AARoads Forum

Nice to have, but at $604 million would be fantastically expensive, on a cost-benefit basis.

I see that they did get it added to the ADHS system, but at the deletion of Corridor O-1.

http://www.csvt.com/

Welcome to the Central Susquehanna Valley Transportation Project Web Page 
These pages were last updated on March 15, 2011
 
January 2011 Project Funding Update

Significant action has recently occurred related to identifying the remaining funding needed for the Central Susquehanna Valley Transportation (CSVT) Project, although additional steps must be taken to fully fund the project and advance it to construction.

On December 2, 2010, the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) approved the establishment of a new Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) corridor, as shown on the map available at the link below. This new corridor, designated as Corridor P-1, is located between the interchange of Interstates 80 and 180 north of Milton (at the southeastern terminus of existing Corridor P) and the interchange of US Routes 11/15 and 22/322 north of Harrisburg (near the eastern terminus of existing Corridor M).

This new corridor designation included the transfer of 12.5 ADHS participating miles to the CSVT Project from a portion of Corridor O-1, located along US Route 322 between Interstate 80 and Phillipsburg. The transfer makes the CSVT Project eligible for the ADHS funding that was previously allocated to that portion of Corridor O-1. However, previous Congressional action limited or "capped"  that funding allocation to an amount (based on a 2007 cost estimate to complete the ADHS within Pennsylvania) that is less than the currently estimated $604 million cost of the CSVT Project. As a result, unless other funding sources are identified, further Congressional action will be required to remove or adjust the funding cap in order to fully fund the project with ADHS funds.

Furthermore, based on current legislation, ADHS funds can only be used for 80 percent of the project costs, and the remaining 20 percent must be funded by a state or local matching contribution. To advance the project to construction, amended federal legislation is needed to allow toll credits to be used as the matching contribution on ADHS-funded projects. Such action would allow additional ADHS funds and/or other federal funds to be used in lieu of a state or local contribution, thereby allowing ADHS and/or other federal funds to be used for 100 percent of the project costs (assuming that the funding cap is removed or adjusted as described above).

You might think the cost/benefit was worth it if you saw the backups on the Selinsgrove strip (north end of Selinsgrove bypass to US 11/15 split) on the Sunday after Thanksgiving like I did!  It was pretty much all bumper to bumper traffic for miles.

Quote from: Beltway on November 16, 2011, 03:56:38 PM
I see that they did get it added to the ADHS system, but at the deletion of Corridor O-1.

Not quite. O-1 still exists, but doesn't get funding.

Quote from: Beltway on November 16, 2011, 03:56:38 PM

This new corridor designation included the transfer of 12.5 ADHS participating miles to the CSVT Project from a portion of Corridor O-1, located along US Route 322 between Interstate 80 and Phillipsburg. The transfer makes the CSVT Project eligible for the ADHS funding that was previously allocated to that portion of Corridor O-1.

And didn't that section get the money that was originally slated for US 220 (I-99) between Bedford and Cumberland?

Quote from: mightyace on December 06, 2011, 01:10:22 PM
You might think the cost/benefit was worth it if you saw the backups on the Selinsgrove strip (north end of Selinsgrove bypass to US 11/15 split) on the Sunday after Thanksgiving like I did!  It was pretty much all bumper to bumper traffic for miles.

I don't think it is worth anywhere near $600 million to build a 4-lane rural arterial bypass to handle Thanksgiving Sunday traffic.  That is the busiest day of the year for long-distance traffic.

No, but it might be worth "near $600 million to build a 4-lane rural arterial bypass" to handle what is typically near-saturation or saturation far beyond just Thanksgiving Sunday.  Volumes in Shamokin Dam peak at 47K AADT on what is a 5-lane undivided street.  I'm not sure what the peak loading is, but 47K is a very high volume for a 5-lane urban street.

This project is needed very much.

When I worked at PennDOT I traveled through that area many times at various times of the year and various times of the day. It's part of a major north-south corridor that runs from Baltimore to central and western upstate New York. It's a key link between I-83 in Harrisburg and US 15 (I-99) in Williamsport.

It's never a good scene. Traffic pours up and down US 11/15 and chokes at Hummels Wharf. It's also jammed in Northumberland (if you take PA 147 up the east side of the west branch of the Susquehanna River) and in Lewisburg (if you take US 15 up the west side of the west branch of the Susquehanna River).

Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2011, 08:47:07 AM
Widening to 6 lanes could handle that.  Most of the cost would be in the river crossing.  Widening alternatives to the existing US-15 could be done for 1/3 of that cost.

So you'd still have to spend "most of the cost" because of needing to build the crossing and you'd still be left with a string of signal lights.

Quote from: qguy on December 07, 2011, 09:25:23 AM

Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2011, 08:47:07 AM
Widening to 6 lanes could handle that.  Most of the cost would be in the river crossing.  Widening alternatives to the existing US-15 could be done for 1/3 of that cost.

So you'd still have to spend "most of the cost" because of needing to build the crossing and you'd still be left with a string of signal lights.

No crossing ... widen US-15 up to I-80.

Realistically, a sum of $600 million won't become available for a project of the currently proposed type and length.  Unless you want to put a stiff toll on it.

Beltway, you're obviously not familliar with this segment of road.  As I mentioned before, US 11/15 is a city street through Shamokin Dam.  Widening to 6 lanes is not an option unless you're comfortable with major right-of-way acquisition and destroying numerous businesses and houses along that street.

What was the original plan for US 15 in this area? The stub ramp at US 522 indicates something was on tap.

Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2011, 10:11:27 AM
No crossing ... widen US-15 up to I-80.

Unfortunately, the crossing is needed as much as, or more than, any other element of the project. This is because you can't widen US 15 through Lewisburg. It's also because one of the major issues is the traffic through Northumberland. Even if you widen the US 11 bridge across the West Branch on the south side of Northumberland, you can't widen through town.

Quote from: hbelkins on December 07, 2011, 11:36:23 AM
What was the original plan for US 15 in this area? The stub ramp at US 522 indicates something was on tap.

Interestingly enough, the original plan was pretty close to the current one. PennDOT seriously looked at a number of different alternatives, but the data supported the chosen alternative and the local communities are very supportive of it.

QuoteI've driven it many times.  Adding a 12-foot lane each way will not destroy any buildings.

It will in Shamokin Dam.  4 houses in particular that are right up to the street.  Furthermore, you don't necessarily have to destroy the building in order to destroy a business.

Or houses, for that matter.  Just ask those who live along Patrick and Henry Streets in Old Town Alexandria.

Quote from: froggie on December 07, 2011, 12:48:55 PM

QuoteI've driven it many times.  Adding a 12-foot lane each way will not destroy any buildings.

It will in Shamokin Dam.  4 houses in particular that are right up to the street.  Furthermore, you don't necessarily have to destroy the building in order to destroy a business.

Or houses, for that matter.  Just ask those who live along Patrick and Henry Streets in Old Town Alexandria.

You're right ... after reviewing it on Google Maps, I see there are about 4 medium-sized buildings that would be in the way.  There is enough buffer space that I question whether any other business would be "destroyed".  The current CSVT alignment would remove some number of buildings greater than zero...

With regard to Lewisburg, upgrading to a modern 4-lane arterial should be sufficient.

The current CSVT ... it would be great from a traffic engineering standpoint, but they need at least $300 if not $400 million in toll revenue bonds and tolls to assemble the needed funding package ... IMHO.

US-1 through Alexandria VA ... 12 feet of widening would wipe out dozens of buildings with historical plaques from the 19th century.  No comparison...

There is a comparison with Old Town Alexandria.  The city widened both Patrick and Henry Streets in the 1950s.  While it didn't "destroy buildings", it has put those buildings that much closer to traffic..to the point where numerous buildings along both streets are having cracking and shifting foundation issues due to vibrations from traffic.

Businesses, especially smaller retail businesses, can easily be destroyed by such widening projects, even if their building isn't physically razed.  If construction-related difficult access doesn't kill them, often the access redesign and/or loss of parking (i.e. space taken for the widened road) will.  If the corridor is slated or proposed for redevelopment, it's not as big of a long-term impact on the local jurisdiction's tax base.  But the small businesses are most prone to suffer both short term and long term.  We have similar issues being presented with the proposed widening of Richmond Hwy here.

Quote from: froggie on December 07, 2011, 02:41:27 PM
There is a comparison with Old Town Alexandria.  The city widened both Patrick and Henry Streets in the 1950s.  While it didn't "destroy buildings", it has put those buildings that much closer to traffic..to the point where numerous buildings along both streets are having cracking and shifting foundation issues due to vibrations from traffic.

Businesses, especially smaller retail businesses, can easily be destroyed by such widening projects, even if their building isn't physically razed.  If construction-related difficult access doesn't kill them, often the access redesign and/or loss of parking (i.e. space taken for the widened road) will.  If the corridor is slated or proposed for redevelopment, it's not as big of a long-term impact on the local jurisdiction's tax base.  But the small businesses are most prone to suffer both short term and long term.  We have similar issues being presented with the proposed widening of Richmond Hwy here.

I agree with everything you said, but other than possibly a few buildings (which could be acquired if need be) I don't see it applying to the site of this thread.

Also, those 19th century buildings, for the most part, are built to much lower structural standard than those built since 1950.

Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2011, 05:32:39 PM
Also, those 19th century buildings, for the most part, are built to much lower structural standard than those built since 1950.

Don't be so sure of that.  If you're talking 1950, I think you're right.  If you're talking about the junk that's built today, I don't think so.  How many houses built in 2011 will still be standing in 2111 or 2211.  I can't say but it will probably be a lower percentage than the number of house from 1811 or 1911 still standing.

__________________________________________________________________

Anyway back to topic.  The growth along 11/15 between Selinsgrove and Shamokin Dam has been phenomenal in the last few years.  There's a huge plaza with Best Buy, Target, Giant (grocery store) that wasn't there just a few years ago.

So, traffic wise, think of a major shopping area near where you live.  Then, dump an interstate's worth of through traffic on it!

But, Beltway has put his finger on the rub.  Is the project needed, there is little doubt.  However, can the $600 million or whatever it will be when the plans go ahead be raised?  At the present time, I have my doubts.

Now, if the yahoos in Harrisburg had promised things like:
We'll built the CSVT, finish I-99, replace aging Susquehanna River bridges, etc.
They might have gotten northern PA's support for tolling I-80.

Quote from: mightyace on December 08, 2011, 01:42:10 AM

Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2011, 05:32:39 PM
Also, those 19th century buildings, for the most part, are built to much lower structural standard than those built since 1950.

Don't be so sure of that.  If you're talking 1950, I think you're right.  If you're talking about the junk that's built today, I don't think so.  How many houses built in 2011 will still be standing in 2111 or 2211.  I can't say but it will probably be a lower percentage than the number of house from 1811 or 1911 still standing.

__________________________________________________________________

Anyway back to topic.  The growth along 11/15 between Selinsgrove and Shamokin Dam has been phenomenal in the last few years.  There's a huge plaza with Best Buy, Target, Giant (grocery store) that wasn't there just a few years ago.

So, traffic wise, think of a major shopping area near where you live.  Then, dump an interstate's worth of through traffic on it!

But, Beltway has put his finger on the rub.  Is the project needed, there is little doubt.  However, can the $600 million or whatever it will be when the plans go ahead be raised?  At the present time, I have my doubts.

Now, if the yahoos in Harrisburg had promised things like:
We'll built the CSVT, finish I-99, replace aging Susquehanna River bridges, etc.
They might have gotten northern PA's support for tolling I-80.

The foundations of those 19th century buildings in particular.

CSVT ... several small towns on a rural arterial highway ... not an Interstate

QuoteNow, if the yahoos in Harrisburg had promised things like:
We'll built the CSVT, finish I-99, replace aging Susquehanna River bridges, etc.
They might have gotten northern PA's support for tolling I-80.

But they still wouldn't have gotten FHWA's...

QuoteCSVT ... several small towns on a rural arterial highway ... not an Interstate

But volumes higher than many Interstates, even within PA.

Quote from: froggie on December 08, 2011, 06:27:17 AM

QuoteNow, if the yahoos in Harrisburg had promised things like:
We'll built the CSVT, finish I-99, replace aging Susquehanna River bridges, etc.
They might have gotten northern PA's support for tolling I-80.

But they still wouldn't have gotten FHWA's...

After 3 failed attempts, I think it has finally sunk in to PA !!

Quote

QuoteCSVT ... several small towns on a rural arterial highway ... not an Interstate

But volumes higher than many Interstates, even within PA.

Most of that traffic is local from within about 20 miles, and the local large truck percentage is low.

The rural segments of US-15 between US-22 and I-80, have volumes and large truck percentages that are in the range of that of a rural 4-lane arterial highway.

PA I-80, for instance, has total volumes that are not much higher, but the large truck percentages are far higher, average trip lengths are far longer, and the highway is far more strategic than the aforementioned segment of US-15, which I think would function well in the network with a rural arterial design.

Roadgeeks are always talking about adding new Interstate mileage ...

Has anyone yet mentioned the obvious fact that if the CSVT project is built, that I-180 could be extended down PA-147, along the new highway, and along the Selinsgrove Bypass?  Actually it would be a simplified way to designate that 20 miles of freeway, whether the existing routes are left to overlap on the freeway or are routed back onto their old surface routes.

<<< After 3 failed attempts, I think it has finally sunk in to PA !!>>>

More like 40 years of failed attempts.

Quote from: PAHighways on December 08, 2011, 06:05:58 PM
<<< After 3 failed attempts, I think it has finally sunk in to PA !!>>>

More like 40 years of failed attempts.

I was thinking of the 3 recent ones under the TEA-21 pilot program for tolling 3 Interstates for reconstruction ...

Quote from: froggie on December 08, 2011, 06:27:17 AM

QuoteNow, if the yahoos in Harrisburg had promised things like:
We'll built the CSVT, finish I-99, replace aging Susquehanna River bridges, etc.
They might have gotten northern PA's support for tolling I-80.

But they still wouldn't have gotten FHWA's...

That is true.  However my point was more on placating opposition in Northern PA.  If you say that the money will help build/fix roads where you live, you're more likely to support it than for transit systems 100 or 200 miles away.

Of course, that is dead horse.

Quote from: Beltway on December 08, 2011, 06:07:43 PM

Quote from: PAHighways on December 08, 2011, 06:05:58 PM
<<< After 3 failed attempts, I think it has finally sunk in to PA !!>>>

More like 40 years of failed attempts.

I was thinking of the 3 recent ones under the TEA-21 pilot program for tolling 3 Interstates for reconstruction ...

It has sunk in as the website (http://www.paturnpike.com/i80) for the tolling of 80 now redirects to the PTC's main page.

How does MAP-21 effect the 12.5 miles of CSVT and the nearly 60 incomplete miles of Corridor M between Holidaysburg and Lewistown? Supposedly PA can now get 100% (although its no longer dedicated) federal ADHS funding. Presumably for CSVT that means 100% of what it would cost to rebuild 12.5 miles of Corridor O-1 to ADHS standards rather than the 12.5 miles of P-1 to Interstate Highway standards although toll credits may now be able to be used to obtain additional federal funding.

Elected Officials "˜Optimistic' on Route 15 Bypass Funding (http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.detail/id/591087.html)

This thread is old, but it seems to be closest to an official CSVT discussion–every other related discussion is wrapped up in fictional I-83 extension proposals or the like.

According to a recent Sun-Gazette article (you should be able to get around their paywall here (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SKERCatObfcJ:www.sungazette.com/page/content.detail/id/637108/PennDOT-reveals-construction-schedule-for-Route-15-plan.html%3Fnav%3D5019+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari)), the contract for construction of the Susquehanna River bridge at Winfield will be awarded this year (and I assume construction beginning next year at the earliest).

Construction on the southern section (from the US 522 interchange stub to the bridge) will begin in 2019 and last through 2024. Completion of the northern section (bridge to PA 147) is slated for a 2021 completion.

I don't understand why the southern portion should be delayed–or more importantly, why it would be constructed after the northern portion. Since the largest traffic bottleneck there is the commercial strip running through Shamokin Dam and Hummels Wharf, the partially completed southern portion could serve as a bypass from Selinsgrove to Winfield while work connecting it to PA 147 continues.

My guess is that, assuming they're opening the bridge upon its completion, they're trying to avoid creating a new bottleneck on PA 147.

Last Tuesday evening (16 Jun), I attended a public meeting for the southern section. It included the usual info boards and whatnot. (I would've posted some of the pics I took but they aren't much different from the diagrams on the CSVT website: www.csvt.com.)

