... seen a lot about turnpike widening in various locales... but nothing about where it seems to really need it: I-276 (at least from I-476 east to PA 611). Have they given up on improving that section because of ROW constraints? Or are there local factors pushing against it? Despite it being among the wider parts of the system, its also arguably the most congested (haven't seen stats, but its pretty routine during the morning and evening rush hours).
So... seen a lot about turnpike widening in various locales... but nothing about where it seems to really need it: I-276 (at least from I-476 east to PA 611). Have they given up on improving that section because of ROW constraints? Or are there local factors pushing against it? Despite it being among the wider parts of the system, its also arguably the most congested (haven't seen stats, but its pretty routine during the morning and evening rush hours).
So... seen a lot about turnpike widening in various locales... but nothing about where it seems to really need it: I-276 (at least from I-476 east to PA 611). Have they given up on improving that section because of ROW constraints? Or are there local factors pushing against it? Despite it being among the wider parts of the system, its also arguably the most congested (haven't seen stats, but its pretty routine during the morning and evening rush hours).
So... seen a lot about turnpike widening in various locales... but nothing about where it seems to really need it: I-276 (at least from I-476 east to PA 611). Have they given up on improving that section because of ROW constraints? Or are there local factors pushing against it? Despite it being among the wider parts of the system, its also arguably the most congested (haven't seen stats, but its pretty routine during the morning and evening rush hours).
The biggest issues seem to be WB between PA 611 and PA 309 (just volume) and EB from east of the I-76 split to the NE Extension (due to the heavy merge of I-476 NB traffic) and then again to PA 309. Not sure what would fix the WB issue, but the EB issue could be improved with a longer acceleration lane, if not a fourth lane to PA 309. The rest of the Turnpike seems to flow well during rush hour, despite only 3 lanes.
So... seen a lot about turnpike widening in various locales... but nothing about where it seems to really need it: I-276 (at least from I-476 east to PA 611). Have they given up on improving that section because of ROW constraints? Or are there local factors pushing against it? Despite it being among the wider parts of the system, its also arguably the most congested (haven't seen stats, but its pretty routine during the morning and evening rush hours).
The biggest issues seem to be WB between PA 611 and PA 309 (just volume) and EB from east of the I-76 split to the NE Extension (due to the heavy merge of I-476 NB traffic) and then again to PA 309. Not sure what would fix the WB issue, but the EB issue could be improved with a longer acceleration lane, if not a fourth lane to PA 309. The rest of the Turnpike seems to flow well during rush hour, despite only 3 lanes.
I'd think 4 lanes each way between I-476 and PA 611 would be a big help. It seems like there isn't that much congestion elsewhere (certainly not anything comparable in most of the sections under active widening projects).
So... seen a lot about turnpike widening in various locales... but nothing about where it seems to really need it: I-276 (at least from I-476 east to PA 611). Have they given up on improving that section because of ROW constraints? Or are there local factors pushing against it? Despite it being among the wider parts of the system, its also arguably the most congested (haven't seen stats, but its pretty routine during the morning and evening rush hours).
The biggest issues seem to be WB between PA 611 and PA 309 (just volume) and EB from east of the I-76 split to the NE Extension (due to the heavy merge of I-476 NB traffic) and then again to PA 309. Not sure what would fix the WB issue, but the EB issue could be improved with a longer acceleration lane, if not a fourth lane to PA 309. The rest of the Turnpike seems to flow well during rush hour, despite only 3 lanes.
I'd think 4 lanes each way between I-476 and PA 611 would be a big help. It seems like there isn't that much congestion elsewhere (certainly not anything comparable in most of the sections under active widening projects).
The challenge will probably be more of the stretch between I-476 and PA 309. I think the demographics are similar to those in Swarthmore, who successfully fought building I-476 with more than two lanes through their area. Not sure they anticipated breathing all the fumes from the congestion in their backyard that resulted. Further, there are a lot of bridges that will need to be widened in that stretch.
We would like to take this opportunity to update you about the Scranton Beltway Project.
A recent directive from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for all major projects receiving federal funding now requires these projects to have their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review designation re-evaluated. As a result of this re-evaluation, we were notified earlier this year (2022) by FHWA that the Scranton Beltway project must now go through the Environmental Assessment (EA) process.
This federal directive and its resulting project changes will also change our timeframe.
We understand that this delay in the schedule will be disappointing to our stakeholders, and we share that disappointment. Unfortunately, this decision is out of our hands, and we must adhere to the regulations required by this Federal process. Please see the ”˜Fall 2022- Anticipated Design and Field Work’ for more information.
Fall 2022 — Anticipated Design and Field Work
Based on the directive from FHWA, the project team has continued to work through the EA process. Assembling the EA documentation is a more complex and lengthier process than what is required for a project designated as a CE. This process has added significant time, effort, and layers of reviews and approvals from outside agencies. We are actively going through the EA process and are evaluating any way that we can streamline the schedule and help expedite review times from outside agencies to the best of our ability. As a result of needing these approvals prior to having a public hearing, we have had to alter our original schedule of a Fall 2022 public hearing. We are currently anticipating a public hearing in 2023.
Please see the updated FAQs for additional information about the EA process.
Are there other Turnpike projects further along in the review process that the PTC could pivot to instead?
Are there other Turnpike projects further along in the review process that the PTC could pivot to instead?
A quick review of https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/mileposts-12-14-total-reconstruction/design-construction-details reveals that this section had its overpasses rebuilt years ago, but actual work is awaiting funding. There may be other sections in a similar situation.
Editing to add that this section is already scheduled to start in 2023…
A bill passed last month and awaiting the Governor's signature will help strengthen the PTC's efforts to pursue unpaid tolls by changing the thresholds for vehicle registration suspensions. It lowers the dollar amount threshold to $250, drops the number of unpaid Toll-by-Plate invoices from six to four, and increases the statute of limitations from three years to five.
It also directs the PTC to look into using services like Apple Pay and Venmo, and requires an annual report on toll collections.
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2022/11/02/bill-pennsylvania-turnpike-tolls-collection-revenue/stories/202211020099
So there was a fancy toll gantry constructed across the Northeast Extension at around mp 123.4 (perfect numbering). Per roadwaywiz's drive in July, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-M5nUclAHQ&t=6955s) there were automated cameras on the southbound side but during my drive yestersay (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/I-476_nb%2C_MP_123.4%2C_Nov._2022.jpg/1024px-I-476_nb%2C_MP_123.4%2C_Nov._2022.jpg), nothing's on it. It's hard to search here about any information about it; what's the haps on this thing?
So there was a fancy toll gantry constructed across the Northeast Extension at around mp 123.4 (perfect numbering). Per roadwaywiz's drive in July, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-M5nUclAHQ&t=6955s) there were automated cameras on the southbound side but during my drive yestersay (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/I-476_nb%2C_MP_123.4%2C_Nov._2022.jpg/1024px-I-476_nb%2C_MP_123.4%2C_Nov._2022.jpg), nothing's on it. It's hard to search here about any information about it; what's the haps on this thing?
Quick trip to western PA this weekend...and can confirm removal of the church steps in New Baltimore is in progress as part of reconstructing MP 126-130.That sucks.
Quick trip to western PA this weekend...and can confirm removal of the church steps in New Baltimore is in progress as part of reconstructing MP 126-130.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike should be 3 lanes in each direction the entire length, especially west of Exit 201 and east of Exit 226. It's way too windy and weavy to be any narrower. It needs widening to be a safe road.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike should be 3 lanes in each direction the entire length, especially west of Exit 201 and east of Exit 226. It's way too windy and weavy to be any narrower. It needs widening to be a safe road.
Not because of the traffic, but because of how dangerously curvy it is west of Exit 201. Drivers need more room to navigate those sharp turns through the terrain without flipping their cars over.
Not because of the traffic, but because of how dangerously curvy it is west of Exit 201. Drivers need more room to navigate those sharp turns through the terrain without flipping their cars over.
Not because of the traffic, but because of how dangerously curvy it is west of Exit 201. Drivers need more room to navigate those sharp turns through the terrain without flipping their cars over.
Quick trip to western PA this weekend...and can confirm removal of the church steps in New Baltimore is in progress as part of reconstructing MP 126-130.
Not surprising. There was no safe parking for the stairs and the widening was just going to exacerbate the problem. Achieving ADA compliance would have also been tricky, requiring long ramps, and the new Findley Street bridge was built without a sidewalk.
Drove through the construction west of Somerset this week. It looked like some of the new alignments were awaiting final paving, and there was paving on the eastbound side of the roadway. However, I didn't see much done on the westbound side, which would make it difficult to switch to reconstructing the inner roadway.
Not because of the traffic, but because of how dangerously curvy it is west of Exit 201. Drivers need more room to navigate those sharp turns through the terrain without flipping their cars over.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike should be 3 lanes in each direction the entire length, especially west of Exit 201 and east of Exit 226. It's way too windy and weavy to be any narrower. It needs widening to be a safe road.
I don't see any sign of backups along the entire road, so such a widening is unnecessary. Certain sections do need widening, but what I've seen suggests they are actually the 3-lane sections of 276 which need it the most.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike should be 3 lanes in each direction the entire length, especially west of Exit 201 and east of Exit 226. It's way too windy and weavy to be any narrower. It needs widening to be a safe road.
I don't see any sign of backups along the entire road, so such a widening is unnecessary. Certain sections do need widening, but what I've seen suggests they are actually the 3-lane sections of 276 which need it the most.
The sections west of Valley Forge are quite busy and can use the third lane (I know they are working on one section, with work on another starting in a few months). The section between Somerset and Breezewood can get quite congested, especially around holidays, given the I-70 overlap. Unfortunately, the one section east of Somerset will likely be the last to be widened because it was one of the first to be reconstructed about 20 years ago.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike should be 3 lanes in each direction the entire length, especially west of Exit 201 and east of Exit 226. It's way too windy and weavy to be any narrower. It needs widening to be a safe road.
I don't see any sign of backups along the entire road, so such a widening is unnecessary. Certain sections do need widening, but what I've seen suggests they are actually the 3-lane sections of 276 which need it the most.
The sections west of Valley Forge are quite busy and can use the third lane (I know they are working on one section, with work on another starting in a few months). The section between Somerset and Breezewood can get quite congested, especially around holidays, given the I-70 overlap. Unfortunately, the one section east of Somerset will likely be the last to be widened because it was one of the first to be reconstructed about 20 years ago.
Busy is one thing... but are there actual backups? Daily slowing down to 20-30 mph is typical along portions of 276, I don't see much sign of that occurring (holidays or otherwise) on the mainline further west. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the widening money COULD be better spent elsewhere (though I know they are also doing full reconstruction to interstate standards, something they didn't bother with when they 6-laned 276, so at least there's that).
The Pennsylvania Turnpike should be 3 lanes in each direction the entire length, especially west of Exit 201 and east of Exit 226. It's way too windy and weavy to be any narrower. It needs widening to be a safe road.
I don't see any sign of backups along the entire road, so such a widening is unnecessary. Certain sections do need widening, but what I've seen suggests they are actually the 3-lane sections of 276 which need it the most.
The sections west of Valley Forge are quite busy and can use the third lane (I know they are working on one section, with work on another starting in a few months). The section between Somerset and Breezewood can get quite congested, especially around holidays, given the I-70 overlap. Unfortunately, the one section east of Somerset will likely be the last to be widened because it was one of the first to be reconstructed about 20 years ago.
