News:

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

Main Menu

PA Turnpike News

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Beltway

My Bedford concept is another that would probably be the most ideal for a future AET design format.

A conventional freeway-to-freeway interchange would incur major right-of-way industrial impacts/costs, and would complicate if not obviate the local access.

If there is an issue with the loop weaving on I-99 then there is ample space for C-D roadways, and the east-to-north movement might be handled with a semi-directional ramp.  The loop at the Turnpike might also be better handled with a semi-directional ramp. 

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)


jeffandnicole

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 15, 2019, 08:43:21 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on July 14, 2019, 04:12:34 PMI played around with On the Turnpike exits in both directions, off-ramps would split into I-81 and US 11 lanes. The existing trumpet at US 11 is retained in this sketch to provide access to/from the Turnpike westbound, but it could be replaced with an at-grade intersection.
Disagree regarding using an at-grade intersection at US 11 en lieu of the existing trumpet interchange at this location.  The Carlisle Fairgrounds down the road has many events (mostly car shows) throughout the year and US 11 from the grounds to the Turnpike interchange does become a parking lot towards the beginning and ending of those events.  One less traffic signal or the need to make a left turn, which forces traffic in the opposite direction to stop, the better IMHO.

BTW, your above-sketch looks like the best possible solution for that area; especially once the PTC goes fully-AET.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 15, 2019, 08:43:21 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on July 14, 2019, 04:12:34 PMI played around with On the Turnpike exits in both directions, off-ramps would split into I-81 and US 11 lanes. The existing trumpet at US 11 is retained in this sketch to provide access to/from the Turnpike westbound, but it could be replaced with an at-grade intersection.
Disagree regarding using an at-grade intersection at US 11 en lieu of the existing trumpet interchange at this location.  The Carlisle Fairgrounds down the road has many events (mostly car shows) throughout the year and US 11 from the grounds to the Turnpike interchange does become a parking lot towards the beginning and ending of those events.  One less traffic signal or the need to make a left turn, which forces traffic in the opposite direction to stop, the better IMHO.

BTW, your above-sketch looks like the best possible solution for that area; especially once the PTC goes fully-AET.

While we, as a group, are a lot more sensitive as to how roads are built, ultimately we are amateurs at this.  We see a picture or an aerial view, we put a line down, and we say "Perfect".  In reality, that's much harder said then done.

Using the above example, you're still going thru someone's land - land that someone owns and probably won't give it up without a large sum of money exchanging hands.  There's still people's homes in the path.  Some of the interchange loops are *extremely* tight.  Compare a few of them to the loops at I-81 and US 11, and you see how the radii will probably be quite substandard. Ramp locations near buildings and structures need to be designed to not encroach on those buildings and parking lots.  That adds considerable costs to a project.

When it comes to reconstruction of an area, the existing infrastructure needs to be considered.  Apart from completely closing the interchange, a new design needs to take into account what can be done with existing traffic.  It's often easier to build a highway from scratch than to work around what's there.

In an example of what the PTC and PennDOT did right, look at the PA Turnpike/I-176 Interchange.  Even though those two roads actually come within 350 feet of each other at its closest point, the actual interchange is 2 miles southeast of that location.  The land there wouldn't allow for such an interchange, which is something else to consider when designing highways; something an aerial photo doesn't easily depict.  Stuff under the ground can easily be a deterrent, or an expensive remedy, that we'll never be aware of either.

The point is - a location a few miles away from here may actually be a better choice, with a highway connecting the two.

Of course, in this area, there aren't too many open areas until you go a considerable ways out. But that's not necearially a bad thing - land costs can be cheaper, and better ramps can be built!

Beltway

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2019, 10:20:52 AM
Using the above example, you're still going thru someone's land - land that someone owns and probably won't give it up without a large sum of money exchanging hands.  There's still people's homes in the path.  Some of the interchange loops are *extremely* tight.  Compare a few of them to the loops at I-81 and US 11, and you see how the radii will probably be quite substandard. Ramp locations near buildings and structures need to be designed to not encroach on those buildings and parking lots.  That adds considerable costs to a project.

