Central Susquehanna Valley Transportation Project

[Beltway]

US 22/322 still has the non-freeway portion by Duncannon that I prefer not to drive just due to it being practically a truck stop between two freeway sections.

What is most frustrating there is that all the long-distance traffic switches from one non-freeway (US 22/US 322 WB) to another non-freeway (US 11/US 15 NB), while the two approaches carrying the local traffic are full freeways!

A non-event.  You have a 45 mph speed zone for about a mile, no traffic signal, no real congestion.

Any official plan to upgrade it to freeway standards?

[seicer]

The portion between Harrisburg and Williamsburg is just a symptom of shifting priorities and costs. The obvious through route years back was US 15 between Williamsport and Harrisburg. But the construction of I-180 shifted that corridor east, which left traffic continuing on PA 147 to a two-lane country road. And near Harrisburg, the upgrading of US 22 shifted that corridor east, too. This despite US 15 having been partly upgraded by Duncannon, Enola, and Lewisburg.

It's not one continuous corridor, but the completion of PA 147 south to US 15 will at least provide a high-speed route around one of the slowest parts of this central corridor, and it would nice if at least the central corridor would have one standardized route number: PA 180, as a continuation of I-180.

[Roadsguy]

The portion between Harrisburg and Williamsburg is just a symptom of shifting priorities and costs. The obvious through route years back was US 15 between Williamsport and Harrisburg. But the construction of I-180 shifted that corridor east, which left traffic continuing on PA 147 to a two-lane country road. And near Harrisburg, the upgrading of US 22 shifted that corridor east, too. This despite US 15 having been partly upgraded by Duncannon, Enola, and Lewisburg.

It's not one continuous corridor, but the completion of PA 147 south to US 15 will at least provide a high-speed route around one of the slowest parts of this central corridor, and it would nice if at least the central corridor would have one standardized route number: PA 180, as a continuation of I-180.

Why not I-180 as a continuation of I-180? Resign it north-south as it's supposed to be. Sure, it's part of the east-west Susquehanna Beltway, but US 220 (and future I-99) is north-south, and I-180 will end up being part of the north-south CSVT-Williamsport corridor one way or the other.

[Beltway]

The "Susquehanna Beltway" was conceptually created back in the 1960s before there was any plan to put an Interstate designation on it.  The east-west part would carry US-220 and the north-south part would carry PA-147.  The 1980 official state highway map shows the eastern part complete with those routes signed and built to 4-lane freeway standards north of I-80 and with 2 lanes on 4-lane R/W south of I-80.  The plan even back then was to have a new freeway along the likes of CSVT to connect to the Selinsgrove Bypass.

[Roadsguy]

The "Susquehanna Beltway" was conceptually created back in the 1960s before there was any plan to put an Interstate designation on it.  The east-west part would carry US-220 and the north-south part would carry PA-147.  The 1980 official state highway map shows the eastern part complete with those routes signed and built to 4-lane freeway standards north of I-80 and with 2 lanes on 4-lane R/W south of I-80.  The plan even back then was to have a new freeway along the likes of CSVT to connect to the Selinsgrove Bypass.

I wonder if it was ever intended in the long term plans to have a freeway on each side of the Susquehanna from I-81 to Williamsport. US 11/15 and just 15 on the west side and US 22/322 and PA 147 on the east. It would certainly be a great help south of Duncannon...

[Beltway]

The "Susquehanna Beltway" was conceptually created back in the 1960s before there was any plan to put an Interstate designation on it.  The east-west part would carry US-220 and the north-south part would carry PA-147.  The 1980 official state highway map shows the eastern part complete with those routes signed and built to 4-lane freeway standards north of I-80 and with 2 lanes on 4-lane R/W south of I-80.  The plan even back then was to have a new freeway along the likes of CSVT to connect to the Selinsgrove Bypass.

I wonder if it was ever intended in the long term plans to have a freeway on each side of the Susquehanna from I-81 to Williamsport. US 11/15 and just 15 on the west side and US 22/322 and PA 147 on the east. It would certainly be a great help south of Duncannon...

