I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[vdeane]

Well, something has to be done, as having a Turnpike only the rich can pay for that cannot even do simple projects is not in the public's interest.  Perhaps the federal government could step in and slap Pennsylvania around.  Does the PTC have a union?  Perhaps the workers could strike until such time as the payments are removed.  There has to be SOMEONE around there who is interested in actually serving the public and doing what's right rather than being someone's corrupt crony.

This is a very good reason for stripping the governor's office of the power to appoint/fire high level management.  They should be through the civil service system like everyone else.

[jeffandnicole]

Well, something has to be done, as having a Turnpike only the rich can pay for that cannot even do simple projects is not in the public's interest.  Perhaps the federal government could step in and slap Pennsylvania around.  Does the PTC have a union?  Perhaps the workers could strike until such time as the payments are removed.  There has to be SOMEONE around there who is interested in actually serving the public and doing what's right rather than being someone's corrupt crony.

This is a very good reason for stripping the governor's office of the power to appoint/fire high level management.  They should be through the civil service system like everyone else.

Technically, the law serves the public because of the money going to various state road and transit projects.  So while it slows down construction and delays work on the Turnpike, it's actually benefiting more people overall.

It wouldn't do the Turnpike union workers any good to strike, as the payment doesn't affect them.  Could they organize a walkout?   Sure.  But considering the majority of people are using EZ Pass, the effect on the motoring public would be minimal. 

[vdeane]

Surely they have office workers too - and their absence would grind everything PTC to a halt.  In any case, it won't serve the public when in a few years the AADT on the Turnpike drops to 0 because nobody can afford the tolls.  And last I checked, PennDOT is no longer receiving money from the PTC as of Act 89.  And I don't think anyone will appreciate all the shunpike traffic.

[cpzilliacus]

Technically, the law serves the public because of the money going to various state road and transit projects.  So while it slows down construction and delays work on the Turnpike, it's actually benefiting more people overall.

As of the passage of Act 89, all of the diverted money goes to transit and other non-highway/non-Turnpike projects.

It wouldn't do the Turnpike union workers any good to strike, as the payment doesn't affect them.  Could they organize a walkout?   Sure.  But considering the majority of people are using EZ Pass, the effect on the motoring public would be minimal.

And the PTC has said very firmly that the all-electronic toll collection at the E-ZPass only interchange on the N.E. Extension, other ramps and on the E-W Mainline west of the Delaware River is just the start.

They are firmly on their way to an all-AET Pennsylvania Turnpike, and will presumably be the first of the legacy toll roads to go 100% cashless, but probably not the last.

Once they go cashless, the impact of a strike on the PTC will be pretty minimal, except during the winter season, when they have to have massive maintenance forces to deal with snow and ice.

[cpzilliacus]

Well, something has to be done, as having a Turnpike only the rich can pay for that cannot even do simple projects is not in the public's interest.  Perhaps the federal government could step in and slap Pennsylvania around.  Does the PTC have a union?  Perhaps the workers could strike until such time as the payments are removed.  There has to be SOMEONE around there who is interested in actually serving the public and doing what's right rather than being someone's corrupt crony.

Because there are no federal dollars directly involved, the USDOT cannot really do anything.  Even though the "original" Turnpike from Carlisle to the suburbs of Pittsburgh was built with federal loans (long ago repaid).

This is a very good reason for stripping the governor's office of the power to appoint/fire high level management.  They should be through the civil service system like everyone else.

It was (is) a political decision.  The Pennsylvania Constitution has a provision that prohibits the use of motor fuel tax revenues on anything except highways, so the Turnpike Commission was identified as a juice source of subsidy dollars for PennDOT (for highway projects having nothing to do with the Turnpike) and for the various transit agencies around the state. 

After the passage of Act 89, the diversion of Turnpike dollars to PennDOT highway projects stopped, but the diversion to transit and other non-highway projects will continue at the same rate as before.

[Pete from Boston]

This is funny.  Public employee unions stepping in to demand more efficient/effective spending?  Not in their interests or nature. 

Appoint top-level management through civil service?  Why have a governor if he/she cannot run on an agenda and then ensure the people in place are ones that will see it through?  If the governor cannot fire his top people, to whom are they answerable?

Political jobs are valuable because ineffective and corrupt people can be fired by someone appointed directly by the people.  Removing this power from the people is not only something I'd never stand for (nor should anyone), but a recipe for an epic disaster for public accountability.  As it is, removing ineffective people from public jobs is far more complicated than in a lot of the private sector.  Please, let's not champion this practice for the folks that need the most at stake.

[Mr_Northside]

They are firmly on their way to an all-AET Pennsylvania Turnpike, and will presumably be the first of the legacy toll roads to go 100% cashless, but probably not the last.

