News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

PA Turnpike News

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

Previous topic - Next topic

vdeane

The Thruway Authority probably had a bit more flexability with funds than the PTC as well.  The PA Turnpike is significant in that it never had any plans to become free once its bonds were paid off, unlike most (if not all) the surrounding toll roads, including the Thruway.  Thus it is subject to many laws that apply to it but not seemingly to other toll roads (kinda like NY state laws that apply only to "cities of over 1 million people", aka NYC).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.


NE2

Quote from: SignBridge on August 27, 2013, 10:12:36 PM
I believe that is the correct history, but if anyone knows different, please correct me. 
Some old maps (including the 1964 Rand McNally) show a proposed connection from the I-95/PA 413 interchange to I-276/US 13. Presumably this would have been built by PennDOT. (A 1971 map does not show this, but does show I-895 connecting to the same interchange.)

Interestingly, a 1945 map shows a proposed link from Langhorne to Yardley instead of the current US 1 freeway from Langhorne to Morrisville.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

PHLBOS

#602
Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2013, 10:41:54 PMSome old maps (including the 1964 Rand McNally) show a proposed connection from the I-95/PA 413 interchange to I-276/US 13. Presumably this would have been built by PennDOT.
It's interesting that at the northeast corner of that map, US 13 is shown as I-95 once it turns into a limited-access highway (heavy green line).  I remember some RMD road atlases erroneously showing the PA 413 branch-off I-95 with a direct connection to the PA Turnpike (interchange shown as a white square) into the the 1980s.

BTW, I'm getting an error message when I attempted to open your other links.

Quote from: vdeane on August 27, 2013, 10:33:06 PMThe PA Turnpike is significant in that it never had any plans to become free once its bonds were paid off, unlike most (if not all) the surrounding toll roads,
According to at least one historical account of the PA Turnpike, the original plan indeed called for the removal of tolls once the original bond(s) that built the road were paid off (sometime in the 1980s); the road would have then been turned over to PennDOT and been treated like a toll-free Interstate. 

However, like the majority of other toll roads (including the NY Thruway), when Federal dollars started becoming more scarce at the time; those toll booth removal plans were nixed.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

NE2

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 28, 2013, 08:13:36 AM
BTW, I'm getting an error message when I attempted to open your other links.
This forum borks FTP links. Fiddle with the beginning of the URL.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

roadman65

I do not understand why the proposed freeway along US 13 in Bucks County is not an option being its an industrialized area that usually is the easiest to build through.  Plus its a straight line where when the I-95/ PA Turnpike interchange will have I-95 zig zag.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

PHLBOS

Quote from: roadman65 on August 28, 2013, 08:22:52 AM
I do not understand why the proposed freeway along US 13 in Bucks County is not an option being its an industrialized area that usually is the easiest to build through.  Plus its a straight line where when the I-95/ PA Turnpike interchange will have I-95 zig zag.
Guess on my part, if one looks further northeast (off the map) US 13 terminates at US 1.

Exerpt from Steve Anderson's  PhillyRoads site on the history of I-95 through PA and why the US 13/1 corridor was not chosen for I-95:

http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/delaware/

DECIDING UPON AN ALIGNMENT IN BUCKS COUNTY: To the north of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania initially sought to route I-95 across the Delaware River along the Trenton Toll Bridge, then north through Trenton along the Trenton Freeway (current US 1). The original alignment of I-95 in Bucks County was to continue from the current EXIT 40 (PA 413) in Bristol, and proceed north along the US 13 corridor to the vicinity of Morrisville. It was to have interchanges at PA 413, the Pennsylvania Turnpike-Delaware River Extension (I-276) in Bristol, and Levittown Parkway in Levittown.