Not that I have heard.  US-11/US-15 along the Susquehanna River is an almost unique case where due to valley constrictions, an access-managed 4-lane highway along the river was the best solution.  Two separate highways would have been overkill, IMHO.

[Alps]

The "Susquehanna Beltway" was conceptually created back in the 1960s before there was any plan to put an Interstate designation on it.  The east-west part would carry US-220 and the north-south part would carry PA-147.  The 1980 official state highway map shows the eastern part complete with those routes signed and built to 4-lane freeway standards north of I-80 and with 2 lanes on 4-lane R/W south of I-80.  The plan even back then was to have a new freeway along the likes of CSVT to connect to the Selinsgrove Bypass.

I wonder if it was ever intended in the long term plans to have a freeway on each side of the Susquehanna from I-81 to Williamsport. US 11/15 and just 15 on the west side and US 22/322 and PA 147 on the east. It would certainly be a great help south of Duncannon...

Not that I have heard.  US-11/US-15 along the Susquehanna River is an almost unique case where due to valley constrictions, an access-managed 4-lane highway along the river was the best solution.  Two separate highways would have been overkill, IMHO.

Tying 15 into 147 is new, so there would have been some length of 15 freeway toward Williamsport parallel to the two-lane PA 147. But 147 was never really looked at to extend south.

[74/171FAN]

US 22/322 still has the non-freeway portion by Duncannon that I prefer not to drive just due to it being practically a truck stop between two freeway sections.

What is most frustrating there is that all the long-distance traffic switches from one non-freeway (US 22/US 322 WB) to another non-freeway (US 11/US 15 NB), while the two approaches carrying the local traffic are full freeways!

A non-event.  You have a 45 mph speed zone for about a mile, no traffic signal, no real congestion.

Any official plan to upgrade it to freeway standards?

Not that I know of for the foreseeable future.

[sbeaver44]

I used to live in Dillsburg for ~2 years in 2010.  I can't find it now but there was a SR 74 relo study that also involved closing off intersections on US 15 and moving 74 onto Old York to Rossville instead of the present longer routing via Wellsville.  Nothing came of it.

IMO Selinsgrove/Hummels Wharf/Shamokin Dam is worse for congestion than Dillsburg, although both aren't great.

I'm fine with the present US 11/15 corridor between US 22/322 and US 522, a limited-access upgrade would be too costly for little benefit.  26 miles of uninterrupted flow.  My only wish is that PennDOT would raise the speed limit from 55 to 65.  WV and OH have examples of roads just like this that are 65.  I find most traffic goes 70 anyway on this stretch, so, if not 65, maybe a good test for PennDOT's first (?) 60 zone.

We travel from Harrisburg to Watkins Glen every fall and I can't wait for the CSVT to be complete.

[ARMOURERERIC]

Now if Google could update the satellite image (along with the Pittsburgh southern beltway)

[webny99]

US 22/322 still has the non-freeway portion by Duncannon that I prefer not to drive just due to it being practically a truck stop between two freeway sections.

What is most frustrating there is that all the long-distance traffic switches from one non-freeway (US 22/US 322 WB) to another non-freeway (US 11/US 15 NB), while the two approaches carrying the local traffic are full freeways!

A non-event.  You have a 45 mph speed zone for about a mile, no traffic signal, no real congestion.
Any official plan to upgrade it to freeway standards?

I don't foresee it being upgraded, but it is yet another example of PA seeming to leave everything unfinished. Between the at-grade(s), lack of a median, the lower speed limit, and the truck stop, it is a frustrating discontinuity on the corridor which is otherwise built to a higher standard.

I actually really enjoy driving the US 22/US 322 freeway between I-81 and Duncannon. It has meaty traffic flow, cool character, and great scenery, I just wish it tied into US 11/US 15 more smoothly.

[Roadsguy]

I'm fine with the present US 11/15 corridor between US 22/322 and US 522, a limited-access upgrade would be too costly for little benefit.  26 miles of uninterrupted flow.  My only wish is that PennDOT would raise the speed limit from 55 to 65.  WV and OH have examples of roads just like this that are 65.  I find most traffic goes 70 anyway on this stretch, so, if not 65, maybe a good test for PennDOT's first (?) 60 zone.

