Print

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

[PAHighways]

Now it's official:

U.S. Route 202 Parkway to Open December 3

[PAHighways]

Route 202 Parkway Opens To Traffic - KYW-TV Philadelphia

[PHLBOS]

Local article covering the ribbon-cutting that took place yesterday (Dec. 3):

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20121204_Long-discussed_Rt__202_parkway_opens.html

[PHLBOS]

Video clip of the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony that took place last month:

[akotchi]

Bumped because of a reference to this in another thread a few days ago . . .

I live close enough to this new parkway that I should have gotten up there by now, but, alas, I have not.  Will the former U.S. 202 route retain any visible route number, i.e. Bus. U.S. 202 or something else?

I do not recall seeing that anywhere . . .

[Roadsguy]

Nope, Google's wrong.

[PHLBOS]

Will the former U.S. 202 route retain any visible route number, i.e. Bus. U.S. 202 or something else?

I do not recall seeing that anywhere . . .

As far as I know, the pre-Parkway segment of US 202 (Doylestown Road/Butler Ave.) has since been stripped of its US 202 designation.  Outside of PennDOT's SR XXXX system; that segment won't be numbered beyond that; that was the plan since the original Bypass was first proposed.

[Mr. Matté]

Acknowledging the bump

I did a trip today to clinch the 202 Parkway, but on a bicycle (westbound). The bike lanes are poorly swept especially at around intersections (maybe just leftover crud from this winter's snowfalls), the only "clean" parts of the road was going around right curves where the small median was present. I was the only idiot actually using the bike lane, a lot of others, including the roadies all kitted up with the bib shorts and drop handlebars riding at a quick speed, were using the path. I'm wondering if it was worth it to actually include bike lanes here since no basically one was using it (at least today) and anything that the road itself accesses is accessible on the path. Maybe it was just a way to help induce traffic calming on a road with an already artificially low 40-mph speed limit.

[Alps]

Acknowledging the bump

I did a trip today to clinch the 202 Parkway, but on a bicycle (westbound). The bike lanes are poorly swept especially at around intersections (maybe just leftover crud from this winter's snowfalls), the only "clean" parts of the road was going around right curves where the small median was present. I was the only idiot actually using the bike lane, a lot of others, including the roadies all kitted up with the bib shorts and drop handlebars riding at a quick speed, were using the path. I'm wondering if it was worth it to actually include bike lanes here since no basically one was using it (at least today) and anything that the road itself accesses is accessible on the path. Maybe it was just a way to help induce traffic calming on a road with an already artificially low 40-mph speed limit.

The bike lanes only make sense if the path prohibits bicycles and there's any enforcement.

[Zeffy]

Acknowledging the bump

I did a trip today to clinch the 202 Parkway, but on a bicycle (westbound). The bike lanes are poorly swept especially at around intersections (maybe just leftover crud from this winter's snowfalls), the only "clean" parts of the road was going around right curves where the small median was present. I was the only idiot actually using the bike lane, a lot of others, including the roadies all kitted up with the bib shorts and drop handlebars riding at a quick speed, were using the path. I'm wondering if it was worth it to actually include bike lanes here since no basically one was using it (at least today) and anything that the road itself accesses is accessible on the path. Maybe it was just a way to help induce traffic calming on a road with an already artificially low 40-mph speed limit.

Man you were in my neck of the woods today! I've never seen anyone use the bike lane in my 2 1/2 years of living here. Almost everyone is on the path. To be fair, I would be on the path as well.

[TheGrassGuy]

Acknowledging the bump

I did a trip today to clinch the 202 Parkway, but on a bicycle (westbound). The bike lanes are poorly swept especially at around intersections (maybe just leftover crud from this winter's snowfalls), the only "clean" parts of the road was going around right curves where the small median was present. I was the only idiot actually using the bike lane, a lot of others, including the roadies all kitted up with the bib shorts and drop handlebars riding at a quick speed, were using the path. I'm wondering if it was worth it to actually include bike lanes here since no basically one was using it (at least today) and anything that the road itself accesses is accessible on the path. Maybe it was just a way to help induce traffic calming on a road with an already artificially low 40-mph speed limit.