However, New Jersey officials opposed this routing on the basis of the physical and capacity constraints on the four-lane bridge and freeway. The two states jointly investigated three alternative river crossings: Scudder Falls (west of Trenton), existing Trenton Toll Bridge-Trenton Freeway (through downtown), and Biles Island (east of Trenton). After further study, the two states approved the Scudder Falls alignment in 1960. The new western alignment was approved by the BPR in 1964. Ultimately, the rerouting of I-95 would prove to be a primary reason why a direct interchange between the Delaware Expressway and the Pennsylvania Turnpike-Philadelphia Extension was never constructed.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jeffandnicole

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 28, 2013, 08:30:53 AM
Exerpt from Steve Anderson's  PhillyRoads site on the history of I-95 through PA and why the US 13/1 corridor was not chosen for I-95:

However, New Jersey officials opposed this routing on the basis of the physical and capacity constraints on the four-lane bridge and freeway.


As it turns out, the formerly 4 lane US 1 Bridge is now 6 lanes, while the I-95 Bridge remains at 4 lanes.  Both feature an interchange just within each state's borders.

Widening US 1 (and what could've been I-95) thru Trenton though would have been nearly impossible.

roadman65

I am talking about now, and not the original I-95.  I think instead of the current interchange project that a freeway connecting Exit 40 of I-95 to Exit 359 ( I think as I am still not familiar with the new mile exit numbers).
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

J N Winkler

Quote from: NE2 on August 28, 2013, 08:16:45 AMThis forum borks FTP links. Fiddle with the beginning of the URL.

A fix has been provided for this--I suspect at the instigation of the moderators after the last time this particular issue came up.  The forum software won't ruin FTP URLs as long as they are enclosed within "ftp" tags instead of "url" tags.

1971 Bucks Co. map (Sheet 3)

1945 Bucks Co. map
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

PHLBOS

#609
Quote from: roadman65 on August 28, 2013, 08:59:54 AM
I am talking about now, and not the original I-95.  I think instead of the current interchange project that a freeway connecting Exit 40 of I-95 to Exit 359 ( I think as I am still not familiar with the new mile exit numbers).
Prior to the Feds re-routing I-95, PTC/PennDOT indeed had long-range plans to extend the PA 413 connector northward onto the Turnpike.  Such an extension would've involved a reconfiguration/integration with the existing Delaware Valley/US 13 interchange (Exit 358 BTW).  The original Tunrpike/Connector interchange was to be of a trumpet design similar to the Valley Forge/I-76 East (Exit 326) interchange.

Once the decision was made regarding the rerouting of I-95, that design (eminent domain/land takings for the original interchange had already taken place at the time) was viewed as inadequate for the estimated future traffic volumes once the interchange opened; so it was back to the drawing board and we now have the current higher speed/higher volume design.

Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2013, 10:41:54 PMA 1971 map does not show this, but does show I-895 connecting to the same interchange.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 28, 2013, 09:03:23 AM
1971 Bucks Co. map (Sheet 3)
It's interesting that for one needing to get from I-95 South to PA 413, one had to exit off the proposed I-895 (via a cloverleaf ramp) and get onto I-95 northbound before reaching PA 413.  My guess is that southbound I-95 off-ramp to the would-be I-895 wound up ultimately getting built as the completed missing movement to PA 413 sometime in the late 90s/early 2000s.

Back to the new westbound Turnpike (future I-95 South) open-road toll gantry for a moment.  Alleged toll-free freeway river crossing violation aside for a moment; my biggest concern is what will the toll amount actually be?

At present, and I'm using a real-life example here, a calculated toll (for simplicity sake & comparison purposes, I am only using the cash rates since neither the PTC, NJTPA nor the DRPA apply EZ-Pass discounts in a consistent manner with respect to eachother) for a trip from North Jersey (part of my travel to/from New England) to where I live in (Delaware County) PA.

Toll break-down comparisons:

Option 1
NJ Turnpike from GSP (Exit 11) to I-195 (Exit 7A): $2.45

(use I-195 West to I-295 South to I-76 West to I-95 South)

Walt Whitman Bridge (I-76): $5.00

Total toll: $7.45

Note: toll for the reverse route is only $2.45.


