Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[davewiecking]

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.

[Bitmapped]

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.

[MASTERNC]

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.

Unfortunately nearly all of the reconstruction projects that occurred before widening was added to the scope were in the overlap with I-70, which has hilly terrain and heavy truck traffic.  They did create a continuous 15 mile EB climbing lane around Donegal, but the section east of Somerset desperately needs 6 lanes throughout.

[Crown Victoria]

Some things I noticed looking through the list:

-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 project immediately west of there (MP 53-56) completes design in 2026, as does the project immediately west of Irwin (MP 62-66). At least we're starting to get a timeframe for parts of that Allegheny Valley to Irwin stretch to go to construction.

[Bitmapped]

-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.

[davewiecking]

-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.

[Bitmapped]

-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.

[Roadsguy]

-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.

Ideally the I-376 mainline would feed directly into US 22, with a more conventional interchange with the Turnpike, but this would have significant ROW requirements.

[74/171FAN]

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.

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.

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. 

[Mr_Northside]

March 2022 GSV shows this signage. 

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.

[MASTERNC]

March 2022 GSV shows this signage. 

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.

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.

[jmacswimmer]

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.

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.

On a similar note, I've also noticed that the "EXITS XX-XX" tab on the bottom of signage beyond the entry toll point has been starting to disappear with recent sign replacements (example from Breezewood - compare Sep 2019 to Aug 2018). I can understand these no longer being needed with toll tickets being a thing of the past and the rise of GPS, but the nostalgic part of me will miss those as well.

[ARMOURERERIC]

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.

[davewiecking]

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.

[ARMOURERERIC]

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.

[Crown Victoria]

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.

Hmmm. There's a bid advertised for the reconstruction and widening of MP 126-130.5 which opens on April 27.

[Crown Victoria]

The PTC has approved their 2022-2023 budget and capital plan, holding the budget to a modest increase and capital plan spending to about the same level, but with an increased share going to the reconstruction and widening projects.

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2022/05/03/pennsylvania-turnpike-annual-budget-stable-spending-pandemic-recovery/stories/202205030129

[nsw]

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

[74/171FAN]

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.

[Crown Victoria]

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
 

[MASTERNC]

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.

[Crown Victoria]

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.

Nor is there much funding listed for MP 320-326 in last year's plan. They got money from somewhere though, considering the project is underway.

[ARMOURERERIC]

Based on the dollar values assigned  to those projects, one would figure that is for design work.  However,  note the line item labeled: total recon systemwide.  See how the money allocated explodes going out 3-5 years?  I think that is the pot that these projects are funded from on an as ready to go basis.  I really can't see what else it would be for.

[74/171FAN]

PennDOT - District 6 News: Pennsylvania Turnpike to Restrict N. Gulph Road Next Week for Overhead Bridge Construction in Upper Merion Township

[Crown Victoria]

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