Anyhoo, I spoke with the Community Relations Coordinator (PennDOT-speak for public affairs person) for PennDOT's District 3-0. He said that the first contract for the northern section (for construction of the bridge over the Susquehanna River) will be advertised or awarded (I forget which) in August of this year and construction will probably begin in mid-October.

The bad news is that the bridge construction will take another four construction seasons (not including this year's). The worse news is that the entire project isn't projected to be completed until 2024!

More of the projected schedule (which has not yet been posted to the website):

     Northern section
          -- Susquehanna River bridge construction: late 2015—mid-2020
          -- Earthwork and construction of non-river structures: mid-2016—late 2020
          -- Construction of pavement: early 2020—late 2021

     Southern section
          -- Construction of earthwork: mid-2019—mid-2022
          -- Construction of structures: mid-2020—mid-2023
          -- Construction of pavement: mid-2022—mid-2024
          -- Construction of the PA 61 Connector: early 2023—late 2024

Don't ask me why they've stretched the contracts out so long. Nine years to construct 7.2 miles of freeway. The local residents have been begging for this project for decades. The word I heard most often uttered by the attendees of the public meeting: "finally."

It's an expensive project, and PennDOT likely doesn't have the funding to do it all in one fell swoop.  Hence why it's getting dragged out.

Better than it not getting built. Although it does seem like a very long contract. Assuming this goes out as planned though.

IIRC, it is a $750M project

Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on June 20, 2015, 09:54:19 PM
IIRC, it is a $750M project

The number I've heard is about $615 million (not that its much less). Maybe you're thinking of stuff related to 322? Because I've seen $750 million in association with that.

Quote from: froggie on June 20, 2015, 09:09:21 PM
It's an expensive project, and PennDOT likely doesn't have the funding to do it all in one fell swoop.  Hence why it's getting dragged out.

I fully understand that part, but as I suggested in my earlier post, the southern portion (Winfield to Selinsgrove) could serve as very useful bypass of the busy commercial strip through Shamokin Dam even before the Susquehanna River bridge and connection to PA 147 are completed.

Having pondered the future of that unused freeway stub since I was maybe eight years old, it's definitely a relief to finally see progress, but I think PennDOT could structure the schedule even more efficiently.

Quote from: CentralPAguy on June 21, 2015, 07:36:20 PM

Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on June 20, 2015, 09:54:19 PM
IIRC, it is a $750M project

The number I've heard is about $615 million (not that its much less). Maybe you're thinking of stuff related to 322? Because I've seen $750 million in association with that.

The Apr 2014 information on the CSVT website identifies a $615 mil price tag. Of course, it may have changed since then.

Actually, I think you are correct.  As for the phasing, I think they want to get the part that is most likely to be objected to, at the last moment, by enviros, dine and out of the way, plus if you look at how the southern section ends at US 15 as an independent section, it would cause alot of problems with US 11 through traffic.

PennDOT District 3 has updated the CSVT website. It's no longer as stale as year-old bread. Much better.

     www.csvt.com (http://www.csvt.com)

Thanks for all of the updates, I do forsee a road meet in the future for this project. :-)

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/09/low_bid_for_long_upstate_susqu.html (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/09/low_bid_for_long_upstate_susqu.html)

Well, the bids are coming in on the bridge. And, according to the article, they're lower than expected, with $155.6 million being the lowest.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/05/forty_years_later_road_to_nowh.html (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/05/forty_years_later_road_to_nowh.html)

Harrisburg Patriot-News ran an article today about the CSVT project starting up. A few details about the project are included, but nothing seemed truly new other than some pictures of earth moving.

Beat me to the punch :bigass:,I read about this article today in the Patriot News. I am looking at another central PA based road meet focused on this project, possibly 2018 or 19, on top of the Shrewsbury based meet that I am already in the planning stages on. Both meets will be separate. ;-)

Quote from: qguy on June 20, 2015, 09:07:40 PM
     Northern section
          -- Earthwork and construction of non-river structures: mid-2016—late 2020

The work for this contracted portion of the CSVT started today. (http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-3/Pages/details.aspx?newsid=668)

From the press release (http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-3/Pages/details.aspx?newsid=668):

QuoteThis two-year project includes the construction of seven new bridges and 2.5 cubic yards of earthwork.

A couple of guys with shovels should be able to take care of that in an hour or so.

Quote from: briantroutman on November 14, 2016, 06:00:44 PM
From the press release (http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-3/Pages/details.aspx?newsid=668):

QuoteThis two-year project includes the construction of seven new bridges and 2.5 cubic yards of earthwork.

A couple of guys with shovels should be able to take care of that in an hour or so.

The press release for the bid shows 2.5 million cubic yards (http://www.csvt.com/resources/pdfs/CSVT%20bid%20opening%209-9-16.pdf).  I am unsure how I did not catch that on my own.   :pan:

Quote from: briantroutman on November 14, 2016, 06:00:44 PM
From the press release (http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-3/Pages/details.aspx?newsid=668):

QuoteThis two-year project includes the construction of seven new bridges and 2.5 cubic yards of earthwork.

A couple of guys with shovels should be able to take care of that in an hour or so.

Union rules. They need a week with overtime pay and two supervisors.

Well the alignment of the southern section of the CSVT is being affected by a change in route due to fly ash basins (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/01/issue_with_fly_ash_basins_forc.html).

I noticed on PennDOT's iTMS (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/itms/main.htm) page that the entire CSVT alignment, including the part that will exclusively be PA 147, is designated SR 6015. The PA 61 connector is similarly designated SR 6061. This is strange, considering that the under-construction segment of US 219 in Somerset County isn't marked this way (though its interchange ramps are).

Quote from: Roadsguy on February 24, 2017, 05:54:08 PM
I noticed on PennDOT's iTMS (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/itms/main.htm) page that the entire CSVT alignment, including the part that will exclusively be PA 147, is designated SR 6015. The PA 61 connector is similarly designated SR 6061. This is strange, considering that the under-construction segment of US 219 in Somerset County isn't marked this way (though its interchange ramps are).

PennDOT uses a temporary SR 6--- designation for roads under construction, or brand new open segments, until they are given a permanent designation.  So...the oddity is that the US 219 part being built isn't given a SR 6219 designation.

Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 20, 2017, 07:18:19 PM
Well the alignment of the southern section of the CSVT is being affected by a change in route due to fly ash basins (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/01/issue_with_fly_ash_basins_forc.html).

Another public meeting (http://www.sungazette.com/news/region/2017/05/public-meeting-set-on-csvt-southern-section/) on the same issue will be held in Selinsgrove on May 25th.

I didn't have an opportunity to stop and take pictures, but about a week ago, I drove through the area south of Winfield where the CSVT's northern interchange with existing US 15 will be sited, and a remarkable amount of earthwork has already taken place. I found this video on YouTube where someone did a drone flyover of what I saw from the ground. (Warning: unnecessary audio)

Quote from: briantroutman on May 10, 2017, 12:47:34 AM
(Warning: unnecessary audio)

Hey, at least the second music track on the video was from A Flock of Seagulls! ;-)

Quote from: briantroutman on May 10, 2017, 12:47:34 AM

Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 20, 2017, 07:18:19 PM
Well the alignment of the southern section of the CSVT is being affected by a change in route due to fly ash basins (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/01/issue_with_fly_ash_basins_forc.html).

Another public meeting (http://www.sungazette.com/news/region/2017/05/public-meeting-set-on-csvt-southern-section/) on the same issue will be held in Selinsgrove on May 25th.

I didn't have an opportunity to stop and take pictures, but about a week ago, I drove through the area south of Winfield where the CSVT's northern interchange with existing US 15 will be sited, and a remarkable amount of earthwork has already taken place. I found this video on YouTube where someone did a drone flyover of what I saw from the ground. (Warning: unnecessary audio)

I saw the bridge and approach construction when I drove thru there back in March.

Quote from: Beltway on December 08, 2011, 05:57:02 PM
Has anyone yet mentioned the obvious fact that if the CSVT project is built, that I-180 could be extended down PA-147, along the new highway, and along the Selinsgrove Bypass?  Actually it would be a simplified way to designate that 20 miles of freeway, whether the existing routes are left to overlap on the freeway or are routed back onto their old surface routes.

Point still stands ... an extended designation of I-180.

It'd also need to be changed to north-south rather than the current east-west. It also might make a good I-199 once 99 is connected to Williamsport.

Quote from: Roadsguy on May 15, 2017, 10:10:42 AM
It'd also need to be changed to north-south rather than the current east-west. It also might make a good I-199 once 99 is connected to Williamsport.

When is PennDOT going to designate the US-15 freeway as I-99?  The section between I-180 and NY State.  It is fully Interstate standard, a very fine highway, and NY State designated their segment as I-99 about two years ago.

After doing this, US-15 could be truncated north of Williamsport.

Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 01:06:21 PM

Quote from: Roadsguy on May 15, 2017, 10:10:42 AM
It'd also need to be changed to north-south rather than the current east-west. It also might make a good I-199 once 99 is connected to Williamsport.

When is PennDOT going to designate the US-15 freeway as I-99?  The section between I-180 and NY State.  It is fully Interstate standard, a very fine highway, and NY State designated their segment as I-99 about two years ago.

After doing this, US-15 could be truncated north of Williamsport.

They probably won't designate any more of it until they finish the remaining missing links: the I-80 interchange and the gaps in the 220 expressway west of Williamsport.

And yes, I think 15 should be truncated to Williamsport. Get rid of NY 15 along 390 and 86 too. You could even argue for cutting 15 back to 581 in Harrisburg if I-180 were extended down the CSVT and/or turned into I-199. Between Shamokin Dam and Williamsport, it'd become a PA x15 route.

Thanks for posting this drone video, I was in the area last month but was getting dark and did not have time to do more thorough scouting of the area. It is looking more and more like I am going to be doing this meet before my Shrewsbury meet (spring 2018), more on this on the Road Meet section. ;-)

Quote from: Roadsguy on May 15, 2017, 04:03:20 PM

Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 01:06:21 PM
When is PennDOT going to designate the US-15 freeway as I-99?  The section between I-180 and NY State.  It is fully Interstate standard, a very fine highway, and NY State designated their segment as I-99 about two years ago.

After doing this, US-15 could be truncated north of Williamsport.

They probably won't designate any more of it until they finish the remaining missing links: the I-80 interchange and the gaps in the 220 expressway west of Williamsport.

And yes, I think 15 should be truncated to Williamsport. Get rid of NY 15 along 390 and 86 too. You could even argue for cutting 15 back to 581 in Harrisburg if I-180 were extended down the CSVT and/or turned into I-199. Between Shamokin Dam and Williamsport, it'd become a PA x15 route.

They have a completed Interstate standard US-15 highway between I-180 and I-86.  No reason why they shouldn't designate it now with I-99.  In conjunction with I-180 this highway connects two mainline Interstates -- I-80 and I-86.

PennLIVE:  Revised thruway location in Snyder County may be known this fall, PennDOT says (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/05/revised_thruway_location_in_sn.html)

Not a whole lot of news in this article, but a few decent pictures are present of the bridge construction over the Susquehanna River: http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/10/mammoth_bridge_taking_shape_ov.html (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/10/mammoth_bridge_taking_shape_ov.html)

Quote from: RevZimmerman on October 09, 2017, 02:53:20 PM
Not a whole lot of news in this article, but a few decent pictures are present of the bridge construction over the Susquehanna River: http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/10/mammoth_bridge_taking_shape_ov.html (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/10/mammoth_bridge_taking_shape_ov.html)

I rode thru the project on both sides of the river a few weeks ago.

Another update on the CSVT. Article quotes PennDot secretary positing the idea that the northern section of the bypass may not open until the entire project is complete. Also includes a brief note about the necessary rerouting of part of the southern section.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/10/opening_of_csvt_river_bridge_c.html (http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/10/opening_of_csvt_river_bridge_c.html)

The only reason I can think of for that is that they're afraid that the increased traffic on US 15 between the 11/15 split and the new interchange would cause more accidents in that stretch, especially the undivided 4-lane downhill stretch without a TWLTL.  But otherwise, I don't know why they shouldn't open the northern section when it's finished.

Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 11, 2017, 10:14:58 AM
The only reason I can think of for that is that they're afraid that the increased traffic on US 15 between the 11/15 split and the new interchange would cause more accidents in that stretch, especially the undivided 4-lane downhill stretch without a TWLTL.  But otherwise, I don't know why they shouldn't open the northern section when it's finished.

I agree.  Looking at the interchange designs, the northern section should be a Segment of Independent Utility (SIU) in and of itself.

I think this is a good thing. It increases the likelihood that the southern section will be built.

Quote from: qguy on October 11, 2017, 01:21:54 PM
I think this is a good thing. It increases the likelihood that the southern section will be built.

But its construction is scheduled for 3 or 4 years later.  That means that we could have a completed bridge and approach highways just sitting there without traffic for 3 or 4 years.

I passed through Shamokin Dam recently and got to see the enormous construction project where the US 15/PA 147 interchange at the southern end of the bridge is being built. I went looking for the project maps and now have several questions:

1. Why is US 11 staying on the existing route through the town instead of being routed onto the southern end of the bypass, then down the link with the existing PA 61 interchange to regain its existing route? Keeping US 11 on the original route seems like it could lead to confusion due to the lengthy concurrence of 11/15.
2. I'm curious to know which route number will end up being used for the inventory sign posts along the mainline of the bypass - will it be SR 15 or SR 147, or a combination of both?
3. Will the bridge across the West Branch include any pedestrian facilities? There are Park and Rides in the US 15/US 15 Business interchange on the south side and the SR 1024 interchange on the north side, where a pedestrian multi-use facility could begin and end.

http://www.dailyitem.com/news/local_news/thruway-open-to-traffic-two-years-before-completion-date/article_162cde29-f7ae-52d0-8618-4c375fd475a9.html

Looks like our question is answered... The northern sections will be open to traffic in 2022, no matter where construction is on the southern part.

Bumping for some big news:

CSVT bridge over US 15 is now visible from Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8901695,-76.8446112,3a,75y,121.67h,92.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snr04p_x2aENG8P13Rm5GKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)!
A retention pond and the beginnings of one of the ramps are visible here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8865808,-76.842244,3a,75y,218.69h,94.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAAO1KD6HSgok6mabg3-lKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Especially intriguing in my case since I'm following this project eagerly but haven't been down that way in person in a few years. No new Street View on the east side of the Susquehanna, at least not yet.

Quote from the article above:

Quote from: dailyitem.com"It is the missing link to a limited access Route 15 corridor," Culver said. ... "Pennsylvania is about an eight-hour drive to 60 percent of the population of the United States. We are the keystone state. This is a game changer for us."

Did they forget about Dillsburg?

Quote from: vdeane on December 19, 2018, 12:55:40 PM
Did they forget about Dillsburg?

A 4-lane divided high-speed highway.  Some 45 mph restrictions and 3 traffic signals, but IMO US-15 there can be considered a 4-lane inter-regional highway.  Not enough an issue to warrant building a bypass.  Maybe 6-lane widening with sufficient traffic increases.

I remember it being one of the most congested parts of the drive on a family vacation to DC.  It's a shame there's no all-freeway route between Rochester and the Mid-Atlantic.  Once the CSVT is completed, there won't be any other traffic lights on the corridor (if one is clever about bypassing the light PennDOT added to the US 11/15/PA 581 interchange), at least in PA (though I don't think there are any in MD).

No traffic signals on MD US-15 north of Frederick.  There is one interchange in Emmitsburg, and 3 interchanges in Thurmont.  The new interchange and connecting arterial extension on the extended Frederick Bypass is now fully open, I drove it in September.  Limited access right-of-way thruout Frederick to PA.

Quote from: vdeane on December 19, 2018, 08:13:27 PM
I remember it being one of the most congested parts of the drive on a family vacation to DC.  It's a shame there's no all-freeway route between Rochester and the Mid-Atlantic.  Once the CSVT is completed, there won't be any other traffic lights on the corridor (if one is clever about bypassing the light PennDOT added to the US 11/15/PA 581 interchange), at least in PA (though I don't think there are any in MD).

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.

Quote from: vdeane on December 19, 2018, 12:55:40 PM
Did they forget about Dillsburg?

Personally, I regard north of Harrisburg and south of Harrisburg as two completely separate corridors.

Either way, CSVT is the biggest outstanding issue. At least I-83 creates an all-interstate route from Harrisburg to DC, providing some redundancy, unlike Harrisburg to Williamsport.

Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 19, 2018, 09:30:57 PM

Quote from: vdeane on December 19, 2018, 08:13:27 PM
I remember it being one of the most congested parts of the drive on a family vacation to DC.  It's a shame there's no all-freeway route between Rochester and the Mid-Atlantic.  Once the CSVT is completed, there won't be any other traffic lights on the corridor (if one is clever about bypassing the light PennDOT added to the US 11/15/PA 581 interchange), at least in PA (though I don't think there are any in MD).

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!

Quote from: webny99 on December 19, 2018, 10:35:13 PM

Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 19, 2018, 09:30:57 PM
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?

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.

Quote from: seicer on December 19, 2018, 11:25:15 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2018, 11:57:26 PM
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...

Quote from: Roadsguy on December 20, 2018, 12:08:06 AM

Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2018, 11:57:26 PM
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.

Quote from: Beltway on December 20, 2018, 12:17:26 AM

Quote from: Roadsguy on December 20, 2018, 12:08:06 AM

Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2018, 11:57:26 PM
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.

Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2018, 10:49:13 PM

Quote from: webny99 on December 19, 2018, 10:35:13 PM

Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 19, 2018, 09:30:57 PM
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.

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.

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

Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2018, 10:49:13 PM

Quote from: webny99 on December 19, 2018, 10:35:13 PM

Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 19, 2018, 09:30:57 PM
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.

Quote from: sbeaver44 on December 20, 2018, 07:31:35 AM
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.

Quote from: webny99 on December 20, 2018, 10:08:50 AM
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.

Quote from: Roadsguy on December 20, 2018, 10:12:24 AM
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.

Quote from: Bitmapped on December 21, 2018, 10:02:03 PM
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.

Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on December 20, 2018, 09:00:02 AM
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.

^^^^^^^^^
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. 

Quote from: sparker on December 26, 2018, 08:06:14 PM
^^^^^^^^^
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.

Quote from: Roadsguy on December 26, 2018, 08:45:05 PM

Quote from: sparker on December 26, 2018, 08:06:14 PM
^^^^^^^^^
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?

^^^^^^^^^
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!

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.

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.

Quote from: LeftyJR on February 12, 2019, 08:47:43 AM
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

Quote from: qguy on December 27, 2018, 03:12:34 PM

Quote from: Roadsguy on December 26, 2018, 08:45:05 PM

Quote from: sparker on December 26, 2018, 08:06:14 PM
^^^^^^^^^
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. 

Quote from: sparker on February 24, 2019, 01:11:15 AM

Quote from: qguy on December 27, 2018, 03:12:34 PM

Quote from: Roadsguy on December 26, 2018, 08:45:05 PM

Quote from: sparker on December 26, 2018, 08:06:14 PM
^^^^^^^^^
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.

Quote from: sparker on February 24, 2019, 01:11:15 AM
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.

Quote from: noelboteveraPardon 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.

If the intention is a freeway, the existing corridor won't work...too many farms and homes along the existing roadway, especially in the Tusseyville vicinity.

Quotecurious if there's long term plans to upgrade the 33 miles of 11/15 from Selinsgrove to Duncannon.

This has been mentioned several times in other threads on this forum.  Nobody has found anything for long-term plans along 11/15, nor is there really a need for any...the existing corridor functions well.

A couple news articles provide updates on the CSVT Project. Big takeaway is that the project will cost more and take longer to complete ($200 million more / 3 extra years) due to the fly ash basins that had been in the southern section of the planned route. But the northern section should still open in 2022.

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/03/central-susquehanna-valley-thruway-to-take-three-years-longer-to-finish-and-cost-200-million-more.html (https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/03/central-susquehanna-valley-thruway-to-take-three-years-longer-to-finish-and-cost-200-million-more.html)

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/03/central-susquehanna-valley-thruway-project-fully-funded-despite-a-200-million-cost-increase.html (https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/03/central-susquehanna-valley-thruway-project-fully-funded-despite-a-200-million-cost-increase.html)

Some pictures from February 2019 are in the gallery accompanying the articles.

Quote from: RevZimmerman on March 11, 2019, 10:53:39 AM
A couple news articles provide updates on the CSVT Project. Big takeaway is that the project will cost more and take longer to complete ($200 million more / 3 extra years) due to the fly ash basins that had been in the southern section of the planned route. But the northern section should still open in 2022.

Why $200 million more?   Plan sheets I have seen don't show the alignment being significantly longer or with a significantly different conceptual design.

Some of the realignment contains pyrite rock...doesn't explain all of the $200 million increase but certainly explains some of it.  One of the articles also mentions this:

QuoteThe decision to go with a more substantial pavement structure added to the cost, Beck said.

Quote from: froggie on March 12, 2019, 09:07:53 AM
Some of the realignment contains pyrite rock...doesn't explain all of the $200 million increase but certainly explains some of it.  One of the articles also mentions this:

QuoteThe decision to go with a more substantial pavement structure added to the cost, Beck said.

But now they don't have to deal with crossing the fly ash basins, now just normal types of excavation (regular, borrow, undercut).  That should save money.  I wonder what the "more substantial pavement structure" is, maybe another 2 inches of concrete, another 2 inches of subbase?

Quote from: Beltway on March 12, 2019, 11:16:30 AM

Quote from: froggie on March 12, 2019, 09:07:53 AM
Some of the realignment contains pyrite rock...doesn't explain all of the $200 million increase but certainly explains some of it.  One of the articles also mentions this:

QuoteThe decision to go with a more substantial pavement structure added to the cost, Beck said.

But now they don't have to deal with crossing the fly ash basins, now just normal types of excavation (regular, borrow, undercut).  That should save money.  I wonder what the "more substantial pavement structure" is, maybe another 2 inches of concrete, another 2 inches of subbase?

Are they removing more pyrite rock than originally thought, with the realignment?  I believe it was pyrite rock that caused major issues in building I-99 over Skytop Mtn just west of State College.  So maybe there is more of increase in that vs any cost savings in avoiding fly ash basins?

Quote from: jemacedo9 on March 12, 2019, 01:40:04 PM
Are they removing more pyrite rock than originally thought, with the realignment?  I believe it was pyrite rock that caused major issues in building I-99 over Skytop Mtn just west of State College.  So maybe there is more of increase in that vs any cost savings in avoiding fly ash basins?

It is hard to say whether there is any more lane mileage of new construction, or any more new bridge construction --
http://www.csvt.com/maps/pdfs/58758_Board13-EastAlt-04_May2018.pdf

Quote from: Beltway on March 12, 2019, 11:16:30 AM

Quote from: froggie on March 12, 2019, 09:07:53 AM
Some of the realignment contains pyrite rock...doesn't explain all of the $200 million increase but certainly explains some of it.  One of the articles also mentions this:

QuoteThe decision to go with a more substantial pavement structure added to the cost, Beck said.

But now they don't have to deal with crossing the fly ash basins, now just normal types of excavation (regular, borrow, undercut).  That should save money.  I wonder what the "more substantial pavement structure" is, maybe another 2 inches of concrete, another 2 inches of subbase?

I don't think the original cost estimate accounted for the problems with the fly ash basins.

Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2019, 04:41:12 PM

Quote from: Beltway on March 12, 2019, 11:16:30 AM
But now they don't have to deal with crossing the fly ash basins, now just normal types of excavation (regular, borrow, undercut).  That should save money.  I wonder what the "more substantial pavement structure" is, maybe another 2 inches of concrete, another 2 inches of subbase?

I don't think the original cost estimate accounted for the problems with the fly ash basins.

But wouldn't those costs no longer be present now?

Quote from: Beltway on March 12, 2019, 04:49:15 PM

Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2019, 04:41:12 PM

Quote from: Beltway on March 12, 2019, 11:16:30 AM
But now they don't have to deal with crossing the fly ash basins, now just normal types of excavation (regular, borrow, undercut).  That should save money.  I wonder what the "more substantial pavement structure" is, maybe another 2 inches of concrete, another 2 inches of subbase?

I don't think the original cost estimate accounted for the problems with the fly ash basins.

But wouldn't those costs no longer be present now?

Original costs (not including fly ash) + $200 million = new costs. That's why they're not "saving money" as per your quote above.

Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2019, 06:21:57 PM

Quote from: Beltway on March 12, 2019, 04:49:15 PM

Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2019, 04:41:12 PM

Quote from: Beltway on March 12, 2019, 11:16:30 AM
But now they don't have to deal with crossing the fly ash basins, now just normal types of excavation (regular, borrow, undercut).  That should save money.  I wonder what the "more substantial pavement structure" is, maybe another 2 inches of concrete, another 2 inches of subbase?

I don't think the original cost estimate accounted for the problems with the fly ash basins.

But wouldn't those costs no longer be present now?

Original costs (not including fly ash) + $200 million = new costs. That's why they're not "saving money" as per your quote above.

But if the fly ash costs won't be incurred, where does the new $200 million come from?

Quote from: Beltway on March 12, 2019, 06:31:20 PM

Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2019, 06:21:57 PM

Quote from: Beltway on March 12, 2019, 04:49:15 PM

Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2019, 04:41:12 PM

Quote from: Beltway on March 12, 2019, 11:16:30 AM
But now they don't have to deal with crossing the fly ash basins, now just normal types of excavation (regular, borrow, undercut).  That should save money.  I wonder what the "more substantial pavement structure" is, maybe another 2 inches of concrete, another 2 inches of subbase?

I don't think the original cost estimate accounted for the problems with the fly ash basins.

But wouldn't those costs no longer be present now?

Original costs (not including fly ash) + $200 million = new costs. That's why they're not "saving money" as per your quote above.

But if the fly ash costs won't be incurred, where does the new $200 million come from?

Other factors are stated upstream in this thread.

Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2019, 06:46:18 PM

Quote from: Beltway on March 12, 2019, 06:31:20 PM
But if the fly ash costs won't be incurred, where does the new $200 million come from?

Other factors are stated upstream in this thread.

The thicker pavement?  How much thicker would it be over the standard freeway pavement design?

I would assume it costs more for the new highway to weave its way around the basins, adding mileage, instead of going straight through them. The junction with PA 61 has also become more complicated. It looks like a mangled version of its would-have-been self.

Quote from: webny99 on March 13, 2019, 02:54:26 PM
I would assume it costs more for the new highway to weave its way around the basins, adding mileage, instead of going straight through them. The junction with PA 61 has also become more complicated. It looks like a mangled version of its would-have-been self.

On the face of it, it actually looks like slightly less overall lane mileage and bridge construction as compared to the old alignment --
http://www.csvt.com/maps/pdfs/58758_Board13-EastAlt-04_May2018.pdf

Looks to me like a few more residential properties are impacted under the new alignment (SE of "11th Ave"  on the map). Now to figure out the other 99%...

Project update: Beams are halfway across from the southwest side of the Susquehanna bridge.

Quote from: Alps on May 27, 2019, 08:02:40 PM
Project update: Beams are halfway across from the southwest side of the Susquehanna bridge.

Yep, saw that a few weeks ago when returning from Tennessee. That bridge is going to be a pretty prominent and impressive feature in the landscape of the region; you can see it right from current US 15.

Quote from: webny99 on May 27, 2019, 10:04:41 PM

Quote from: Alps on May 27, 2019, 08:02:40 PM
Project update: Beams are halfway across from the southwest side of the Susquehanna bridge.

Yep, saw that a few weeks ago when returning from Tennessee. That bridge is going to be a pretty prominent and impressive feature in the landscape of the region; you can see it right from current US 15.

From what I saw on US 15 a couple weekends ago, all they need to do at the interchange there at this point seems to be paving. It looked to me that all the grading of the ramps were complete.

Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 28, 2019, 06:50:41 AM

Quote from: webny99 on May 27, 2019, 10:04:41 PM

Quote from: Alps on May 27, 2019, 08:02:40 PM
Project update: Beams are halfway across from the southwest side of the Susquehanna bridge.

Yep, saw that a few weeks ago when returning from Tennessee. That bridge is going to be a pretty prominent and impressive feature in the landscape of the region; you can see it right from current US 15.

From what I saw on US 15 a couple weekends ago, all they need to do at the interchange there at this point seems to be paving. It looked to me that all the grading of the ramps were complete.

Yes, very much so. I was actually impressed with the progress.

Quote from: webny99 on May 28, 2019, 01:22:14 PM
The entire CSVT will save, in my estimation, about 8 to 10 minutes on a trip from Selinsgrove to Montandon.

Phase I will bypass the Lewisburg area and that part of US-15, with a direction connection with PA-147 and I-180, a very welcome improvement, IMHO.

I drove on both sides of the project in late March ... bridge is coming along nicely!

Quote from: Beltway on May 28, 2019, 09:15:30 PM

Quote from: webny99 on May 28, 2019, 01:22:14 PM
The entire CSVT will save, in my estimation, about 8 to 10 minutes on a trip from Selinsgrove to Montandon.

Phase I will bypass the Lewisburg area and that part of US-15, with a direction connection with PA-147 and I-180, a very welcome improvement, IMHO.

Very much welcome, of course. When complete I will be able to get from the Rochester area to the Harrisburg area without going through a single stoplight.

The larger question is, will this cause more traffic to use I-180 and less to use US 15 between I-80 and Williamsport?
US 15 will still be by far the shorter and more scenic of the two routes.

The current difference in time from Washington to Toronto is exactly three minutes:

478 miles and 8h 42 min using I-270, I-70, I-99, and US 219.
500 miles and 8h 45 min using I-270, US 15, I-86, and I-390. (It doesn't default to I-180, but that would add about 2-3 minutes).

Thus, given the state of US 219 in Northern PA, it is very reasonable to assume US 15 will be the route of choice once CSVT is complete.

Quote from: webny99 on May 30, 2019, 10:31:25 AM

Quote from: Beltway on May 28, 2019, 09:15:30 PM

Quote from: webny99 on May 28, 2019, 01:22:14 PM
The entire CSVT will save, in my estimation, about 8 to 10 minutes on a trip from Selinsgrove to Montandon.

Phase I will bypass the Lewisburg area and that part of US-15, with a direction connection with PA-147 and I-180, a very welcome improvement, IMHO.

Very much welcome, of course. When complete I will be able to get from the Rochester area to the Harrisburg area without going through a single stoplight.
The larger question is, will this cause more traffic to use I-180 and less to use US 15 between I-80 and Williamsport?
US 15 will still be by far the shorter and more scenic of the two routes.

I use this route 2 or 3 times a year between Washington and Buffalo.  The times are about equal, and I-180 is a much higher standard highway so I very rarely take the direct US-15 route between I-80 and Williamsport.

Phase I will eliminate the 3 miles of I-80 and be that much shorter.

Quote from: webny99 on May 30, 2019, 10:59:25 AM
The current difference in time from Washington to Toronto is exactly three minutes:
478 miles and 8h 42 min using I-270, I-70, I-99, and US 219.
500 miles and 8h 45 min using I-270, US 15, I-86, and I-390. (It doesn't default to I-180, but that would add about 2-3 minutes).
Thus, given the state of US 219 in Northern PA, it is very reasonable to assume US 15 will be the route of choice once CSVT is complete.

On Google Maps for my trip those times can flip either way depending on when you run it, but they are close.

Quote from: Beltway on May 30, 2019, 11:48:32 AM
Phase I will eliminate the 3 miles of I-80 and be that much shorter.

Well, right now, if you want to use I-180 you have to choose between hopping the river on I-80 or slogging through Northumberland.
Once CSVT is complete, "neither" will become an option, and a very much valued one at that.

Will it be that much shorter to use the CSVT and I-180 versus just US 15? US 15 was a good 30 minutes shorter when I ran through the area from Harrisburg Tuesday.

Quote from: webny99 on May 30, 2019, 02:31:16 PM

Quote from: Beltway on May 30, 2019, 11:48:32 AM
Phase I will eliminate the 3 miles of I-80 and be that much shorter.

Well, right now, if you want to use I-180 you have to choose between hopping the river on I-80 or slogging through Northumberland.
Once CSVT is complete, "neither" will become an option, and a very much valued one at that.

I-80 is not a problem, as it has 6 lanes between US-15 and I-180, it was widened and the bridges were widened and have full shoulders.

Just save a few miles.

Quote from: seicer on May 30, 2019, 02:42:15 PM
Will it be that much shorter to use the CSVT and I-180 versus just US 15? US 15 was a good 30 minutes shorter when I ran through the area from Harrisburg Tuesday.

The CSVT Phase I will connect US-15 near Winfield with the south end of the PA-147 freeway.

US-15 between I-80 and I-180 is rather slow, probably a wash when compared to using I-180 fully.