It is a shame that this interchange wasn't built along with I-81 back 40+ years ago when it would have been a lot simpler with a lot less development in the way.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

PHLBOS

#2153
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2019, 10:20:52 AMWhile we, as a group, are a lot more sensitive as to how roads are built, ultimately we are amateurs at this.  We see a picture or an aerial view, we put a line down, and we say "Perfect".  In reality, that's much harder said then done.
I honestly don't believe that anyone on this board was saying that any implementation of a proposed scheme was going to be easy.  Also, do keep in mind there's a sizable number users on this board are indeed either in the civil engineering profession or in some DOT/agency capacity as part of their job/profession.  So they have been indeed been exposed to or have been behind the scenes regarding these type of designs as it were.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2019, 10:20:52 AMUsing the above example, you're still going thru someone's land - land that someone owns and probably won't give it up without a large sum of money exchanging hands.
Any type of interchange reconfiguration and/or modifications will involve land takings.  The main objective would be which design offers the best overall operation/efficiency but the minimal amount of land-takings.  To be sure, such is a balancing act. 

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2019, 10:20:52 AMThere's still people's homes in the path.  Some of the interchange loops are *extremely* tight.  Compare a few of them to the loops at I-81 and US 11, and you see how the radii will probably be quite substandard.
Looking at Brian's graphic a tad closer and I would agree that some of the ramp radii, mainly the ones from US 11 to I-76 eastbound are indeed tight.  I believe that he was trying to avoid a major alteration to the existing US 11 trumpet interchange as well as the Turnpike (I-76) overpass... the latter was just recently replaced with a brand new 6-lane wide mainline structure.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2019, 10:20:52 AMRamp locations near buildings and structures need to be designed to not encroach on those buildings and parking lots.  That adds considerable costs to a project.
I don't believe that anyone here was dismissing such.  However, while this area does have development on it; it's nowhere near as dense as, say, the Greater Philly area.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2019, 10:20:52 AMWhen it comes to reconstruction of an area, the existing infrastructure needs to be considered.  Apart from completely closing the interchange, a new design needs to take into account what can be done with existing traffic.
Such would be known as maintenance/protection of traffic or work zone plans.  To be sure, such a project as this would need to be done in phases... just like the I-76/295/NJ 42 interchange project in your neck of the woods.   

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2019, 10:20:52 AMIt's often easier to build a highway from scratch than to work around what's there.
Absolutely.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2019, 10:20:52 AMThe point is - a location a few miles away from here may actually be a better choice, with a highway connecting the two.
Usually when a project of this type is proposed; several configuration options are shown in the study (or studies) with listings of both their pros & cons... as well as the No Build option/alternative.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2019, 10:20:52 AMOf course, in this area, there aren't too many open areas until you go a considerable ways out. But that's not necearially a bad thing - land costs can be cheaper, and better ramps can be built!
Looking at the area more closely; one design option would be to build a new dual-trumpet-style w/a connector interchange between I-76/PA Turnpike & I-81 well east of its present trumpet interchange w/US 11 and the I-81 overpass.  The connector would run in a southwesterly direction towards I-81.  With that option, it would be wise IMHO to leave the existing Carlisle interchange w/US 11 as is and not extend the new connector west of I-81.  Such would cut down on the more expensive land takings along the US 11 corridor.  OTOH, if the above-example I described included extending the connector further west to US 11 (such could end at a signalized intersection & the interchange w/I-81 would be a diamond or a cloverleaf rather than a trumpet); only then would the existing Turnpike trumpet interchange could be ultimately eliminated and some land space in that former-footprint would be freed up. 

Someone with more time on their hands can feel free to sketch something like that up.  Although I would suggest doing such in either the Fictional Highways section or the Redesigning Interchanges thread; at least until actual design proposals for this area/interchange (if any) become known.