Busy is one thing... but are there actual backups? Daily slowing down to 20-30 mph is typical along portions of 276, I don't see much sign of that occurring (holidays or otherwise) on the mainline further west. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the widening money COULD be better spent elsewhere (though I know they are also doing full reconstruction to interstate standards, something they didn't bother with when they 6-laned 276, so at least there's that).
There are often stop & go backups during holiday weekends (especially Thanksgiving) on the I-70 overlap section in the areas I mentioned. Elsewhere the issue is more trucks and slower vehicles clogging the left lane.
Not because of the traffic, but because of how dangerously curvy it is west of Exit 201. Drivers need more room to navigate those sharp turns through the terrain without flipping their cars over.
Not because of the traffic, but because of how dangerously curvy it is west of Exit 201. Drivers need more room to navigate those sharp turns through the terrain without flipping their cars over.
Or people could just actually drive for the conditions and not have to worry about "flipping their cars over." If someone is that reckless then perhaps they shouldn't be on the road.
But most of those curves can't even handle the speed limit.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike should be 3 lanes in each direction the entire length, especially west of Exit 201 and east of Exit 226. It's way too windy and weavy to be any narrower. It needs widening to be a safe road.
Not because of the traffic, but because of how dangerously curvy it is west of Exit 201. Drivers need more room to navigate those sharp turns through the terrain without flipping their cars over.
Curves are solved by straightening, banking, or by lowering the speed limit. Widening doesn't help all that much and is considerably more costly compared to the better solutions.
Gotta justify the need for a widening for more than a handful of days a year. Nearly every road needs a widening based on that criteria.
If it was congested multiple times each weekend all summer long, then it's worth looking into a widening.
Not because of the traffic, but because of how dangerously curvy it is west of Exit 201. Drivers need more room to navigate those sharp turns through the terrain without flipping their cars over.
Or people could just actually drive for the conditions and not have to worry about "flipping their cars over." If someone is that reckless then perhaps they shouldn't be on the road.
But most of those curves can't even handle the speed limit.
That's not unusual. That's why God invented advisory speeds.
This is why the starting point for a decision as to how much capacity to add is the number of lanes required to accommodate the design hour volume at a target LOS ... . DHV is traditionally defined as the 30th highest hour in the design year, but in special circumstances (e.g., very high cost to widen and extreme seasonality of traffic) can be something like the 100th highest hour.
This is why the starting point for a decision as to how much capacity to add is the number of lanes required to accommodate the design hour volume at a target LOS ... . DHV is traditionally defined as the 30th highest hour in the design year, but in special circumstances (e.g., very high cost to widen and extreme seasonality of traffic) can be something like the 100th highest hour.
"LOS"? "DHV"?
That wasn't God, that was Lord.Not because of the traffic, but because of how dangerously curvy it is west of Exit 201. Drivers need more room to navigate those sharp turns through the terrain without flipping their cars over.
Or people could just actually drive for the conditions and not have to worry about "flipping their cars over." If someone is that reckless then perhaps they shouldn't be on the road.
But most of those curves can't even handle the speed limit.
That's not unusual. That's why God invented advisory speeds.
The question is why they still need to round tolls up to the next dime when cash is no longer collected. It makes the toll increase percentage meaningless because the actual increase is often more than advertised. E-ZPass and Toll by Plate can bill in one cent increments.Because this allows for slightly more cash under same PR and regulation stack?
The question is why they still need to round tolls up to the next dime when cash is no longer collected. It makes the toll increase percentage meaningless because the actual increase is often more than advertised. E-ZPass and Toll by Plate can bill in one cent increments.Because this allows for slightly more cash under same PR and regulation stack?
HARRISBURG - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Duvany Zambrano, age 43, of Hamilton, New Jersey, and Sergio Jara, age 37, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, were indicted on January 4, 2023, by a federal grand jury for defrauding the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission.
According to United States Attorney Gerard M. Karam, the indictment alleges that beginning in 2018, Zambrano, Jara and others began acquiring thousands of E-Z Pass transponders from retailers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. They then registered the transponders using false personal information and false credit card information. They sold the transponders to truckers in the New Jersey area who travelled on the Pennsylvania Turnpike hauling materials. In doing so, the indictment alleges that Zambrano, Jara, and others avoided paying approximately $1,000,000 in tolls.
Sounds like a PA state representative wants the PTC to join the transponder discrimination game because he thinks the Toll by Plate rates are too high.
https://patch.com/pennsylvania/across-pa/pa-turnpikes-massive-tolling-increases-must-be-stopped-lawmakers
Sounds like a PA state representative wants the PTC to join the transponder discrimination game because he thinks the Toll by Plate rates are too high.
https://patch.com/pennsylvania/across-pa/pa-turnpikes-massive-tolling-increases-must-be-stopped-lawmakers
This bill, as stated in the article, doesn't require the cash price to drop. It doesn't encourage residents to get an EZ Pass either. The theory, I'm guessing, is the if they raise the cost of a trip to out-of-state tag holders, the cash price will drop, which I will believe isn't going to actually happen.
Sounds like a PA state representative wants the PTC to join the transponder discrimination game because he thinks the Toll by Plate rates are too high.I hate transponder discrimination. To me, this is the antithesis of the entire EZPass idea. It’s a consortium. I have a PTC-issued EZPass. It drives me insane when I go to Long Island and have to pay the toll-by-mail rate.
https://patch.com/pennsylvania/across-pa/pa-turnpikes-massive-tolling-increases-must-be-stopped-lawmakers
Also, I wish the PTC would either reduce the $1.80 minimum EZPass toll, or make a “frequent commuter” plan. I remember NY Thruway years back charged me 19 cents to go from Rt 332 to I-490, so there is no reason $1.80 needs to be the minimum. But I’m also sure the PTC knows that $1.80 for the 5 miles between Harrisburg West and Harrisburg East is a gold mine for them.
Pretty long detour this weekend on the NE Extension
Pennsylvania Turnpike Plans Weekend Closure between Lehigh Valley and Mahoning Valley Interchanges (https://www.paturnpike.com/news/details/2022/10/06/pennsylvania-turnpike-plans-weekend-closure-between-lehigh-valley-and-mahoning-valley-interchanges)
Sounds like a PA state representative wants the PTC to join the transponder discrimination game because he thinks the Toll by Plate rates are too high.I hate transponder discrimination. To me, this is the antithesis of the entire EZPass idea. It’s a consortium. I have a PTC-issued EZPass. It drives me insane when I go to Long Island and have to pay the toll-by-mail rate.
https://patch.com/pennsylvania/across-pa/pa-turnpikes-massive-tolling-increases-must-be-stopped-lawmakers
Even if you want to make the argument that it’s a “outside agency toll” , I would guess those are settled in large batches like an ACH between agencies. Charge me the EZPass rate and add a 3% or 25 cent charge. None of this “well if your EZPass was issued by NY it would be $6 but for you it’s $10.17” bs. New York is not mailing me a bill and hoping they collect, which I imagine is the justification for the massive spread between the in state EZPass rate and the toll-by-mail rate. EZPass is like a 99% guaranteed collection rate for them.
If I lived in Ohio and had to drive to Philadelphia with an Ohio Tpk EZPass and had to pay the $80 or whatever made up number is the toll-by-plate rate to Valley Forge nowadays, I’d be livid.
Also, I wish the PTC would either reduce the $1.80 minimum EZPass toll, or make a “frequent commuter” plan. I remember NY Thruway years back charged me 19 cents to go from Rt 332 to I-490, so there is no reason $1.80 needs to be the minimum. But I’m also sure the PTC knows that $1.80 for the 5 miles between Harrisburg West and Harrisburg East is a gold mine for them.
A great way to reduce congestion on I-83 in Harrisburg would be some sort of incentive plan to divert through traffic via the I-76 bridge and I-283 North back to the Eisenhower. Maybe something like a 20 trip plan at 25% discounted average trip cost vs single trip.
If the pay by plate rate and the non-local E-ZPass rate are exactly the same, screw it. I'll take down my E-ZPass and make them do the work to bill me. Maybe they won't get around to it.
Originally, E-ZPass was supposed to make things easier for the motorists. It's now a profit center, saving the toll agencies money but not the motorists.
Early on, the discounts were to incentivize people to get an EZ Pass. We're well past that stage now. When motorists have a choice between cash and EZ Pass, many toll roads show roughly 90% use EZ Pass. Very few of them will go back to paying cash when EZ Pass is vastly easier and faster.I thought the discounts were to pass along the savings from E-ZPass being a cheaper means of collecting the toll?
Early on, the discounts were to incentivize people to get an EZ Pass. We're well past that stage now. When motorists have a choice between cash and EZ Pass, many toll roads show roughly 90% use EZ Pass. Very few of them will go back to paying cash when EZ Pass is vastly easier and faster.I thought the discounts were to pass along the savings from E-ZPass being a cheaper means of collecting the toll?
Early on, the discounts were to incentivize people to get an EZ Pass. We're well past that stage now. When motorists have a choice between cash and EZ Pass, many toll roads show roughly 90% use EZ Pass. Very few of them will go back to paying cash when EZ Pass is vastly easier and faster.I thought the discounts were to pass along the savings from E-ZPass being a cheaper means of collecting the toll?
That's supposed to be the idea, but hitting out of staters with higher tolls is a very easy way to bring in more money without angering locals.
Early on, the discounts were to incentivize people to get an EZ Pass. We're well past that stage now. When motorists have a choice between cash and EZ Pass, many toll roads show roughly 90% use EZ Pass. Very few of them will go back to paying cash when EZ Pass is vastly easier and faster.I thought the discounts were to pass along the savings from E-ZPass being a cheaper means of collecting the toll?
That's supposed to be the idea, but hitting out of staters with higher tolls is a very easy way to bring in more money without angering locals.
...yet they still raise ALL tolls annually.
Early on, the discounts were to incentivize people to get an EZ Pass. We're well past that stage now. When motorists have a choice between cash and EZ Pass, many toll roads show roughly 90% use EZ Pass. Very few of them will go back to paying cash when EZ Pass is vastly easier and faster.
I thought the discounts were to pass along the savings from E-ZPass being a cheaper means of collecting the toll?
That's supposed to be the idea, but hitting out of staters with higher tolls is a very easy way to bring in more money without angering locals.
Early on, the discounts were to incentivize people to get an EZ Pass. We're well past that stage now. When motorists have a choice between cash and EZ Pass, many toll roads show roughly 90% use EZ Pass. Very few of them will go back to paying cash when EZ Pass is vastly easier and faster.I thought the discounts were to pass along the savings from E-ZPass being a cheaper means of collecting the toll?
That's supposed to be the idea, but hitting out of staters with higher tolls is a very easy way to bring in more money without angering locals.
...yet they still raise ALL tolls annually.
What products avoid inflation and get cheaper with time?
I hate transponder discrimination. To me, this is the antithesis of the entire EZPass idea. It’s a consortium. I have a PTC-issued EZPass. It drives me insane when I go to Long Island and have to pay the toll-by-mail rate.
Quote from: sbeaver44I hate transponder discrimination. To me, this is the antithesis of the entire EZPass idea. It’s a consortium. I have a PTC-issued EZPass. It drives me insane when I go to Long Island and have to pay the toll-by-mail rate.
