Here's (http://www.us202-300.com/) a link to a critical highway project in the western suburbs of Philadelphia. Pretty soon, U.S. 202 will be a modern, six-lane highway all the way from Exton to King of Prussia. Here are some pictures taken in the last few months:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.us202-300.com%2Fphotos%2F12-26-13_320-2.JPG&hash=eb83f096939f264c58c2843a74ef333ddf9bc426)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.us202-300.com%2Fphotos%2F12-26-13_320-7.JPG&hash=3873cf1f7d8a81c503b50792284c4323fb530af0)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.us202-300.com%2Fphotos%2F1-15-14_202-300-2.JPG&hash=fd512e445f5720ab81ed6cbb58f1ba05ccbaae1f)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.us202-300.com%2Fphotos%2F3-12-14_202-300-7.JPG&hash=99e8beb0553e8b6c199454c5fbf524a9714b9028)
Between this and reconstruction projects on the Pennsylvania Turnpike (including the Northeast Extension), I-476, I-95 and PA 309, the Philadelphia metropolitan area is gradually putting together a world-class highway infrastructure befitting a major U.S. city. This leaves just one highway to reconstruct... :hmmm:
Quote from: Gnutella on March 20, 2014, 06:07:29 AMPretty soon, U.S. 202 will be what it should have been when it was first built in the 1970s; a modern, six-lane highway all the way from Exton to King of Prussia.
FTFY :)
Quote from: Gnutella on March 20, 2014, 06:07:29 AMBetween this and reconstruction projects on the Pennsylvania Turnpike (including the Northeast Extension), I-476, I-95 and PA 309, the Philadelphia metropolitan area is gradually putting together a world-class highway infrastructure befitting a major U.S. city. This leaves just one highway to reconstruct... :hmmm:
Don't hold your breath for a widening of the Schuylkill Expressway (I-76) anytime soon; otherwise PennDOT would've done such when the highway was completely redone during the mid-1980s.
I wish that PennDOT would make an SPUI at the US 1/ US 202 intersection as that is needed as of 1985. This is as important as widening that stretch of freeway.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 20, 2014, 08:42:06 AM
I wish that PennDOT would make an SPUI at the US 1/ US 202 intersection as that is needed as of 1985. This is as important as widening that stretch of freeway.
I do know there are plans to convert the section of US 202 from the DE state line to High St. (Bus US 322) into an expressway with all major street intersections (including US 1/322) converted into interchanges.
When that will actually happen is anybody's guess. IIRC, that US 1/202/322 intersection at Painters Crossing is one of if not the most dangerous intersection (in terms of accidents) in Delaware County.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 20, 2014, 08:22:50 AMDon't hold your breath for a widening of the Schuylkill Expressway (I-76) anytime soon; otherwise PennDOT would've done such when the highway was completely redone during the mid-1980s.
Well it's been almost 30 years since the last reconstruction, which is long enough to justify another one even if the last one hasn't yet reached the end of its engineering life.
Honestly, I don't expect any big plans to be announced until the end of this decade at the soonest, but I-95 reconstruction will be wrapping up by then, as will reconstruction of the Pennsylvania Turnpike out to Downingtown, and the Northeast Extension up to Lansdale. These will all make the Schuylkill Expressway seem especially dated and dumpy in comparison, and will give PennDOT extra justification for reconstructing and upgrading it in the future.
I do think, however, that it'd be in PennDOT's best interest to tunnel the Schuylkill Expressway under University City, much like Seattle is doing with the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement. A tunnel under University City would be about two miles long, exactly like the Alaskan Way Tunnel. Aside from that, not much would need to be done with the highway east of MM 339 except for expansion of the interior shoulders.
As for U.S. 202, does anybody think the portion between Exton and West Chester will be expanded in the near future? Or how about the first nine miles of I-476? I know that the bridges and such were designed for easy conversion to six lanes in the future.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 20, 2014, 09:08:31 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 20, 2014, 08:42:06 AM
I wish that PennDOT would make an SPUI at the US 1/ US 202 intersection as that is needed as of 1985. This is as important as widening that stretch of freeway.