A couple of past PA Turnpike interchange upgrade projects that indeed involved building a new trumpet interchange along the Turnpike itself were the US 222/Reading interchange circa the 1970s and the I-176/Morgantown interchange from the 1990s.  Both of those examples ultimately involved the removal of the older trumpet interchanges.  One can still see traces of most of those old ramps while riding along the Turnpike; the old westbound ramps for the Morgantown interchange have long since been eliminated.

Quote from: Beltway on July 15, 2019, 11:08:55 AMIt is a shame that this interchange wasn't built along with I-81 back 40 50+ years ago when it would have been a lot simpler with a lot less development in the way.
FTFY.  I-81 in that area was built during the late 1960s based on looking through historic aerials.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

VTGoose

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 15, 2019, 12:11:45 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2019, 10:20:52 AMOf course, in this area, there aren't too many open areas until you go a considerable ways out. But that's not necessarily a bad thing - land costs can be cheaper, and better ramps can be built!
Looking at the area more closely; one design option would be to build a new dual-trumpet-style w/a connector interchange between I-76/PA Turnpike & I-81 well east of its present trumpet interchange w/US 11 and the I-81 overpass.  The connector would run in a southwesterly direction towards I-81.  With that option, it would be wise IMHO to leave the existing Carlisle interchange w/US 11 as is and not extend the new connector west of I-81.  Such would cut down on the more expensive land takings along the US 11 corridor.  OTOH, if the above-example I described included extending the connector further west to US 11 (such could end at a signalized intersection & the interchange w/I-81 would be a diamond or a cloverleaf rather than a trumpet); only then would the existing Turnpike trumpet interchange could be ultimately eliminated and some land space in that former-footprint would be freed up. 


If thinking outside the box with an interchange not right where I-81 and the Turnpike cross, why not look west of Carlisle? There is more open land and not many houses/businesses would need to be taken. Put an interchange just east of the Cumberland Valley Service Plaza and run a 2-mile highway south to I-81 and a new interchange there. The road would be located between Pa. 465 and the Cumberland Golf Club. It would provide a better connection to the turnpike for the distribution centers and other businesses in that area and be an alternative route from Carlisle for those who want to go west on the Turnpike.

Bruce in Blacksburg (but a short-time resident of Carlisle a long time ago)
"Get in the fast lane, grandma!  The bingo game is ready to roll!"

Beltway

Quote from: VTGoose on July 15, 2019, 02:35:59 PM
If thinking outside the box with an interchange not right where I-81 and the Turnpike cross, why not look west of Carlisle? There is more open land and not many houses/businesses would need to be taken. Put an interchange just east of the Cumberland Valley Service Plaza and run a 2-mile highway south to I-81 and a new interchange there. The road would be located between Pa. 465 and the Cumberland Golf Club. It would provide a better connection to the turnpike for the distribution centers and other businesses in that area and be an alternative route from Carlisle for those who want to go west on the Turnpike.
Bruce in Blacksburg (but a short-time resident of Carlisle a long time ago)

How would Carlisle feel about having a beltway around it?  :-/
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Beltway

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 15, 2019, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 15, 2019, 11:08:55 AMIt is a shame that this interchange wasn't built along with I-81 back 40 50+ years ago when it would have been a lot simpler with a lot less development in the way.
FTFY.  I-81 in that area was built during the late 1960s based on looking through historic aerials.

Up to the US-11 interchange at Carlisle.  The segment north of there opened in the mid-1970s, need to do some research but I recall between 1975 and 1977. 

I just did check the 1973 state highway map and that is shown under construction.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

PHLBOS

#2157
Quote from: VTGoose on July 15, 2019, 02:35:59 PMIf thinking outside the box with an interchange not right where I-81 and the Turnpike cross, why not look west of Carlisle? There is more open land and not many houses/businesses would need to be taken. Put an interchange just east of the Cumberland Valley Service Plaza and run a 2-mile highway south to I-81 and a new interchange there. The road would be located between Pa. 465 and the Cumberland Golf Club. It would provide a better connection to the turnpike for the distribution centers and other businesses in that area and be an alternative route from Carlisle for those who want to go west on the Turnpike.
With that option (if such was ever seriously adopted) IMHO; it would be desirable that the existing Carlisle interchange remain.  Even with connecting I-76/81 traffic diverted away from US 11 in this area; there's enough of a demand to access US 11 to/from I-76.