This is why for a while, I had a Maryland-issued EZPass AND a New Jersey-issued EZPass: I was going back and forth between Philly and Maryland, and also using the bridges between Philly and South Jersey a bunch, so I wanted both the Hatem Bridge unlimited crossing plan AND the DRPA frequent user discount (which I've to this day never hit like I anticipated I might).
The other stupidity is the monthly fees. For YEARS living in Maryland, I had a Massachusetts-issued EZPass tag, because in the early 2000s I lived in the Boston area (my tag still said "Fast Lane" until its battery died). Mass didn't charge a monthly fee; Maryland did, and at the time I didn't use MD toll facilities enough to justify the in-state discount. As soon as Gov. Hogan dropped the monthly fee, I cancelled my Mass EZPass and got a Maryland one. Since MD charges a monthly fee for out-of-state addresses, I closed that account the instant I moved to PA.
Now I just have my NJ EZPass tag, and the $1 monthly fee, though chump change, is infuriating, and less than the PTC's $3 monthly fee -- that's the only reason I have the NJ EZPass as opposed to a PTC one; because the monthly fee is cheaper. Why some agencies charge monthly fees and some don't, and some are more than others, is also a mystery to me.
It pisses me off when I drive up to Connecticut to see family at the holidays, and have to pay the out-of-state toll rates at the Tappan Zee Bridge, GWB, et cetera. Software makes it just as easy to collect from an out-of-state EZPass issuer than an in-state one. New York State itself has several EZPass issuing agencies -- the NY Thruway authority, The PANYNJ, and MTA Bridges and Tunnels, to name three, and there may be more, so the in-state versus out-of-state rates make even LESS sense.
I can imagine this happening more often if people have to carry more passes to minimize the tolls they pay. I was tempted to consolidate by adding a tag to my brother's MD account since he lives there, but decided against it.
I've noticed a lot of tree removal work in Chester County - centered on exit 312. Appears that the PTC has removed many trees so that the roadway gets more sun and doesn't succumb to the freeze/thaw cycle. Great work!
The odd thing is that they cut the trees and left the remains on the ground. It looks horrible and I'm sure private land owners nearby aren't thrilled.
Is this normal, or will PTC clean up their tree trash once the weather improves?
I've noticed a lot of tree removal work in Chester County - centered on exit 312. Appears that the PTC has removed many trees so that the roadway gets more sun and doesn't succumb to the freeze/thaw cycle. Great work!
The odd thing is that they cut the trees and left the remains on the ground. It looks horrible and I'm sure private land owners nearby aren't thrilled.
Is this normal, or will PTC clean up their tree trash once the weather improves?
Isn't that work related to the widening project?
I've noticed a lot of tree removal work in Chester County - centered on exit 312. Appears that the PTC has removed many trees so that the roadway gets more sun and doesn't succumb to the freeze/thaw cycle. Great work!
The odd thing is that they cut the trees and left the remains on the ground. It looks horrible and I'm sure private land owners nearby aren't thrilled.
Is this normal, or will PTC clean up their tree trash once the weather improves?
Isn't that work related to the widening project?
Yeah. They don't chop trees down to compensate for a few days of potential freezing.
https://www.wtae.com/article/pennsylvania-turnpike-toll-ezpass-house-bill-price-gap/43370032#
Pennsylvania might be the next state to get rid of the price gap...
https://www.wtae.com/article/pennsylvania-turnpike-toll-ezpass-house-bill-price-gap/43370032#
Pennsylvania might be the next state to get rid of the price gap...
https://www.wtae.com/article/pennsylvania-turnpike-toll-ezpass-house-bill-price-gap/43370032#
Pennsylvania might be the next state to get rid of the price gap...
That entire article is a "What the hell are they trying to say?".
https://www.wtae.com/article/pennsylvania-turnpike-toll-ezpass-house-bill-price-gap/43370032#
Pennsylvania might be the next state to get rid of the price gap...
That entire article is a "What the hell are they trying to say?".
So... they want to eliminate the EZ-Pass discount and charge everyone the higher rates? Sounds very PTC. Way to ensure I NEVER use the Turnpike.
The way I read the actual bill (linked below) is they want to eliminate the huge toll-by-plate differential for Pennsylvania plates and charge them and PA E-ZPass users the same rate. Everyone else (non-PA E-ZPass users and toll-by-plate users) would pay a higher rate, possibly the current toll-by-plate rates.
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0516&pn=0485
The way I read the actual bill (linked below) is they want to eliminate the huge toll-by-plate differential for Pennsylvania plates and charge them and PA E-ZPass users the same rate. Everyone else (non-PA E-ZPass users and toll-by-plate users) would pay a higher rate, possibly the current toll-by-plate rates.
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0516&pn=0485
Admittedly, I have not read the bill yet, but thank you for the link, and I will read the bill.
My car has Pennsylvania plates (well, PLATE, but this is not the forum to discuss the relative merits and demerits of having a front license plate, suffice it to say I am very much in favor of front plates in any jurisdiction that experiences snow and/or mud), but my E-ZPass transponder is from New Jersey. I've never cared much, because my understanding is that E-ZPass users get the same toll rates on the PA Turnpike regardless of the issuing agency for the E-ZPass transponder. Is this wrong? Do PTC-issued E-ZPass transponders incur a lower toll rate on the PA Turnpike?
I don't like what NY and MD and probably a whole dossier of other states do with charging out-of-state E-ZPass transponders higher rates. I don't want to have 34781263741891 different E-ZPass transponders in my car, select the "right" one, and make sure all the others don't get read/charged. I chose a NJ transponder for reasons related to the frequency with which I used DRPA bridges at the time (now I'm reconsidering this -- lower PA Turnpike toll rates for PTC-issued transponders might push me to switch to a PTC-issued transponder).
The way I read the actual bill (linked below) is they want to eliminate the huge toll-by-plate differential for Pennsylvania plates and charge them and PA E-ZPass users the same rate. Everyone else (non-PA E-ZPass users and toll-by-plate users) would pay a higher rate, possibly the current toll-by-plate rates.
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0516&pn=0485
Admittedly, I have not read the bill yet, but thank you for the link, and I will read the bill.
My car has Pennsylvania plates (well, PLATE, but this is not the forum to discuss the relative merits and demerits of having a front license plate, suffice it to say I am very much in favor of front plates in any jurisdiction that experiences snow and/or mud), but my E-ZPass transponder is from New Jersey. I've never cared much, because my understanding is that E-ZPass users get the same toll rates on the PA Turnpike regardless of the issuing agency for the E-ZPass transponder. Is this wrong? Do PTC-issued E-ZPass transponders incur a lower toll rate on the PA Turnpike?
I don't like what NY and MD and probably a whole dossier of other states do with charging out-of-state E-ZPass transponders higher rates. I don't want to have 34781263741891 different E-ZPass transponders in my car, select the "right" one, and make sure all the others don't get read/charged. I chose a NJ transponder for reasons related to the frequency with which I used DRPA bridges at the time (now I'm reconsidering this -- lower PA Turnpike toll rates for PTC-issued transponders might push me to switch to a PTC-issued transponder).
Don't NJ transponders charge $1/month? That's why I went straight to NY Thruway.
The way I read the actual bill (linked below) is they want to eliminate the huge toll-by-plate differential for Pennsylvania plates and charge them and PA E-ZPass users the same rate. Everyone else (non-PA E-ZPass users and toll-by-plate users) would pay a higher rate, possibly the current toll-by-plate rates.
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0516&pn=0485
Admittedly, I have not read the bill yet, but thank you for the link, and I will read the bill.
My car has Pennsylvania plates (well, PLATE, but this is not the forum to discuss the relative merits and demerits of having a front license plate, suffice it to say I am very much in favor of front plates in any jurisdiction that experiences snow and/or mud), but my E-ZPass transponder is from New Jersey. I've never cared much, because my understanding is that E-ZPass users get the same toll rates on the PA Turnpike regardless of the issuing agency for the E-ZPass transponder. Is this wrong? Do PTC-issued E-ZPass transponders incur a lower toll rate on the PA Turnpike?
I don't like what NY and MD and probably a whole dossier of other states do with charging out-of-state E-ZPass transponders higher rates. I don't want to have 34781263741891 different E-ZPass transponders in my car, select the "right" one, and make sure all the others don't get read/charged. I chose a NJ transponder for reasons related to the frequency with which I used DRPA bridges at the time (now I'm reconsidering this -- lower PA Turnpike toll rates for PTC-issued transponders might push me to switch to a PTC-issued transponder).
I wish the IAG had put stronger wording into the compacts to prohibit this behavior but this is now a fact of life.
Interagency Group.I wish the IAG had put stronger wording into the compacts to prohibit this behavior but this is now a fact of life.
"IAG"? Google isn't helping iykwim.
Interagency Group.I wish the IAG had put stronger wording into the compacts to prohibit this behavior but this is now a fact of life.
"IAG"? Google isn't helping iykwim.
Searching "E-zpass iag" brings it right up.
Unfortunately for all of us, transponder discrimination is an easy way for toll facility operators to bring in higher revenues without ruffling a lot of feathers. Plenty of people don't even pay attention to how much it costs, just that their EZPass deducted the toll properly. I wish the IAG had put stronger wording into the compacts to prohibit this behavior but this is now a fact of life. Basically every state does it. If the PTC isn't doing it already, they likely will at some point.
Don't NJ transponders charge $1/month? That's why I went straight to NY Thruway.
The way I read the actual bill (linked below) is they want to eliminate the huge toll-by-plate differential for Pennsylvania plates and charge them and PA E-ZPass users the same rate. Everyone else (non-PA E-ZPass users and toll-by-plate users) would pay a higher rate, possibly the current toll-by-plate rates.
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0516&pn=0485
Admittedly, I have not read the bill yet, but thank you for the link, and I will read the bill.
My car has Pennsylvania plates (well, PLATE, but this is not the forum to discuss the relative merits and demerits of having a front license plate, suffice it to say I am very much in favor of front plates in any jurisdiction that experiences snow and/or mud), but my E-ZPass transponder is from New Jersey. I've never cared much, because my understanding is that E-ZPass users get the same toll rates on the PA Turnpike regardless of the issuing agency for the E-ZPass transponder. Is this wrong? Do PTC-issued E-ZPass transponders incur a lower toll rate on the PA Turnpike?
I don't like what NY and MD and probably a whole dossier of other states do with charging out-of-state E-ZPass transponders higher rates. I don't want to have 34781263741891 different E-ZPass transponders in my car, select the "right" one, and make sure all the others don't get read/charged. I chose a NJ transponder for reasons related to the frequency with which I used DRPA bridges at the time (now I'm reconsidering this -- lower PA Turnpike toll rates for PTC-issued transponders might push me to switch to a PTC-issued transponder).
Unfortunately for all of us, transponder discrimination is an easy way for toll facility operators to bring in higher revenues without ruffling a lot of feathers. Plenty of people don't even pay attention to how much it costs, just that their EZPass deducted the toll properly. I wish the IAG had put stronger wording into the compacts to prohibit this behavior but this is now a fact of life. Basically every state does it. If the PTC isn't doing it already, they likely will at some point.
Don't NJ transponders charge $1/month? That's why I went straight to NY Thruway.
Don't NJ transponders charge $1/month? That's why I went straight to NY Thruway.
That's right, and that's cheaper than the $3/month the PTC charges.
Don't NJ transponders charge $1/month? That's why I went straight to NY Thruway.