Quote from: seicer on May 30, 2019, 02:42:15 PM
Will it be that much shorter to use the CSVT and I-180 versus just US 15? US 15 was a good 30 minutes shorter when I ran through the area from Harrisburg Tuesday.

I find that difficult to fathom since I-180 is nowhere near 30 miles long and I've never seen it back up significantly. That could be a fluke occurrence.

Quote from: Alps on May 31, 2019, 12:08:05 AM

Quote from: seicer on May 30, 2019, 02:42:15 PM
Will it be that much shorter to use the CSVT and I-180 versus just US 15? US 15 was a good 30 minutes shorter when I ran through the area from Harrisburg Tuesday.

I find that difficult to fathom since I-180 is nowhere near 30 miles long and I've never seen it back up significantly. That could be a fluke occurrence.

That's what I was wondering myself but taking US 15 from say, Lewisburg north to Williamsport (and north) almost always shows it to be a faster route than US 15 > I-80 > I-180. (The minutes saved was 30 minutes on my last trip, not 30 miles.)

When I look at it now, from my downtown Williamsport hotel room, it shows that the drive to Lewisburg is 33 minutes at 23.8 miles on US 15 versus 37 minutes at 35.2 miles for I-180/I-80/US 15. That's not that huge of a difference if you travel 65 MPH in the 55 MPH zones near Williamsport and 75 MPH in the 65 MPH zones elsewhere - and 55-65 MPH on US 15 as traffic tends to do.

Quote from: seicer on May 31, 2019, 12:33:01 AM

Quote from: Alps on May 31, 2019, 12:08:05 AM

Quote from: seicer on May 30, 2019, 02:42:15 PM
Will it be that much shorter to use the CSVT and I-180 versus just US 15? US 15 was a good 30 minutes shorter when I ran through the area from Harrisburg Tuesday.

I find that difficult to fathom since I-180 is nowhere near 30 miles long and I've never seen it back up significantly. That could be a fluke occurrence.

That's what I was wondering myself but taking US 15 from say, Lewisburg north to Williamsport (and north) almost always shows it to be a faster route than US 15 > I-80 > I-180. (The minutes saved was 30 minutes on my last trip, not 30 miles.)

When I look at it now, from my downtown Williamsport hotel room, it shows that the drive to Lewisburg is 33 minutes at 23.8 miles on US 15 versus 37 minutes at 35.2 miles for I-180/I-80/US 15. That's not that huge of a difference if you travel 65 MPH in the 55 MPH zones near Williamsport and 75 MPH in the 65 MPH zones elsewhere - and 55-65 MPH on US 15 as traffic tends to do.

I drive this area monthly.

The difference between the two is that US 15 has lights and hills.

The south side of the big hill outside of South Williamsport...southbound/downhill has a 40MPH Truck Speed, and northbound/uphill does not have a truck climbing lane for the entire upgrade...
...so between the lights and the hill, that can add a few extra minutes.

I-180 is consistent; little traffic, constant speed.

So I tend to take I-180 for ease, and it at worst may add 5 min to the trip under normal conditions, and at best save 10 min. 

Once the first leg of the CSVT opens, it bypasses all of the lights on US 15 in Lewisburg, so it will be a definite time saver there.

Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 31, 2019, 08:07:05 AM
I-180 is consistent; little traffic, constant speed

Well, not exactly, it ranges from a low of 15,000 AADT at the southern end, to 30,000-35,000 in the Williamsport - Montoursville area, but it is a easy drive compared to the aforementioned segment of US-15.

I wonder what difference posting I-180 at 70 mph would make to the travel time difference compared to US 15.

Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 31, 2019, 08:07:05 AM
Once the first leg of the CSVT opens, it bypasses all of the lights on US 15 in Lewisburg, so it will be a definite time saver there.

The three options will be:

(1) US 15 all the way
(2) US 15 > PA 147 > I-80 > US 15
(3) US 15 > PA 147 > I-180

The first two are essentially identical time-wise: the Lewisburg stoplights using (1) cancel out the additional distance (two river crossings instead of zero) using (2). Keep in mind the bypass will reduce traffic, especially truck traffic, and thus slowdowns, through Lewisburg.
Option (3) will remain ever so slightly longer. It will get closer to the other two options, because you will be able to avoid Northumberland, but it will still be about a minute or two longer instead of five or so. Of course, that's an average: those two minutes can easily be saved by driving faster.

---

There is currently also an Option (4) which CSVT will effectively eliminate: US 15 > I-80 > I-180. This option is a good one if you want as much 4-lane road as possible and believe Lewisburg is the lesser of two evils vs. Northumberland (which I do). In fact, we used this option on our return from Tennessee earlier this month. I think it goes without saying why this will be a foolish choice once CSVT is complete - just use the new river bridge and you get all freeway, save going through Lewisburg, plus miss the two cloverleaves on I-80.

Quote from: webny99 on May 31, 2019, 10:31:30 AM

Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 31, 2019, 08:07:05 AM
Once the first leg of the CSVT opens, it bypasses all of the lights on US 15 in Lewisburg, so it will be a definite time saver there.

The three options will be:

(1) US 15 all the way
(2) US 15 > PA 147 > I-80 > US 15
(3) US 15 > PA 147 > I-180

The first two are essentially identical time-wise: the Lewisburg stoplights using (1) cancel out the additional distance (two river crossings instead of zero) using (2). Keep in mind the bypass will reduce traffic, especially truck traffic, and thus slowdowns, through Lewisburg.
Option (3) will remain ever so slightly longer. It will get closer to the other two options, because you will be able to avoid Northumberland, but it will still be about a minute or two longer instead of five or so. Of course, that's an average: those two minutes can easily be saved by driving faster.

---

There is currently also an Option (4) which CSVT will effectively eliminate: US 15 > I-80 > I-180. This option is a good one if you want as much 4-lane road as possible and believe Lewisburg is the lesser of two evils vs. Northumberland (which I do). In fact, we used this option on our return from Tennessee earlier this month. I think it goes without saying why this will be a foolish choice once CSVT is complete - just use the new river bridge and you get all freeway, save going through Lewisburg, plus miss the two cloverleaves on I-80.

There are a few personal preferences in play here:
If one is solely looking at distance, I-180 is the longer route in terms of distance.
If one is looking solely at time, there is so little difference in the routes that one factor on any given day would change the preferred route...and in my opinion, US 15 has more factors that could add to delays. 

The third preference is time spent moving vs time spent sitting.  I prefer a route that is constantly moving...and am willing to sacrifice a few minutes here or there. 

Also...the current detours in Northumberland on US 11 North and PA 147 adds a wrinkle...

I have no objections to your preference for continually moving instead of stop and go at traffic lights - same here.
I-180 certainly has some truck traffic, but in my experience the majority of truck traffic uses US 15 (not that trucks using backroads is a shocker in PA!  :-P). I wonder if some companies require/recommend trucks use the route with shorter mileage.


So will CSVT cause trucks, at least some, to start using I-180 by default? Yes, probably.
Will CSVT increase total traffic volumes on I-180?  Yes, probably.
And will CSVT increase traffic volumes on I-80 cutting between PA 147 and US 15?  No, probably not.

That seems like a reasonable assessment at this point.

As a native of Williamsport who has lived both southward on the US 15 corridor (Harrisburg) and points east accessible via I-80 (Allentown, Philadelphia), I've made connections southward and eastward via both routes (I-180 and US 15) more times than I can count. Let me offer a few observations.

For what it's worth, AAA's latest TripTik strip map spanning the US 15 corridor from Corning to Harrisburg specified the preferred southbound route as:
US 15 South → I-180 East → I-80 West → US 15 South
When I worked at AAA, that routing always struck me as being odd because almost no one locally (except perhaps someone driving an underpowered truck with an oversized load) would go out and around on "the beltway"  to head south. But one day while heading eastbound on I-180 near Muncy, I passed a New York-plated car in which the driver was holding onto a TripTik and looking at that very strip.

Every navigation app that I've used will default to using US 15 between I-80 and Williamsport–even if you're approaching from the east. And it is usually about one minute less in terms of travel time, despite the traffic signals and lower speeds throughout. But in general, the continuous flow of I-180 is more pleasant (as has been observed), and I'm able to maintain higher average fuel economy since I-180 lacks US 15's interruptions and its steep climb over Bald Eagle Mountain.

US 15 used to have a distinct scenic advantage in terms of the impressive panorama of the West Branch Valley that bursts into view northbound just as you round the bend toward South Williamsport. But over the years, trees have grown up to the point that the vista is largely obscured, particularly in foliage season.

The replacement of the Market Street Bridge several years ago has also hampered the northbound connection for through US 15 traffic. The left lane approaching the SPUI tends to back up during periods of heavy traffic (holidays, summer weekends, etc.), and it can take multiple signal cycles to get through. Assumably, the reconfiguration of the interchange anticipated the eventual completion of the CSVT and the fact that through US 15 corridor traffic would generally not be using the bridge.

Once the CSVT is complete, I think it will be the clear choice for most north-south traffic. I'll probably use it for most US 15 corridor trips and occasionally use the old road through Lewisburg just for variety.

One thing I've noted in the past (but hasn't been discussed much): The approved numbering plan has the US 15 designation exiting the CSVT at Winfield and following the old alignment via Lewisburg and Allenwood. From that point northward, the new roadway will be PA 147 (and I-180 north of I-80–as it is now). I wonder to what extent motorists will blindly follow 15 shields rather than take the all-freeway route.

Quote from: briantroutman on May 31, 2019, 12:52:18 PM
For what it's worth, AAA's latest TripTik strip map spanning the US 15 corridor from Corning to Harrisburg specified the preferred southbound route as:
US 15 South → I-180 East → I-80 West → US 15 South

That's the option I mentioned above as being essentially irrelevant once CSVT is complete. Once you take I-180, it only makes sense to connect to US 15 via PA 147 instead of backtracking on I-80 and then dealing with Lewisburg.

Quote from: briantroutman on May 31, 2019, 12:52:18 PM
One thing I've noted in the past (but hasn't been discussed much): The approved numbering plan has the US 15 designation exiting the CSVT at Winfield and following the old alignment via Lewisburg and Allenwood. From that point northward, the new roadway will be PA 147 (and I-180 north of I-80–as it is now). I wonder to what extent motorists will blindly follow 15 shields rather than take the all-freeway route.

Most who have traveled through the area before will - or at least should - be familiar with the PA 147 designation.
I think it will be more common for motorists to blindly follow the freeway, since following US 15 northbound will require exiting via a loop ramp.

Navigation apps are likely to recommend PA 147 to bypass Lewisburg, regardless of whether they recommend I-180 or US 15 between 80 and Williamsport.

It's unfortunate how the freeway changes numbers.  Personally, I'd have US 15 follow the new freeway and I-180 (truncating to I-80 if I-99 is ever finished), with PA 147 taking over current US 15.

Quote from: vdeane on May 31, 2019, 05:46:41 PM
It's unfortunate how the freeway changes numbers.  Personally, I'd have US 15 follow the new freeway and I-180 (truncating to I-80 if I-99 is ever finished), with PA 147 taking over current US 15.

Honestly, I think I-180 should be extended down the CSVT to Selinsgrove and resigned north-south. The planned routings of US 11 and 15 can stay the same, and PA 147 can either be truncated to Northumberland (with PA 405 extending south to Northumberland), rerouted to end at the Ridge Road interchange, or extended along its former alignment parallel to I-180 to end either at the I-180/US 220 interchange or continue west into Williamsport somewhere.

Perhaps make it I-199 instead of I-180 so that it actually ends at its parent.

When I was on I-180 and US 15 in 2008 and 2009, I saw temporary "ALT US 15" signs along I-180.  I don't see any in Street View, and can't remember which of the two years I saw them (it may even have been both years), so I don't know how long they were there.

The first time I was on US 15 between I-80 and Williamsport was January 2015.  Once we got through South Williamsport, it was fairly quick, but I can't remember how it compares to I-180.  I've also done I-81 --> I-80 --> US 11 --> US 11/15 before too.  That route goes through Northumberland, but I don't recall any major slowdowns, although it was at an off-peak time.  Between Lewisburg and Shamokin Dam, Shamokin Dam is the worse of the two.

I find it weird that Google Maps refuses to use I-180, since in my experience, it seems to favor all-freeway routes, even if they are a few miles longer.  In some cases, it even uses all-freeway routes that are both longer, and take more time.

Quote from: Roadsguy on May 31, 2019, 06:52:07 PM
Honestly, I think I-180 should be extended down the CSVT to Selinsgrove and resigned north-south.

I agree and I have said so before.

Quote from: Michael on May 31, 2019, 08:08:58 PM
I find it weird that Google Maps refuses to use I-180, since in my experience, it seems to favor all-freeway routes, even if they are a few miles longer. 

I agree, as I took US-15 one time, and the other 15-some times I have used I-180 even though it is longer in distance and a bit longer in time.  US-15 is mostly 2 lanes and has grades and has narrow shoulders in some places.  I-180 is vastly better.

Quote from: Roadsguy on May 31, 2019, 06:52:07 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 31, 2019, 05:46:41 PM
It's unfortunate how the freeway changes numbers.  Personally, I'd have US 15 follow the new freeway and I-180 (truncating to I-80 if I-99 is ever finished), with PA 147 taking over current US 15.

Honestly, I think I-180 should be extended down the CSVT to Selinsgrove and resigned north-south.

Completely agree. Never made sense to be signed east-west between directionality and exit numbering.

I live in the Williamsport area and I can tell you that 75% of locals take US15 between there and Lewisburg...me included.

Quote from: davewiecking on March 13, 2019, 05:55:43 PM
Looks to me like a few more residential properties are impacted under the new alignment (SE of "11th Ave"  on the map). Now to figure out the other 99%...

Some of it might be inflation, especially with higher costs of pavement and/or concrete.

Quote from: LeftyJR on June 01, 2019, 04:38:38 PM
I live in the Williamsport area and I can tell you that 75% of locals take US15 between there and Lewisburg...me included.

For local traffic, US 15 is the obvious choice.
For long distance traffic, many already prefer I-180 and will be glad to have the all freeway option (me included).

Nothing wrong with US 15 for local traffic, but it gets wearing quickly as part of a longer trip.

I have been doing a bit of research recently to find out what impacts CSVT will have on other area roadways. In particular, PennDOT seems to be downplaying (http://www.csvt.com/resources/pdfs/Ridge-Road-and-CSVT-Project-FAQs_3-5-15FINAL.pdf) the potential for increased traffic on Ridge Road. Linked fact sheet doesn't contain anything outright false, but (IMO) the framing is a little off. Decreased traffic through Northumberland and Shamokin Dam isn't going to encourage long distance traffic to pass through said areas -- not with a new freeway bypass available! Ridge Road to CSVT will almost certainly become the de-facto route from Danville to Selinsgrove, and I could easily see volumes on Ridge Road doubling or tripling.

---

Also interesting to evaluate is the impact to traffic patterns north of I-80. Will traffic on I-180 increase, for example?
Obviously, US 15 will remain the shortest route between Williamsport and I-80, but maybe the fact that CSVT aligns with I-180 will encourage its use instead of US 15 as the main through route.

The entire CSVT will save, in my estimation, about 8 to 10 minutes on a trip from Selinsgrove to Montandon. Keep in mind, however, that those savings are accumulated from bypassing both Shamokin Dam and Northumberland. As such, traffic using US 15 will only benefit from part of the time savings (5 to 7 minutes, approximately) since the US 15 corridor doesn't reap the Northumberland savings. Thus, utilizing PA 147 will be a more suitable alternative than currently, since the time using that route will be reduced by the full 8 to 10 minutes. Time-wise, it will be a true toss-up for US 15 traffic as to whether to use the new river bridge to bypass Lewisburg and then hop back over on I-80. I-180 will still add about two or three minutes to a Selinsgrove>Williamsport trip (it currently adds about five - the difference is being able to bypass Northumberland).

Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2019, 11:07:17 AM
I have been doing a bit of research recently to find out what impacts CSVT will have on other area roadways. In particular, PennDOT seems to be downplaying (http://www.csvt.com/resources/pdfs/Ridge-Road-and-CSVT-Project-FAQs_3-5-15FINAL.pdf) the potential for increased traffic on Ridge Road. Linked fact sheet doesn't contain anything outright false, but (IMO) the framing is a little off. Decreased traffic through Northumberland and Shamokin Dam isn't going to encourage long distance traffic to pass through said areas -- not with a new freeway bypass available! Ridge Road to CSVT will almost certainly become the de-facto route from Danville to Selinsgrove, and I could easily see volumes on Ridge Road doubling or tripling.