Quote from: Beltway on July 15, 2019, 02:54:19 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 15, 2019, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 15, 2019, 11:08:55 AMIt is a shame that this interchange wasn't built along with I-81 back 40 50+ years ago when it would have been a lot simpler with a lot less development in the way.
FTFY.  I-81 in that area was built during the late 1960s based on looking through historic aerials.

Up to the US-11 interchange at Carlisle.  The segment north of there opened in the mid-1970s, need to do some research but I recall between 1975 and 1977. 

I just did check the 1973 state highway map and that is shown under construction.
When I stated in that area per my earlier post; I was specifically referring to the stretch of I-81 that crossed the Turnpike; not the stretch north of the US 11/current Exit 52 interchange.  1968 Historic Aerials appears to be the earliest photo that shows I-81 south of Exit 52.  Had it not been for that lame prohibition regarding toll roads not funding direct connections to Interstate highways that was in place back then; there would've been no reason not to build a direct connection when those overpasses were built in the mid-to-late 60s.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Beltway

#2158
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 15, 2019, 03:39:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 15, 2019, 02:54:19 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 15, 2019, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 15, 2019, 11:08:55 AMIt is a shame that this interchange wasn't built along with I-81 back 40 50+ years ago when it would have been a lot simpler with a lot less development in the way.
FTFY.  I-81 in that area was built during the late 1960s based on looking through historic aerials.
Up to the US-11 interchange at Carlisle.  The segment north of there opened in the mid-1970s, need to do some research but I recall between 1975 and 1977. 
I just did check the 1973 state highway map and that is shown under construction.
When I stated in that area per my earlier post; I was specifically referring to the stretch of I-81 that crossed the Turnpike; not the stretch north of the US 11/current Exit 52 interchange.  1968 Historic Aerials appears to be the earliest photo that shows I-81 south of Exit 52.  Had it not been for that lame prohibition regarding toll roads not funding direct connections to Interstate highways that was in place back then; there would've been no reason not to build a direct connection when those overpasses were built in the mid-to-late 60s.
The I-81 segment with the most likely location for the Turnpike interchange was completed in 1968.  The interchange could have provided southerly I-81 access to the Turnpike, but there was no I-81 northerly access possible because that segment did not yet exist, and was not fully complete until 1976.  So I would question whether the PTC would put much importance on building the interchange in the 1960s, whereas getting it built by 1976 was a much more ideal priority.

"In 1975, the section between Exit 65 and Exit 66 which included the George N. Wade Bridge was finally completed, and the following year, the remaining sections from Exit 57 to Exit 65 and Exit 66 to Interstate 83 were completed just in time for our country's Bicentennial celebration." http://www.pahighways.com/interstates/I81.html

The typical scheme in the tollroad states for building an interchange was for the tollroad authority and the state DOT to partner and each take responsibility for about 50% of the interchange, the state part using 90/10 federal/state funding and the tollroad authority part using toll revenue bonds.

The charge of PA not getting such an arrangement back then is controversial, and I have seen arguments on both sides of the issue.  The fact is that many such tollroad interchanges were built with the original Interstate highway system and the PTC built some themselves (I-376, I-70 west, I-83, I-283, I-76 east).

While the Interstate 90/10 funding was helpful, the tollroad authority still had some major work and funding of their own to accomplish, and the above arrangement seems fair enough to both parties.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

famartin

Quote from: VTGoose on July 15, 2019, 09:24:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 13, 2019, 09:11:49 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 13, 2019, 09:09:31 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 13, 2019, 06:52:31 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 12, 2019, 07:30:50 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 12, 2019, 05:14:03 AM
Will there ever be a direct interchange with I-81?
Not in your lifetime.