I do know there are plans to convert the section of US 202 from the DE state line to High St. (Bus US 322) into an expressway with all major street intersections (including US 1/322) converted into interchanges. When that will actually happen is anybody's guess. IIRC, that US 1/202/322 intersection at Painters Crossing is one of if not the most dangerous intersection (in terms of accidents) in Delaware County.
It could happen soon, now that there's more transportation funding. I look forward to April when PennDOT gives us a more comprehensive list of projects.
Quote from: Gnutella on March 20, 2014, 06:07:29 AM
Between this and reconstruction projects on the Pennsylvania Turnpike (including the Northeast Extension), I-476, I-95 and PA 309, the Philadelphia metropolitan area is gradually putting together a world-class highway infrastructure befitting a major U.S. city. This leaves just one highway to reconstruct... :hmmm:
In addition to that unnamed highway, I'd add widening the Blue Route portion of I-476 from 2 to 3 lanes per direction, at minimum.
And I don't know if we can call it a World-Class highway system while utilizing 1970's era 55 mph speed limits. :-/
Quote from: Gnutella on March 20, 2014, 09:18:35 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 20, 2014, 08:22:50 AMDon't hold your breath for a widening of the Schuylkill Expressway (I-76) anytime soon; otherwise PennDOT would've done such when the highway was completely redone during the mid-1980s.
Well it's been almost 30 years since the last reconstruction, which is long enough to justify another one even if the last one hasn't yet reached the end of its engineering life.
Honestly, I don't expect any big plans to be announced until the end of this decade at the soonest, but I-95 reconstruction will be wrapping up by then, as will reconstruction of the Pennsylvania Turnpike out to Downingtown, and the Northeast Extension up to Lansdale. These will all make the Schuylkill Expressway seem especially dated and dumpy in comparison, and will give PennDOT extra justification for reconstructing and upgrading it in the future.
Sigh...I would love to see it also, but there is such a huge pro-transit movement in the Philly area, especially with constructing a rail line from Philly to Reading, that I don't see much hope for a significant widening of I-76.
It doesn't help when a recent report in the Philly Inquirer noted highway travel isn't rising as fast as expected. On top of that, they then write an editorial how lonely motorists will be on the NJ Turnpike, because the widening projects will give us huge roads with no one driving them. (Let's ignore the fact of all the present congestion, and the fact the NJ Turnpike is still expected to carry more traffic...just not as much as predicted). http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20140313_Inquirer_Editorial__Curve_ahead_for_road_building.html
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2014, 09:27:54 AMIn addition to that unnamed highway, I'd add widening the Blue Route portion of I-476 from 2 to 3 lanes per direction, at minimum.
^^This in spades. It's worth noting that the mainline corridor was setup so that a widening from 4 to 6 lanes
from the inside can actually be done w/relatively little or no fuss. Some of the mainline overpass structures between Baltimore Pike (Exit 3) and Crum Creek (MM 1.0) would need to be widened/modified; that's where the biggest chunk of construction costs would likely be. All the other mainline overpasses already have paved left/shoulders reserved for the 2 extra lanes (one for each direction)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2014, 09:27:54 AMAnd I don't know if we can call it a World-Class highway system while utilizing 1970's era 55 mph speed limits. :-/
^^Amen to that.
Quote from: Gnutella on March 20, 2014, 09:18:35 AMSigh...I would love to see it also, but there is such a huge pro-transit movement in the Philly area, especially with constructing a rail line from Philly to Reading, that I don't see much hope for a significant widening of I-76.
