Why does I-83 exit itself NB at I-83 Business in York, PA?

[roadman65]

I was always wondering why the southern terminus of I-83 Business in York, PA has it free flowing with its parent.  I-83 SB loops over its Business route and merges from the right while NB I-83 exits itself to the freeway to give way to Business I-83.

Was I-83 originally to go through York or was it to be a newer alignment for old US 111?

[NE2]

It doesn't anymore. It used to because the road into York was built before the bypass.

[froggie]

A) To the south of York, it was built pre-Interstate as US 111.

B) As NE2 said, it doesn't anymore.  And hasn't for several years.

[Alex]

I drove along the Business Loop in 1993 and there were several signs posted along the route that displayed a tri-colored Interstate 83 shield with arrows.



Interstate 83 north at the split with Business Loop I-83 on June 27, 2010.

[mightyace]

Before being rebuilt, the BL I-83 expressway had a narrow grass median similar to the original PA Turnpike did.

I rode on the road many times when taking the bus from Baltimore to Bloomsburg as Greyhound used BL I-83 through York to make its stop in the city.

[PAHighways]

Was I-83 originally to go through York or was it to be a newer alignment for old US 111?

It was constructed as an upgrade for US 111, as the original one is George Street which ties in at the end of Business Loop 83's expressway segment.  Built in the mid-late 1950s, the former I-83/BL-83 interchange was upgraded between 2003 and 2006 which saw the ramps reconfigured as well as I-83 rebuilt.

[Mergingtraffic]

I drove along the Business Loop in 1993 and there were several signs posted along the route that displayed a tri-colored Interstate 83 shield with arrows.



Interstate 83 north at the split with Business Loop I-83 on June 27, 2010.

Almost perfect BGS sigs by the way.  The exit tab, the border is not too large and the yellow looks extra bright! Although the 83 Business is a little off.

[qguy]

And there should be no border between the green and yellow portions of the sign.

The reason for little goofs like that is that when PennDOT manages a large project (original construction or reconstruction), it includes the signs in the contract. The construction company (or more likely, the project management contractor) then is responsible for contracting out the constructing of the signs (instead of the in-house PennDOT sign shop). Between the contractor and the contractee, often the little details are flubbed. The PennDOT construction inspector then gives it a pass because "correcting the mistake would be too costly."

PennDOT often passes things like white borders on the yellow "exit only" portions of signs this way. (Details, schmetails!) Drove me crazy when I worked for PennDOT. Still does.

[Mergingtraffic]

And there should be no border between the green and yellow portions of the sign.

The reason for little goofs like that is that when PennDOT manages a large project (original construction or reconstruction), it includes the signs in the contract. The construction company (or more likely, the project management contractor) then is responsible for contracting out the constructing of the signs (instead of the in-house PennDOT sign shop). Between the contractor and the contractee, often the little details are flubbed. The PennDOT construction inspector then gives it a pass because "correcting the mistake would be too costly."

PennDOT often passes things like white borders on the yellow "exit only" portions of signs this way. (Details, schmetails!) Drove me crazy when I worked for PennDOT. Still does.

Hopefully they dont do that with other details such as bridge rivets

[roadman65]

Thanks for clerifying! I kind of figured that was built as part of a US 111 alignment similar to I-295 between Exits 13 and 21 in New Jersey was a bypass to US 130 (and still is).  Then again I have seen freeways built with in city limits as well!

Good to hear that PennDOT changed this last decade.  I have not been there since 97, so I have not seen it changed. 

[mightyace]

Good to hear that PennDOT changed this last decade.

Yes, but my image of PennDOT will be forever colored by the "bad old days" of the 1970s and the Milton Shapp administration.

[PAHighways]

Organizations can change, so can points of view.

[roadman65]

I see from Google that the interchange now has ALL movements. 

[mightyace]

Organizations can change, so can points of view.

You're right.  That's why I said "colored my point of view."

Yes, today's PennDOT is light years ahead of the organization that existed in the 70s.

But, because of that experience I will always be wary.  And, most recent ill-fated attempt to toll I-80 shows that.  I'll also be watching to see if PennDOT's project selection remains relatively fair or the give the northern part of the state "the shaft" as a result of the I-80 decision.

Back to the positive side, at the moment, I-80 is the best that I can ever remember it.  If they can continue to do as well as they can during the current funding drought, my opinion of them will continue to go up.

[PAHighways]

Yes, today's PennDOT is light years ahead of the organization that existed in the 70s.

But, because of that experience I will always be wary.  And, most recent ill-fated attempt to toll I-80 shows that.  I'll also be watching to see if PennDOT's project selection remains relatively fair or the give the northern part of the state "the shaft" as a result of the I-80 decision.

I too remember a time when a front-end alignment was a waste of money.  As for project selections, there seems to be the same amount of bridge replacements and rehabilitation being announced in the northern districts as in the southern districts.  If there are are more projects going on in the southern half, it should be attributed to merely there being more mileage to maintain and repair in the more populated southern half of the state than a conspiracy theory.  After all it wasn't the people in the northern half that killed tolling 80, it was the FHWA.

[mightyace]

No problem with that analysis.

I was thinking back to an angry statement made by some elected official shortly after the decision.