Option 2
NJ Turnpike from GSP (Exit 11) to Turnpike Connector/Future I-95 South (Exit 6): $4.60

(use Turnpike Bridge into PA)

PA Turnpike from East-Gate ("Exit 359") to US 13/Delaware Valley (Exit 358): $1.80

(use US 13 South to PA 413 North to I-95 South)

Total toll: $6.40

Note: toll for the reverse route is the same.  Given the fact that all bridges south of the Turnpike crossing are one-way tolls into PA/DE using the Option 2 route in reverse does not make sound economic sense (unless one's originating in southeastern Bucks County PA).

The new Turnpike interchange would replace the breezewood routing described in Option 2 and would be the likely route I would use on future return trips from New England.  Seeing the current differences in tolls; my concern would be that if the PTC charges the equivalent of what DRPA charges for their 4 bridges ($5.00); there would be no real advantage for one to take the new routing (unless one has EZ-Pass and the discounts become more generous & consistent through all agencies).

While one could presently use I-295 North to pick up I-95 South and cross into PA via the Scudder Falls Bridge (no toll yet); that routing is longer in both mileage & time.  While using NJ 29 through Trenton cuts down on the mileage somewhat, since it connects to I-95 just north of the PA border; it's not much of a time-saver.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Compulov

This is why my hope is that they'd remove the bridge charge from whatever the NJTA and PTC currently charge exiting at either of the ticket barrier toll plazas, and instead use the bridge toll alone to account for the cost of the road between both barrier toll plazas. Of course, knowing both of these entities, they'd probably keep the tolls at the barriers the same in addition to adding another $2-5 on top of that for the one-way bridge toll (effectively double-charging for the same mileage).

akotchi

Just thinking aloud here . . .

If I am correct, the ramp toll at Delaware Valley (Exit 358) is to be lifted when the direct I-95 connections are made.  Not knowing how the relocated barrier plaza rates would be set (compared to the current one), the bridge toll might be set for PTC to recover this lost revenue (and likely then some).  In theory, the tolls between Exits 358 and 359 would be lost with the shuffling of toll barriers if there were not the WB bridge toll.
Opinions here attributed to me are mine alone and do not reflect those of my employer or the agencies for which I am contracted to do work.

Compulov

Quote from: akotchi on August 28, 2013, 04:40:43 PM
If I am correct, the ramp toll at Delaware Valley (Exit 358) is to be lifted when the direct I-95 connections are made.  Not knowing how the relocated barrier plaza rates would be set (compared to the current one), the bridge toll might be set for PTC to recover this lost revenue (and likely then some).  In theory, the tolls between Exits 358 and 359 would be lost with the shuffling of toll barriers if there were not the WB bridge toll.

I figured they'd either build the toll for the non-ticket section into the bridge toll, or into the barrier toll (that is, the toll at the new barrier just east of route 1 would be the same as it would be if you went through the barrier right before the bridge). In theory, the best bet is to cover the cost of the section of road between ticket systems (NJ and PA) would be the bridge toll (same as it basically is for the DRPA, BCBC, and DRJTBC bridges, effectively). Of course, who the hell knows what the PTC plans. Whatever nets them the most money, probably...

jeffandnicole

There may not be a ticket section of the PA Turnpike to worry about anyway...

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/No_E-ZPass_Heres_a_bill_Electronic_tolling_planned_for_PA_Turnpike.html

No doubt, the Turnpike will build the new toll plaza with regular toll booths...just in time for the Turnpike to become all-electronic!

PHLBOS

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 29, 2013, 03:00:08 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/No_E-ZPass_Heres_a_bill_Electronic_tolling_planned_for_PA_Turnpike.html
Excerpt from that link:

The key, though, is ensuring the system is fair to out-of-state drivers who don't have the chance to get an E-ZPass, or who might otherwise be fined.

"A nationwide methodology should be established to ensure that occasional users and out-of-town travelers have a mechanism in place for paying the appropriate toll,"  Robinson said, "so that they are able to use toll facilities without being subject to a fine."


