When does work start on the new parkway proposal of U.S 202 from Doylestown (http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=40.293635~-75.135541&style=h&lvl=14&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=20842427&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1) southwest to Montgomeryville (http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=40.239211~-75.220513&style=h&lvl=14&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=4011277&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1)?
Ground was broken on November 21, 2008: http://www.us202-700.com/pdf/Press%20release.pdf (http://www.us202-700.com/pdf/Press%20release.pdf)
US 202 Section 700 is in several pieces for construction:
* SR 0202 Section 701 (ECMS 16731)--about $30 million (turnkey construction)
* SR 0202 Section 7WM (ECMS 50728)--up to $5 million (landscape management)
* SR 0202 Section 711
* SR 0202 Section 721
The first two had their bid opening in September 2008. The website has "Coming soon" in place of actual content for both Sections 711 & 721.
PennDOT Opens Bids to Build Northern Section of US 202 Parkway (http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Penndot/Districts/District6/D6Media.nsf/cd20de0d8cd84b3785256d66005b622b/2fc18bea54096b998525760a00655c23?OpenDocument)
PennDOT Opens Bids to Build Central Section of US 202 Parkway (http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Penndot/Districts/District6/D6Media.nsf/cd20de0d8cd84b3785256d66005b622b/43c73ded01dbc2468525762d006a2b3d?OpenDocument)
Construction Begins Next Week on Central Section of US 202 Parkway (http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Penndot/Districts/District6/D6Media.nsf/cd20de0d8cd84b3785256d66005b622b/8b246ebbe24634c8852576ab005622f9?OpenDocument)
Looking over the recent Google aerial images of this area, they show work well under way on this section of US 202 - BUT - I cannot help but sense this that this will be a total traffic FUBAR from the day it opens....
:banghead:
Mike
A lot of people in this area think the same thing. It was initially to be a four-lane expressway (for all you non-northeasterners that's "freeway," whatever THAT is) along its entire length. It was within a hairsbreadth of being built when Gov. Rendell took office. The Rendell administration, however, would tie itself in knots if even (literally) a handful of people opposed something.
In this case, the handful didn't even live in the project area.
A little background. (OK, a LOT of background. Sorry.) This project was originally (from the 1950s to as late as the mid-'80s) to have been part of a larger freeway extending "from Delaware to the Delaware," or from the the Delaware state line (south of West Chester) to the Delaware River (just north of New Hope). It was to be an outer ring route around the Philadelphia area.
Due to local opposition, each section was eventually dropped except this project area (§700) and the section from West Chester south to the state line (§100). (And recently the plans to build §100 as a freeway on new alignment were dropped due to the outrageous cost.)
This project seemed to be different because most of the locals actually wanted it and many of the municipalities has actually set aside ROW for it. This is because the area of §700 is choked with congestion. In our time, this project was intended to provide relief.
Enter the Rendell administration. The Secretary of Transportation under Gov. Rendell, Allen Biehler, was philosophically opposed to building freeways unless the political equivalent of a gun were pointed at him. When residents of the area where §900 (the section from Doylestown to New Hope) would've been built opposed §700 on the grounds that completing it would encourage PennDOT to want to build §900 in their area, that's all the excuse the administration needed to severely downsize the project and save the money.
Nevermind that PennDOT has absolutely no plans to ever revisit §900. It's more than dead; it's as if it never existed. But when you're looking for a reason to not build freeway miles, any will do in a pinch.
So it was re-created as a two-lane "parkway." It's not even a super-2, since it has no grade separations between PA 309 and PA 611. Yes, it intersects every surface road it crosses between those two routes.
The great majority who favored the freeway felt betrayed, completely justifiably IMO. They believe, correctly I think, that this road will become as congested as all the others in the area and will provide very little of the relief the freeway would've provided. It'll look "pertty" but that's about all.
The one upside? The facility does preserve the entire ROW so in 40 or 50 years (or sooner), when it and all the roads around it are congested beyond belief and residents will be demanding improvement, it won't be that difficult to build the freeway and do it in a manner that's extremely sensitive to its surroundings.
The new highway will bypass Montgomeryville, and 4 lanes on that section, a major improvement. I look at the new highway as a huge improvement, as it will bypass a very narrow highway with many buildings near the roadway, and will bypass Chalfont Boro.
Given that the existing DeKalb Pike will remain in service, it can be looked at as a 4-lane corridor with 2 lanes local and 2 lanes bypass.