If memory serves, the proposed Schuylkill Valley Metro Project was shelved years ago due to overall construction costs and, yes, NIMBY issues w/those along the corridor. As I stated in other threads, NIMBYs aren't just against highway and/or airport expansions; many are indeed against transit corridors going through their areas as well.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2014, 09:27:54 AMIt doesn't help when a recent report in the Philly Inquirer noted highway travel isn't rising as fast as expected. On top of that, they then write an editorial how lonely motorists will be on the NJ Turnpike, because the widening projects will give us huge roads with no one driving them. (Let's ignore the fact of all the present congestion, and the fact the NJ Turnpike is still expected to carry more traffic...just not as much as predicted). http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20140313_Inquirer_Editorial__Curve_ahead_for_road_building.html
I saw both that article and the editorial as well and wanted to scream. While the article only lists such in
one sentence that even if the traffic counts remain flat, the NJ Turnpike widening would still be needed; the article writer & editor
completely ignored that fact that the majority of the current highway expansions/widenings taking place in the Delaware Valley were originally planned out
decades earlier and today's traffic counts are
still higher than what they were in the 1980s or 1990s.
Heck,
within a year (maybe less) after the Blue Route portion of I-476 opened in Dec. 1991; the actual traffic counts
exceeded its 10-to-20 year projections. No surprise w/that one (even PennDOT admitted to such) given the development boom that took place along MacDade Blvd., Baltimore Pike & West Chester Pike from the mid 70s to the late 80s/early 90s (causing increased traffic & demand) despite the highway being hopelessly delayed during that time-frame.
Quote from: Gnutella on March 20, 2014, 09:18:35 AMI do think, however, that it'd be in PennDOT's best interest to tunnel the Schuylkill Expressway under University City, much like Seattle is doing with the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement. A tunnel under University City would be about two miles long, exactly like the Alaskan Way Tunnel. Aside from that, not much would need to be done with the highway east of MM 339 except for expansion of the interior shoulders.
Given, what happened w/Boston's Big Dig in terms of costly overruns (actual costs turning vs. 3 x the original approved costs) and delays (such took 15-to-17 years to fully construct as opposed to the originally-predicted 10 years); I don't see that happening; especially given the current vibrancy of the University City district.
Maybe the NIMBYs along the Schuylkill Expressway can move out to upper Fucks County (specifically Fuckingham Township) and be around other like-mindless people. The highways and rail lines have to go somewhere, and when you consider that there's literally no other road entering Philadelphia from the northwest that more than two lanes wide, that increases the importance of the Schuylkill Expressway and makes widening it more imperative.
As for traffic counts, great, they're flat. What the anti-highway idiots don't realize is, "flat" means they're not declining either. This means all the existing bottlenecks still have to be fixed. There's an increasing anti-highway contingency in Pittsburgh as well, but I've tried to explain that you could cut traffic in half on the Parkways East and West and still be over capacity, because they handle more than twice the amount of traffic they were designed to.
Their solution to the rail neglect of the last 50 years is not only to rebuild the rail lines, but to neglect the highways as well. In other words, they want to make a right out of two wrongs. Never mind that highway spending in the last 50 years hasn't been equitable, and probably never will be without tolls. Houston looks like a fucking bullseye on a road map; meanwhile the two busiest segments of highway in Pennsylvania are functionally the same as they were 60 years ago. Thanks, feds! :banghead:
I hope PennDOT (counter)sues the asses off all the NIMBYs along the Schuylkill Expressway and says "no compromise."
US 202 south of West Chester is not going to be upgraded to an expressway...but instead potentially widened to a 6-lane with maybe grade separations at US 1 and PA 926. http://www.us202.com/
As far as the Schuylkill Expwy, I have never seen or heard of any widening proposals...it would be a pretty massive undertaking just from the topography of the area. But it does need it BADLY.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on March 20, 2014, 06:32:21 PM
US 202 south of West Chester is not going to be upgraded to an expressway...but instead potentially widened to a 6-lane with maybe grade separations at US 1 and PA 926. http://www.us202.com/
Thanks for the info./update. While the extra lanes will help; there's
still too many traffic signals along that road. The proposed SPUI options for the US 1/322 & PA 926 crossings (which IIRC carried over from a one-time expressway proposal BTW)
should be an automatic given IMHO.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on March 20, 2014, 06:32:21 PMAs far as the Schuylkill Expwy, I have never seen or heard of any widening proposals...it would be a pretty massive undertaking just from the topography of the area. But it does need it BADLY.