You'd think they would because 81 is a pretty important route.

PA doesn't care about things like that.
Also, they've allowed some serious development right at the overpass.  Building a direct interchange is getting more and more difficult.

Lots of interesting concepts to connect the two highways, but the key is right here -- all the businesses around those two interchanges generate tax revenue (and profits) and the various localities will not give that up lightly.

I hate it, but he's absolutely right.

mrsman

Quote from: VTGoose on July 15, 2019, 02:35:59 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 15, 2019, 12:11:45 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2019, 10:20:52 AMOf course, in this area, there aren't too many open areas until you go a considerable ways out. But that's not necessarily a bad thing - land costs can be cheaper, and better ramps can be built!
Looking at the area more closely; one design option would be to build a new dual-trumpet-style w/a connector interchange between I-76/PA Turnpike & I-81 well east of its present trumpet interchange w/US 11 and the I-81 overpass.  The connector would run in a southwesterly direction towards I-81.  With that option, it would be wise IMHO to leave the existing Carlisle interchange w/US 11 as is and not extend the new connector west of I-81.  Such would cut down on the more expensive land takings along the US 11 corridor.  OTOH, if the above-example I described included extending the connector further west to US 11 (such could end at a signalized intersection & the interchange w/I-81 would be a diamond or a cloverleaf rather than a trumpet); only then would the existing Turnpike trumpet interchange could be ultimately eliminated and some land space in that former-footprint would be freed up. 


If thinking outside the box with an interchange not right where I-81 and the Turnpike cross, why not look west of Carlisle? There is more open land and not many houses/businesses would need to be taken. Put an interchange just east of the Cumberland Valley Service Plaza and run a 2-mile highway south to I-81 and a new interchange there. The road would be located between Pa. 465 and the Cumberland Golf Club. It would provide a better connection to the turnpike for the distribution centers and other businesses in that area and be an alternative route from Carlisle for those who want to go west on the Turnpike.

Bruce in Blacksburg (but a short-time resident of Carlisle a long time ago)

Something like that, while somewhat helpful would probably still encourage significant traffic along US 11 to connect the Turnpike to I-81.

To an extent, there already are stop-light free connections between I-81 and I-76 in Harrisburg.  Yet those aren't used because it involves some backtracking.  I'm afraid the connection needs to be closer to the point where they cross over each other.

PHLBOS

While not necessarily new news but the upcoming toll increase for next year has become official.

PA Turnpike OKs Six Percent Toll Increase for 2020.  Increase is set to start next year at 12:01 a.m. on Jan. 5.

Unfortunately, the increases once again include Delaware River Bridge toll (the 2018 toll increase did not include the bridge).
Quote from: PA Turnpike Media & Public Relations News ReleaseThe cashless toll at the westbound Delaware River Bridge will increase from $5.30 to $5.70 for E-ZPass customers and from $7.20 to $7.70 for those who use PA Turnpike TOLL BY PLATE.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Beltway

#2162
Quote from: mrsman on July 16, 2019, 09:25:26 PM
Something like that, while somewhat helpful would probably still encourage significant traffic along US 11 to connect the Turnpike to I-81.
To an extent, there already are stop-light free connections between I-81 and I-76 in Harrisburg.  Yet those aren't used because it involves some backtracking.  I'm afraid the connection needs to be closer to the point where they cross over each other.
The Google Maps preferred route between easterly I-76 and southerly I-81 doesn't even use the Carlisle interchange, it uses segments of I-83 and PA-581 to make the connection, and that reduces tolls by 16 miles, and that is all-freeway though it means going thru 2 interchanges.  Though the difference is only on the order of 1 mile and 2 minutes.