A full freeway upgrade now might be overkill, but if traffic volumes at any intersection grow to warrant a signal, they really should grade-separate it.

I agree about 55 being too low, though I don't know about 65 along the entire length. Maybe dip to 60 only on the two (or three?) sections with a center turning lane. US 15 from Gettysburg to south of Dillsburg could also use a 60 or 65 mph limit, as could portions of US 22 between Delmont and Ebensburg.

I don't foresee it being upgraded, but it is yet another example of PA seeming to leave everything unfinished. Between the at-grade(s), lack of a median, the lower speed limit, and the truck stop, it is a frustrating discontinuity on the corridor which is otherwise built to a higher standard.

I actually really enjoy driving the US 22/US 322 freeway between I-81 and Duncannon. It has meaty traffic flow, cool character, and neat scenery, I just wish it tied into US 11/US 15 more smoothly.

I wonder if they'll turn their attention to it when the expressway is completed out to State College. With that being the last remaining section of two-lane road left, I suspect that's why the four-lane surface portion near Duncannon was made a lower priority, even though it carries more traffic.

[Bitmapped]

I wonder if they'll turn their attention to it when the expressway is completed out to State College. With that being the last remaining section of two-lane road left, I suspect that's why the four-lane surface portion near Duncannon was made a lower priority, even though it carries more traffic.

The stretch near Duncannon isn't ideal, but it's flowed pretty well when I've been through there. PennDOT could do some cheaper upgrades like RIRO access if needed, as well.

Once the stretch of State College is finished, PennDOT needs to turn its attention to US 322 between I-99 and I-80 at Clearfield. It has similar traffic volumes as the part east of State College (about 10,000 VPD), heavy truck traffic, uncontrolled ROW, and hills. The US 322 corridor isn't really going to be to done until it ties into I-80.

[qguy]

Once the stretch of State College is finished, PennDOT needs to turn its attention to US 322 between I-99 and I-80 at Clearfield. It has similar traffic volumes as the part east of State College (about 10,000 VPD), heavy truck traffic, uncontrolled ROW, and hills. The US 322 corridor isn't really going to be to done until it ties into I-80.

That would be Corridor O. PennDOT had even developed a fairly detailed preliminary design before Ed Rendell canceled it put it on indefinite hold when he was governor, along with the stretch from Potters Mills to State College and the non-freeway portion of US 220 west of Williamsport.

[Stephane Dumas]

Now if Google could update the satellite image (along with the Pittsburgh southern beltway)

+1, I agree and Bing should update their satellite image as well.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
I was under the impression that the US 322 to I-80 connection would be made east of State College via a freeway facility paralleling PA 144 and connecting to the short stub from I-99, and that Corridor O-1 west of I-99 would be a separate consideration.  Obviously, it would be nice if both connections could be realized, but it would seem the more direct Harrisburg-80 "cutoff" would be prioritized -- particularly since the western I-80/99 connection upgrade is going to (finally) happen. 

[Roadsguy]

^^^^^^^^^
I was under the impression that the US 322 to I-80 connection would be made east of State College via a freeway facility paralleling PA 144 and connecting to the short stub from I-99, and that Corridor O-1 west of I-99 would be a separate consideration.  Obviously, it would be nice if both connections could be realized, but it would seem the more direct Harrisburg-80 "cutoff" would be prioritized -- particularly since the western I-80/99 connection upgrade is going to (finally) happen.

While a Harrisburg-to-I-80 connection would be good on its own, I think it's also important to have an all-freeway direct connection into State College since the Mt. Nittany Expressway is already there. If they want to also build the link to the PA 26 stub after Corridor O-1 is finished and reroute PA 144 onto it or something, that's fine.