Sad but true. One has to ask
why was the thing only proposed & built as a 4-laner in the first place? During that time and era, nearly
every city that was building expressways were building them
at least 6-lanes wide... including Boston's Southeast Expressway (I-93); which, like the Schuylkill, was built under the assumption that other highways would eventually be built later (but weren't) to distribute the traffic loads more evenly.
PHLBOS - agreed with everything you said. And, with the PA Turnpike and 202 expanding to 6 lanes, and 95 and 476 (mostly) being 6 lanes, it's a joke that the Schuylkill Expwy isn't.
The Schuylkill expressway will never be six lanes throughout because there simply isn't room. In the area near 30th Street Station, four lanes barely fit between the train tracks and the river. I suppose you could in theory build more lanes directly over part of the river, but that would create problems with navigation for boats and would be so visually disruptive as to be a non-starter.
It'd also be a stretch to fit three lanes each under the arches of the historic Manayunk Viaduct.
That said, you could six lane it from the turnpike to exit 338, which might help a bit.
The Schuylkill just has tight right-of-way all the way around...not just near center city. Due to adjoining residential area and topography, you'd have a problem shoehorning in additional lanes between 476 and 202 as well. There's also a tight constrict at the Spring Garden St overpass just east of Exit 332.
After a quick lookover of aerial and topgraphic imagery, what I'd suggest is something similar to Duke87, but only westbound. You might also be able to shoehorn in the 3rd westbound lane beginning at Exit 339/City Ave instead of at Exit 338. You also don't need to go all the way to the Turnpike since technically westbound is already 4 lanes through the 202 interchange and to the toll booth. Eastbound would be much more limited...to prevent adding yet another bottleneck, not to mention the tight right-of-way between Exits 332 and 339, I'd limit the eastbound improvements to a 3rd auxiliary lane between 202 and 476.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 24, 2014, 10:12:05 PM
The Schuylkill expressway will never be six lanes throughout because there simply isn't room. In the area near 30th Street Station, four lanes barely fit between the train tracks and the river. I suppose you could in theory build more lanes directly over part of the river, but that would create problems with navigation for boats and would be so visually disruptive as to be a non-starter.
It'd also be a stretch to fit three lanes each under the arches of the historic Manayunk Viaduct.
That said, you could six lane it from the turnpike to exit 338, which might help a bit.
What I've heard about the Skookl being widenable to 6 lanes, I assume is limited to "northwest of Vine St. Expwy."
http://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.transport.road/g4-8xRHNrNw/5oBrRIjAyIcJ
QuoteI have Xeroxed plan sheets from a PennDOT preliminary engineering study to widen part of the Schuylkill Expressway.
...
The one major complication was the Manayunk railroad viaduct near Belmont Avenue. Rather than reconstruct the railroad viaduct, the highway would have been horizontally "cocked" to reduce the skew between the highway and the railroad viaduct, so that 6 lanes would fit underneath with each directional roadway passing through a span opening.
Quote from: Alps on March 25, 2014, 07:08:53 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 24, 2014, 10:12:05 PM
The Schuylkill expressway will never be six lanes throughout because there simply isn't room. In the area near 30th Street Station, four lanes barely fit between the train tracks and the river. I suppose you could in theory build more lanes directly over part of the river, but that would create problems with navigation for boats and would be so visually disruptive as to be a non-starter.
It'd also be a stretch to fit three lanes each under the arches of the historic Manayunk Viaduct.
That said, you could six lane it from the turnpike to exit 338, which might help a bit.
What I've heard about the Skookl being widenable to 6 lanes, I assume is limited to "northwest of Vine St. Expwy."