IMHO, after the implimentation of all-electronic tolling; those who don't have EZ-Pass should be just billed the equivalent of the cash/non-EZ-Pass rate without any addtional fine or penalty

Or does that make way too much sense.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 29, 2013, 03:00:08 PM
There may not be a ticket section of the PA Turnpike to worry about anyway...
While all-electronic tolling will eliminate jam-ups at traditional toll plazas; it still means that the proposed toll gantry arrangement at the eastern end still means that a motorist from US 130 in NJ heading to I-276 (beyond the proposed I-95 interchange) will be crossing (& paying, after exiting off 276, 76 or 476) three gantries over a relatively short distance.

Will the implementation of all-electronic tolling mean that all traffic would be allowed to use either Virginia Drive (Exit 340 off I-276 West) or PA 29 (Exit 320 off I-76) interchanges?

GPS does NOT equal GOD

Compulov

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 29, 2013, 03:30:30 PM
IMHO, after the implimentation of all-electronic tolling; those who don't have EZ-Pass should be just billed the equivalent of the cash/non-EZ-Pass rate without any addtional fine or penalty

Or does that make way too much sense.

I think the Turnpike has said there won't be a "fine" to not use ez-pass. Since cash would go away completely, you'd have an EZ-Pass rate and a post-billed rate, which will still be higher. So while there isn't a fine per se, you'd still pay more.

Really, the ultimate solution would to be do away with EZ-Pass entirely and bill based strictly on plate (camera technology and character recognition these days is more than good enough to do this). You sign up for a PA Turnpike account (or perhaps have an account with a consortium member) and it just gets billed directly to that account. Not signed up? You get mailed a bill for the toll + processing charge. This is the direction that we need to go to have universal interoperability between disparate electronic tolling systems nationwide,

Quote
Will the implementation of all-electronic tolling mean that all traffic would be allowed to use either Virginia Drive (Exit 340 off I-276 West) or PA 29 (Exit 320 off I-76) interchanges?

One would hope...

NJRoadfan

Quote from: Compulov on August 29, 2013, 03:51:42 PM
Really, the ultimate solution would to be do away with EZ-Pass entirely and bill based strictly on plate (camera technology and character recognition these days is more than good enough to do this). You sign up for a PA Turnpike account (or perhaps have an account with a consortium member) and it just gets billed directly to that account. Not signed up? You get mailed a bill for the toll + processing charge. This is the direction that we need to go to have universal interoperability between disparate electronic tolling systems nationwide,

The problem with toll by plate is reciprocal agreements between states in regards to sharing plate data. Using the Triangle Expressway in North Carolina as an example, right now if you drive on the road without a transponder you won't be billed if NC doesn't have an agreement with your state to share registration information. The reason being is that some states charge so much to pull the data that it exceeds the cost of the toll! I tested this last December when I took the TriEx... no bill in the mail.

For a road like the TriEx, this really isn't a big problem since the road is serving mostly local traffic and the possibility of out-of-state plates taking the highway is low (they apparently ran the numbers). For major regional/national routes like the New Jersey and PA Turnpikes, this is not feasible and they need agreements with just about every state and a handful of Canadian Provinces. These agreements don't currently cover enforcement either. Even if they did manage to bill you, they generally don't have the power to suspend an out of state license. Doing so would require yet another agreement.

Compulov

Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 29, 2013, 05:34:41 PM
The problem with toll by plate is reciprocal agreements between states in regards to sharing plate data. Using the Triangle Expressway in North Carolina as an example, right now if you drive on the road without a transponder you won't be billed if NC doesn't have an agreement with your state to share registration information. The reason being is that some states charge so much to pull the data that it exceeds the cost of the toll! I tested this last December when I took the TriEx... no bill in the mail.

