PA Turnpike News

[Beltway]

Good news: Three weeks ago, there was a public meeting about the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel project 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.

The Brown Cut is 9.7 million cubic yards of excavation, 199 feet deep and $384 million.
The Grey Cut is 18.4 million cubic yards of excavation, 249 feet deep and $332 million.
The Yellow Cut is 25.4 million cubic yards of excavation, 400 feet deep and $378 million.

Then 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 they would look like from various vantage points, it might look horrendous due to the massive size.

The Yellow Tunnel has 1 million cubic yards of excavation and costs $702 million.  Maybe worth the extra cost.

[PAHighways]

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.

[ARMOURERERIC]

This would explain the early placement of the MP-128 to 134 full 6 lane rebuild getting an early placement, 2022, on the newest capital plan.

[Roadsguy]

It'll be interesting to see if one of the tunnel alternatives is chosen, since that would be the first pair of three-lane tunnel tubes in not just the Turnpike system, but the entire state.

[vdeane]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

Yeah, that's what I believe too.  The slide was a bit vague in that regard, but I'd believe the speaking portion of the public presentation probably made this a lot clearer.

[Beltway]

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.

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.

[Gnutella]

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.

They haven't had design details until now.

[PAHighways]

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.

[Crown Victoria]

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.

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 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. 

[Beltway]

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?

[Crown Victoria]

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?

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.

[Beltway]

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.

On Google Maps it looks like the original turnpike.  But sometimes their photography is not fully up to date.

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.

[Gnutella]

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?

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.

[Crown Victoria]

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.

On Google Maps it looks like the original turnpike.  But sometimes their photography is not fully up to date.

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.

[Beltway]

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?

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.

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.

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

The MP 186-199 was 61 years old in 2001, and it had aged out by then.

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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.
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.

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.

It has been and most likely is deemed as being too expensive to build, plus having that much more spoil excavation material that has to be disposed of somewhere.

[jeffandnicole]

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.
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.

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.

Neither do I.  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.

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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 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-68 Sideling Hill is 3.5 million for comparison, and even there a tunnel was seriously considered.

[J N Winkler]

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.

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.

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.

[Beltway]

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'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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course they have been toying with this project for over 20 years of studies and have not yet officially declared.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[theroadwayone]

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.

Like, what do you even expect from them?

[thenetwork]

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.

On Google Maps it looks like the original turnpike.  But sometimes their photography is not fully up to date.

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.

I wonder if they are leaving the option open for just adding 3rd tubes and making one of the other older tubes a reversible-direction tunnel?  That is something that CDOT in Colorado has occasionally mulled over regarding the Eisenhower/Johnson Tunnels over the Divide.

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.