The odd thing that I noticed on Google Maps is the number of low-speed horizontal curves injected into the right-of-way east of Doylestown.
Obviously it will be congested by all the traffic induced by its construction.
Quote from: mgk920 on February 29, 2012, 02:08:14 PM
Looking over the recent Google aerial images of this area, they show work well under way on this section of US 202 - BUT - I cannot help but sense this that this will be a total traffic FUBAR from the day it opens....
:banghead:
Similar could be said regarding I-476 between MacDade Blvd. & PA 3 (where it was downsized from a 6-lane highway to a 4-lane highway) when the Blue Route first opened on Dec. 1991. Within a year of its opening; it was already carrying traffic past its 20-year projections. PennDOT did state that scaling sown the road was a mistake; but the Blue Route critics insisted on the downsizing back in the 80s.
What many in this state don't realize is that I-476 and US 202 (had it been a continuous highway) were meant to serve as a belt/bypass of Philadelphia; kind of like what Route 128 and I-495 are with respect to Boston... 6 to 8 lane inner and outer bypasses with respect to metropolitan city.
When is PA going to learn that 4-laners and smaller highways are simply too small for a metropolis like Greater Philadelphia. The 202 highway sections (many of which were initially built when I-495 was first constructed in Massachusetts) & ALL of I-476 (Blue Route section)should've 6-laners from the get-go.
I-476 is connected to Interstate highways at each end (I-95 to I-276 and NE Ext). Of course it could easily carry enough traffic to congest 4 lanes.
The new US-202 and the original US-202 will be a 4 lane corridor that will connect to 2 lane US-202 at each end. The new US-202 may well function adequately.
I see that not all of the parkway is not grade separated. New Britain Road just south of the US 202/ PA 611 cloverleaf will have the new highway built over it( according to google areal views as well as one road just south of it. Then PA 309, will have a grade separation, but no interchange ramps except NB 309 to NB 202, while there is a connector road on the Western quadrant to permit movements between the two highways.
It is a shame that the full freeway will not get built as the ROW is there, however maybe some of the heavy traffic that creates congestion at the nearby five points intersection (US 202, PA 309, PA 463) will subside some.
Quote from: qguy on February 29, 2012, 04:36:25 PM
A lot of people in this area think the same thing. It was initially to be a four-lane expressway (for all you non-northeasterners that's "freeway," whatever THAT is) along its entire length. It was within a hairsbreadth of being built when Gov. Rendell took office. The Rendell administration, however, would tie itself in knots if even (literally) a handful of people opposed something.
In this case, the handful didn't even live in the project area.
I take it the Rendell Administration was guilty of pandering to NIMBYs and the "Anti-auto vanguard?"
What you describe above sounds depressingly like what we went through in Maryland with the InterCounty Connector (Md. 200). Ex-Gov. Parris Glendening (D) decided to pander to the small (but loud) group of anti-highway activists (many of which lived far from its proposed route - some as far away as Virginia and the District of Columbia) in deciding to cancel the project after an expensive draft environmental impact statement had been prepared.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 10, 2012, 10:36:28 PM
I take it the Rendell Administration was guilty of pandering to NIMBYs and the "Anti-auto vanguard?"
Maybe, but the official reason was due to "project downsizing due to funding issues." Several projects across PA were cancelled outright, and others like this one were selected for downsizing.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on June 11, 2012, 05:23:24 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 10, 2012, 10:36:28 PM
I take it the Rendell Administration was guilty of pandering to NIMBYs and the "Anti-auto vanguard?"
Maybe, but the official reason was due to "project downsizing due to funding issues." Several projects across PA were cancelled outright, and others like this one were selected for downsizing.
I'm glad you brought this up. I was uncharacteristically dithering over whether to mention it, but Gov. Rendell either cancelled or "deferred" quite a few projects which he had no intention of pursuing and then crowed about the phony "savings." In fact, I was one of those tasked with identifying in my district all the money we saved, in various ways, month by month. It was a sham and we mocked it internally, but it was all so that Rendell could crow about $1 billion in savings by the time he left office.
Quote from: qguy on June 11, 2012, 06:27:38 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on June 11, 2012, 05:23:24 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 10, 2012, 10:36:28 PM
I take it the Rendell Administration was guilty of pandering to NIMBYs and the "Anti-auto vanguard?"