That's right, and that's cheaper than the $3/month the PTC charges.
It's actually $0.25/month ($3/year) but it's still higher than zero.
Should we be seeing a new annual budget/capital plan coming out?
The PTC now has a website detailing the Open Road Tolling conversion. Contrary to what might have been communicated before, it won't be turned on in the eastern part of the state until 2025 (instead of 2024), which is only one year earlier than the western part.
You can see the location of gantries, but only in the eastern part of the state for now.
They also note rates still use "revenue requirements" from the 1940s & 1950s, depending on the segment driven. Going forward, rates will be uniform on a per-mile basis. Guess it's possible some rates may decrease and others may increase.
https://www.paturnpike.com/all-electronic-tolling/open-road-tolling
Open Road Tolling will begin in 2025 in the eastern part of the state. Specifically, east of Reading and on the Northeastern Extension. It will expand to the western region of the PA Turnpike beginning in late 2026.
Assuming I'm remembering accurately, that's kind of how EZ-Pass was originally rolled out as well.... it was available in the eastern part of the state a decent bit before we could start using it here in the western half of the state.
Also of note, technically, there is now a new ORT gantry in this half of the state. They've put one up that will replace the Warrendale hybrid-ORT/traditional-plaza-lanes toll plaza (labeled MP31)
https://goo.gl/maps/4PR5rU1KYNZvswzr8
Based on the PTC traffic cameras available on PennDOT's 511 site - https://www.511pa.com/ - it still isn't operational yet (the cover on the sign approaching it is half blown off last I checked) - The Warrendale plaza is currently acting as ORT until they switch and demolish it.
Of course, that plaza (and it's pending replacement) is the western end of the "ticket" system. Not sure if they'll re-toll west of there to Ohio - if they state that the rates will be uniform on a per-mile basis, I'd have to think it's at least a strong possibility they'll slap some gantries up between Cranberry & Ohio in between those interchanges.
Assuming I'm remembering accurately, that's kind of how EZ-Pass was originally rolled out as well.... it was available in the eastern part of the state a decent bit before we could start using it here in the western half of the state.
Also of note, technically, there is now a new ORT gantry in this half of the state. They've put one up that will replace the Warrendale hybrid-ORT/traditional-plaza-lanes toll plaza (labeled MP31)
https://goo.gl/maps/4PR5rU1KYNZvswzr8
Based on the PTC traffic cameras available on PennDOT's 511 site - https://www.511pa.com/ - it still isn't operational yet (the cover on the sign approaching it is half blown off last I checked) - The Warrendale plaza is currently acting as ORT until they switch and demolish it.
Of course, that plaza (and it's pending replacement) is the western end of the "ticket" system. Not sure if they'll re-toll west of there to Ohio - if they state that the rates will be uniform on a per-mile basis, I'd have to think it's at least a strong possibility they'll slap some gantries up between Cranberry & Ohio in between those interchanges.
I personally doubt they'll revert on the western section - Ohio is going the same way with moving its mainline tolls further in from the border and creating "free" interchanges
They are correct about the unequal toll rates. The rates in the Philly area are much higher on a per-mile basis. Not sure if this is deliberate (like the NJ Turnpike near NYC) or if it was just based on the revenue projections at the time each section was opened, like they said.
Should we be seeing a new annual budget/capital plan coming out?
Normally comes in the next month or two, along with the annual toll increase announcement
Should we be seeing a new annual budget/capital plan coming out?
Normally comes in the next month or two, along with the annual toll increase announcement
It appears that one may have come out last Friday. I see a lot of expenditure for Pittsburgh to Irwin with Pittsburgh to Allegheny Valley secondary. See lots of design work for Cranberry, Rt 8.
Also of note, technically, there is now a new ORT gantry in this half of the state. They've put one up that will replace the Warrendale hybrid-ORT/traditional-plaza-lanes toll plaza (labeled MP31)
They are correct about the unequal toll rates. The rates in the Philly area are much higher on a per-mile basis. Not sure if this is deliberate (like the NJ Turnpike near NYC) or if it was just based on the revenue projections at the time each section was opened, like they said.
The E-ZPass toll from New Stanton to Breezewood is $12.10, which comes out to about 14 cents/mile. However, the toll from Valley Forge to Bensalem is $5.40, or about 21.6 cents/mile. If the rates were equal (say using the 14 cent/mile rate), the Valley Forge-Bensalem toll would be about $3.60, or $1.80 less. Of course, everything depends on the per-mile rate the PTC settles on.
They are correct about the unequal toll rates. The rates in the Philly area are much higher on a per-mile basis. Not sure if this is deliberate (like the NJ Turnpike near NYC) or if it was just based on the revenue projections at the time each section was opened, like they said.
The E-ZPass toll from New Stanton to Breezewood is $12.10, which comes out to about 14 cents/mile. However, the toll from Valley Forge to Bensalem is $5.40, or about 21.6 cents/mile. If the rates were equal (say using the 14 cent/mile rate), the Valley Forge-Bensalem toll would be about $3.60, or $1.80 less. Of course, everything depends on the per-mile rate the PTC settles on.
Given that Act Eleventy-Seven or whatever it is mandates PA Turnpike tolls mostly go to fund SEPTA, it kind of makes sense. I know if I lived in the Pittsburgh area, I'd be annoyed that tolls were going to fund transit at the opposite end of the state. Honestly, though, given the amount of non-locals using the Turnpike, the SEPTA payments make even less sense, but I digress.
Maybe not the full data, but:They are correct about the unequal toll rates. The rates in the Philly area are much higher on a per-mile basis. Not sure if this is deliberate (like the NJ Turnpike near NYC) or if it was just based on the revenue projections at the time each section was opened, like they said.
The E-ZPass toll from New Stanton to Breezewood is $12.10, which comes out to about 14 cents/mile. However, the toll from Valley Forge to Bensalem is $5.40, or about 21.6 cents/mile. If the rates were equal (say using the 14 cent/mile rate), the Valley Forge-Bensalem toll would be about $3.60, or $1.80 less. Of course, everything depends on the per-mile rate the PTC settles on.
Given that Act Eleventy-Seven or whatever it is mandates PA Turnpike tolls mostly go to fund SEPTA, it kind of makes sense. I know if I lived in the Pittsburgh area, I'd be annoyed that tolls were going to fund transit at the opposite end of the state. Honestly, though, given the amount of non-locals using the Turnpike, the SEPTA payments make even less sense, but I digress.
Acts 44/89.
PA Turnpike tolls funded mass transit throughout the state, not just SEPTA. How was that money truly divided up though? A quick Google search didn't reveal the answer. The PTC gave the money to PennDOT; they administrated the money to the transit agencies.
In the eastern part of the state, the equipment buildings and supports for the ORT gantries are up. One already had "Stay in Lane" signage up near the gantry (but no solid pavement markings) while the next one had solid pavement markings up to the gantry (but no signage), despite the gantries being about two years away from even being used.
In the eastern part of the state, the equipment buildings and supports for the ORT gantries are up. One already had "Stay in Lane" signage up near the gantry (but no solid pavement markings) while the next one had solid pavement markings up to the gantry (but no signage), despite the gantries being about two years away from even being used.
It's probably easier to detect vehicle class if people aren't changing lanes. Plus they aren't infallible. I got charged twice on the Thruway for the same gantry in the same trip once. I think it might have sent the bill for the car in front of me to my account. I try to leave extra space in front of me when going under toll gantries now for that reason.
In the eastern part of the state, the equipment buildings and supports for the ORT gantries are up. One already had "Stay in Lane" signage up near the gantry (but no solid pavement markings) while the next one had solid pavement markings up to the gantry (but no signage), despite the gantries being about two years away from even being used.
Yeah I have noticed the construction of these gantries. They look pretty orante with stone walls rather than just simple metal poles. Guess that’s our toll dollars at work.
In the eastern part of the state, the equipment buildings and supports for the ORT gantries are up. One already had "Stay in Lane" signage up near the gantry (but no solid pavement markings) while the next one had solid pavement markings up to the gantry (but no signage), despite the gantries being about two years away from even being used.
Yeah I have noticed the construction of these gantries. They look pretty orante with stone walls rather than just simple metal poles. Guess that’s our toll dollars at work.
I think they are stamped concrete, but yeah; more than "simple" poles. The service buildings certainly have some aesthetic treatments to them as well, I wonder if they will have any type of illumination (some on the NE Extension seem to have glass near the top of the structure).
Has the PTC ever considered constraining their spending rather than constantly increasing already sky-high tolls? It seems like they're doing a lot of widening/reconstruction work where NY would just do a resurfacing. The widened sections are nice, sure, but they seem like they could be fiscally irresponsible given the Turnpike's debt load.
Has the PTC ever considered constraining their spending rather than constantly increasing already sky-high tolls? It seems like they're doing a lot of widening/reconstruction work where NY would just do a resurfacing. The widened sections are nice, sure, but they seem like they could be fiscally irresponsible given the Turnpike's debt load.
Beyond the PTC stating that they audit their finances, I am pretty sure that a true audit into PTC's finances is probably as likely as I-73 being built in Ohio.
Has the PTC ever considered constraining their spending rather than constantly increasing already sky-high tolls? It seems like they're doing a lot of widening/reconstruction work where NY would just do a resurfacing. The widened sections are nice, sure, but they seem like they could be fiscally irresponsible given the Turnpike's debt load.
Has the PTC ever considered constraining their spending rather than constantly increasing already sky-high tolls? It seems like they're doing a lot of widening/reconstruction work where NY would just do a resurfacing. The widened sections are nice, sure, but they seem like they could be fiscally irresponsible given the Turnpike's debt load.
Beyond the PTC stating that they audit their finances, I am pretty sure that a true audit into PTC's finances is probably as likely as I-73 being built in Ohio.
I'm aware, but those payments are over now, and why didn't they constrain their program when the payments were being made? It's as if they just assumed that FHWA would eventually roll over on the tolling I-80 thing. Foolish.Has the PTC ever considered constraining their spending rather than constantly increasing already sky-high tolls? It seems like they're doing a lot of widening/reconstruction work where NY would just do a resurfacing. The widened sections are nice, sure, but they seem like they could be fiscally irresponsible given the Turnpike's debt load.
The reason turnpike tolls go up every year is because of Act 44, where the turnpike is required to provide money to PennDOT for road and public transit projects. I don’t think execessive spending by the turnpike is the reason for the annual toll increases but I’m sure it doesn’t help.
I'm aware, but those payments are over now, and why didn't they constrain their program when the payments were being made? It's as if they just assumed that FHWA would eventually roll over on the tolling I-80 thing. Foolish.Has the PTC ever considered constraining their spending rather than constantly increasing already sky-high tolls? It seems like they're doing a lot of widening/reconstruction work where NY would just do a resurfacing. The widened sections are nice, sure, but they seem like they could be fiscally irresponsible given the Turnpike's debt load.
The reason turnpike tolls go up every year is because of Act 44, where the turnpike is required to provide money to PennDOT for road and public transit projects. I don’t think execessive spending by the turnpike is the reason for the annual toll increases but I’m sure it doesn’t help.
Shouldn't a $400 million reduction be, you know, actually noticeable? And the amount of the payment has been steady, yet they keep needing to raise tolls. Something's rotten with the budget.