Of course, not anywhere near as fast as they thought when they first announced.  Most of the articles I've read in the last 6 months - year have mentioned how they're slowing the whole process down a lot (presumably to do more "research" and observe their test projects they are doing soon.)

[vdeane]

This is funny.  Public employee unions stepping in to demand more efficient/effective spending?  Not in their interests or nature. 

Appoint top-level management through civil service?  Why have a governor if he/she cannot run on an agenda and then ensure the people in place are ones that will see it through?  If the governor cannot fire his top people, to whom are they answerable?

Political jobs are valuable because ineffective and corrupt people can be fired by someone appointed directly by the people.  Removing this power from the people is not only something I'd never stand for (nor should anyone), but a recipe for an epic disaster for public accountability.  As it is, removing ineffective people from public jobs is far more complicated than in a lot of the private sector.  Please, let's not champion this practice for the folks that need the most at stake.

Around here, pretty much every politically appointed position is a patronage job.  I'd rather the agencies do what's genuinely best for the people, and I'm cynical enough to believe that politicians that work for anyone but themselves are EXTREMELY rare.

So, in this system where nobody is standing up for the people, who will?

[Duke87]

Appoint top-level management through civil service?  Why have a governor if he/she cannot run on an agenda and then ensure the people in place are ones that will see it through?  If the governor cannot fire his top people, to whom are they answerable?

Because it gives too much power to one person. Also because it ruins the ability of a state to move forward with a consistent vision if the head keeps changing and undoing policies of his predecessors.

Using civil service instead does, however, have the problem of lack of accountability. I would instead propose making the leaders of state agencies elected positions, with an explicit requirement that any individual running for the position must be licensed in the field in question (DOT commissioner must be a PE, education commissioner must have a teaching certification, health commissioner must be an MD, etc.).

[Alps]

For a while, it was claimed by the PTC and others that the project would be complete enough to re-route I-95 onto the Pennsylvania Turnpike in 2017. 

Now it seems that the schedule is sometime in 2018 (seen on the Turnpike's Web site for this project, and also here in this 2014 article on Philly.com by transportation beat writer Paul Nussbaum).

I look forward to 2012, when the new interchange and twinned bridge will be complete.

[Pete from Boston]

Appoint top-level management through civil service?  Why have a governor if he/she cannot run on an agenda and then ensure the people in place are ones that will see it through?  If the governor cannot fire his top people, to whom are they answerable?

Because it gives too much power to one person. Also because it ruins the ability of a state to move forward with a consistent vision if the head keeps changing and undoing policies of his predecessors.

Using civil service instead does, however, have the problem of lack of accountability. I would instead propose making the leaders of state agencies elected positions, with an explicit requirement that any individual running for the position must be licensed in the field in question (DOT commissioner must be a PE, education commissioner must have a teaching certification, health commissioner must be an MD, etc.).

You will run into the same problem as in most elections–the most ambitious candidates are more likely to succeed than the most qualified.  As it is, public agencies have a hard time selecting the best talent when the private sector involves less hamstringing and pays much better.

Granted, there are elected "professional" positions.  Our state auditor, for example, is elected.  But on the other hand, the world is full of lazy, entrenched, politically powerful elected sheriffs.  I don't think the best practice at all is to assemble a professional management team of people who a) must already live in a particular jurisdiction, and b) necessarily have to focus on "electability" along with actual qualification.

Plus, who then sets policy?  Cabinet-level or lesser officials?  How do you balance priorities across governmental functions when your Secretary of X won on a platform of taking more money for X and is now going to fight the rest of government to get it (and has, to in order to get reelected)?  You end up with Congress in miniature when you directly politicize these roles.

Finally, the only point that actually matters is that we have not collectively agreed to limit money in politics, so control of these jobs will just go to the highest bidder anyway.

[roadman]

DOT commissioner must be a PE

Why?  Most of the work a DOT commissioner does revolves around policy and budget decisions, as well as responding to legislation concerning tranportation matters, and not actual engineering.

[Mr_Northside]

I look forward to 2012, when the new interchange and twinned bridge will be complete.

Man... it will be great until we find out the Mayans were right, and the world ends shortly thereafter.

Wait.... what?

[cpzilliacus]

Of course, not anywhere near as fast as they thought when they first announced.  Most of the articles I've read in the last 6 months - year have mentioned how they're slowing the whole process down a lot (presumably to do more "research" and observe their test projects they are doing soon.)

Yeah, the PTC seems to plod along at its own (slow) pace.

How many years has a discussion about what to do with the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel been going on?

Bypass it? 