What? The Ridge Road I'm seeing isn't a through road.

Quote from: Alps on June 04, 2019, 12:29:37 AM

Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2019, 11:07:17 AM
I have been doing a bit of research recently to find out what impacts CSVT will have on other area roadways. In particular, PennDOT seems to be downplaying (http://www.csvt.com/resources/pdfs/Ridge-Road-and-CSVT-Project-FAQs_3-5-15FINAL.pdf) the potential for increased traffic on Ridge Road. Linked fact sheet doesn't contain anything outright false, but (IMO) the framing is a little off. Decreased traffic through Northumberland and Shamokin Dam isn't going to encourage long distance traffic to pass through said areas -- not with a new freeway bypass available! Ridge Road to CSVT will almost certainly become the de-facto route from Danville to Selinsgrove, and I could easily see volumes on Ridge Road doubling or tripling.

What? The Ridge Road I'm seeing isn't a through road.

This Ridge Road? (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.9291876,-76.7233788/40.9178397,-76.8427037/@40.9238053,-76.8177034,13z)

The former western end has been renamed Greenhouse Road and turned into a dead end, while the new western end also connects to PA 147 (which will become PA 405) and will have an interchange with CSVT. I recall reading that PennDOT is also going to take over maintenance.

^ Most of it (from Cannery Rd east) is already under PennDOT maintenance (SR 1024).  Presuming you're referring to PennDOT potentially taking over the rest.

Yes, one of the documents on csvt.com stated that PennDOT would be maintaining it in its entirety. I wasn't aware they already maintained most of it.

Quote from: webny99 on June 04, 2019, 08:11:53 AM

Quote from: Alps on June 04, 2019, 12:29:37 AM

Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2019, 11:07:17 AM
I have been doing a bit of research recently to find out what impacts CSVT will have on other area roadways. In particular, PennDOT seems to be downplaying (http://www.csvt.com/resources/pdfs/Ridge-Road-and-CSVT-Project-FAQs_3-5-15FINAL.pdf) the potential for increased traffic on Ridge Road. Linked fact sheet doesn't contain anything outright false, but (IMO) the framing is a little off. Decreased traffic through Northumberland and Shamokin Dam isn't going to encourage long distance traffic to pass through said areas -- not with a new freeway bypass available! Ridge Road to CSVT will almost certainly become the de-facto route from Danville to Selinsgrove, and I could easily see volumes on Ridge Road doubling or tripling.

What? The Ridge Road I'm seeing isn't a through road.

This Ridge Road? (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.9291876,-76.7233788/40.9178397,-76.8427037/@40.9238053,-76.8177034,13z)

The former western end has been renamed Greenhouse Road and turned into a dead end, while the new western end also connects to PA 147 (which will become PA 405) and will have an interchange with CSVT. I recall reading that PennDOT is also going to take over maintenance.

Oh, they'll use it to get to the CSVT interchange. Gotcha.

Quote from: Alps on June 04, 2019, 11:14:53 PM

Quote from: webny99 on June 04, 2019, 08:11:53 AM

Quote from: Alps on June 04, 2019, 12:29:37 AM

Quote from: webny99 on June 03, 2019, 11:07:17 AM
PennDOT seems to be downplaying (http://www.csvt.com/resources/pdfs/Ridge-Road-and-CSVT-Project-FAQs_3-5-15FINAL.pdf) the potential for increased traffic on Ridge Road.
...

What? The Ridge Road I'm seeing isn't a through road.

This Ridge Road? (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.9291876,-76.7233788/40.9178397,-76.8427037/@40.9238053,-76.8177034,13z)
...

Oh, they'll use it to get to the CSVT interchange. Gotcha.

Presumably, yes, although to what extent is an open question.
My guess would be all - or almost all - US 11 southbound traffic with destinations beyond Northumberland will use Ridge Road to access the new river bridge. On the other hand, one of the CSVT reports mentioned 50%.

In other news, the new river bridge piers have made it to the east (PA 147) side of the river!
From csvt.com:
(https://imgur.com/al3gIUE.jpg)

Quote from: webny99 on June 05, 2019, 01:44:07 PM
My guess would be all - or almost all - US 11 southbound traffic with destinations beyond Northumberland will use Ridge Road to access the new river bridge. On the other hand, one of the CSVT reports mentioned 50%.

I'm inclined to think that 50% is a fairly reasonable estimate–for a few reasons.

The first is that since US 11 is essentially a deprecated route between Berwick and Harrisburg (having been bypassed by I-81), an even greater than usual proportion of US 11 traffic at Shamokin Dam is local to the Central Susquehanna Valley. And among these local motorists, a significant percentage are headed to or coming from destinations in the Shamokin Dam/Northumberland/Sunbury area, and those people wouldn't be interested in bypassing the entire area anyway.

But even among the relatively few motorists trying to get, say, from Danville to Harrisburg, keep in mind we're talking about an area where the population is generally older, more native, and less tech savvy than average. That translates to fewer people relying on GPS for local navigation and instead trusting their experience. To a local–not looking at a map–the Ridge Road bypass probably seems convoluted and circuitous. I predict many of these same locals will exit the CSVT at Winfield and take US 15 through Lewisburg on trips to Williamsport and points north because "...why would I want to go way out and around Muncy like that?" , even if the route actually saves time.

That said, traffic on Ridge Road will almost surely increase somewhat, and it will probably cause consternation locally when GPS units start to direct significant numbers of heavy trucks down the narrow rural road.

Quote from: webny99 on June 05, 2019, 02:09:13 PM
In other news, the new river bridge piers have made it to the east (PA 147) side of the river!
From csvt.com:

The east abutment and the three piers near PA-147 were complete when I saw the project at the end of March.

Quote from: briantroutman on June 05, 2019, 03:33:49 PM

Quote from: webny99 on June 05, 2019, 01:44:07 PM
My guess would be all - or almost all - US 11 southbound traffic with destinations beyond Northumberland will use Ridge Road to access the new river bridge. On the other hand, one of the CSVT reports mentioned 50%.

I'm inclined to think that 50% is a fairly reasonable estimate–for a few reasons.

The first is that since US 11 is essentially a deprecated route between Berwick and Harrisburg (having been bypassed by I-81), an even greater than usual proportion of US 11 traffic at Shamokin Dam is local to the Central Susquehanna Valley. And among these local motorists, a significant percentage are headed to or coming from destinations in the Shamokin Dam/Northumberland/Sunbury area, and those people wouldn't be interested in bypassing the entire area anyway.

You make good points. I tend to forget that US 11 carries but a fraction of the long-haul traffic of US 15. I am not sure what truck volumes are like, but I assume the vast majority of trucks using the Blue Hill Bridge are destined for PA 147.

Also, I wouldn't consider traffic with a Shamokin Dam, Sunbury or Northumberland destination to be included. I think PennDOT's 50% figure was in reference to Danville > Selinsgrove traffic. At that point we are talking about little enough volume that getting down to the exact percentage is perhaps a bit nitpicky.  ;-)

However, the larger point remains; the new river bridge and Ridge Rd will provide a very handy bypass of Northumberland, and it will be unsurprising if truck volumes on US 11 drop to a quarter or less of what they are currently.

One minor curiosity I have about the proposed route designations for the project has to do with US 522. Currently, it ends at the incomplete interchange where US 11/15 transitions to the surface boulevard at Shamokin Dam. Once the southern portion of the Bypass is open, will US 522 continue to end at that interchange? Could/should it end somewhere else?

Another minor curiosity will be how the signal phasing is altered on the surface boulevard in Shamokin Dam or if it the phasing is left as-is.

Quote from: TheOneKEA on June 19, 2019, 06:39:01 PM
One minor curiosity I have about the proposed route designations for the project has to do with US 522. Currently, it ends at the incomplete interchange where US 11/15 transitions to the surface boulevard at Shamokin Dam. Once the southern portion of the Bypass is open, will US 522 continue to end at that interchange? Could/should it end somewhere else?

I don't believe US 522 will be touched at all beyond adding the missing movements to the interchange where the bypass currently ends.

Quote from: Roadsguy on June 19, 2019, 10:50:58 PM

Quote from: TheOneKEA on June 19, 2019, 06:39:01 PM
One minor curiosity I have about the proposed route designations for the project has to do with US 522. Currently, it ends at the incomplete interchange where US 11/15 transitions to the surface boulevard at Shamokin Dam. Once the southern portion of the Bypass is open, will US 522 continue to end at that interchange? Could/should it end somewhere else?

I don't believe US 522 will be touched at all beyond adding the missing movements to the interchange where the bypass currently ends.

The Route Designation Map (http://www.csvt.com/maps/pdfs/view-route-designation-map.pdf)  proposes no changes to US 522.

Quote from: TheOneKEA on June 19, 2019, 06:39:01 PM
Once the southern portion of the Bypass is open, will US 522 continue to end at that interchange? Could/should it end somewhere else?

As to your second question, It think that PennDOT's plan to leave US 522 as it is makes the most sense.

From an interregional standpoint: US 522 will end at its intersection with US 15 (which will follow the CSVT) and US 11 (which will be on the old 11-15 alignment through Shamokin Dam). This terminus gives 522 corridor traffic easy connections to all points north and northeast, so an extension wouldn't be necessary. My guess is that the majority of long-distance US 522 traffic (of which there is relatively little), will take the ramp onto the CSVT, and a smaller number will stay on US 11.

From a local standpoint: Susquehanna Trail through Shamokin Dam and Hummels Wharf (the "Golden Strip"  among natives) has been "11-15"  for nearly 80 years, and I expect it will retain that name in common usage. So PennDOT's planned designation of the strip as US 11 / Business 15 is fitting.

But on the topic of extensions, it's noteworthy that PA 405 will become approximately seven miles longer, absorbing all of PA 147's old route through Northumberland and into Sunbury.

Quote from: briantroutman on June 20, 2019, 03:55:52 PM
But on the topic of extensions, it's noteworthy that PA 405 will become approximately seven miles longer, absorbing all of PA 147's old route through Northumberland and into Sunbury.

That is interesting. I would have expected at least some of the old route to go secondary.

Quote from: Alps on June 20, 2019, 11:20:56 PM

Quote from: briantroutman on June 20, 2019, 03:55:52 PM
But on the topic of extensions, it's noteworthy that PA 405 will become approximately seven miles longer, absorbing all of PA 147's old route through Northumberland and into Sunbury.

That is interesting. I would have expected at least some of the old route to go secondary.

Seconded.

Quote from: Alps on June 20, 2019, 11:20:56 PM
That is interesting. I would have expected at least some of the old route to go secondary.

After the CSVT project is complete, the existing "elbow"  where PA 405 currently terminates at PA 147 will be made continuous–essentially returning Susquehanna Trail to its pre-1971 alignment (before the PA 147 freeway was built). So if PA 405 needs to terminate at another numbered route, it would either need to be truncated to PA 45 or extended to at least US 11 (or, possibly, re-routed via Ridge Road to terminate at the new PA 147 interchange) .

But in a sense, I can see the value of extending PA 405 beyond US 11 to PA 147 in Sunbury. As it stands, PA 405 acts as sort of a local/regional connector for the towns along the eastern shore of the Susquehanna. Currently, PA 147 fills that role south of Chillisquaque, but once it's rerouted on the CSVT, PA 405 will serve that purpose from Chillisquaque to Sunbury, where PA 147 again becomes the east shore route all the way down to US 22-322.

- - -

Separately, I wonder whether the CSVT's new Ridge Road interchange will be signed "To PA 405 - Northumberland" .

Quote from: briantroutman on June 21, 2019, 01:12:01 PM
Separately, I wonder whether the CSVT's new Ridge Road interchange will be signed "To PA 405 - Northumberland" .

I have wondered that, too. Northumberland works well as a southbound destination but doesn't make as much sense northbound. (Although it is actually possible that CSVT to Ridge Rd may be the fastest route to Northumberland from points south, despite the additional mileage and S-shaped routing!).

Apparently, there will be no signage that encourages Ridge Rd as a bypass of US 11, so I guess Danville won't be used as a destination.

According to the signing plans for the paving contract (http://file:///E:/Downloads/76400_3_Signing%20and%20Pavement%20Marking%20Plan_02.pdf) (see page 25), the exit will in fact be signed "To PA 405 / Northumberland." Danville won't be signed at all, including from the ends of the ramps.

I would have made old 147 a secondary from 61 up to Ridge Road. Just my own thought. Also, they're not truncating 61 to 147 either. Why... (typed in the land of OH 16 ending on US 40)

Here are some aerial photos (http://www.csvt.com/#) of the progress!

My photos from 9-17-2019

New Susquehanna River bridge under construction. All piers have been completed.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FCSVT-20190917-1.jpg&hash=5ac532889d3951deee1a0f0df4a42c628838cb25)

New Susquehanna River bridge under construction. All piers have been completed.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FCSVT-20190917-2.jpg&hash=3afecf250f0ef1bf34398713161e7f45faf2ab43)

Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP) under construction.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FCSVT-20190917-3.jpg&hash=ce83f3c8b92746aa95a049b908d862f98532e0a0)

Direct links --
http://www.capital-beltway.com/CSVT-20190917-1.jpg
http://www.capital-beltway.com/CSVT-20190917-2.jpg
http://www.capital-beltway.com/CSVT-20190917-3.jpg

^^^^^^^^^^
Question:  Is there any reason PennDOT is specifying jointed concrete construction instead of continuously laid pavement, the more accepted practice since the '60s?  In an area that experiences temperature fluctuation, it would seem to be counterintuitive.  Could there possibly be an issue with the underpinning, ballast, or simple instability of the underlying ground that requires a series of smaller semi-independent loadings as opposed to the vastly longer singular load that continuous pavement entails?  If anyone can shed light on this, please do so.   

Which portion of the mainline is getting the pavement  in that pic?

Quote from: sparker on September 24, 2019, 04:47:27 PM
Question:  Is there any reason PennDOT is specifying jointed concrete construction instead of continuously laid pavement, the more accepted practice since the '60s?  In an area that experiences temperature fluctuation, it would seem to be counterintuitive.  Could there possibly be an issue with the underpinning, ballast, or simple instability of the underlying ground that requires a series of smaller semi-independent loadings as opposed to the vastly longer singular load that continuous pavement entails?  If anyone can shed light on this, please do so.   

I've seen some articles that say that Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP) is a recent design that has improved performance over the previous types including Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP).

JPCP is not the old jointed pavement of the 1960s and before, as that type had reinforcing steel rods (rebar) in it.  JPCP uses contraction joints to control cracking and does not use any reinforcing steel.  Two or three inches thicker slab as well.

I see that PennDOT used what appears to be JPCP on US-11/US-15 north of US-322, which was built about 15 years ago.  MSHA used JPCP on the US-50 Salisbury Bypass which was completed in 2003.

We will have to see in the future how these pavements perform, but it appears that there may be a trend away from use of rebar.  Steel is expensive.

Thanks for the update Scott.

What was the pavement type used on I-99 north of State College? A significant portion of it between Exit 81 and I-80 is failing, but it is also 22 years old at this point, too. The segment south of Exit 81 towards US 322 is only a few years newer but is in excellent shape.

Quote from: seicer on September 24, 2019, 08:00:58 PM
Thanks for the update Scott.
What was the pavement type used on I-99 north of State College? A significant portion of it between Exit 81 and I-80 is failing, but it is also 22 years old at this point, too. The segment south of Exit 81 towards US 322 is only a few years newer but is in excellent shape.

Not sure exactly but it does appear jointed --
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.911552,-77.7410291,3a,75y,352.02h,86.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbQtCpi6VutbqzdvWTMDmnA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

^^^^^^^^^^^
Follow-up question:  If JCPC is indeed jointed pavement complete with contraction joints (lack of rebar notwithstanding), is the quality of the ride similar to other jointed installations or more in line with what has been expected/common with continuously cast concrete pavement (which for the most part ameliorated the "bumps" associated with the presence of joints.  If any posters have had field experience with driving on JCPC, it would be useful to relate such. 

Quote from: sparker on September 25, 2019, 12:50:16 PM
Follow-up question:  If JCPC is indeed jointed pavement complete with contraction joints (lack of rebar notwithstanding), is the quality of the ride similar to other jointed installations or more in line with what has been expected/common with continuously cast concrete pavement (which for the most part ameliorated the "bumps" associated with the presence of joints.  If any posters have had field experience with driving on JCPC, it would be useful to relate such. 

For clarity, I know from MDOT news releases that the US-50 Salisbury Bypass was paved with JCPC.

I am pretty sure about the segment of US-11/US-15 in central PA that was built about 15 years ago, but don't know officially.