The alternate routes between westerly I-76 and northerly I-81 aren't dramatically different; using I-76 to I-283 to I-83 is 8 miles and 7 minutes longer than by using the Carlisle interchange, although it means 21 more miles of tolls.  The routing between westerly I-76 and northerly US-15 would be at a major distance and time disadvantage to use the southerly all-freeway route.

But as you say how many people use those alternate routes or even know about them?  Connecting at Carlisle is the logical place for the non-local motorist.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

jeffandnicole

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2019, 08:36:31 AM
While not necessarily new news but the upcoming toll increase for next year has become official.

PA Turnpike OKs Six Percent Toll Increase for 2020.  Increase is set to start next year at 12:01 a.m. on Jan. 5.

Unfortunately, the increases once again include Delaware River Bridge toll (the 2018 toll increase did not include the bridge).
Quote from: PA Turnpike Media & Public Relations News ReleaseThe cashless toll at the westbound Delaware River Bridge will increase from $5.30 to $5.70 for E-ZPass customers and from $7.20 to $7.70 for those who use PA Turnpike TOLL BY PLATE.

Within the linked press release:

QuoteBecause of today's action, the most-common toll for a passenger vehicle next year will increase from $1.40 to $1.50 for E-ZPass customers and from $2.30 to $2.50 for cash customers.

A quick look appears that the "most-common" toll is a misleading play on words.  Here's the EZ Pass toll schedule: https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/tolls/tolls_2019/2019_EZPass.pdf .  If you scan thru the document, you'll notice that $1.40 is often the toll between two interchanges.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the most commonly paid toll, which is what they try to allude to.

PHLBOS

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2019, 09:30:21 AMWithin the linked press release:
QuoteBecause of today's action, the most-common toll for a passenger vehicle next year will increase from $1.40 to $1.50 for E-ZPass customers and from $2.30 to $2.50 for cash customers.

A quick look appears that the "most-common" toll is a misleading play on words.  Here's the EZ Pass toll schedule: https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/tolls/tolls_2019/2019_EZPass.pdf .  If you scan thru the document, you'll notice that $1.40 is often the toll between two interchanges.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the most commonly paid toll, which is what they try to allude to.
Yes & no.  First & foremost, I do not support nor condone these toll increases.

That said, while such is definitely trying to place a spin and/or downplay on the toll increase as much as possible; along the more populated areas where the interchanges are spaced closer together, there is indeed more traffic that uses the Turnpike for only short distances/i.e. to the next interchange.

I have personally made trips along I-276 between I-476 (Mid-County) & PA 309 (Fort Washington) as well as along I-476 (Northeast Extension) between I-276 (Mid-County) and PA 63 (Lansdale) many times over the years.  The former was used to head to/from Wyncote while the latter was used as a means to get to/from Harleysville; southern Delaware County being my home origin/destination for said-trips.

Current tolls for both of the above-examples are indeed $1.40 E-ZPass/$2.30 Cash.

Long story short; whether one thinks that the PTC is being deceptive by using the term most-common for their lowest toll between two interchanges is deceptive or not is dependent upon where one resides & which stretch of Turnpike one is using.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jeffandnicole

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2019, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2019, 09:30:21 AMWithin the linked press release:
QuoteBecause of today's action, the most-common toll for a passenger vehicle next year will increase from $1.40 to $1.50 for E-ZPass customers and from $2.30 to $2.50 for cash customers.

A quick look appears that the "most-common" toll is a misleading play on words.  Here's the EZ Pass toll schedule: https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/tolls/tolls_2019/2019_EZPass.pdf .  If you scan thru the document, you'll notice that $1.40 is often the toll between two interchanges.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the most commonly paid toll, which is what they try to allude to.
Yes & no.  First & foremost, I do not support nor condone these toll increases.

That said, while such is definitely trying to place a spin and/or downplay on the toll increase as much as possible; along the more populated areas where the interchanges are spaced closer together, there is indeed more traffic that uses the Turnpike for only short distances/i.e. to the next interchange.