[qguy]

^^^^^^^^^
I was under the impression that the US 322 to I-80 connection would be made east of State College via a freeway facility paralleling PA 144 and connecting to the short stub from I-99, and that Corridor O-1 west of I-99 would be a separate consideration.  Obviously, it would be nice if both connections could be realized, but it would seem the more direct Harrisburg-80 "cutoff" would be prioritized -- particularly since the western I-80/99 connection upgrade is going to (finally) happen.

While a Harrisburg-to-I-80 connection would be good on its own, I think it's also important to have an all-freeway direct connection into State College since the Mt. Nittany Expressway is already there. If they want to also build the link to the PA 26 stub after Corridor O-1 is finished and reroute PA 144 onto it or something, that's fine.

Corridor O-1, from I-99/US 220 at Port Matilda to I-80 just west of Clearfield, was always the intended route of US 322. I believe that is still PennDOT's goal. IOW, I believe PennDOT still intends to connect a US 322 freeway with I-80 near Clearfield, not near Bellefonte.

When Governor Rendell canceled the project which would've provided a US 322 freeway through Potters Mills all the way to State College by now, the project team was within two weeks of selecting a preferred alternative. The three groups of alternatives under consideration were: 1) a connection from Potters Mills to the eastern end of the State College Bypass at Boalsburg, 2) a connection from Potters Mills up over Mount Nitanny (near Mill Hall) to the stub end of PA 26 near Bellefonte, or 3) both. All would've been complete freeways.

No matter which of the alternatives would've been chosen, PennDOT still intended to build the US 322 freeway from I-99 at Port Matilda to I-80 near Clearfield. I believe that is still the long-term goal.

Interestingly, the freeway segment from Potters Mills to Bellefonte would probably have necessitated a tunnel. As one official from District 2-0 told me at the time, "This district has absolutely no intention of being responsible for the maintenance of a tunnel." This has always led me to believe that one of the alternatives which connected Potters Mills with the Eastern end of the State College Bypass at Boalsburg would've been selected. Of course, things change, and with the increased development in the area that didn't exist back then, who knows what will happen when PennDOT takes a fresh look?

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
Looking at the GSV of the PA 144 corridor, which surmounts a ridge, a tunnel (looks like it would be about 1-1.5 miles in length) or a pair thereof, would be the optimal way to get a high-capacity freeway over to Bellefonte and I-99 (and by extension I-80) -- however, since it looks like the existing route gets over the ridge via a series of lateral moves, if the gradient could be kept reasonable, a freeway could conceivably be deployed in a similar manner.  Likely a 2+2+directional truck climbers with a K-rail down the middle -- a configuration with which PennDOT (and their turnpike cousins) are more than familiar!

[Beltway]

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/01/final_contact_awarded_cost_to.html
Final contract awarded for $306 million section of Central Susquehanna Valley Thruway
Posted Jan 29

MONTOURSVILLE - The fourth and final contract has been awarded for the construction of the northern section of the Central Susquehanna Valley Thruway.

New Enterprise Stone and Lime Co. has gotten the $52.3 million contract to do drainage, paving, sign, lighting and traffic signal work, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation reports. Work will begin when the weather breaks.

The paving does not include the nearly mile-long bridge across the West Branch of Susquehanna River because it is part of the $155.6 million Trumbull Corp. contract to build the span.

Awarding the final contract is the result of "hard work and persistency by an army of people over the years," Sandra Tosca, district executive in Montoursville, said Tuesday.

The four contracts that have awarded total approximately $306 million, which she said were in line with estimates.

She declined to provide specifics but Matthew Beck, assistant plans engineer, said in 2016 the bridge contract and another one awarded Trumbull were $30 million lower than estimated. The second contract, for $61 million, was for earthwork and seven other bridges.

Another contract, for $37.2 million, went to New Enterprise to build the Route 15 interchange south of Winfield, where in August a crane tipped causing a steel girder to fall onto the highway. That construction has been halted for the winter.   

Despite challenges that include the weather and the crane tipping over, construction of the northern section is on schedule, Tosca said.

That section, which connects Route 15 south of Winfield with Route 147 south of Montandon, is to be completed in late 2022, she said.