The joints look smaller than the old jointed pavements of before about 1970, to where you really need to be stopped to notice them.  I have driven both.  They are not completely noiseless, but the sound is barely perceptible.  So far the ride quality is fine.

Quote from: Alps on June 21, 2019, 06:29:42 PM
I would have made old 147 a secondary from 61 up to Ridge Road. Just my own thought.

I figure they must have wanted (a) a consistent state route on the east side of the river, and (b) a N/S state route through Northumberland. Extending 405 achieves both. It's certainly shorter (mileage-wise) than double-crossing the river, and will probably still have enough traffic to warrant state route status. Time will tell I guess.

How come 61/147 is a super-two for brief moments? Wouldn't it be better to keep it a consistent 4-lane freeway spur?

Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 26, 2020, 01:05:36 AM
How come 61/147 is a super-two for brief moments? Wouldn't it be better to keep it a consistent 4-lane freeway spur?

Looking at the maps, are you specifically talking about where it becomes one-lane NB briefly?  I presume the idea is to only keep one through lane so that no modifications would need to be considered to the existing bridge over the Susquehanna River.

Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 26, 2020, 08:52:24 AM

Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 26, 2020, 01:05:36 AM
How come 61/147 is a super-two for brief moments? Wouldn't it be better to keep it a consistent 4-lane freeway spur?

Looking at the maps, are you specifically talking about where it becomes one-lane NB briefly?  I presume the idea is to only keep one through lane so that no modifications would need to be considered to the existing bridge over the Susquehanna River.

Yes, I am.

Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 26, 2020, 01:17:48 PM

Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 26, 2020, 08:52:24 AM

Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 26, 2020, 01:05:36 AM
How come 61/147 is a super-two for brief moments? Wouldn't it be better to keep it a consistent 4-lane freeway spur?

Looking at the maps, are you specifically talking about where it becomes one-lane NB briefly?  I presume the idea is to only keep one through lane so that no modifications would need to be considered to the existing bridge over the Susquehanna River.

Yes, I am.

Probably just a combination of not wanting to need to widen the bridges (as 74/171FAN suggested) and traffic volumes simply not warranting it yet. It could also just as much be about not wanting to widen the current trumpet bridge over 11/15 any more than they already will. I don't know what the projected volumes will be for each lane, but I imagine there's also going to be a fair amount of traffic from the bridge heading just to northbound US 11 to get to Northumberland (or even Danville) without having to go through all of Sunbury on soon-to-be-old PA 147.

What surprises me more is that southbound 61/147 will be two lanes through, despite both ramps from the current 11/15 merging into it without a real merge lane. This has been the case on all three preliminary designs I have saved (2008, 2017, and 2018).

Here's a nice update on the progress of the Susquehanna River bridge construction that is part of the project:

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/12/after-5-years-the-nearly-mile-long-central-susquehanna-valley-thruway-bridge-is-basically-completed.html  (https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/12/after-5-years-the-nearly-mile-long-central-susquehanna-valley-thruway-bridge-is-basically-completed.html)

I wonder what's going to take them so long... based on how things looked at the CSVT meet two and a half years ago, the progress would look more like something to be finished around now, not two years from now.  How long does it take to pave the road and tie in to the existing freeway?

A long time. Have you met PennDOT?  :)

The CSVT is mentioned at the end of the District 3 construction update.  Basically, everything but the roadway paving contract is done for the northern section.

https://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=3290

Quote(15-88A) Central Susquehanna Valley Transportation Project (CSVT), first contract, River Bridge connecting Route 147 in Point Township, Northumberland County, with Route 15 in Union Township, Union County. Completion will be in 2020, contract cost is $156 million.

(15-88B) CSVT, second contract, earthwork and structures for the new alignment of Route 147 from the river bridge to the existing four-lane section of Route 147 in Point and West Chillisquaque Townships, Northumberland County. Completed in 2019; $61 million.

(15-88J) CSVT, third contract, earthwork and structures for the Route 15 interchange just south of Winfield in Monroe Township, Snyder County, and Union Township, Union County. Completed in 2019; $37 million.

(15-88C) CSVT, fourth contract, paving of the entire Northern Section of CSVT, south of Winfield in Monroe Township, Snyder County to south of Montandon in West Chillisquaque Township, Northumberland County. Completion in 2022, contract cost is $52 million. Upon completion, the Northern Section will be opened to traffic while the Southern Section is still in development.

Final design is ongoing for CSVT's Southern Section, which will connect Route 15 south of Winfield to Routes 11/15 north of Selinsgrove within Monroe Township and Shamokin Dam Borough, Snyder County. In January 2019, the project team received environmental clearance for modifying roughly 2 miles of the project alignment to avoid the fly ash waste basins near Shamokin Dam. With environmental clearance issued, the following major activities must be completed prior to the start of construction: right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations, permitting, and preparation of final plans and bid documents.

It is currently anticipated that construction of the Southern Section will begin in 2022 and will be completed by 2027.

Total preconstruction and construction cost based on year-of-expenditure for CSVT overall is $865 million.

Another CSVT Update as it resumes this year. (https://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=3414)

Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 15, 2021, 03:14:36 PM
Another CSVT Update as it resumes this year. (https://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=3414)

Nice! Glad to see the bridge is complete and the rest of the project is still progressing.

Overhead structures are starting to be installed for the CSVT. (https://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=3465)

EDIT (4-30-2021): 4-30-2021 Update (https://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=3494)

EDIT (5-7-2021):  5-7-2021 Update (http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=3501)

EDIT (6-11-2021):   6-11-2021 Update (https://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=3559)

Street View on PA 147 and Ridge Road has been updated, showing some of the project's progress!

View of the new river bridge (future PA 147) from existing PA 147 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9099767,-76.8369344,3a,75y,157.45h,82.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdQ0OM1eo6ZX9eH-w88YyCQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)
Looking southwest across the river (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9093364,-76.8361769,3a,29.2y,198.7h,87.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swzHAq-O5bEOuiaKyLGo3rA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)

New terminus of Ridge Road as seen from existing PA 147 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9177378,-76.8428422,3a,45.2y,61.22h,86.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spQFkVYAOHjGpNmTJoljkNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)
Eastbound approach to the new Ridge Road interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9179775,-76.8378442,3a,75y,123.05h,85.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl1UsI2e9R7jGdJycaFYskg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)
Westbound approach to the new Ridge Road interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9179754,-76.8327229,3a,45.6y,275.26h,89.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syxVH9WAUaPIw1ZTB3IHU2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)


And finally, a few interesting vantage points from the northern end of the project:

Temporary PA 147, looking south at where the new freeway will diverge (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.941037,-76.8517944,3a,37.5y,153.29h,84.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sErlSamtN8ixCurnMtGisww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)
New bridge over Chillisquaque Creek (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9412848,-76.8518734,3a,75y,23.18h,88.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sz-oR46vyRz5vYO63kE2ehg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)
Twinned section of PA 147 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9507543,-76.8523674,3a,48.9y,47.66h,85.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sil5lYuzUhQmJGA7PcEIJ_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)

I saw this morning while browsing through ECMS at work that the earthwork contract for the southern section of the CSVT is currently scheduled to be let in December of this year. 

The northern section of the CSVT will open a bit earlier than expected. Work on the southern section is slated to begin this spring.

https://www.wkok.com/csvt-section-to-open-to-traffic-earlier-than-scheduled/

Quote from: Crown Victoria on January 06, 2022, 10:40:19 AM
The northern section of the CSVT will open a bit earlier than expected. Work on the southern section is slated to begin this spring.

https://www.wkok.com/csvt-section-to-open-to-traffic-earlier-than-scheduled/

Nice! Can't wait!

Quote from: webny99 on January 06, 2022, 12:42:35 PM

Quote from: Crown Victoria on January 06, 2022, 10:40:19 AM
The northern section of the CSVT will open a bit earlier than expected. Work on the southern section is slated to begin this spring.

https://www.wkok.com/csvt-section-to-open-to-traffic-earlier-than-scheduled/

Nice! Can't wait!

I assume that's the red portion of the project as portrayed on this map.

http://www.csvt.com/maps/pdfs/view-route-designation-map.pdf

Quote from: ixnay on January 06, 2022, 03:09:20 PM

Quote from: webny99 on January 06, 2022, 12:42:35 PM

Quote from: Crown Victoria on January 06, 2022, 10:40:19 AM
The northern section of the CSVT will open a bit earlier than expected. Work on the southern section is slated to begin this spring.

https://www.wkok.com/csvt-section-to-open-to-traffic-earlier-than-scheduled/

Nice! Can't wait!

I assume that's the red portion of the project as portrayed on this map.

http://www.csvt.com/maps/pdfs/view-route-designation-map.pdf

Yep, it is.

On a more technical project note, I just realized that County Line Road, which is being realigned as part of the project, will have to remain unconnected until the southern section is complete. The current configuration with a disjointed County Line Road will have to stay as-is to accommodate southbound traffic coming off the new bridge (see the ramp in the very bottom right corner of
this image (https://stvpages.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CSVT-Images3-1024x356.jpg.webp)). I would assume the completed interchange, as shown here (http://www.csvt.com/maps/pdfs/Project%20Map%20400_CSVT%20North_2016-03-01.pdf), will be the very last thing to be finished once the southern section opens and thru traffic no longer has to use the connector ramp.

Another article about the CSVT, but with an interesting tidbit at the end:

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2022/01/traffic-will-be-using-new-nearly-mile-long-bridge-over-the-susquehanna-river-by-late-summer-penndot.html

^ Possibly.  Or they could be referring to what happens at the I-80 interchange.  Hard to tell which way from the article wording.

Hmm. Here's the sentence:

QuoteThe thruway is expected to reduce the amount of through traffic on Route 15 in the Lewisburg area because Route 147 – which will become Interstate 180 – will be a four-lane limited access highway north to Williamsport.

Given that you could replace "will become" with "becomes" and it would be correct, I would lean towards this being a typo/grammatical error, rather than a harbinger of an I-180 extension.

Quote from: webny99 on January 15, 2022, 12:18:02 AM
Hmm. Here's the sentence:

QuoteThe thruway is expected to reduce the amount of through traffic on Route 15 in the Lewisburg area because Route 147 – which will become Interstate 180 – will be a four-lane limited access highway north to Williamsport.

Given that you could replace "will become" with "becomes" and it would be correct, I would lean towards this being a typo/grammatical error, rather than a harbinger of an I-180 extension.

There is no indication of an I-180 extension happening.  The signage plans on the CSVT Website (http://www.csvt.com/maps/pdfs/view-route-designation-map.pdf) have indicated that for years.  This truly sounds like a typo at worst.

Isn't that basically the I-99 extension into New York?

Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 15, 2022, 08:54:28 AM
Isn't that basically the I-99 extension into New York?

No, I-99 is supposed to follow I-80 and US 220 to US 15 and follow US 15 to New York.

Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 15, 2022, 08:48:42 AM

Quote from: webny99 on January 15, 2022, 12:18:02 AM
Hmm. Here's the sentence:

QuoteThe thruway is expected to reduce the amount of through traffic on Route 15 in the Lewisburg area because Route 147 – which will become Interstate 180 – will be a four-lane limited access highway north to Williamsport.

Given that you could replace "will become" with "becomes" and it would be correct, I would lean towards this being a typo/grammatical error, rather than a harbinger of an I-180 extension.

There is no indication of an I-180 extension happening.  The signage plans on the CSVT Website (http://www.csvt.com/maps/pdfs/view-route-designation-map.pdf) have indicated that for years.  This truly sounds like a typo at worst.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time a last-minute designation change like this has happened, though I'm certainly not aware of PennDOT ever doing anything like that, and making the entire road from Selinsgrove to Williamsport I-180 would make far too much sense for PennDOT to consider.

When the freeway is complete; if one were to drive the full freeway from south to north without taking any exits, it will have the following designations:

US 11 / US 15
US 15 (US 11 exits off)
US 15 / PA 147 (PA 147 joins)
PA 147 (US 15 exits off)
I-180 (PA 147 ends at I-80)
I-180 / US 220 (US 220 joins)
I-180 / US 15 / US 220  (US 15 joins, again)
US 220 (US 15 exits off and I-180 ends at same place)

Quote from: Roadsguy on January 15, 2022, 03:51:40 PM

Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 15, 2022, 08:48:42 AM

Quote from: webny99 on January 15, 2022, 12:18:02 AM
Hmm. Here's the sentence:

QuoteThe thruway is expected to reduce the amount of through traffic on Route 15 in the Lewisburg area because Route 147 – which will become Interstate 180 – will be a four-lane limited access highway north to Williamsport.

Given that you could replace "will become" with "becomes" and it would be correct, I would lean towards this being a typo/grammatical error, rather than a harbinger of an I-180 extension.

There is no indication of an I-180 extension happening.  The signage plans on the CSVT Website (http://www.csvt.com/maps/pdfs/view-route-designation-map.pdf) have indicated that for years.  This truly sounds like a typo at worst.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time a last-minute designation change like this has happened, though I'm certainly not aware of PennDOT ever doing anything like that, and making the entire road from Selinsgrove to Williamsport I-180 would make far too much sense for PennDOT to consider.

Indeed, an extension of I-180 would make sense for the CSVT. However, I have to agree that this was probably just a typo. I haven't read anything else official suggesting this will become I-180, and if 74/171FAN hasn't either, then there isn't any there to find. Nonetheless, it is food for thought...

Quote from: Roadsguy on January 15, 2022, 03:51:40 PMIt certainly wouldn't be the first time a last-minute designation change like this has happened, though I'm certainly not aware of PennDOT ever doing anything like that, and making the entire road from Selinsgrove to Williamsport I-180 would make far too much sense for PennDOT to consider.

I-376/I-279/U.S. 22/U.S. 30/PA 60 all became I-376 in 2009, so PennDOT has done it before.

Quote from: Gnutella on February 01, 2022, 04:49:21 AM

Quote from: Roadsguy on January 15, 2022, 03:51:40 PMIt certainly wouldn't be the first time a last-minute designation change like this has happened, though I'm certainly not aware of PennDOT ever doing anything like that, and making the entire road from Selinsgrove to Williamsport I-180 would make far too much sense for PennDOT to consider.

I-376/I-279/U.S. 22/U.S. 30/PA 60 all became I-376 in 2009, so PennDOT has done it before.

As far as extending a route designation to cover/replace multiple others, yes, as in the I-376 example.

The difference here is that the I-376 extension was included in the 2005 surface transportation bill, and took several years to actually implement. There's no such planning for an I-180 extension; indeed, the article posted here is the only (possible) mention of such. Granted, it's not a bad idea, extending I-180 to Selinsgrove...

I could see a case for renumbering north of the Selinsgrove bypass (where US 11 splits off at what's now a stub would seem to be the most logical terminus).  US 15 could stay where it is, PA 147 could stay east (truncated to US 11, with the PA 405 extension north of US 11), and the connection to the bridge to Sunbury could be PA 61 alone.  That would simplify the numbering a lot.  I could see a case for renumbering this and I-180 as I-199, if I-99 ever happens in the Williamsport area.

So a few days ago I went and emailed PennDOT to ask about the possibility of designating the CSVT, PA 147 freeway, and I-180 as I-199.

Quote from: vdeane
I've been following the CSVT project and I was wondering if you had considered making the new freeway (along with the existing PA 147 freeway) an interstate when the whole project is completed. Looking at the designation map, it would seem that the overall corridor will change numbers several times - heading north, it would start as US 11/15, then be US 15 alone, then US 15/PA 147, then PA 147 along, then I-180, before traffic resumes on US 15 (at this point, future I-99). It would seem to me that designating the freeway from US 11/15 and US 522 to the north end of I-180 at future I-99 (US 15 and US 220) would greatly simplify the designations for the traveling public. There would be no need for US 15 Business as US 15 could remain where it is, and the bridge to Sunbury could be PA 61 alone rather than having an overlap with PA 147 (to minimize the disruption from interim designations, I'd suggest truncating PA 147 to PA 61 rather than placing it back on its current route/future PA 405). As for what interstate number to use, I would suggest I-199, at least if the I-99 upgrade is still in progress; it seems odd that the portion from Williamsport to the NY border hasn't been designated yet, even though it's already signed on the NY side (and unfortunately it seems that future work in PA has stalled, aside from the I-80 interchange near State College). Of course, simply extending I-180 is also an option. In any case, I'm excited to finally see the CSVT built.