I don't say "no construction", but was envisioning something along the lines of NYSDOT's "preservation first" policy that heavily restricts the amount of money that can be used for anything more major than a mill and fill or bridge deck replacement (and most of it ends up to going to full bridge replacements). There's a reason why NYSDOT doesn't do much in the way of widening and new construction these days, and it's not just the fact that Urbanists have more sway in solid blue states. In fact, given the state of infrastructure needs vs. funding nationwide, perhaps FHWA should mandate a similar policy...
(personal opinion)
Shouldn't a $400 million reduction be, you know, actually noticeable? And the amount of the payment has been steady, yet they keep needing to raise tolls. Something's rotten with the budget.
Thruway doesn't seem that bad to me. The two sections that stand out to me as having issues (28-29 and 39-40) seem to be related to bad materials, as 28-29 was done recently before developing weird potholes in the new layer and 39-40 has quite noticeable concrete deterioration despite being only a bit over a decade old. I wouldn't think expecting everything to be immaculate is really reasonable, especially given the amount of snow upstate NY gets.Shouldn't a $400 million reduction be, you know, actually noticeable? And the amount of the payment has been steady, yet they keep needing to raise tolls. Something's rotten with the budget.
I don't say "no construction", but was envisioning something along the lines of NYSDOT's "preservation first" policy that heavily restricts the amount of money that can be used for anything more major than a mill and fill or bridge deck replacement (and most of it ends up to going to full bridge replacements). There's a reason why NYSDOT doesn't do much in the way of widening and new construction these days, and it's not just the fact that Urbanists have more sway in solid blue states. In fact, given the state of infrastructure needs vs. funding nationwide, perhaps FHWA should mandate a similar policy...
(personal opinion)
From my experiences traveling on the NY Thruway, they're not exactly doing much to preserve the roadway. It's pretty decrepit in numerous areas. While the tolls are quite low compared to other toll roads, they may actually be a little too low, and routine maintenance such as regular road repavings are suffering as a result. They should increase the tolls a bit to help increase the amount of roadway that can be repaved each year.
The preservation policies sound good at first, but it's really just a gimmicky way to push off needed capacity improvements to another administration down the road.
When you're mentioning the Thruway, I-86, and US 219, are you talking about the reservation sections by chance? If so, those had issues with just getting approval from the Seneca Nation just to get the work done. Thruway and I-86 have been done, I believe US 219 is on the docket to be done soon.Shouldn't a $400 million reduction be, you know, actually noticeable? And the amount of the payment has been steady, yet they keep needing to raise tolls. Something's rotten with the budget.
PTC didn't have the $450M to give to PennDOT, so it issued bonds each year to pay the amount. Debt service on these bonds is what has been primarily driving toll increases. The smaller $50 million payments are being made out of revenue, so the growth in debt service is starting to abate. That's why PTC expects toll increases to moderate to basically the rate of inflation here in a couple years.
PTC's core network (mainline and NE Extension) is quite old and unreconstructed parts don't meet modern driver expectations for things like shoulders, horizontal alignment, and ramp merge lengths. I don't think it's unreasonable for PTC to be doing reconstruction and upgrades on it.
I'm generally in favor of a preservation-focused strategy, but I wouldn't hold out either NYSTA or NYSDOT as great examples of it. A lot of the primary network I've seen in the western part of the state (Thruway, I-86, and US 219 come to mind) has been in embarrassing shape.
I'm generally in favor of a preservation-focused strategy, but I wouldn't hold out either NYSTA or NYSDOT as great examples of it. A lot of the primary network I've seen in the western part of the state (Thruway, I-86, and US 219 come to mind) has been in embarrassing shape.When you're mentioning the Thruway, I-86, and US 219, are you talking about the reservation sections by chance? If so, those had issues with just getting approval from the Seneca Nation just to get the work done. Thruway and I-86 have been done, I believe US 219 is on the docket to be done soon.
I don't recall anything noteworthy on I-86 near Olean when I was last one it. For the Thruway west of Westfield, I believe they've been doing work on it. Regarding US 219, the section between the PA border and I-86 does indeed enter the reservation. The reservation portion is under construction scheduled to be finished next year (project limits from one mile south of the reservation to I-86). South of Limestone has been done, as has SB between the the current project and Limestone. NB between Limestone and the current project is scheduled for 2024/25.I'm generally in favor of a preservation-focused strategy, but I wouldn't hold out either NYSTA or NYSDOT as great examples of it. A lot of the primary network I've seen in the western part of the state (Thruway, I-86, and US 219 come to mind) has been in embarrassing shape.When you're mentioning the Thruway, I-86, and US 219, are you talking about the reservation sections by chance? If so, those had issues with just getting approval from the Seneca Nation just to get the work done. Thruway and I-86 have been done, I believe US 219 is on the docket to be done soon.
Nope. I recall some especially bad rides through the reservation sections in the past, but from more recent trips (this May for I-86 and US 219, 2021 for Thruway) the parts that I am thinking of were off-reservation. (West of Westfield for Thruway, around Olean for I-86, Limestone area for US 219.)
Someday, the reps at the PA Turnpike will start to realize that widening more parts of the turnpike for a decreasing amount of traffic (due to the high tolls) doesn't make sense anymore...
The Turnpike is kinda stuck in a quandary, IMO. The existing roadway is 2 lanes wide with no left shoulder, and often both the overpasses and roadway have exceeded their expected lifespan and are in need of repair. They could either widen the roadway to allow for a wider left shoulder but still keep it at 2 lanes, or for a relatively marginal cost, widen it to 3 lanes wide each way. We often hear about the issue when 2 trucks are micro-passing each other; the 3 lane widenings eliminate this bothersome issue.
The Turnpike is kinda stuck in a quandary, IMO. The existing roadway is 2 lanes wide with no left shoulder, and often both the overpasses and roadway have exceeded their expected lifespan and are in need of repair. They could either widen the roadway to allow for a wider left shoulder but still keep it at 2 lanes, or for a relatively marginal cost, widen it to 3 lanes wide each way. We often hear about the issue when 2 trucks are micro-passing each other; the 3 lane widenings eliminate this bothersome issue.
It seems that was a lesson they learned when they did the first segments of full reconstruction, which were just to 2 lanes in each direction with wider inside shoulders (and occasionally a truck climbing lane in the ridges) - that even though it was a bit more expensive, it was still of a greater value to just do it then. Also, during the reconstruction, having the even wider footprint allows them to more easily maintain 4 lanes of traffic during the work.
I do recall a newspaper article in the late 90's early 00's about the reconstruction between the Warrendale toll plaza and about 2-3 miles west of the PA-8 interchange. It stated at the time that the turnpike was going to be doing full reconstruction in a couple of years, and was going to have a "grassy median" once done. At some point between that article and when they actually rebuilt that section, the PTC decided it was just as well to make it 6 lanes with the concrete median barrier.
I think the PTC website had a video explaining the reasoning and how they do the full reconstructions. But that was a few years ago now (maybe more), and I don't know if they still have it.
PTC's core network (mainline and NE Extension) is quite old and unreconstructed parts don't meet modern driver expectations for things like shoulders, horizontal alignment, and ramp merge lengths.
PTC's core network (mainline and NE Extension) is quite old and unreconstructed parts don't meet modern driver expectations for things like shoulders, horizontal alignment, and ramp merge lengths.
Can somebody please show me an example of an acceleration or deceleration lane on the Pennsylvania Turnpike that's too short? The right of way is narrow on the four-lane segments of the Turnpike, but even back in the 1980s and 1990s, I cannot, for the life of me, recall any acceleration or deceleration lanes that were too short.
PTC's core network (mainline and NE Extension) is quite old and unreconstructed parts don't meet modern driver expectations for things like shoulders, horizontal alignment, and ramp merge lengths.
Can somebody please show me an example of an acceleration or deceleration lane on the Pennsylvania Turnpike that's too short? The right of way is narrow on the four-lane segments of the Turnpike, but even back in the 1980s and 1990s, I cannot, for the life of me, recall any acceleration or deceleration lanes that were too short.
The ramp from I-476 north to I-276 east in Plymouth Meeting is too short IMO. But by and large, the Turnpike accel/decel lanes aren’t as bad as some other PA highways.
This is really a general question, but since the term was mentioned here: Could someone point me to an article explaining "horizontal alignment" and "roadway geometry"? Other than banking on a curve, I don't know what's being referred to even though the terms are often used here and in DOT documentation.Horizontal Alignment (https://archive.unescwa.org/horizontal-alignment#:~:text=Title%20English%3A-,horizontal%20alignment,tangents%20connected%20by%20circular%20curves.)
This is really a general question, but since the term was mentioned here: Could someone point me to an article explaining "horizontal alignment" and "roadway geometry"? Other than banking on a curve, I don't know what's being referred to even though the terms are often used here and in DOT documentation.Horizontal Alignment (https://archive.unescwa.org/horizontal-alignment#:~:text=Title%20English%3A-,horizontal%20alignment,tangents%20connected%20by%20circular%20curves.)
Roadway Geometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_design_of_roads)
Hope those help.
It's a little OT but it is disappointing to see New York and New Jersey add all these modern food options to their service plazas while the PA Turnpike seems to have stuck with the same Burger King and Roy Rogers options (with few other options at some plazas). HMS Host's roadway plaza business was acquired by Applegreen, who is modernizing the NY Thruway plazas. Even the NJ Turnpike now has options like Shake Shack and Chick-Fil-A. I'd kill for one of those or a Panera on the PA Turnpike.Take a look at the crowds in some of the new Thruway plazas. Be careful what you wish for.
The only change I have seen in PA, meanwhile, is the replacement of some Starbucks locations with a Dunkin/Baskin Robbins combination.
Applegreen inherited these plazas too -- it seems like since the pandemic not all of the locations within a plaza reopened (at least on the NE Extension).
Still chuckle that Sunoco was picked for the statewide-contract due to its PA roots (/marketing BS) but the C-store division was sold to 7-11. How to make the fanatics of Sheetz or Wawa agree...
Applegreen inherited these plazas too -- it seems like since the pandemic not all of the locations within a plaza reopened (at least on the NE Extension).
Still chuckle that Sunoco was picked for the statewide-contract due to its PA roots (/marketing BS) but the C-store division was sold to 7-11. How to make the fanatics of Sheetz or Wawa agree...
It would be cool if Sheetz and Wawa could divide up the convenience store/gas station contracts on the PA Turnpike. Have Sheetz operate at all the plazas on the mainline west of the Susquehanna River and have Wawa operate at all the plazas on the mainline east of the Susquehanna River and on the Northeast Extension.
Applegreen inherited these plazas too -- it seems like since the pandemic not all of the locations within a plaza reopened (at least on the NE Extension).
Still chuckle that Sunoco was picked for the statewide-contract due to its PA roots (/marketing BS) but the C-store division was sold to 7-11. How to make the fanatics of Sheetz or Wawa agree...
It would be cool if Sheetz and Wawa could divide up the convenience store/gas station contracts on the PA Turnpike. Have Sheetz operate at all the plazas on the mainline west of the Susquehanna River and have Wawa operate at all the plazas on the mainline east of the Susquehanna River and on the Northeast Extension.
Wawa has always stated they want nothing to do with private concession contracts. They won't go in airports, ballparks, stadiums, arenas, turnpikes, etc. Well I don't follow Sheetz as closely, they seem to have the same attitudes.
Applegreen inherited these plazas too -- it seems like since the pandemic not all of the locations within a plaza reopened (at least on the NE Extension).