Construction of the 4,545-foot-long river bridge has continued through the winter. The piers on the west side have been completed and steel girders link them.

Five piers on the eastern side are in various stages of construction, said Ted F. Deptula, PennDOT assistant construction engineer. Three of them are in the river so water levels affects their construction, he said.

Periodic lane closures with the use of flaggers occur on Route 147 due to equipment working near the highway.

The southern section, between the northern end of the Route 11/15 Selinsgrove Bypass and the interchange being built near Winfield, is in final design.

The Federal Highway Administration earlier this month gave environmental clearance to proceed with design of a two-mile section of in Snyder County.

PennDOT was forced to relocate the path of the thruway to avoid to fly ash basins when it was discovered the limited-access highway could not be built over them due to the water level.

PennDOT had been told the water should have drained out of the basins that were closed in 1988 and the late 1990s. The fly ash was pumped in the form of slurry from the former people coal-fired generating plant in Shamokin Dam.

Completion of the $670 million, 12.4-mile thruway is scheduled for 2024 but Tosca said the timetable will be revisited due to the unexpected delay on design of the southern section.

[LeftyJR]

This can't get done soon enough.  This is a pretty busy thoroughfare and Shamokin Dam is too crowded.  2024 seemed like forever, but not so much now.

[Beltway]

This can't get done soon enough.  This is a pretty busy thoroughfare and Shamokin Dam is too crowded.  2024 seemed like forever, but not so much now.

The project schedule shows construction ending on the northern section in Dec. 2021, earthwork construction beginning on the southern section in Jan. 2019 and structures in July 2020.

http://www.csvt.com/resources/pdfs/CSVT-Overall-Schedule_2014-12-09.pdf

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
I was under the impression that the US 322 to I-80 connection would be made east of State College via a freeway facility paralleling PA 144 and connecting to the short stub from I-99, and that Corridor O-1 west of I-99 would be a separate consideration.  Obviously, it would be nice if both connections could be realized, but it would seem the more direct Harrisburg-80 "cutoff" would be prioritized -- particularly since the western I-80/99 connection upgrade is going to (finally) happen.

While a Harrisburg-to-I-80 connection would be good on its own, I think it's also important to have an all-freeway direct connection into State College since the Mt. Nittany Expressway is already there. If they want to also build the link to the PA 26 stub after Corridor O-1 is finished and reroute PA 144 onto it or something, that's fine.

Corridor O-1, from I-99/US 220 at Port Matilda to I-80 just west of Clearfield, was always the intended route of US 322. I believe that is still PennDOT's goal. IOW, I believe PennDOT still intends to connect a US 322 freeway with I-80 near Clearfield, not near Bellefonte.

When Governor Rendell canceled the project which would've provided a US 322 freeway through Potters Mills all the way to State College by now, the project team was within two weeks of selecting a preferred alternative. The three groups of alternatives under consideration were: 1) a connection from Potters Mills to the eastern end of the State College Bypass at Boalsburg, 2) a connection from Potters Mills up over Mount Nitanny (near Mill Hall) to the stub end of PA 26 near Bellefonte, or 3) both. All would've been complete freeways.

No matter which of the alternatives would've been chosen, PennDOT still intended to build the US 322 freeway from I-99 at Port Matilda to I-80 near Clearfield. I believe that is still the long-term goal.

Interestingly, the freeway segment from Potters Mills to Bellefonte would probably have necessitated a tunnel. As one official from District 2-0 told me at the time, "This district has absolutely no intention of being responsible for the maintenance of a tunnel." This has always led me to believe that one of the alternatives which connected Potters Mills with the Eastern end of the State College Bypass at Boalsburg would've been selected. Of course, things change, and with the increased development in the area that didn't exist back then, who knows what will happen when PennDOT takes a fresh look?

Looks like an extension of the US 322 freeway/expressway in the direction of State College is now actually in the planning process -- but it also looks like it'll detour a bit north on PA 144 from Potters Mill to near PA 45, then paralleling PA 45 back to the present US 322 alignment.  A project map & description can be found here:

https://aashtojournal.org/2019/02/22/pennsylvania-revives-long-idled-rural-highway-project/

The included map fuzzes up a bit when enlarged, but the basic routing is apparent. 