I got a response back a few hours ago.  In short, I don't think this is going to be an interstate any time soon.  I wonder if maybe there would have been more of a chance at getting a designation if it had been asked earlier in the project, and the activities for designation could have been rolled into the design work instead of done separatly.

Quote from: PennDOT
Thank you for your recent inquiry (included below) regarding the CSVT Project, and we share your excitement that the long-awaited project is approaching its completion.



While the suggestions included in your inquiry could somewhat simplify route designations for the traveling public, pursuing the changes would involve substantial study, coordination, and costs.  Based on the US Code and the Code of Federal Regulations, additions to the Interstate System require approval by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).  Prior to requesting such approval, we would first need to complete a detailed engineering study to determine whether the proposed Interstate corridor, including the roughly 7-mile-long, 4-lane, limited-access portion of existing PA 147, was designed/constructed to current Interstate standards.  Any components of the highway not meeting those current standards would need to be upgraded unless a design exception could be justified.  In addition, the proposed route designations would need to be coordinated with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and with interested local stakeholders throughout the region.  The changes would also require additional environmental documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act.



Considering the necessary study/coordination, potential highway upgrades required to meet current standards, and the actual signing changes, the cost would likely be significant to implement route designation changes similar to those you suggested.  A separate project to pursue such changes could be considered for future inclusion on PennDOT's Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, on which the public has an opportunity to provide input when it is updated every two years.  However, the need for and cost of the route designation changes would have to be weighed against other potential transportation improvements in the region.



As a brief update on existing US 15 between Williamsport and the New York border, we have completed the engineering study necessary to redesignate the corridor as I-99.  To address the components of the highway identified as not meeting current Interstate standards, we are now developing plans for improvements and, where appropriate, preparing design exception requests.  We currently anticipate obtaining FHWA approval of this redesignation and starting to install I-99 signing by 2026, shortly after the completion of the I-80/I-99 interchange near State College.



Thank you again for your interest in the CSVT Project.  If you have any additional questions, please let me know.

^ Sounds a bit like the dilemma for the Columbus-Toledo corridor we have here in Ohio (heavily discussed in its respective thread(s)), where there's at least 3 route number designations (depending on how you approach the Columbus area in the south), with no plans to reduce it to less numbers.

PennDOT - District 3 News: Wolf Administration Announces Bids Opened for First Contract for Southern Section of CSVT (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/RegionalOffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4024)

Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 01, 2022, 01:06:34 PM
PennDOT - District 3 News: Wolf Administration Announces Bids Opened for First Contract for Southern Section of CSVT (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/RegionalOffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4024)

Nice! Thanks for sharing. Part of me is still hoping this will go quicker than expected and open sooner... 2027 is still a long ways away.

But at least the new bridge will be open this year, which will significantly improve things in Northumberland at least.

Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 01, 2022, 01:06:34 PMPennDOT - District 3 News: Wolf Administration Announces Bids Opened for First Contract for Southern Section of CSVT (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/RegionalOffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4024)

I have downloaded the plans and proposal attachments for this project, which is ECMS 76401.  At 4.15 GB, the documentation package is quite large for a contract that is mainly grading and culverts with one road bridge and a modest amount of secondary road paving.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the improved Selinsgrove interchange at the southern end of the CSVT project (where US 15 currently exits onto Susquehanna Trail) is an underrated part of the CSVT project. The NB US 15 to SB US 522 and NB US 522 to SB US 15 movements that are currently missing are HUGE for traffic connecting to/from PA 204, Kratzerville, and points north/northwest. Right now they have to either exit at Selinsgrove and deal with city streets, or exit to Susq. Trail NB and use Roosevelt Ave/Mill Rd. to get to PA 204. The improved US 522 interchange and new Mill Rd/Airport Rd roundabout will make that movement a lot better and instantly become the fastest route to/from US 15, so I wouldn't be surprised if traffic on Airport Rd increases significantly, and that shift should have a positive impact on traffic in Selinsgrove.


Also, a random thought... could this (https://goo.gl/maps/eESBVGEnumpAWp7EA) be the future entrance to Colonial Dr when it's realigned as part of CSVT? I would imagine the road realignments would have to be done first and both Colonial Dr and Park Rd will see significant changes in this area.

Quote from: webny99 on April 09, 2022, 07:36:10 PM
The more I think about it, the more I think that the improved Selinsgrove interchange at the southern end of the CSVT project (where US 15 currently exits onto Susquehanna Trail) is an underrated part of the CSVT project. The NB US 15 to SB US 522 and NB US 522 to SB US 15 movements that are currently missing are HUGE for traffic connecting to/from PA 204, Kratzerville, and points north/northwest. Right now they have to either exit at Selinsgrove and deal with city streets, or exit to Susq. Trail NB and use Roosevelt Ave/Mill Rd. to get to PA 204. The improved US 522 interchange and new Mill Rd/Airport Rd roundabout will make that movement a lot better and instantly become the fastest route to/from US 15, so I wouldn't be surprised if traffic on Airport Rd increases significantly, and that shift should have a positive impact on traffic in Selinsgrove.

I agree that completing the missing movements at the Selinsgrove interchange will be a big improvement. I've always been baffled why they were missing in the first place. From the existing grading at the site, it doesn't seem like they were ever contemplated. Was there to be another interchange further south that was not built or was the thinking everyone would get off at PA 35 and crawl through town?

Quote from: Bitmapped on April 10, 2022, 01:03:50 PM

Quote from: webny99 on April 09, 2022, 07:36:10 PM
The more I think about it, the more I think that the improved Selinsgrove interchange at the southern end of the CSVT project (where US 15 currently exits onto Susquehanna Trail) is an underrated part of the CSVT project. The NB US 15 to SB US 522 and NB US 522 to SB US 15 movements that are currently missing are HUGE for traffic connecting to/from PA 204, Kratzerville, and points north/northwest. Right now they have to either exit at Selinsgrove and deal with city streets, or exit to Susq. Trail NB and use Roosevelt Ave/Mill Rd. to get to PA 204. The improved US 522 interchange and new Mill Rd/Airport Rd roundabout will make that movement a lot better and instantly become the fastest route to/from US 15, so I wouldn't be surprised if traffic on Airport Rd increases significantly, and that shift should have a positive impact on traffic in Selinsgrove.

I agree that completing the missing movements at the Selinsgrove interchange will be a big improvement. I've always been baffled why they were missing in the first place. From the existing grading at the site, it doesn't seem like they were ever contemplated. Was there to be another interchange further south that was not built or was the thinking everyone would get off at PA 35 and crawl through town?

It is odd that those were not built originally; leaving them out forces all traffic coming off the freeway portion of US 11/15 to go northbound which certainly doesn't help the traffic situation in Hummels Wharf/Shamokin Dam. I'm not sure the answer to your question but I have to think those movements would have been built if the interchange had been completed as planned.

With the CSVT northern section on track to be completed this year, here's the link to what the interim route designations will look like until the southern section is complete: http://www.csvt.com/maps/pdfs/proposed-roadway-route-designations-2018-07-18.pdf

PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Update (http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4083)

Another CSVT update, now stating that the northern section should be open by July!

https://www.dailyitem.com/news/northern-csvt-will-be-open-to-traffic-in-july-work-on-southern-section-to-start/article_940845d6-d2e0-11ec-a84f-2fa3bd24a9de.html

Of course, I am going to Brandon's meet...

PennDOT - District 3 News: Media Advisory: CSVT Northern Section Public Event (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/RegionalOffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4160)

PennDOT - District 3 News: Media Advisory: CSVT Northern Section Public Event (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4198)

(No official opening date was announced in the release)

PennDOT - District 3 News: Wolf Administration, U.S. Senator Casey, Local Officials Cut Ribbon for CSVT Northern Section, Break Ground for Southern Section (http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4202)

PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Northern Section Opening to Traffic This Week (http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4213)

Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 06, 2022, 11:09:13 AM
PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Northern Section Opening to Traffic This Week (http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4213)

Nice, I can't wait! Hopefully I'll make it down there to drive it sometime soon! :cheers:

Photos of the opening commemoration event can be found on http://csvt.com (http://csvt.com).

Interesting that Winfield and Selinsgrove are used as exit destinations for US 15. I would expect that Selinsgrove will eventually be signed on pull-through signage once the southern section is complete. Lewisburg would also make sense northbound.

I was hoping to see signage for the new Ridge Rd exit, but didn't see any in the photos. PennDOT was very explicit about not including Danville on the signage, although it will be a good alternate route to Danville signed or not.

... and the CSVT northern section is officially open and officially loggable in Travel Mapping!!

Anyway to the southern section:  PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Update (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/RegionalOffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4227)

Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 08, 2022, 04:17:33 PM
Anyway to the southern section:  PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Update (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/RegionalOffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4227)

In regard to the new turn lane being installed at Grangers Rd, I'm guessing there will be heightened demand there as a cut-through/bypass of Shamokin Dam now that the bridge is open. That's now Google's suggested route between Montandon and Selinsgrove. And that's also assuming that County Line Rd will not fully reopen until the southern section is complete, which would make sense.

Another thought I had about the southern section, specifically the PA 61 connector:

Currently, where PA 61 crosses the river and meets US 11/15, the ramp to US 11/15 NB provides access to Baldwin Blvd (https://goo.gl/maps/7mWw5Vyacjxgzddt7) via a straight-through movement. Left turns are not allowed here (though there's nothing physically preventing it) and US 11/15 SB is accessed only from the trumpet ramp. The plans (http://csvt.com/maps/pdfs/58758_Board13-EastAlt-04_May2018.pdf) for the PA 61 connector add a full loop for the PA 61 to US 11/Bus 15 SB movement, adding nearly 1/2 mile of ramp length which would make it significantly shorter to take the Baldwin Blvd ramp and turn left.

Would it not make more sense to just add left turn lanes to the Baldwin Blvd ramp and make that the default ramp for PA 61 to US 11/Bus 15 SB? Keep in mind that traffic volumes making this movement will be significantly reduced with a lot of traffic taking CSVT instead. Similarly, US 11/Bus 15 itself will have less traffic, reducing concerns about signal cycle length/timing.

This would have two clear benefits: Firstly, it would more evenly distribute traffic on PA 61 over the river. With the current proposal, all traffic headed to US 11/Bus 15 SB AND CSVT (both directions) only has a single lane, while US 11/Bus 15 NB has its own lane. Whereas if US 11/Bus 15 SB traffic exited with NB traffic via the right lane, it would be closer to 50/50 between the lanes. Secondly, this would streamline and simplify the interchange design and ROW requirements by eliminating the loop ramp on the far west side. You'd have just a single set of ramps to/from the PA 61 connector rather than the current trumpet design. This would also shorten the ramp from US 11/Bus 15 to the PA 61 connector and allow for a narrower bridge, with no obvious downside.

Thoughts?

(For PA 147 and PA 405)  PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Creates New Route Designations for Routes 147 and 405 (http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4231)

You would think that this would have been included in the opening press release.

Quote from: webny99 on July 12, 2022, 10:29:31 PM
Another thought I had about the southern section, specifically the PA 61 connector:

Currently, where PA 61 crosses the river and meets US 11/15, the ramp to US 11/15 NB provides access to Baldwin Blvd (https://goo.gl/maps/7mWw5Vyacjxgzddt7) via a straight-through movement. Left turns are not allowed here (though there's nothing physically preventing it) and US 11/15 SB is accessed only from the trumpet ramp. The plans (http://csvt.com/maps/pdfs/58758_Board13-EastAlt-04_May2018.pdf) for the PA 61 connector add a full loop for the PA 61 to US 11/Bus 15 SB movement, adding nearly 1/2 mile of ramp length which would make it significantly shorter to take the Baldwin Blvd ramp and turn left.

Would it not make more sense to just add left turn lanes to the Baldwin Blvd ramp and make that the default ramp for PA 61 to US 11/Bus 15 SB? Keep in mind that traffic volumes making this movement will be significantly reduced with a lot of traffic taking CSVT instead. Similarly, US 11/Bus 15 itself will have less traffic, reducing concerns about signal cycle length/timing.

This would have two clear benefits: Firstly, it would more evenly distribute traffic on PA 61 over the river. With the current proposal, all traffic headed to US 11/Bus 15 SB AND CSVT (both directions) only has a single lane, while US 11/Bus 15 NB has its own lane. Whereas if US 11/Bus 15 SB traffic exited with NB traffic via the right lane, it would be closer to 50/50 between the lanes. Secondly, this would streamline and simplify the interchange design and ROW requirements by eliminating the loop ramp on the far west side. You'd have just a single set of ramps to/from the PA 61 connector rather than the current trumpet design. This would also shorten the ramp from US 11/Bus 15 to the PA 61 connector and allow for a narrower bridge, with no obvious downside.

Thoughts?

IIRC, having left turns from that ramp was the original plan in the old preliminary design, but a later revision (I believe at the same time as the realignment to avoid those ash basins) changed it to the currently planned configuration.

(For PA 405)  PennDOT - District 3 News: Portion of Route 405 to Close Next Week in Northumberland County (http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4262)

(For PA 405)  9/13/2022 UPDATE: Portion of Route 405 to Close Next Week in Northumberland County (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4347)

Quote​9/13/2022 UPDATE: Route 405 is now open between Montandon and Northumberland. Motorist can expect intermittent lane restrictions with flagging over the next two weeks while the contractor completes miscellaneous construction in the area.

(For PA 147) PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Northern Section Changing Traffic Patterns Today (http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4369)

Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 27, 2022, 04:14:24 PM
(For PA 147) PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Northern Section Changing Traffic Patterns Today (http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4369)

With the remainder of the SB roadway now opening/open, does that mean the Northern Section is officially 100% complete?

Well not quite yet.

QuoteMotorist are urged to drive with caution as they navigate the area. Traffic is being restricted to one lane in each direction as New Enterprise Stone & Lime continues construction. 

Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 27, 2022, 07:57:43 PM
Well not quite yet.

QuoteMotorist are urged to drive with caution as they navigate the area. Traffic is being restricted to one lane in each direction as New Enterprise Stone & Lime continues construction. 

Oh, I missed that. I guess that's why there will be "no changes" (meaning one lane is still closed) in the NB direction.

For anyone looking to follow along with the CSVT project (southern section) as it progresses, Brian's Susquehanna Thruway Project on FB is a great follow. I don't use FB myself, but have been checking in occasionally on the web. Here's a really cool video (https://www.facebook.com/CSVTAerialPics/videos/1351142139028822/) of the earthwork and progress on the southern section.

(For PA 147)  PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Northern Section Changing Traffic Patterns Today (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4409)

Finally, the southern section is really starting to take shape: https://www.facebook.com/CSVTAerialPics/videos/3093618754262385

US 15 southbound now has street view from August which shows the ramps to the CSVT bridge open (no street view on the bridge itself yet, sadly):  https://goo.gl/maps/TqqGeVREc876YmFw8

Quote from: webny99 on December 06, 2022, 08:40:42 PM
US 15 southbound now has street view from August which shows the ramps to the CSVT bridge open (no street view on the bridge itself yet, sadly):  https://goo.gl/maps/TqqGeVREc876YmFw8

Also of note, a new post-interchange mileage sign (https://goo.gl/maps/rEWjWGunwfK9cubG8) waiting to be installed. It appears to read as follows:

Northumberland 6
Sunbury           10
(bottom line illegible)

Based on that, the sign must be for PA 147 SB south of the PA 45 interchange. I'm guessing the last line says either Selinsgrove or Harrisburg.

Quote from: webny99 on December 06, 2022, 08:51:41 PM

Quote from: webny99 on December 06, 2022, 08:40:42 PM
US 15 southbound now has street view from August which shows the ramps to the CSVT bridge open (no street view on the bridge itself yet, sadly):  https://goo.gl/maps/TqqGeVREc876YmFw8

Also of note, a new post-interchange mileage sign (https://goo.gl/maps/rEWjWGunwfK9cubG8) waiting to be installed. It appears to read as follows:

Northumberland 6
Sunbury           10
(bottom line illegible)

Based on that, the sign must be for PA 147 SB south of the PA 45 interchange. I'm guessing the last line says either Selinsgrove or Harrisburg.

Probably Selinsgrove, which is around 14 miles away from where the sign will be posted.  Harrisburg is around 60 miles from where the sign will be posted. 

Quote from: amroad17 on December 06, 2022, 09:54:17 PM

Quote from: webny99 on December 06, 2022, 08:51:41 PM

Quote from: webny99 on December 06, 2022, 08:40:42 PM
US 15 southbound now has street view from August which shows the ramps to the CSVT bridge open (no street view on the bridge itself yet, sadly):  https://goo.gl/maps/TqqGeVREc876YmFw8

Also of note, a new post-interchange mileage sign (https://goo.gl/maps/rEWjWGunwfK9cubG8) waiting to be installed. It appears to read as follows:

Northumberland 6
Sunbury           10
(bottom line illegible)

Based on that, the sign must be for PA 147 SB south of the PA 45 interchange. I'm guessing the last line says either Selinsgrove or Harrisburg.