Maybe, but the official reason was due to "project downsizing due to funding issues." Several projects across PA were cancelled outright, and others like this one were selected for downsizing.
I'm glad you brought this up. I was uncharacteristically dithering over whether to mention it, but Gov. Rendell either cancelled or "deferred" quite a few projects which he had no intention of pursuing and then crowed about the phony "savings." In fact, I was one of those tasked with identifying in my district all the money we saved, in various ways, month by month. It was a sham and we mocked it internally, but it was all so that Rendell could crow about $1 billion in savings by the time he left office.
Neglecting the transportation system (which is a capital asset)
and failing to expand it where needed is not "savings."
That Rendell would make such claims reduces my opinion of him further.
...interesting. And yet, not surprising at all...
Most of the "savings" was specious anyway. Savings is usually thought of as something in which one time period you spent X number of dollars and then found a way to spend fewer dollars on the same or similar thing in a subsequent time period. This month versus the next, this year versus the next, or this quarter versus the same quarter in the following year.
Often true savings were realized. Many times, however, savings was reported when, not having spent any dollars yet on a particular thing, the less expensive of two alternatives was chosen. It would be as if a person were renting and decided to purchase a house. He looked at a $2 million mansion and a $200,000 rowhouse. Since the mansion is wa-a-a-ay out of his budget, he chooses the rowhouse. Can he claim that he saved $1,800,000 that year. Of course not. But that's the type of "savings" that Rendell was claiming all the time.
A sham. And a shame.
I'm wondering... if the ROW is being preserved, can they restrict development along (and specifically, direct access to) the highway? So if you prevent anyone putting a driveway, a new shopping mall, or a road connecting to a new development from directly connecting to the highway (much as you would a freeway), would that help to prevent it from getting a lot worse in the future?
I don't see the need for future 4-laning of the non-4-lane portion of the new parkway, unless US-202 is 4-laned on either side of the parkway, which doesn't seem likely. The pre-existing portion of US-202 will remain as parallel capacity to the parkway.
The parkway will be a limited access facility in that there will be no access besides the constructed intersections. IOW, no driveways will be built. In fact, all of the ROW is being retained so that in the future, if the need arises and public opinion allow, a 4-lane freeway will be feasible.
Of course, it's the public opinion part that would most likely be the sticking point. It would have to get might congested for the public to demand ripping up the scenic landscape, spending considerable cash, and making the bicycle/pedestrian trail much less pleasant.
Time will tell, of course, but I don't hold out much hope of that.
I keep checking the project website, and I supposedly signed onto the mailing list, but it's now fall and there's still no word on the opening day. Will it be end of October, beginning of November, postponed to December or 2013?
http://www.us202-700.com/pdf/New%20US%20202%20Parkway%20to%20Open%20in%20Early%20December_2012.10.11.pdf
So early December is the latest word. I'm anticipating 8th or 15th will be the mini-meet where we'll drive it, based on current information. I don't want to assume the 8th will work, but on the same token, I don't want to say the 15th and have there be opening day festivities on the 8th.
Well, you can count me in for either date as of right now, though something else which currently has no date set but will likely be mid-december may conflict.
Now it's official:
U.S. Route 202 Parkway to Open December 3 (http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Penndot/Districts/District6/D6Media.nsf/cd20de0d8cd84b3785256d66005b622b/3ae5f42ea8e9969985257ab8006495e9?OpenDocument)
Route 202 Parkway Opens To Traffic (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/12/03/route-202-parkway-opens-to-traffic/) - KYW-TV Philadelphia
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 (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20121204_Long-discussed_Rt__202_parkway_opens.html)
Video clip of the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony that took place last month:
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 . . .
Nope, Google's wrong. :P
Quote from: akotchi on February 17, 2013, 01:32:08 PMWill 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.
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.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 27, 2021, 04:36:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 27, 2021, 04:36:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 27, 2021, 08:07:42 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 27, 2021, 04:36:31 PM
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! :rolleyes:
Yeah, the US-202 parkway is probably one of the sillier road projects in our nation.
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?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 28, 2021, 09:23:34 PM
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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 29, 2021, 05:13:10 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 28, 2021, 09:23:34 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 17, 2021, 01:34:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 17, 2021, 04:07:08 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 17, 2021, 01:34:38 PM
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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2021, 01:11:12 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 17, 2021, 04:07:08 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 17, 2021, 01:34:38 PM
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.