News:

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

Main Menu

PA Turnpike News

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

Previous topic - Next topic

PAHighways



PAHighways

Pennsylvania Turnpike Celebrates Start of Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project - Groundbreaking ceremony took place today for Phase 1 of this long-awaited interchange.

ARMOURERERIC

A new project has been added to the Turnpike future/current construction projects page:  A design phase for the mainline from the Fort Littleton exit to the western porthole of the Tuscoraora tunnel.  It will also be a 6 lane widening with a reconstruction of the Fort Littleton exit.

ARMOURERERIC

Yet another project has been added to the design phase on the PTC website:  I-176 Morgantown to PA 100.  This, when complete will leave I-283 to I-176 as the longest untouched part of the mainline.

PHLBOS

Quote from: PAHighways on July 30, 2013, 07:31:12 PM
Pennsylvania Turnpike Celebrates Start of Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project - Groundbreaking ceremony took place today for Phase 1 of this long-awaited interchange.
Here's one video of such:


GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman65

Quote from: PAHighways on July 30, 2013, 07:31:12 PM
Pennsylvania Turnpike Celebrates Start of Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project - 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.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

cpzilliacus

Quote from: roadman65 on August 26, 2013, 01:31:20 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on July 30, 2013, 07:31:12 PM
Pennsylvania Turnpike Celebrates Start of Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project - 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.

PTC and PennDOT have completed a few bridge projects that are directly related to this effort, which is good.

But according to a TOLLROADSnews story written last month  (here), one reason for the slow pace with this project is the requirement that PTC make Act 44 payments to PennDOT for subsidies of roads and transit projects and transit wages and benefits that have nothing to do with the Turnpike.

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.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

jeffandnicole

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.

vdeane

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 26, 2013, 03:40:37 PM
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.

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.  Rather like the far western section of the Pennsylvania Turnpike E-W mainline is now "free" for westbound traffic between I-79 and the Ohio border, but traffic entering Pennsylvania from the Ohio Turnpike pays a toll.  That happened when the PTC's "ticket" system was cut-back to just east of I-79 at Warrendale when the breezewood between the Turnpike and I-79 was remediated.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 26, 2013, 03:40:37 PM
Having said that, the state could use the Act 44 money to assist with I-95 improvements in the area, including this interchange.

I am not qualified to say how the Act 44 payments work (or if PTC can tell PennDOT to use Act 44 money for this interchange). I do know that the amount of money that PTC was to give to PennDOT was predicated on being able to impose tolls on I-80, something that was rejected by the George W. Bush and Obama Administration USDOTs.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 26, 2013, 03:40:37 PM
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.

Excellent point - this project has indeed taken forever (it seems).

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.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: vdeane on August 26, 2013, 09:51:11 PM
Isn't the I-95 interchange required by federal law?

Yup.  I believe a provision of the  Surface Transportation Assistance Act of (!) 1982 mandates that the connection be made.

Quote from: vdeane on August 26, 2013, 09:51:11 PM
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.

Good idea, but Washington never does anything so rational, even when there is a clearly federal interest at stake (as there is here).

May I suggest that the President  nominate you to be the  next Secretary of USDOT?  Or at least the Federal Highway Administrator?

I would actually love to expand on your excellent idea and tell the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission that interest on its bonds will no longer be exempt from federal taxation unless it remediates every single breezewood on its system, starting with the Breezewood.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

PHLBOS

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 26, 2013, 10:23:07 PMIt 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).
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jeffandnicole

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 26, 2013, 10:23:07 PM
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.

Personally, I think PA benefited from NJ's cancellation of 95.  If one sees the daily congestion along 95 now thru the Philly and Chester areas, imagine the congestion if 95 from NYC to Delaware was the main route, rather than the NJ Turnpike to 295. 

Would 95 be wider?  Would it be double decked?  95 is sandwiched between houses and buildings now, so both of those options seem far fetched.  How different would 295 be in NJ as the bypass around Philadelphia?

While a lot of criticism is placed on the cancellation of NJ's portion of 95, the resulting effects send the majority of traffic thru a relatively rural portion of NJ (which over the years have become quite suburban), rather than thru the already congested Philadelphia cities. 

deathtopumpkins

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.
Disclaimer: All posts represent my personal opinions and not those of my employer.

Clinched Highways | Counties Visited

jeffandnicole

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 27, 2013, 09:07:01 AM
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.

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.

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.