Probably Selinsgrove, which is around 14 miles away from where the sign will be posted.  Harrisburg is around 60 miles from where the sign will be posted.

You're probably right. However, my personal preference would have been to skip Sunbury, put Selinsgrove on the 2nd line, and Harrisburg on the 3rd line.

Quote from: webny99 on December 06, 2022, 08:51:41 PM

Quote from: webny99 on December 06, 2022, 08:40:42 PM
US 15 southbound now has street view from August which shows the ramps to the CSVT bridge open (no street view on the bridge itself yet, sadly):  https://goo.gl/maps/TqqGeVREc876YmFw8

Also of note, a new post-interchange mileage sign (https://goo.gl/maps/rEWjWGunwfK9cubG8) waiting to be installed. It appears to read as follows:

Northumberland 6
Sunbury           10
(bottom line illegible)

Based on that, the sign must be for PA 147 SB south of the PA 45 interchange. I'm guessing the last line says either Selinsgrove or Harrisburg.

My guess is Harrisburg - PA likes to put faraway-ish cities as the third city on those signs. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

PennDOT - District 3 News: Southern Section of CSVT Work Progress Update (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4449)

Another update from Brian's CSVT on FB showing a considerable amount of progress on the southern section, especially from the PA 61 connector north, which is really starting to take shape now. There's also some work on a big box culvert just south of the PA 61 connector, a lot of earthwork near 11th Ave and Stetler Ave, and more earthwork further south where CSVT will cross Attig Rd and Mill Rd/Airport Rd, with a pair of new roundabouts for the latter junction. Early in the video you can see steady traffic coming off the new bridge showing just how much use this section will get when complete.  :nod:

https://www.facebook.com/CSVTAerialPics/videos/404903805138685

I am reminded how far we've come in aerial photography and videography. No longer do we need to hang out of open-air helicopters for wobbly shots at heights that make it ... hard to see details. (Not complaining, I appreciate the effort but found the video hard to follow.)

Quote from: seicer on December 29, 2022, 10:10:10 PM
I am reminded how far we've come in aerial photography and videography. No longer do we need to hang out of open-air helicopters for wobbly shots at heights that make it ... hard to see details. (Not complaining, I appreciate the effort but found the video hard to follow.)

I do agree with you there. I usually watch these videos with Google Maps satellite open on my second screen and the project map in another tab to refer to as needed.

In any case, here is a shorter but better quality GoPro video from the same day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FM8560uz28

That is a nice view from a GoPro. I just picked up a GoPro 11 to do 5K recording and am blown away at the smoothness of the videos (thanks to years of development with its gimbal). You can see that come through in Brian's aerial tour. Unrelated, I found an original GoPro that I had stored in a box for many years. All plastic, viewfinder (no LCD screen) and works just as well as it did all those years ago.

(For US 11, US 15, PA 45, PA 147, and PA 405) PennDOT - District 3 News: PennDOT Releases Preliminary Traffic Count Numbers After CSVT Opening (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4502)

Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 30, 2023, 09:05:04 AM
(For US 11, US 15, PA 45, PA 147, and PA 405) PennDOT - District 3 News: PennDOT Releases Preliminary Traffic Count Numbers After CSVT Opening (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4502)

Thanks, I saw this in the news and was just about to post it! No surprises here - it is great to see the new bridge serving its purpose in reducing traffic in Lewisburg and Northumberland. A 75% decrease in truck traffic on PA 405 (old PA 147) is impressive. My guess is the bridge will get even more use after the Southern Section opens.

And here's another video flyover of the Southern section. A lot of tree clearing has been done, and abutments have been built for several of the bridges. For the first time, you can really see the path the new highway will take from end to end, and get a sense of where some of the overpasses will be: https://www.facebook.com/CSVTAerialPics/videos/1344872199662097

I recall hearing earlier that the PA 61 connector would be built after the rest of the project, but at least for now it seems to be progressing along with the CSVT mainline.

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 06, 2022, 01:30:27 AM

Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 01, 2022, 01:06:34 PMPennDOT - District 3 News: Wolf Administration Announces Bids Opened for First Contract for Southern Section of CSVT (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/RegionalOffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4024)

I have downloaded the plans and proposal attachments for this project, which is ECMS 76401.  At 4.15 GB, the documentation package is quite large for a contract that is mainly grading and culverts with one road bridge and a modest amount of secondary road paving.

Apologies for pulling up this old post, but I'm curious if this is something that's publicly available for download. An initial search of ecms.penndot.gov (while logged in as a guest) returns that I'm not authorized to perform the requested action.

PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Project to Begin New Work Location in April in Monroe Township, Snyder County (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/RegionalOffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4585)

(For PA 147) PennDOT - District 3 News: Sign Structures Work Begins Next Week on CSVT Northern Section (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4593)

PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Project to Close a Portion of Attig Road in Monroe Township, Snyder County (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4746)

Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 07, 2023, 03:50:11 PM
(For PA 147) PennDOT - District 3 News: Sign Structures Work Begins Next Week on CSVT Northern Section (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4593)

My photos from a few weeks ago in regard to this can be seen starting here:  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218819043467658&set=a.10218819314274428)

PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Project to Close a Portion of Stetler Avenue in Monroe Township, Snyder County (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4763)

PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Project to Close a Portion of Eleventh Avenue in Monroe Township, Snyder County (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4807)

PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Project to Close a Portion of Mill, Airport, and App Roads in Monroe Township, Snyder County
(https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4848)

PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Project to Close a Portion of Park Road in Monroe Township, Snyder County (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=4940)

We're lucky to have Brian Benfer and his powered parachute keeping the public updated on the CSVT project. Current pictures and videos can be found on Brian's CSVT Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/CSVTAerialPics/

There's still a lot of earthwork to be done but the project is progressing nicely overall. Beams have been set at the new Sunbury Rd overpass which is on track to open later this year, and the two new roundabouts at Mill/Airport and Mill/App Rd are now visible. In addition, Park Rd is closed so that it and Colonial Drive can be reconfigured. Once that's complete, Fisher Rd will be split in two. North of CSVT, it will be realigned to meet Park Rd, and south of CSVT, it will become a permanent dead end.

Another thought...

Once CSVT is complete, is there any reason for PA 61 to continue across the Susquehanna River via the Veterans Memorial Bridge? It would be concurrent with PA 147 on the bridge and new connector before arbitrarily terminating at US 15, while PA 147 would continue north concurrent with 15. Seems just as effective for PA 61 to terminate at 147 east of the river, leaving 147 as the sole designation on the bridge and connector. This would greatly simplify the signage on the bridge approaches and junctions with the new connector.

Quote from: webny99 on August 17, 2023, 10:16:33 PM
Another thought...

Once CSVT is complete, is there any reason for PA 61 to continue across the Susquehanna River via the Veterans Memorial Bridge? It would be concurrent with PA 147 on the bridge and new connector before arbitrarily terminating at US 15, while PA 147 would continue north concurrent with 15. Seems just as effective for PA 61 to terminate at 147 east of the river, leaving 147 as the sole designation on the bridge and connector. This would greatly simplify the signage on the bridge approaches and junctions with the new connector.

It's probably still being signed in order to guide motorists from US 11 and US 15 to PA 61, even though there is really no reason for it to end at US 15 while concurrent with PA 147.

Quote from: Dough4872 on August 18, 2023, 07:46:01 AM

Quote from: webny99 on August 17, 2023, 10:16:33 PM
Another thought...

Once CSVT is complete, is there any reason for PA 61 to continue across the Susquehanna River via the Veterans Memorial Bridge? It would be concurrent with PA 147 on the bridge and new connector before arbitrarily terminating at US 15, while PA 147 would continue north concurrent with 15. Seems just as effective for PA 61 to terminate at 147 east of the river, leaving 147 as the sole designation on the bridge and connector. This would greatly simplify the signage on the bridge approaches and junctions with the new connector.

It's probably still being signed in order to guide motorists from US 11 and US 15 to PA 61, even though there is really no reason for it to end at US 15 while concurrent with PA 147.

Yeah, I imagine all you'd get out of this is a "TO" that actually may add confusion vs. just keeping the route as is. Who knows.

Quote from: Alps on August 18, 2023, 03:24:27 PM

Quote from: Dough4872 on August 18, 2023, 07:46:01 AM

Quote from: webny99 on August 17, 2023, 10:16:33 PM
Another thought...

Once CSVT is complete, is there any reason for PA 61 to continue across the Susquehanna River via the Veterans Memorial Bridge? It would be concurrent with PA 147 on the bridge and new connector before arbitrarily terminating at US 15, while PA 147 would continue north concurrent with 15. Seems just as effective for PA 61 to terminate at 147 east of the river, leaving 147 as the sole designation on the bridge and connector. This would greatly simplify the signage on the bridge approaches and junctions with the new connector.

It's probably still being signed in order to guide motorists from US 11 and US 15 to PA 61, even though there is really no reason for it to end at US 15 while concurrent with PA 147.

Yeah, I imagine all you'd get out of this is a "TO" that actually may add confusion vs. just keeping the route as is. Who knows.

Well the "TOs" later got added to PA 764 south of Altoona so I am unsure if it is concurrent with US 22 or not.

I wouldn't think TO banners would be needed for 61, as 147 already goes to Sunbury and 61 signage could be introduced there. It's not a big issue, but there will be a lot of routes converging in Shamokin Dam.

When I am back in the Harrisburg area next month I plan to take a side trip up this way to check out the construction.

PennDOT - District 3 News: Shapiro Administration Announces That Bids Have Been Submitted for Second Contract for Southern Section of CSVT (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=5065)

Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 15, 2023, 02:08:33 PM
PennDOT - District 3 News: Shapiro Administration Announces That Bids Have Been Submitted for Second Contract for Southern Section of CSVT (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=5065)

Great to see this has finally dropped.

PennDOT - District 3 News: Sign Upgrade Project This Week on Veterans Bridge in the City of Sunbury (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=5075)

I speculate that this may be CSVT-related.

PennDOT - District 3 News: 9/20/23 UPDATE: (PARK ROAD OPEN) CSVT Project to Close a Portion of Park Road in Monroe Township, Snyder County (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/RegionalOffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=5081)

Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 20, 2023, 11:39:12 AM
PennDOT - District 3 News: 9/20/23 UPDATE: (PARK ROAD OPEN) CSVT Project to Close a Portion of Park Road in Monroe Township, Snyder County (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/RegionalOffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=5081)

This means Fisher Rd will be closing soon to be realigned north of the project area and become a permanent dead-end south of the project area.

Another video update from Brian's CSVT showing significant progress on the southern section as night work starts this week. Of particular note is the bridge over Sunbury Rd nearing completion, the future PA 61 connector taking shape, a new (but only half-finished) traffic pattern at Park Rd/Fisher Rd, and the two new roundabouts at Mill/Airport and Mill/App.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAmhfna15ns

When I was in central PA 2 weeks ago I managed to get some pics from "ground level" of the construction along the southern CSVT, I will be posting them on my facebook page by later this weekend

We finally have full Street View coverage of the completed northern section!  :cheers:

A few highlights focused on the new overhead signage installed this spring:
US 15 NB https://maps.app.goo.gl/R5FsmgNq85EkMnsg8
US 15 SB https://maps.app.goo.gl/AAoLGT2wuiArNUvq6
CSVT NB https://maps.app.goo.gl/XzrmC7oNzvPNTx9P9
CSVT SB (1) https://maps.app.goo.gl/Vs4Hr5KYyHrv3amm9
CSVT SB (2) https://maps.app.goo.gl/Em8Y2QizGNQfLVfh6
CSVT SB ramp to 15 SB https://maps.app.goo.gl/KxfbvmLaoL18zitj9

PennDOT - District 3 News: 11/9/23 UPDATE: (SUNBURY ROAD NOW OPEN) CSVT Project to Begin New Work Location in April in Monroe Township, Snyder County (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=5176)

PennDOT - District 3 News: Portion of Fisher Road to Close Next Week in Monroe Township, Snyder County (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=5215)

Some significant CSVT excavation work visible in new Street View from October:

Attig Rd - https://maps.app.goo.gl/BPZgRC5nNkAmjhkMA
Park Rd - https://maps.app.goo.gl/c3eCXP7Th9xuegbv6
Fisher Rd - https://maps.app.goo.gl/Zq4PrURSUjNxiDxB8
PA 61 Connector - https://maps.app.goo.gl/RLkBWcHZtkSfHMweA
Grangers Rd - https://maps.app.goo.gl/yZgaF67gMC5Bo5Fx9

PennDOT - District 3 News: New Data Indicates CSVT Northern Section is Improving Traffic in Northcentral PA (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=5277)

Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 11, 2024, 10:41:38 AM
PennDOT - District 3 News: New Data Indicates CSVT Northern Section is Improving Traffic in Northcentral PA (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=5277)

:cheers:

It's almost hard to believe that there are still 800 trucks per day using old PA 147 through Northumberland, although I suppose a lot of those are traveling to/from Sunbury, so that number will likely go down even further once the southern section (PA 61 connector) is open.

Sunbury in general is an underrated factor in the CSVT project, with a population of 10k that is almost exclusively forced through Northumberland or Shamokin Dam to drive anywhere of significance.

Finally, work is beginning on the CSVT bridge over Grangers Rd, the first of nine bridges as part of the second CSVT contract which will also include four noise barriers: https://www.csvt.com/resources/pdfs/construction-updates/CSVT_press_release_02_02_24.pdf

The nine bridges are as follows:

CSVT over Mill Rd
CSVT over Attig Rd
CSVT over Park/Fisher Rd
CSVT over Stetler Ave
CSVT over 11th Ave
CSVT over PA 61 Connector
Cortland Ave over PA 61 Connector
PA 61 Connector over ramps to US 11/Future Bus 15
CSVT over Grangers Rd

The Sunbury Rd bridge over CSVT was the only bridge in the first contract, and it was completed and reopened to traffic last fall.

CSVT earthwork is progressing nicely, via another video update from Brian's Susquehanna Thruway Project here (https://tinyurl.com/56a4nw8s).

I snipped some photos for those that may not want to watch the full 15 minute video. All photos credit to Brian Benfer, owner of Brian's Susquehanna Thruway Project.

(https://imgur.com/5uwnFbF.jpg)
Future CSVT embankments with new roundabouts at Mill Rd/Airport Rd (top) and Mill Rd/App Rd (bottom)

(https://imgur.com/z2QXGdP.jpg)
Looking west towards the large hill cut and Attig Rd

(https://imgur.com/8VXZh5b.jpg)
Looking north where CSVT will cross Park Rd and realigned Fisher Rd

(https://imgur.com/7bLUNfr.jpg)
CSVT at Stetler Ave

(https://imgur.com/184mnzZ.jpg)
Between Stetler Ave and 11th Ave

(https://imgur.com/vAPj75H.jpg)
CSVT at 11th Ave, looking northeast with future PA 61 connector interchange in background

(https://imgur.com/vAPj75H.jpg)
CSVT at 11th Ave, looking northeast with future PA 61 connector interchange in background

(https://imgur.com/kIGSZDe.jpg)
PA 61 connector looking east with Cortland Dr connector in center

(https://imgur.com/FnyliQh.jpg)
PA 61 connector looking northwest with CSVT mainline in background

(https://imgur.com/YoW3EJt.jpg)
PA 61 connector looking southwest, Cortland Dr connector in bottom left and CSVT mainline in background

(https://imgur.com/yREVwMp.jpg)
Footprint of CSVT/PA 61 connector interchange looking west

(https://imgur.com/KB50abf.jpg)
CSVT south of Sunbury Rd

(https://imgur.com/6jidYXd.jpg)
Bridge construction at Grangers Rd, Sunbury Rd in bottom left

(https://imgur.com/H23w1wl.jpg)
Bridge construction at Grangers Rd looking west

(https://imgur.com/ndDgJCf.jpg)
Looking north with CSVT on the left and existing US 15 on the right

(https://imgur.com/sGAveSO.jpg)
Current southern terminus of CSVT with southbound traffic exiting onto US 15 from new river bridge in background

PennDOT - District 3 News: CSVT Southern Section Update (https://www.penndot.pa.gov/regionaloffices/district-3/pages/details.aspx?newsid=5375)