Yeah, this is a political problem more than it is a technical one. There's no *technical* reason why we can't have a national registry for handling tolls. I'd be okay with it being opt-in, just like it is now when you join EZ-Pass, but the carrot in this case would be the ability to get discounted tolls on any participating toll road.

vdeane

#618
Quote from: Compulov on August 29, 2013, 03:51:42 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 29, 2013, 03:30:30 PM
IMHO, after the implimentation of all-electronic tolling; those who don't have EZ-Pass should be just billed the equivalent of the cash/non-EZ-Pass rate without any addtional fine or penalty

Or does that make way too much sense.

I think the Turnpike has said there won't be a "fine" to not use ez-pass. Since cash would go away completely, you'd have an EZ-Pass rate and a post-billed rate, which will still be higher. So while there isn't a fine per se, you'd still pay more.

Really, the ultimate solution would to be do away with EZ-Pass entirely and bill based strictly on plate (camera technology and character recognition these days is more than good enough to do this). You sign up for a PA Turnpike account (or perhaps have an account with a consortium member) and it just gets billed directly to that account. Not signed up? You get mailed a bill for the toll + processing charge. This is the direction that we need to go to have universal interoperability between disparate electronic tolling systems nationwide,

Quote
Will the implementation of all-electronic tolling mean that all traffic would be allowed to use either Virginia Drive (Exit 340 off I-276 West) or PA 29 (Exit 320 off I-76) interchanges?

One would hope...

So basically, your plan for "interoperability" is just to do away with what little interoperability we have now (requiring motorists to have an account with each toll authority they use to avoid extra fees) in return for getting rid of no transponder = no service?  For those of us in the northeast, that would be a huge step backwards.  I can drive all day and still not encounter a road in the US that uses a transponder other than E-ZPass, and therefore bill-by-plate surcharges.  The nearest is at the extreme southern part of Indiana.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Compulov

Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2013, 10:22:42 PM
So basically, your plan for "interoperability" is just to do away with what little interoperability we have now (requiring motorists to have an account with each toll authority they use to avoid extra fees) in return for getting rid of no transponder = no service?  For those of us in the northeast, that would be a huge step backwards.  I can drive all day and still not encounter a road in the US that uses a transponder other than E-ZPass, and therefore bill-by-plate surcharges.  The nearest is at the extreme southern part of Indiana.
I'm not saying we need to get rid of EZ-Pass overnight, but there's no technological reason we even need to use electronic transponders any more. It's significantly less expensive for toll networking using incompatible transponders to implement bill-by-plate (using high speed cameras and optical character recognition of plates) than to have to implement readers for multiple types of electronic transponders, some of which would require separate antennas, separate supporting hardware, and so on. The hard part is having some centralized method for finding which tolling authority someone's cars are registered with... and you need that with *any* method of interoperability. Once you're reading plates for interoperability reasons, then it's only a small step to just read them for everything. No surcharges needed if it's all automatic.

deathtopumpkins

Quote from: Compulov on August 29, 2013, 10:54:43 PMIt's significantly less expensive for toll networking using incompatible transponders to implement bill-by-plate (using high speed cameras and optical character recognition of plates) than to have to implement readers for multiple types of electronic transponders, some of which would require separate antennas, separate supporting hardware, and so on.

Rather than build separate hardware for each transponder, why not just all use the same transponder type? We don't even all need to use E-Z Pass or anything, just transponders that all use the same technology.
Disclaimer: All posts represent my personal opinions and not those of my employer.

Clinched Highways | Counties Visited

1995hoo

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 30, 2013, 06:32:38 AM
Quote from: Compulov on August 29, 2013, 10:54:43 PMIt's significantly less expensive for toll networking using incompatible transponders to implement bill-by-plate (using high speed cameras and optical character recognition of plates) than to have to implement readers for multiple types of electronic transponders, some of which would require separate antennas, separate supporting hardware, and so on.

Rather than build separate hardware for each transponder, why not just all use the same transponder type? We don't even all need to use E-Z Pass or anything, just transponders that all use the same technology.