Man you were in my neck of the woods today! I've never seen anyone use the bike lane in my 2 1/2 years of living here. Almost everyone is on the path. To be fair, I would be on the path as well.

That's road dieting for you!

Yeah, the US-202 parkway is probably one of the sillier road projects in our nation.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does anyone think the formerly-proposed freeway along US 202's Segment 700 have been constructed, if the Pennsylvania DOT had stuck with that proposal?

[PHLBOS]

Does anyone think the formerly-proposed freeway along US 202's Segment 700 have been constructed, if the Pennsylvania DOT had stuck with that proposal?

If you are asking if PennDOT would've constructed the Bypass as originally-planned had then-Gov. Rendell not intervened; the answer would be yes.  IIRC, the outgoing Schweiker (originally Ridge) Administration signed off & approved of such.

[Chris19001]

Does anyone think the formerly-proposed freeway along US 202's Segment 700 have been constructed, if the Pennsylvania DOT had stuck with that proposal?

If you are asking if PennDOT would've constructed the Bypass as originally-planned had then-Gov. Rendell not intervened; the answer would be yes.  IIRC, the outgoing Schweiker (originally Ridge) Administration signed off & approved of such.

Having lived in Montgomery Township for the first 24 years of my life, I have to say that section 700 was doomed by inaction.  During the 1980's Montgomery Township was basically pushing it against the wishes of Buckingham in section 900 land, and the costs of delay basically killed it.  I would have LOVED it to have it built as planned.  There was still a bike path portion in my township and it was grade separated from many of the cross roads.  It would have been a beautiful road, but once it ballooned into the $400M-450M territory, it just wasn't going to get built with the state's basketcase finances..  I followed it closely from the early 80's through the mid 90's, and it was one heartbreak after another for me. 
As for the current road, yes its a bit silly for the amount of money it cost.  However unlike Woodhaven Road's extension, it has something built (for better or worse). Its certainly faster than 202 was through Montgomeryville, Chalfont, and New Britain, but a real wasted opportunity to better connect the network regionally.  The seperated bike trail is also a bit strange in how many at grade crossings it has and how many times one must cross 202 at intersections to stay on the trail.  The bike lanes marked on the roadbed are just a bad idea.  I think I may have seen it used 5 times, and each time was by a large group of bikers doing a ride together.  All the couples and individual bikers used the trail.
My 2 cents.

[roadman65]

Bike lanes all over are not used due to fear the cyclists would be hit by a car.  Back in the day a bike lane would have been used as people drove differently then. Nowadays forget it.

[The Ghostbuster]

Would it be possible to expand the parkway to four lanes if traffic counts warranted it in the future? I doubt any existing at-grade intersections would be given bridges or ramps.

[Roadsguy]

Would it be possible to expand the parkway to four lanes if traffic counts warranted it in the future? I doubt any existing at-grade intersections would be given bridges or ramps.

I'm pretty sure PennDOT still owns all the right-of-way for the originally proposed freeway, though there are definitely some overpasses on the two-lane section that aren't long enough for four lanes plus the trail.

[PHLBOS]

Would it be possible to expand the parkway to four lanes if traffic counts warranted it in the future? I doubt any existing at-grade intersections would be given bridges or ramps.

I'm pretty sure PennDOT still owns all the right-of-way for the originally proposed freeway, though there are definitely some overpasses on the two-lane section that aren't long enough for four lanes plus the trail.

IMHO, the entire corridor should've been built, parkway or expressway, as a 4-laner from the get-go.

[storm2k]

Would it be possible to expand the parkway to four lanes if traffic counts warranted it in the future? I doubt any existing at-grade intersections would be given bridges or ramps.

I'm pretty sure PennDOT still owns all the right-of-way for the originally proposed freeway, though there are definitely some overpasses on the two-lane section that aren't long enough for four lanes plus the trail.

IMHO, the entire corridor should've been built, parkway or expressway, as a 4-laner from the get-go.

IMHO, 202 should be 4 lane limited access from at least Doylestown thru the 287 interchange in Bridgewater in NJ, but we have only gotten the small segments we did so far.