Still chuckle that Sunoco was picked for the statewide-contract due to its PA roots (/marketing BS) but the C-store division was sold to 7-11. How to make the fanatics of Sheetz or Wawa agree...
It would be cool if Sheetz and Wawa could divide up the convenience store/gas station contracts on the PA Turnpike. Have Sheetz operate at all the plazas on the mainline west of the Susquehanna River and have Wawa operate at all the plazas on the mainline east of the Susquehanna River and on the Northeast Extension.
Wawa has always stated they want nothing to do with private concession contracts. They won't go in airports, ballparks, stadiums, arenas, turnpikes, etc. Well I don't follow Sheetz as closely, they seem to have the same attitudes.
That’s a shame because this could be a lucrative business for Wawa or Sheetz to serve a captive audience.
Someday, the reps at the PA Turnpike will start to realize that widening more parts of the turnpike for a decreasing amount of traffic (due to the high tolls) doesn't make sense anymore...I would think about those reconstructions as jacking up asset value before sale. Someone will have to bail out PTC out of debt - and that may not be the state.
Someday, the reps at the PA Turnpike will start to realize that widening more parts of the turnpike for a decreasing amount of traffic (due to the high tolls) doesn't make sense anymore...I would think about those reconstructions as jacking up asset value before sale. Someone will have to bail out PTC out of debt - and that may not be the state.
It's called bankruptcy - bond holder gets as much money as they can for the asset. Or PTC bonds are backed by state government?Someday, the reps at the PA Turnpike will start to realize that widening more parts of the turnpike for a decreasing amount of traffic (due to the high tolls) doesn't make sense anymore...I would think about those reconstructions as jacking up asset value before sale. Someone will have to bail out PTC out of debt - and that may not be the state.
I can't see any scenario where that would happen. It was floated during the Rendell administration and pretty soundly shot down. Considering that a buyer/lessor would have to pay for the cost of the assets plus the debt service on those assets, tolls would only be driven higher. It's a non-starter.
It's called bankruptcy - bond holder gets as much money as they can for the asset. Or PTC bonds are backed by state government?Someday, the reps at the PA Turnpike will start to realize that widening more parts of the turnpike for a decreasing amount of traffic (due to the high tolls) doesn't make sense anymore...I would think about those reconstructions as jacking up asset value before sale. Someone will have to bail out PTC out of debt - and that may not be the state.
I can't see any scenario where that would happen. It was floated during the Rendell administration and pretty soundly shot down. Considering that a buyer/lessor would have to pay for the cost of the assets plus the debt service on those assets, tolls would only be driven higher. It's a non-starter.
Good thing if PA has $10B they don't need and can use for bailout, but looks like they expect budget to go into red in a few years as well.
We're seeing a number of projects under Turnpike bridges here in Chester County. They're digging trenches and covering them on the roads under the Turnpike bridges.
Any idea what this could be? Mileposts near 312.
https://www.wtae.com/article/new-interchange-for-pennsylvania-turnpike-one-step-closer/44911884“Possible because Act 44 expired…”
New interchange soon to come.
https://www.wtae.com/article/new-interchange-for-pennsylvania-turnpike-one-step-closer/44911884“Possible because Act 44 expired…”
New interchange soon to come.
https://www.wtae.com/article/new-interchange-for-pennsylvania-turnpike-one-step-closer/44911884“Possible because Act 44 expired…”
New interchange soon to come.
So does this mean we’re gonna be seeing more road improvement projects to the Pennsylvania Turnpike in the coming years since they don’t have to divert their toll revenue to SEPTA?
We're seeing a number of projects under Turnpike bridges here in Chester County. They're digging trenches and covering them on the roads under the Turnpike bridges.
Any idea what this could be? Mileposts near 312.
Any visible progress on the Beaver River bridge project?
It's a little OT but it is disappointing to see New York and New Jersey add all these modern food options to their service plazas while the PA Turnpike seems to have stuck with the same Burger King and Roy Rogers options (with few other options at some plazas). HMS Host's roadway plaza business was acquired by Applegreen, who is modernizing the NY Thruway plazas. Even the NJ Turnpike now has options like Shake Shack and Chick-Fil-A. I'd kill for one of those or a Panera on the PA Turnpike.Take a look at the crowds in some of the new Thruway plazas. Be careful what you wish for.
The only change I have seen in PA, meanwhile, is the replacement of some Starbucks locations with a Dunkin/Baskin Robbins combination.
By the way, some BIG NEWS from earlier this year that nobody posted about: The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has finally moved forward (https://www.unionprogress.com/2023/01/08/turnpike-moving-ahead-with-plan-to-build-bypass-around-allegheny-tunnel-in-somerset-county/) with the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel replacement project. The "gray cut" is the chosen alternative, and the project is now in preliminary design.
They're somewhat cramped, especially the small size ones where the food line, aisle, and seating area are all the same space, and the number of bathrooms are limited. The big ones are better on that front, but there are only so many on the system. Of course, it doesn't help that half of them are closed right now.Any visible progress on the Beaver River bridge project?
They appear to be moving erf (https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/mileposts-12-14-total-reconstruction/design-construction-details) at the site of the project now. :sombrero:It's a little OT but it is disappointing to see New York and New Jersey add all these modern food options to their service plazas while the PA Turnpike seems to have stuck with the same Burger King and Roy Rogers options (with few other options at some plazas). HMS Host's roadway plaza business was acquired by Applegreen, who is modernizing the NY Thruway plazas. Even the NJ Turnpike now has options like Shake Shack and Chick-Fil-A. I'd kill for one of those or a Panera on the PA Turnpike.Take a look at the crowds in some of the new Thruway plazas. Be careful what you wish for.
The only change I have seen in PA, meanwhile, is the replacement of some Starbucks locations with a Dunkin/Baskin Robbins combination.
Too busy, or not busy enough? :confused:
They're somewhat cramped, especially the small size ones where the food line, aisle, and seating area are all the same space, and the number of bathrooms are limited. The big ones are better on that front, but there are only so many on the system. Of course, it doesn't help that half of them are closed right now.Any visible progress on the Beaver River bridge project?
They appear to be moving erf (https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/mileposts-12-14-total-reconstruction/design-construction-details) at the site of the project now. :sombrero:It's a little OT but it is disappointing to see New York and New Jersey add all these modern food options to their service plazas while the PA Turnpike seems to have stuck with the same Burger King and Roy Rogers options (with few other options at some plazas). HMS Host's roadway plaza business was acquired by Applegreen, who is modernizing the NY Thruway plazas. Even the NJ Turnpike now has options like Shake Shack and Chick-Fil-A. I'd kill for one of those or a Panera on the PA Turnpike.Take a look at the crowds in some of the new Thruway plazas. Be careful what you wish for.
The only change I have seen in PA, meanwhile, is the replacement of some Starbucks locations with a Dunkin/Baskin Robbins combination.
Too busy, or not busy enough? :confused:
The times I've been at them, the CFA line has been fairly long even in the middle of the afternoon well after the lunch rush.
They're somewhat cramped, especially the small size ones where the food line, aisle, and seating area are all the same space, and the number of bathrooms are limited. The big ones are better on that front, but there are only so many on the system. Of course, it doesn't help that half of them are closed right now.Any visible progress on the Beaver River bridge project?
They appear to be moving erf (https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/mileposts-12-14-total-reconstruction/design-construction-details) at the site of the project now. :sombrero:It's a little OT but it is disappointing to see New York and New Jersey add all these modern food options to their service plazas while the PA Turnpike seems to have stuck with the same Burger King and Roy Rogers options (with few other options at some plazas). HMS Host's roadway plaza business was acquired by Applegreen, who is modernizing the NY Thruway plazas. Even the NJ Turnpike now has options like Shake Shack and Chick-Fil-A. I'd kill for one of those or a Panera on the PA Turnpike.Take a look at the crowds in some of the new Thruway plazas. Be careful what you wish for.
The only change I have seen in PA, meanwhile, is the replacement of some Starbucks locations with a Dunkin/Baskin Robbins combination.
Too busy, or not busy enough? :confused:
The times I've been at them, the CFA line has been fairly long even in the middle of the afternoon well after the lunch rush.
They're somewhat cramped, especially the small size ones where the food line, aisle, and seating area are all the same space, and the number of bathrooms are limited. The big ones are better on that front, but there are only so many on the system. Of course, it doesn't help that half of them are closed right now.Any visible progress on the Beaver River bridge project?
They appear to be moving erf (https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/mileposts-12-14-total-reconstruction/design-construction-details) at the site of the project now. :sombrero:It's a little OT but it is disappointing to see New York and New Jersey add all these modern food options to their service plazas while the PA Turnpike seems to have stuck with the same Burger King and Roy Rogers options (with few other options at some plazas). HMS Host's roadway plaza business was acquired by Applegreen, who is modernizing the NY Thruway plazas. Even the NJ Turnpike now has options like Shake Shack and Chick-Fil-A. I'd kill for one of those or a Panera on the PA Turnpike.Take a look at the crowds in some of the new Thruway plazas. Be careful what you wish for.
The only change I have seen in PA, meanwhile, is the replacement of some Starbucks locations with a Dunkin/Baskin Robbins combination.
Too busy, or not busy enough? :confused:
The times I've been at them, the CFA line has been fairly long even in the middle of the afternoon well after the lunch rush.
Then maybe it's a good thing the Pennsylvania Turnpike doesn't have the "cool" restaurants at its service plazas, because every time I've been past the South Somerset Service Plaza, it's been so busy that vehicles were parked almost out to the gore of the exit ramp.
In the Turnpike system, what road is designated starting with H?
https://www.paturnpike.com/news/details/2023/09/07/pa-turnpike-honors-truckers-for-2023-national-truck-driver-appreciation-week How cute. I’m sure the truckers would rather want discounts on tolls than free coffee and a donut.
https://www.paturnpike.com/news/details/2023/09/07/pa-turnpike-honors-truckers-for-2023-national-truck-driver-appreciation-week How cute. I’m sure the truckers would rather want discounts on tolls than free coffee and a donut.
Sounds exactly like management throwing a pizza party for pulling overtime rather than, you know, paying more :-D
I also didn't realize that Dunkin was starting to replace Starbucks at some of the turnpike service plazas - presumably related to Applegreen taking over from HMSHost? I noticed the same thing on the Maine Turnpike - when I stopped at West Gardiner in late May the Starbucks had already closed and only BK & Popeyes were open, then when I checked their website a few weeks later I saw that a Dunkin had opened. Applegreen seems to be big on alternating Starbucks & Dunkin as the coffee joint, based on how the new Thruway plazas are shaping up.
The Turnpike got called out in a Reddit thread for being fairly expensive end to end: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/16haspw/most_expensive_toll_roads_in_the_us/
A single toll booth is infinite dollars per mile when you pass under the reader.The Turnpike got called out in a Reddit thread for being fairly expensive end to end: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/16haspw/most_expensive_toll_roads_in_the_us/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/16haspw/most_expensive_toll_roads_in_the_us/)
I think it qualifies as the most expensive long-distance toll road in the country. On a per-mile basis, some of these short toll roads are more expensive, but the PTC is comparing apples & oranges when it states that.
So then....is 99-109 officially completed?