Why not tunnel the highway under University City? Seattle is replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a two-mile underground tunnel, and the straight-line distance from I-676 to the Schuylkill River Bridge is about two miles as well. Doing that could give the entire highway six lanes.
As for between U.S. 202 and I-476, two words: eminent domain. And using it for a highway absolutely qualifies as using it for the public good.
QuoteWhy not tunnel the highway under University City? Seattle is replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a two-mile underground tunnel, and the straight-line distance from I-676 to the Schuylkill River Bridge is about two miles as well. Doing that could give the entire highway six lanes.
The land immediately adjacent to the river may not be suitable for tunneling. Which, in addition to adjacent topography, might be why SEPTA bridges over the river instead of tunneling underneath.
QuoteAs for between U.S. 202 and I-476, two words: eminent domain. And using it for a highway absolutely qualifies as using it for the public good.
One counter-word: topography. Not insurmountable, but will add considerably to the cost of any potential project.
Quote from: Gnutella on March 26, 2014, 05:24:04 AMWhy not tunnel the highway under University City? Seattle is replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a two-mile underground tunnel, and the straight-line distance from I-676 to the Schuylkill River Bridge is about two miles as well. Doing that could give the entire highway six lanes.
With all due respect & aside from Froggie's previous comments regarding potential soil conditions by the river and topography being deal-breakers;
did you not see my earlier comments (reposted below) regarding this:
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 20, 2014, 10:09:55 AMGiven, what happened w/Boston's Big Dig in terms of costly overruns (actual costs turning vs. 3 x the original approved costs) and delays (such took 15-to-17 years to fully construct as opposed to the originally-predicted 10 years); I don't see that happening; especially given the current vibrancy of the University City district.
The above-2 items alone make your proposal (while kudos for thinking outside the box) automatically DOA IMHO.
Another thing to consider, even if it were possible to relocate I-76 to a tunnel under University City; you still have connection issues w/I-676... unless your plan would be to leave the 4-lane stretches of the Schuylkill Expressway
as is between the new tunnel interchanges (plowing a western extension of I-676 through 30th St. Station to connect to the new tiunnel is an automatic non-starter).
You might want to ponder such and do a thread on your proposal in the
Fictional Highways section for further discussion.
Quote from: Alps on March 25, 2014, 07:08:53 PMWhat I've heard about the Skookl being widenable to 6 lanes, I assume is limited to "northwest of Vine St. Expwy."
You are correct but to clarify, for those not 100% familiar with the area & road, the Expressway portion you're referring to is the stretch northwest of
City Ave. (US 1 South) and
outside the City of Philadelphia limits.
Quote from: Gnutella on March 26, 2014, 05:24:04 AM
As for between U.S. 202 and I-476, two words: eminent domain. And using it for a highway absolutely qualifies as using it for the public good.
It's not that simple. If it was, then every road/highway project imaginable would have been built thoughout the years, knocking down millions of homes and businesses. It's generally used as a last resort. If the Schuylkil was in other areas of the country, it would probably happen. Philly tends to be resistant to highway building and expansion, so nothing more than studies have been done.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2014, 09:13:15 AM
Quote from: Gnutella on March 26, 2014, 05:24:04 AM
As for between U.S. 202 and I-476, two words: eminent domain. And using it for a highway absolutely qualifies as using it for the public good.
It's not that simple. If it was, then every road/highway project imaginable would have been built thoughout the years, knocking down millions of homes and businesses. It's generally used as a last resort. If the Schuylkil was in other areas of the country, it would probably happen. Philly tends to be resistant to highway building and expansion, so nothing more than studies have been done.
In the case of I-476 (Blue Route portion); eminent domain would
not be needed since the 4-lane stretch was arranged in such a way that it could be widened to 6-lanes from the
inside.
The only land-taking issues I would see w/the Blue Route widening would be additional required infiltration areas courtesy of the newer stormwater management laws that took effect after 2006. Similar was the reason why some additional land was taken for the current Northeast Extension widening project currently taking place.