Bore a third tube so that the two existing tubes can be taken out of service and rehabilitated?

[Rothman]

DOT commissioner must be a PE

Why?  Most of the work a DOT commissioner does revolves around policy and budget decisions, as well as responding to legislation concerning tranportation matters, and not actual engineering.

The engineers around here do tend to get lost in the details and lose sight of the overall picture very frequently.  I don't think the last three commissioners at NYSDOT had a PE (Glynn, MacDonald and now Driscoll).  Having someone fret over the pennies rather than the millions would be highly damaging and I see some engineers here in management do exactly that.

[hbelkins]

My personal preference is that the top official NOT be a PE. In Kentucky, all transportation functions are consolidated in the Transportation Cabinet, with various departments including Highways, Aviation, etc. Departments are headed by commissioners and I'm not sure if Kentucky even has a commissioner of highways right now. There is a politically appointed position called state highway engineer, however, who has to be a PE. The SHE answers to the commissioner, who in turn answers to the cabinet s secretary. My preference is that the top official who's a PE is the state highway engineer, and I prefer non-PEs as highway commissioner and cabinet secretary. You need to strike a balance between engineering and political considerations, and personally I think PEs concentrate too much on the former and not enough on the latter. Our current secretary is a PE. His predecessor was not. There was a huge public outcry for a traffic signal on the AA Highway several years ago. The intersection never met engineering warrants for a signal but the local residents and leaders were insistent on having one. The non-PE secretary at the time basically said that he felt comfortable approving the signal because he was NOT an engineer and didn't feel constrained by engineering criteria to do what was right. A PE wouldn't have approved the signal but a "civilian" did.

[Rothman]

I agree, H.B.  Of course, NYSDOT's Chief Engineer is a PE.

[mrsman]

I-95 doesn't enter Trenton. True. Now tell those people in southern Maine, southeast New Hampshire, northeast Massachusetts and Providence that I-95 never enters Boston, although they use it as a control city in many cases.

I-84 ends roughly 55 miles west of Boston. Tell that to people in Connecticut from roughly Exit 45 in Hartford (Flatbush Avenue) to the Massachusetts state line.

Anyways...one still sees Trenton as a southbound control city at the I-95 exit from I-87 (Major Deegan Expressway).

My issue with "Trenton" on the sign is not that the road never enters it, but rather that it is probably not that big a draw for motorists on the Deegan or Cross Bronx.  "Newark" was always the better option, and thankfully, the relevant agencies in New York have come around on this.

Newark is also better, because of the people heading over the GWB probably an equal number of people take I-80 west as take I-95 south.  The ideal control city would be a city in northern NJ that both streams of travel would hit.  That would be Fort Lee or Leonia or Teaneck or Ridgefield Park.  But those cities are too small to be used (in any place other than PA of course).  Newark is the largest city in NJ and it is at least in the general area of Northern NJ so it is the best choice.

Trenton is just too far south to be used as a control in the Bronx.

[bzakharin]

I-95 doesn't enter Trenton. True. Now tell those people in southern Maine, southeast New Hampshire, northeast Massachusetts and Providence that I-95 never enters Boston, although they use it as a control city in many cases.

I-84 ends roughly 55 miles west of Boston. Tell that to people in Connecticut from roughly Exit 45 in Hartford (Flatbush Avenue) to the Massachusetts state line.

Anyways...one still sees Trenton as a southbound control city at the I-95 exit from I-87 (Major Deegan Expressway).

My issue with "Trenton" on the sign is not that the road never enters it, but rather that it is probably not that big a draw for motorists on the Deegan or Cross Bronx.  "Newark" was always the better option, and thankfully, the relevant agencies in New York have come around on this.

Newark is also better, because of the people heading over the GWB probably an equal number of people take I-80 west as take I-95 south.  The ideal control city would be a city in northern NJ that both streams of travel would hit.  That would be Fort Lee or Leonia or Teaneck or Ridgefield Park.  But those cities are too small to be used (in any place other than PA of course).  Newark is the largest city in NJ and it is at least in the general area of Northern NJ so it is the best choice.

Trenton is just too far south to be used as a control in the Bronx.

Is that really true? I-95 goes through more populated areas than I-80 both in the short range (Newark, New Brunswick, etc) and medium range (Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington). I-80 west of Paterson has few meaningful destinations until you hit Ohio.

[Henry]

I-95 doesn't enter Trenton. True. Now tell those people in southern Maine, southeast New Hampshire, northeast Massachusetts and Providence that I-95 never enters Boston, although they use it as a control city in many cases.

I-84 ends roughly 55 miles west of Boston. Tell that to people in Connecticut from roughly Exit 45 in Hartford (Flatbush Avenue) to the Massachusetts state line.