Some state would wind up spending money to swap out their system, so they'd howl.

The compromise that Florida was supposedly working out with E-ZPass seemed like a good solution at first blush: The SunPass-equipped booth reads your plate number if you're a non-SunPass driver, but before it sends you a bill, the computer queries the E-ZPass database to determine if your plate is tied to an E-ZPass; if it is, that E-ZPass account is billed.

The downside of this is that it doesn't work in reverse because some E-ZPass toll agencies persist in using gate arms on converted toll plaza lanes. I suppose in an all-ORT system that issue would become obsolete.

I don't think it's too much of a burden on the transponder user to expect him to keep his account up-to-date as to plate number and car make and model. It does create a minor nuisance for rental-car users who don't carry smartphones or tablets, of course, if the idea is that you temporarily add the rental car to your account so the toll-by-plate lookup will find the vehicle.

(Come to think of it, adding a rental might pose a risk based on the timing of how toll transactions post. If I added a rental to my SunPass account, I'd remove it from the account ASAP upon returning the car. If you don't, you run the risk of the next customer taking the car on toll roads and billing the charges to you. But if you have unposted tolls when you return it, I suppose you run the risk of the rental agency getting the bill with whatever administrative fees are tacked on and then passing it to you, thus defeating the purpose of adding the car to your SunPass account. Or am I thinking this through too much?!)
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Compulov on August 29, 2013, 10:54:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2013, 10:22:42 PM
So basically, your plan for "interoperability" is just to do away with what little interoperability we have now (requiring motorists to have an account with each toll authority they use to avoid extra fees) in return for getting rid of no transponder = no service?  For those of us in the northeast, that would be a huge step backwards.  I can drive all day and still not encounter a road in the US that uses a transponder other than E-ZPass, and therefore bill-by-plate surcharges.  The nearest is at the extreme southern part of Indiana.
I'm not saying we need to get rid of EZ-Pass overnight, but there's no technological reason we even need to use electronic transponders any more. It's significantly less expensive for toll networking using incompatible transponders to implement bill-by-plate (using high speed cameras and optical character recognition of plates) than to have to implement readers for multiple types of electronic transponders, some of which would require separate antennas, separate supporting hardware, and so on. The hard part is having some centralized method for finding which tolling authority someone's cars are registered with... and you need that with *any* method of interoperability. Once you're reading plates for interoperability reasons, then it's only a small step to just read them for everything. No surcharges needed if it's all automatic.

Toll collection with a transponder (or similar device) is much less expensive than with license plate readers in North America,where we have such a wide variety of plate formats and designs. 

All toll-by-plate works well for the congestion tax cordons in London and Stockholm - but they have plate designs that are much more uniform than we do on this side of the pond.
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.

qguy

Regarding the I-95/PA Turnpike connection project, some recent posters have been wondering about things like "Why was the current configuration chosen and not some other alternative?" or "Was this or that portion of the project mandated by law?" Two other threads have included rather illuminating discussions on these and other aspects of the project. I highly recommend taking a look-see:

I-95 gap in NJ www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5430.0
new freeways for NJ www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5680.0 (beginning with reply 24)

cpzilliacus

TOLLROADSnews: Former Inspector General calls for disbandment of Penn Pike Commission - patronage, pay-to-play "still pervasive"

QuoteAnthony Maniscola, a former Turnpike Inspector General, says that despite criminal prosecutions of top Pennsylvania Turnpike officials patronage, pay-for-play contracting and other malpractice continues to be "pervasive." He says the Turnpike should be put under the control of the state department of transportation (PennDOT) and "run like a real highway agency."

QuoteThis is reported this morning by staff writer Paul Nussbaum who got an exclusive for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

QuoteManiscola concedes that some progress has been made in "rooting out no-show workers, thieving supervisors 'who used the turnpike as their own little Home Depot,' and toll collectors with their hands in the till."

QuoteBut he said that "at the top, where four politically appointed commissioners rule, much remains to be done."
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.



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.