[Roadsguy]

^^^^^^^^^
I was under the impression that the US 322 to I-80 connection would be made east of State College via a freeway facility paralleling PA 144 and connecting to the short stub from I-99, and that Corridor O-1 west of I-99 would be a separate consideration.  Obviously, it would be nice if both connections could be realized, but it would seem the more direct Harrisburg-80 "cutoff" would be prioritized -- particularly since the western I-80/99 connection upgrade is going to (finally) happen.

While a Harrisburg-to-I-80 connection would be good on its own, I think it's also important to have an all-freeway direct connection into State College since the Mt. Nittany Expressway is already there. If they want to also build the link to the PA 26 stub after Corridor O-1 is finished and reroute PA 144 onto it or something, that's fine.

Corridor O-1, from I-99/US 220 at Port Matilda to I-80 just west of Clearfield, was always the intended route of US 322. I believe that is still PennDOT's goal. IOW, I believe PennDOT still intends to connect a US 322 freeway with I-80 near Clearfield, not near Bellefonte.

When Governor Rendell canceled the project which would've provided a US 322 freeway through Potters Mills all the way to State College by now, the project team was within two weeks of selecting a preferred alternative. The three groups of alternatives under consideration were: 1) a connection from Potters Mills to the eastern end of the State College Bypass at Boalsburg, 2) a connection from Potters Mills up over Mount Nitanny (near Mill Hall) to the stub end of PA 26 near Bellefonte, or 3) both. All would've been complete freeways.

No matter which of the alternatives would've been chosen, PennDOT still intended to build the US 322 freeway from I-99 at Port Matilda to I-80 near Clearfield. I believe that is still the long-term goal.

Interestingly, the freeway segment from Potters Mills to Bellefonte would probably have necessitated a tunnel. As one official from District 2-0 told me at the time, "This district has absolutely no intention of being responsible for the maintenance of a tunnel." This has always led me to believe that one of the alternatives which connected Potters Mills with the Eastern end of the State College Bypass at Boalsburg would've been selected. Of course, things change, and with the increased development in the area that didn't exist back then, who knows what will happen when PennDOT takes a fresh look?

Looks like an extension of the US 322 freeway/expressway in the direction of State College is now actually in the planning process -- but it also looks like it'll detour a bit north on PA 144 from Potters Mill to near PA 45, then paralleling PA 45 back to the present US 322 alignment.  A project map & description can be found here:

https://aashtojournal.org/2019/02/22/pennsylvania-revives-long-idled-rural-highway-project/

The included map fuzzes up a bit when enlarged, but the basic routing is apparent.

The map in that image is of the Potters Mills Gap project which has been under construction for a while now. The article doesn't describe the planned routing of the last section other than saying that the corridor "involves" 322, 45, and 144, which the connection would relieve but not necessarily directly parallel.

[noelbotevera]

Looks like an extension of the US 322 freeway/expressway in the direction of State College is now actually in the planning process -- but it also looks like it'll detour a bit north on PA 144 from Potters Mill to near PA 45, then paralleling PA 45 back to the present US 322 alignment.  A project map & description can be found here:

https://aashtojournal.org/2019/02/22/pennsylvania-revives-long-idled-rural-highway-project/

The included map fuzzes up a bit when enlarged, but the basic routing is apparent.

Pardon the rant here, but this makes little sense. Wouldn't it be easier to upgrade the existing 322 corridor? Just turn it into a Jersey freeway, or at least construct RIROs for local businesses and roads, with interchanges at more important roads. There's even space on the side for another carriageway.

Anyways, I support the project; when I went through this area for the roadmeet here in 2018, the "Smokin' Dam" (it's how some say it) stretch was a headache, along with US 15 north of the 11/15 split. I guess it's kinda nice that this ties into a potential Harrisburg to I-80 connector; curious if there's long term plans to upgrade the 33 miles of 11/15 from Selinsgrove to Duncannon.