I have personally made trips along I-276 between I-476 (Mid-County) & PA 309 (Fort Washington) as well as along I-476 (Northeast Extension) between I-276 (Mid-County) and PA 63 (Lansdale) many times over the years.  The former was used to head to/from Wyncote while the latter was used as a means to get to/from Harleysville; southern Delaware County being my home origin/destination for said-trips.

Current tolls for both of the above-examples are indeed $1.40 E-ZPass/$2.30 Cash.

Long story short; whether one thinks that the PTC is being deceptive by using the term most-common for their lowest toll between two interchanges is deceptive or not is dependent upon where one resides & which stretch of Turnpike one is using.

I get that people only go 1 interchange. I do that quite often on the NJ Turnpike.

But the Turnpike clearly doesn't say that the average user pays $1.40.  They simply state what the most common toll (amount) is.

PHLBOS

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2019, 01:01:23 PMBut the Turnpike clearly doesn't say that the average user pays $1.40.  They simply state what the most common toll (amount) is.
To me, the term most common would mean/imply a majority not an average... would it not? 

If such is indeed true; then the PTC seems to be insinuating that the majority of their traffic is either going between interchanges and/or is along the southeastern PA portions (I-276 & the lower part of the NE Extension/I-476).  The latter wouldn't surprise me given that I-276 essentially does double-duty (local & through traffic) due to absence of the once-proposed 12-Mile Loop Expressway.  Had such been built; it would've operated similar to I-295 with respect to the NJ Turnpike.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Beltway

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2019, 01:17:09 PM
If such is indeed true; then the PTC seems to be insinuating that the majority of their traffic is either going between interchanges and/or is along the southeastern PA portions (I-276 & the lower part of the NE Extension/I-476).  The latter wouldn't surprise me given that I-276 essentially does double-duty (local & through traffic) due to absence of the once-proposed 12-Mile Loop Expressway.  Had such been built; it would've operated similar to I-295 with respect to the NJ Turnpike.

I-276 could do that if the interchange spacing wasn't so wide.  Five segments, 32 miles, average spacing of 6.4 miles, too wide for an metropolitan beltway.  If that was 2.5 or 3 mile spacing, it could do the whole job, although part might need 8 lanes.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

PHLBOS

Quote from: Beltway on July 17, 2019, 02:44:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2019, 01:17:09 PM
If such is indeed true; then the PTC seems to be insinuating that the majority of their traffic is either going between interchanges and/or is along the southeastern PA portions (I-276 & the lower part of the NE Extension/I-476).  The latter wouldn't surprise me given that I-276 essentially does double-duty (local & through traffic) due to absence of the once-proposed 12-Mile Loop Expressway.  Had such been built; it would've operated similar to I-295 with respect to the NJ Turnpike.

I-276 could do that if the interchange spacing wasn't so wide.  Five segments, 32 miles, average spacing of 6.4 miles, too wide for an metropolitan beltway.  If that was 2.5 or 3 mile spacing, it could do the whole job, although part might need 8 lanes.
Obviously, I-276 wasn't originally designed to be part of a metropolitan beltway.  It just became such over time.  It was widened to 6-lanes during the late 1980s as a result of increased demand and compensation, of sorts, for not building a parallel free highway (the fore-mentioned 12-Mile Loop Expressway).

As far as interchange spacing is concerned; there are plans to add another E-ZPass Only or AET interchange somewhere between the Norristown & Valley Forge (I-76 East) interchanges (which are roughly 7 miles apart).  Then, of course, the I-95 connection and US 13 interchange are only 2 miles apart.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Beltway

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2019, 03:00:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 17, 2019, 02:44:56 PM
I-276 could do that if the interchange spacing wasn't so wide.  Five segments, 32 miles, average spacing of 6.4 miles, too wide for an metropolitan beltway.  If that was 2.5 or 3 mile spacing, it could do the whole job, although part might need 8 lanes.
Obviously, I-276 wasn't originally designed to be part of a metropolitan beltway.  It just became such over time.  It was widened to 6-lanes during the late 1980s as a result of increased demand and compensation, of sorts, for not building a parallel free highway (the fore-mentioned 12-Mile Loop Expressway).
As far as interchange spacing is concerned; there are plans to add another E-ZPass Only or AET interchange somewhere between the Norristown & Valley Forge (I-76 East) interchanges (which are roughly 7 miles apart).  Then, of course, the I-95 connection and US 13 interchange are only 2 miles apart.
I agree, it was built as a long-distance turnpike, at a time that the concept of a metropolitan beltway was in its infancy.  They can always add more local interchanges.