Drove the Turnpike from Bensalem to Valley Forge yesterday, and saw several of the ORT gantries in various states of install. I was looking at the PTC's website (https://www.paturnpike.com/all-electronic-tolling/open-road-tolling) about ORT, and I notice that there are no gantries planned east of the one at MP 348.7 which is between Bensalem and Willow Grove. Is there not one east of there because they're counting the existing Neshaminy Falls plaza (which they are going to need to reconstruct at whatever point they finally 3-lane that segment) as an ORT point since it already has the infrastructure in place? I would imagine they would want at least one last ORT point east of Bensalem before they get to the 95 interchange.
Drove the Turnpike from Bensalem to Valley Forge yesterday, and saw several of the ORT gantries in various states of install. I was looking at the PTC's website (https://www.paturnpike.com/all-electronic-tolling/open-road-tolling) about ORT, and I notice that there are no gantries planned east of the one at MP 348.7 which is between Bensalem and Willow Grove. Is there not one east of there because they're counting the existing Neshaminy Falls plaza (which they are going to need to reconstruct at whatever point they finally 3-lane that segment) as an ORT point since it already has the infrastructure in place? I would imagine they would want at least one last ORT point east of Bensalem before they get to the 95 interchange.
I think Neshaminy Falls will remain the end of the toll based system (other than the bridge). That would also mean travel between US 1 and Street Road would be toll free.
Disclaimer: I haven’t yet been to the Northeast which includes driving the PA turnpike.
That said I saw a map on a Facebook group awhile ago(just now getting around to posting about it)pointing out the most expensive toll roads to drive across by state and PA turnpike took the cake by far and large. It claimed it was almost $200 to drive the entire road end to end.
Two questions: is that true? Is it is; why does the road seem to be in such shitty condition? Penn dot gets a lot to crap about having bad roads but I’ll reserve judgement until I see it for myself. Until then, if they really do have bad roads, where is all that money going if it really does cost that much to drive it? It should be one of the best roads in the world.
Disclaimer: I haven’t yet been to the Northeast which includes driving the PA turnpike.
That said I saw a map on a Facebook group awhile ago(just now getting around to posting about it)pointing out the most expensive toll roads to drive across by state and PA turnpike took the cake by far and large. It claimed it was almost $200 to drive the entire road end to end.
Two questions: is that true? Is it is; why does the road seem to be in such shitty condition? Penn dot gets a lot to crap about having bad roads but I’ll reserve judgement until I see it for myself. Until then, if they really do have bad roads, where is all that money going if it really does cost that much to drive it? It should be one of the best roads in the world.
Disclaimer: I haven’t yet been to the Northeast which includes driving the PA turnpike.
That said I saw a map on a Facebook group awhile ago(just now getting around to posting about it)pointing out the most expensive toll roads to drive across by state and PA turnpike took the cake by far and large. It claimed it was almost $200 to drive the entire road end to end.
Two questions: is that true? Is it is; why does the road seem to be in such shitty condition? Penn dot gets a lot to crap about having bad roads but I’ll reserve judgement until I see it for myself. Until then, if they really do have bad roads, where is all that money going if it really does cost that much to drive it? It should be one of the best roads in the world.
Aside from the cost...it can be a pretty road to drive. Once. In each direction. But after that, it's basically what you expect a 300+ mile road to be - fairly boring to drive. And while a certain former poster may swear that motorists flip their cars on some of the tight turns, there are a few turns that are fairly tight as you go thru the mountains. But otherwise, unless you're driving it on a holiday weekend, or a summer weekend, it's not too bad to drive. Just make sure you get yourself an EZ Pass if you don't already have one.
Meanwhile, driving from MA to PA on the Thruway (a comparable distance, even taking the Buffalo free zone into account) is only $17.50 with a NY E-ZPass, $20.14 with a non-NY E-ZPass, or $22.76 for bill by mail - less than half what the PA Turnpike costs. And that ignores that traffic can just take free 90 through Albany.Disclaimer: I haven’t yet been to the Northeast which includes driving the PA turnpike.
That said I saw a map on a Facebook group awhile ago(just now getting around to posting about it)pointing out the most expensive toll roads to drive across by state and PA turnpike took the cake by far and large. It claimed it was almost $200 to drive the entire road end to end.
Two questions: is that true? Is it is; why does the road seem to be in such shitty condition? Penn dot gets a lot to crap about having bad roads but I’ll reserve judgement until I see it for myself. Until then, if they really do have bad roads, where is all that money going if it really does cost that much to drive it? It should be one of the best roads in the world.
Honestly, seems like an unfair statement to say what you think you read (you overestimated by nearly $100 to $150, depending on your payment option), the agency (PTC, not PennDOT) and the road condition, which you never drove.
Sure, I get you disclaimed it by saying you haven't driven it and reserve judgement, but reading Facebook and drawing conclusions gets you a predictable result...which is an incorrect result.
If you drive from Ohio to New Jersey, the EZ Pass toll is $52.10, the Pay-by-Plate toll is $105.30. If you drive from Ohio to the Northeast Extension, the EZ Pass toll is $54.90, the Pay-by-Plate toll is $124.90 (I may be off a few bucks, but that's pretty close). It's also slightly more expensive to drive it west to east (which are the tolls shown here) than it is to drive it east-to-west, due to the difference in fares at the mainline toll plazas near the Ohio and NJ borders.
The road condition, for all intents and purposes, isn't bad. It's a bit worse in the Philly region due to the usage and congestion. The older 2 lane sections can feel a bit tight, especially without the left shoulder. But the pavement conditions are generally pretty good.
Part of the reason why it's the most expensive, is because it's also one of the longest toll roads in the US. But when brought down to the cost per mile, it's not the most expensive by quite a bit. The average cost for EZ Pass tollpayers for the max length is around 15 cents a mile. If you pay toll-by-plate, it's about 30 cents per mile. Delaware's I-95 section of the Delaware Turnpike is about 36 cents per mile (11 or so miles, $4.00 toll).
That’s good news. Hopefully they can start rebuilding it to modern standards. I’m guessing some parts are due for a six lane treatment…The ramp lengths and exterior shoulders have been up to modern standards for decades. The interior shoulders and curve geometry can be substandard on some of the four-lane segments, but the rebuilt six-lane segments are modern in every way.
That’s good news. Hopefully they can start rebuilding it to modern standards. I’m guessing some parts are due for a six lane treatment…The ramp lengths and exterior shoulders have been up to modern standards for decades. The interior shoulders and curve geometry can be substandard on some of the four-lane segments, but the rebuilt six-lane segments are modern in every way.
Terrible situation on the NE Extension with a crash between a jet fuel tanker and other vehicles. Supposedly two fatalities. Looks like it was near a bridge, so there could be damage that keeps the road closed.Yep. Saw the VMSes with the closure method. Weird thing was I was supposed to be on I-476 today, but was renting a car and forgot my E-ZPass, so I was shunpiking.
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/tanker-truck-crash-pennsylvania-turnpike-in-montgomery-county/3674367/
Terrible situation on the NE Extension with a crash between a jet fuel tanker and other vehicles. Supposedly two fatalities. Looks like it was near a bridge, so there could be damage that keeps the road closed.Yep. Saw the VMSes with the closure method. Weird thing was I was supposed to be on I-476 today, but was renting a car and forgot my E-ZPass, so I was shunpiking.
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/tanker-truck-crash-pennsylvania-turnpike-in-montgomery-county/3674367/
Terrible situation on the NE Extension with a crash between a jet fuel tanker and other vehicles. Supposedly two fatalities. Looks like it was near a bridge, so there could be damage that keeps the road closed.Yep. Saw the VMSes with the closure method. Weird thing was I was supposed to be on I-476 today, but was renting a car and forgot my E-ZPass, so I was shunpiking.
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/tanker-truck-crash-pennsylvania-turnpike-in-montgomery-county/3674367/
Clicking the link shows that I-476 has been reopened.
That’s good news. Hopefully they can start rebuilding it to modern standards. I’m guessing some parts are due for a six lane treatment…but the rebuilt six-lane segments are modern in every way.
The Turnpike is holding two Public Meetings for this project, one for neighbors near the Wyoming Valley Interchange on November 13th and a second for neighbors near the Clarks Summit Interchange on November 14th. Here are the details for the Wyoming Valley Interchange Public Meeting:
Wyoming Valley Public Meeting
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023
Time: 6:00pm – 8:00pm
Location: Martin L. Mattei Middle School - Cafeteria
120 New Street, Pittston, PA 18640
Here are the details for the Clarks Summit Interchange Public Meeting:
Clarks Summit Public Meeting
Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023
Time: 6:00pm – 8:00pm
Location: Best Western Plus Clarks Summit Scranton - Ballroom
820 Northern Blvd., Clarks Summit, PA 18411
The Scranton Beltway Project is in the final stages of preliminary design, which means approximately 30% of the engineering design is complete. The purpose of the Public Meeting is to provide information on where the roadway connections could be and the results of traffic noise studies, and other environmental considerations, such as stormwater.
I will be present at each of the Public Meetings as will other Turnpike team representatives to answer your questions. Comment forms will also be available for you to provide any additional written questions or input that you have.
For those that will not be able to attend the Public Meeting in person, I encourage you to visit our website at this link: https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/scranton-beltway.
An electronic version of the project plans and comment forms will be available on the website starting the week of November 13th.
There are some six-laned areas with substandard features, too. The area around the Carlisle interchange is six-laned, but only has 4' inside shoulders. Theoretically, this was done for clearance at the Carlisle interchange (so as to avoid expensive additional reconstruction,) but they also constructed about a mile of adjacent freeway to this standard too (including the newly reconstructed overpasses at rt 11 and Wolf's Bridge Rd.) Also, a six-lane segment near rt 28 outside Pittsburgh has 4' inside shoulders and some of the (albeit older) six-lane areas around Philly lack adequate shoulders, IIRC.
Looks like work is underway for the MP 312-316 project, and it appears that the MP 324-326 project will soon be ready for traffic to switch to the newly constructed lanes.
Meanwhile, work has started on the I-95/Turnpike Section D30 project...
It also looks like all the gantries for the AET project from Morgantown eastward are in place, as well as those on the NE Extension. No equipment has been installed yet...
Looks like work is underway for the MP 312-316 project, and it appears that the MP 324-326 project will soon be ready for traffic to switch to the newly constructed lanes.
Meanwhile, work has started on the I-95/Turnpike Section D30 project...
It also looks like all the gantries for the AET project from Morgantown eastward are in place, as well as those on the NE Extension. No equipment has been installed yet...
There is some equipment WB on the gantry before the Reading exit. There are also pavement sensors already installed at the one between Morgantown and Downingtown.
Looks like work is underway for the MP 312-316 project, and it appears that the MP 324-326 project will soon be ready for traffic to switch to the newly constructed lanes.
Meanwhile, work has started on the I-95/Turnpike Section D30 project...
It also looks like all the gantries for the AET project from Morgantown eastward are in place, as well as those on the NE Extension. No equipment has been installed yet...
There is some equipment WB on the gantry before the Reading exit. There are also pavement sensors already installed at the one between Morgantown and Downingtown.
Guess I should have said no overhead equipment, as yes, most if not all appear to have the pavement sensors in place. I haven't been on the segment between the Reading and Morgantown interchanges lately but it's good to know work is continuing to progress.
Looks like work is underway for the MP 312-316 project, and it appears that the MP 324-326 project will soon be ready for traffic to switch to the newly constructed lanes.
Meanwhile, work has started on the I-95/Turnpike Section D30 project...