Anyways...one still sees Trenton as a southbound control city at the I-95 exit from I-87 (Major Deegan Expressway).

My issue with "Trenton" on the sign is not that the road never enters it, but rather that it is probably not that big a draw for motorists on the Deegan or Cross Bronx.  "Newark" was always the better option, and thankfully, the relevant agencies in New York have come around on this.

Newark is also better, because of the people heading over the GWB probably an equal number of people take I-80 west as take I-95 south.  The ideal control city would be a city in northern NJ that both streams of travel would hit.  That would be Fort Lee or Leonia or Teaneck or Ridgefield Park.  But those cities are too small to be used (in any place other than PA of course).  Newark is the largest city in NJ and it is at least in the general area of Northern NJ so it is the best choice.

Trenton is just too far south to be used as a control in the Bronx.

Is that really true? I-95 goes through more populated areas than I-80 both in the short range (Newark, New Brunswick, etc) and medium range (Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington). I-80 west of Paterson has few meaningful destinations until you hit Ohio.

Which raises the question: Seeing that there is literally nothing noteworthy along I-80 in PA, is Cleveland (or Youngstown) signed in those locations, like New York is on the other end of that segment?

[mrsman]

I-95 doesn't enter Trenton. True. Now tell those people in southern Maine, southeast New Hampshire, northeast Massachusetts and Providence that I-95 never enters Boston, although they use it as a control city in many cases.

I-84 ends roughly 55 miles west of Boston. Tell that to people in Connecticut from roughly Exit 45 in Hartford (Flatbush Avenue) to the Massachusetts state line.

Anyways...one still sees Trenton as a southbound control city at the I-95 exit from I-87 (Major Deegan Expressway).

My issue with "Trenton" on the sign is not that the road never enters it, but rather that it is probably not that big a draw for motorists on the Deegan or Cross Bronx.  "Newark" was always the better option, and thankfully, the relevant agencies in New York have come around on this.

Newark is also better, because of the people heading over the GWB probably an equal number of people take I-80 west as take I-95 south.  The ideal control city would be a city in northern NJ that both streams of travel would hit.  That would be Fort Lee or Leonia or Teaneck or Ridgefield Park.  But those cities are too small to be used (in any place other than PA of course).  Newark is the largest city in NJ and it is at least in the general area of Northern NJ so it is the best choice.

Trenton is just too far south to be used as a control in the Bronx.

Is that really true? I-95 goes through more populated areas than I-80 both in the short range (Newark, New Brunswick, etc) and medium range (Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington). I-80 west of Paterson has few meaningful destinations until you hit Ohio.

Which raises the question: Seeing that there is literally nothing noteworthy along I-80 in PA, is Cleveland (or Youngstown) signed in those locations, like New York is on the other end of that segment?

From I-95, the control is Paterson.

The control for much of I-80 is Delaware Water Gap.

As far as traffic, though, during commute times, I'd say the amount of traffic heading to western suburbs along I-80 is probably close to the traffic heading along I-95. 

Furthermore, nearly all of I-80's traffic that is heading for NYC or Long Island will use the GWB, whereas a lot of the I-95 traffic will use some of the other crossings like the Lincoln, Holland, Goethals, or Outerbridge.  So if you were in Queens and you were heading to Philly, you'd probably use the Verrazano, but if you were heading to Cleveland, you'd use the GWB.

[Alps]

Is that really true? I-95 goes through more populated areas than I-80 both in the short range (Newark, New Brunswick, etc) and medium range (Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington). I-80 west of Paterson has few meaningful destinations until you hit Ohio.

Which raises the question: Seeing that there is literally nothing noteworthy along I-80 in PA, is Cleveland (or Youngstown) signed in those locations, like New York is on the other end of that segment?

From I-95, the control is Paterson.

The control for much of I-80 is Delaware Water Gap.

Don't forget Netcong!

[SignBridge]

One possible destination for I-80 in Pennsylvania might be State College. Although it's several miles off I-80 and it's not a large city, it is a very well known location and might fly as an I-80 destination.

[rickmastfan67]

One possible destination for I-80 in Pennsylvania might be State College. Although it's several miles off I-80 and it's not a large city, it is a very well known location and might fly as an I-80 destination.

What about Williamsport?  I mean, they do host the Little League World Series.

[Alps]

One possible destination for I-80 in Pennsylvania might be State College. Although it's several miles off I-80 and it's not a large city, it is a very well known location and might fly as an I-80 destination.

What about Williamsport?  I mean, they do host the Little League World Series.

And these are why it should be signed Youngstown - Netcong. (Yes, I'm joking about Netcong, but hey, it's on there.)