The Lafayette Street interchange has already been preliminarily designed, and will be a nice new local access point.
https://www.montcopa.org/DocumentCenter/View/13373/Project-Location-within-Norristown-and-Plymouth?bidId=
https://www.montcopa.org/1074/Maps-Photos
https://www.patpconstruction.com/lafayettestreet/default.aspx

The I-95 connection in the first phase handles I-95 thru traffic only.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

PHLBOS

Quote from: Beltway on July 17, 2019, 03:18:37 PMThe I-95 connection in the first phase handles I-95 thru traffic only.
I'm well aware of that.  However, such is not to say that one can use the through-I-95 northbound ramp and then exit off at US 13.  Conversely, one can get still get on the Turnpike at US 13 and veer off such following through-I-95 southbound.  So, one is still technically on the PA Turnpike for a short distance between the connection and US 13.

Shortly after those ramps opened; I indeed did a couple of test runs through that stretch... especially since there's no toll charged for that short run.  Those who attended last September's Golden Spike Meet did such as well... but more slowly/cautiously due to the new ramps not being officially opened yet.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

MASTERNC

It gets better. Apparently the cost of processing cashless tolls is so high that the Gateway toll will go to $12 for those without E-ZPass in October, double the E-ZPass rate.

https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2019/20190717112134.htm

jeffandnicole

Quote from: MASTERNC on July 17, 2019, 09:28:54 PM
It gets better. Apparently the cost of processing cashless tolls is so high that the Gateway toll will go to $12 for those without E-ZPass in October, double the E-ZPass rate.

https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2019/20190717112134.htm

I guess PTC ain't doing something right then! lol  That's an extremely high fare for a cashless toll.  I wonder what their collection rates are.  I have always felt that with a system like the PA Turnpike where you have both a ticket toll system and a pay-by-plate system, many people are going to think they already paid the toll and will ignore the notice.

Mr. Matté

Quote from: MASTERNC on July 17, 2019, 09:28:54 PM
It gets better. Apparently the cost of processing cashless tolls is so high that the Gateway toll will go to $12 for those without E-ZPass in October, double the E-ZPass rate.

https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2019/20190717112134.htm

Maybe SNPJ should set up their own little service plaza for the new shunpikers and get some more revenue for its 19 residents.

PHLBOS

Quote from: MASTERNC on July 17, 2019, 09:28:54 PM
It gets better. Apparently the cost of processing cashless tolls is so high that the Gateway toll will go to $12 for those without E-ZPass in October, double the E-ZPass rate.

https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2019/20190717112134.htm

Quote from: PA Turnpike Media & Public Relations News ReleaseThe toll for a two-axle passenger vehicle at Gateway, for example, will increase Oct. 27 from $7.90 to $12.20. The new TOLL BY PLATE rates reflect associated invoice-processing and collections costs. The E-ZPass rate at Gateway will increase to $5.50 to $5.90. Charts showing new rates at the three cashless locations can be found here. (No increases will be applied at these locations in January 2020.)
That increase from the old cash rate to the new Toll-By-Plate (TBP) rate IMHO is way too extreme.  Not even the Delaware River Bridge (I-95) TBP rate (2020 toll of $7.70) is that high.  One getting on the NJ side at US 130/Florence and either exiting at US 13 or staying on I-95 south pays a total of $10.70 ($3.00 NJTP + the above $7.70). 

Something's very wrong there.
GPS does NOT equal GOD



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.