It also looks like all the gantries for the AET project from Morgantown eastward are in place, as well as those on the NE Extension. No equipment has been installed yet...
There is some equipment WB on the gantry before the Reading exit. There are also pavement sensors already installed at the one between Morgantown and Downingtown.
Guess I should have said no overhead equipment, as yes, most if not all appear to have the pavement sensors in place. I haven't been on the segment between the Reading and Morgantown interchanges lately but it's good to know work is continuing to progress.
The Reading/Morgantown gantry is lit up like a Christmas tree (ok, maybe just a white-bulbed one) at night but the others east of there (including two between Valley Forge & Norristown for some reason) are still dark.
Looks like work is underway for the MP 312-316 project, and it appears that the MP 324-326 project will soon be ready for traffic to switch to the newly constructed lanes.
Meanwhile, work has started on the I-95/Turnpike Section D30 project...
It also looks like all the gantries for the AET project from Morgantown eastward are in place, as well as those on the NE Extension. No equipment has been installed yet...
There is some equipment WB on the gantry before the Reading exit. There are also pavement sensors already installed at the one between Morgantown and Downingtown.
Guess I should have said no overhead equipment, as yes, most if not all appear to have the pavement sensors in place. I haven't been on the segment between the Reading and Morgantown interchanges lately but it's good to know work is continuing to progress.
The Reading/Morgantown gantry is lit up like a Christmas tree (ok, maybe just a white-bulbed one) at night but the others east of there (including two between Valley Forge & Norristown for some reason) are still dark.
If you were wondering why there are two gantries between the Valley Forge and Norristown interchanges, there is an interchange planned with Lafayette Street serving Norristown.
Looks like work is underway for the MP 312-316 project, and it appears that the MP 324-326 project will soon be ready for traffic to switch to the newly constructed lanes.
Meanwhile, work has started on the I-95/Turnpike Section D30 project...
It also looks like all the gantries for the AET project from Morgantown eastward are in place, as well as those on the NE Extension. No equipment has been installed yet...
There is some equipment WB on the gantry before the Reading exit. There are also pavement sensors already installed at the one between Morgantown and Downingtown.
Guess I should have said no overhead equipment, as yes, most if not all appear to have the pavement sensors in place. I haven't been on the segment between the Reading and Morgantown interchanges lately but it's good to know work is continuing to progress.
The Reading/Morgantown gantry is lit up like a Christmas tree (ok, maybe just a white-bulbed one) at night but the others east of there (including two between Valley Forge & Norristown for some reason) are still dark.
If you were wondering why there are two gantries between the Valley Forge and Norristown interchanges, there is an interchange planned with Lafayette Street serving Norristown.
A long time coming. More on the Lafayette Street interchange here:
https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/lafayette-street-interchange
Looks like work is underway for the MP 312-316 project, and it appears that the MP 324-326 project will soon be ready for traffic to switch to the newly constructed lanes.
Meanwhile, work has started on the I-95/Turnpike Section D30 project...
It also looks like all the gantries for the AET project from Morgantown eastward are in place, as well as those on the NE Extension. No equipment has been installed yet...
There is some equipment WB on the gantry before the Reading exit. There are also pavement sensors already installed at the one between Morgantown and Downingtown.
Guess I should have said no overhead equipment, as yes, most if not all appear to have the pavement sensors in place. I haven't been on the segment between the Reading and Morgantown interchanges lately but it's good to know work is continuing to progress.
The Reading/Morgantown gantry is lit up like a Christmas tree (ok, maybe just a white-bulbed one) at night but the others east of there (including two between Valley Forge & Norristown for some reason) are still dark.
If you were wondering why there are two gantries between the Valley Forge and Norristown interchanges, there is an interchange planned with Lafayette Street serving Norristown.
A long time coming. More on the Lafayette Street interchange here:
https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/lafayette-street-interchange
And per https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/lafayette-street-interchange/design-construction-details ... don't hold your breath. Shovels go in the ground in 2027.
https://triblive.com/local/skip-the-turnpike-frontier-offers-flights-from-pittsburgh-to-philadelphia/ It’s gonna be cheaper to fly from Philly to Pittsburgh on Frontier than to take the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
https://triblive.com/local/skip-the-turnpike-frontier-offers-flights-from-pittsburgh-to-philadelphia/ It’s gonna be cheaper to fly from Philly to Pittsburgh on Frontier than to take the Pennsylvania Turnpike.Until you have to rent a car, or take a taxi/Uber, or take public transportation to/from the Pittsburgh airport -- likely scenario because of airport's relatively remote location to the west --- not so great if you are going to the eastern suburbs. Unless you are lucky enough to have locals who can pick you up and have something spare for you to drive.
https://triblive.com/local/skip-the-turnpike-frontier-offers-flights-from-pittsburgh-to-philadelphia/ It’s gonna be cheaper to fly from Philly to Pittsburgh on Frontier than to take the Pennsylvania Turnpike.Until you have to rent a car, or take a taxi/Uber, or take public transportation to/from the Pittsburgh airport -- likely scenario because of airport's relatively remote location to the west --- not so great if you are going to the eastern suburbs. Unless you are lucky enough to have locals who can pick you up and have something spare for you to drive.
https://triblive.com/local/skip-the-turnpike-frontier-offers-flights-from-pittsburgh-to-philadelphia/ It’s gonna be cheaper to fly from Philly to Pittsburgh on Frontier than to take the Pennsylvania Turnpike.Until you have to rent a car, or take a taxi/Uber, or take public transportation to/from the Pittsburgh airport -- likely scenario because of airport's relatively remote location to the west --- not so great if you are going to the eastern suburbs. Unless you are lucky enough to have locals who can pick you up and have something spare for you to drive.
At least in Philly there is a train that goes direct to the airport.
https://triblive.com/local/skip-the-turnpike-frontier-offers-flights-from-pittsburgh-to-philadelphia/ It’s gonna be cheaper to fly from Philly to Pittsburgh on Frontier than to take the Pennsylvania Turnpike.Until you have to rent a car, or take a taxi/Uber, or take public transportation to/from the Pittsburgh airport -- likely scenario because of airport's relatively remote location to the west --- not so great if you are going to the eastern suburbs. Unless you are lucky enough to have locals who can pick you up and have something spare for you to drive.
At least in Philly there is a train that goes direct to the airport.
https://triblive.com/local/skip-the-turnpike-frontier-offers-flights-from-pittsburgh-to-philadelphia/ It’s gonna be cheaper to fly from Philly to Pittsburgh on Frontier than to take the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Out of total curiosity, does anyone know whether the new Warrendale toll gantry was officially activated? I passed thru heading east on Monday and in addition to the equipment appearing to be fully installed, all 3 lanes each direction are now routed thru the express lanes at the old toll plaza with the cash lanes now blocked off. (Checking GSV, it looks like eastbound had the cash lanes previously blocked off with 2 lanes routed thru the express lanes while the 28-31 reconstruction was ongoing, but westbound still allowed access thru the cash lanes with 1 lane thru the express lanes.) Couldn't tell if there was a noticeable flash from the cameras at either the old express lanes gantry or the new gantry, but there was also a brief heavy rain while passing thru.
Looks like work is underway for the MP 312-316 project, and it appears that the MP 324-326 project will soon be ready for traffic to switch to the newly constructed lanes.
Meanwhile, work has started on the I-95/Turnpike Section D30 project...
It also looks like all the gantries for the AET project from Morgantown eastward are in place, as well as those on the NE Extension. No equipment has been installed yet...
There is some equipment WB on the gantry before the Reading exit. There are also pavement sensors already installed at the one between Morgantown and Downingtown.
Guess I should have said no overhead equipment, as yes, most if not all appear to have the pavement sensors in place. I haven't been on the segment between the Reading and Morgantown interchanges lately but it's good to know work is continuing to progress.
The Reading/Morgantown gantry is lit up like a Christmas tree (ok, maybe just a white-bulbed one) at night but the others east of there (including two between Valley Forge & Norristown for some reason) are still dark.
There was a post recently (I believe in the NJ Turnpike thread) that said the NJ Turnpike is used more for local travel than the PA Turnpike.
While that is true for the most part especially given the long mileage (and very rural areas) covered by the PA Turnpike, I have used the PA Turnpike for local travel a lot. I have also used it for long haul, like Philly to Pittsburgh and the reverse -- and when I lived near Philly in the 20th century, also from Philly area to Poconos area, and the reverse.
For local travel: when I lived north of Philadelphia in the 20th century, I often used the PA Turnpike between all the various exits between Valley Forge and the Delaware River for local travel, to avoid the many lights on the parallel roads.
And just this past Sunday to get to NYE party, I used PA Turnpike to get from US 15 to US 11 to visit friends near the US 11 (Carlisle) interchange.
Normally I would have taken (from Maryland) US 15 to PA 74 to get to Carlisle (or alternatively US 15 to PA 94 to PA 34 to Carlisle). But I don't drive PA 74, 94, or 34 (or many other back roads) in the dark anymore after hitting two deer on such roads in 2005. And so at 6 PM on NYE when it was dark, we took US 15 to PA Turnpike, and went west one interchange (about 10 miles) to US 11.
Why does this bridge look newer from underneath than above?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/yqQnNQa8KSbMgdMr8 Underneath.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/USBztP79JbRBum6r7 From above.
Same structure, same GSV date.
Why does this bridge look newer from underneath than above?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/yqQnNQa8KSbMgdMr8 Underneath.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/USBztP79JbRBum6r7 From above.
Same structure, same GSV date.
Because it was painted? That structure is very obviously old with the horizontal character lines and barrier style.
DOTs have cyclical bridge painting contracts that can include cosmetic work to the beams themselves.Why does this bridge look newer from underneath than above?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/yqQnNQa8KSbMgdMr8 Underneath.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/USBztP79JbRBum6r7 From above.
Same structure, same GSV date.
Because it was painted? That structure is very obviously old with the horizontal character lines and barrier style.
Credit to the painters as they made it look newish.
Too bad that contract didn’t include Tilghman Street above as the concrete is full of rust stains from the decades of rain hitting it.
Glad they didn’t replace it like PTC and PennDOT have been doing elsewhere. I saw on US 22 near PA 33 they got rid of an age old pony plate bridge as seen in East Coast Roads recent updates of the Lehigh Vallley Thruway. Plus several bridges on the mainline turnpike and I-78 in Berks County are complete replacements.
The ORT conversion is continuing to progress westward...bids for the section between Fort Littleton and Gettysburg open on 3/13, and bids for the section from Ohio to New Stanton open on 4/10.
https://ebs.paturnpike.com/generalinformation/
^
With Lawrence's inclusion on the county list, I presume this means that the Gateway toll plaza will be demolished and replaced with a gantry (despite traffic already proceeding highway-speed thru what was originally the express E-ZPass lanes at the plaza) - I wonder whether the new gantry will remain one-way eastbound or become two-way? Which would be slightly amusing since the Ohio Turnpike's Eastgate toll plaza is about to become westbound-only with the launch of their new tolling system.
It's not clear if the western end will be getting two-way tolling or not. I'd hoped this project would reinstate two-way AET the full length west of Cranberry. People who are just going between the state line and I-376, like I do a couple times a year, get gouged under the current system.Actually, I would think reinstating two-way tolling would lead to gouging, thanks to the changes on the Ohio side. With Eastgate going one-way, it and Gateway will form a nice pair, if the PTC leaves things as they are.