PHLBOS

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 27, 2013, 09:07:01 AM
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.

My holiday commutes to/from New England would've benefited greatly.  Had I-95 been built as orginally planned, I still would use I-295 North from I-76.  However, instead of exiting at I-195 (Exit 60), I would've continued to the I-95/295 split (would-be Exit 71 or 72(?)) and then taken I-95 North to I-695 (if built) and I-287.  The only tolls I would've encountered would have been the Tappan Zee (one-way) and the Mass Pike (I-90).  Over a 23-year period, I would've saved a lot of toll money.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2013, 09:25:22 AMI'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.

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.
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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jeffandnicole

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2013, 09:50:05 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2013, 09:25:22 AMI'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.

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.
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.

I should've been more specific, as I was referring to a 'what might've been' scenerio if 95 was built as planned thru NJ.  Motorists would have most likely stayed on I-95 rather than taking the NJ Turnpike. 

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. 

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. 

The I-95 Scudder Falls Bridge will be widened within the next few years, and Open Road Tolling is planned for that.  At some point, it will also be renumbered I-195.


PHLBOS

#592
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2013, 12:23:48 PMMotorist 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. 

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.
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.

While some could do that today at least up to I-195 (Exit 60); most don't think about doing such.  Had I-95 in NJ been built, it would've likely been a different story IMHO. 
GPS does NOT equal GOD

cpzilliacus

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2013, 08:20:02 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 26, 2013, 10:23:07 PMIt 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 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 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).

At some point in the past, I think that toll barrier on the Pennsylvania side was referred to as a "coin drop" toll.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2013, 01:34:52 PM
According to the PTC's Web site 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).

Or make a deal that the NJ Turnpike Authority has complete jurisdiction of that bridge in regards to construction and maintenance. Simply raise the toll a bit at Interchange 6 & 6A to cover the costs (although that would screw the motorists travelling to/from US 130 to/from the mainline NJ Turnpike, as they would pay the increased toll but not use the bridge).

The dualization of that PA-NJ Turnpike connector bridge would probably get done much faster as a result, too.

PHLBOS

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2013, 01:34:52 PMAccording to the PTC's Web site 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 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).

At some point in the past, I think that toll barrier on the Pennsylvania side was referred to as a "coin drop" toll.
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.

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jeffandnicole

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2013, 03:21:28 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2013, 01:34:52 PMAccording to the PTC's Web site 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 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).

At some point in the past, I think that toll barrier on the Pennsylvania side was referred to as a "coin drop" toll.
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.

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.

Compulov

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2013, 04:00:45 PM
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.

I also wonder... will the bridge toll be put strictly into the pocket of the PTC, or is there any sort of revenue split going between PTC and PennDOT?
Since that toll will be pretty much stand-alone, why not find some funding model to split the revenue between NJ and PA? Then, in theory, 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).

PHLBOS

#598
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2013, 04:00:45 PMA 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.

Something tells me that the westbound gantry near the state line was recently added to the whole overall project (as a bridge toll).  If that is indeed the case, then this appears to be a bait & switch with respect to what was originally presented at the various public meetings & hearings.

I do recall the Feds mandating that one freeway crossing the Delaware River to be toll free.  I-95 along the Scudder Falls Bridge was originally supposed to be it but with the shift of I-95 onto the Turnpike corridor, the moving of the Turnpike East-gate toll plaza and the replacement Scudder Falls Bridge (future I-195) being tolled; one can certainly get the impression that the new I-95 along the PA Turnpike corridor was going to be that toll-free crossing.

Quote from: Compulov on August 27, 2013, 05:03:43 PMNJTA 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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

SignBridge

Vdeane, to follow-up on your original question. You have to understand that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission suffers from serious rectal-cranial inversion compared to the NY Thruway Authority. Originally there was no interchange between the Pennsy-Pike and I-95, 'cause (I believe)federal law prohibited using Interstate highway funds for interchanges with toll-roads. And unlike the Thruway Authority, the P.T.C. would not use their funds to build interchanges with the Interstates, and that's how we ended up having no connection with I-95.

I believe that is the correct history, but if anyone knows different, please correct me. 

Folks, I hope I live long enough to see (and drive) this completed Pennsy-Pike/I-95/NJT project finished, but I have my doubts if the pace of the last 20 years continues. And to think the entire original New Jersey Turnpike was built in all of two whole years. We could use some of that left-over World War II military style efficiency today!



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