News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

PA Turnpike News

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

Previous topic - Next topic

PAHighways

Going back through some recent postings on my site's Facebook page, the idea to disband it was mentioned in 2009 and put forth in a bill in 2010.  It seems like the idea surfaces every so many years, and nothing changes.

It seems talk of abolishing the PTC lingers as much as talk of putting tolls on I-80.


cpzilliacus

Quote from: PAHighways on September 11, 2013, 06:51:10 PM
Going back through some recent postings on my site's Facebook page, the idea to disband it was mentioned in 2009 and put forth in a bill in 2010.  It seems like the idea surfaces every so many years, and nothing changes.

If Pennsylvania were to abolish the PTC, then what? 

PennDOT presumably would do like some other states (Florida, New Hampshire and Massachusetts come to mind) and create a Bureau of Turnpikes as a separate department under PennDOT management, along with all or very nearly all of the staff that used to work for the PTC.

Quote from: PAHighways on September 11, 2013, 06:51:10 PM
It seems talk of abolishing the PTC lingers as much as talk of putting tolls on I-80.

Good point.  And tolling I-80, in order to improve (and widen) I-80, and take a pretty expensive maintenance burden away from PennDOT, still makes lots of sense. 

Though I really would like to see both "free" ends of I-70 transferred to the PTC.  It would allow a lot of fixing-up along the western section (where so badly needed), and if the eastern part between Breezewood and the Maryland border were to come under PTC jurisdiction, then I think we could say "bye bye" to Breezewood.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

DBR96A

#627
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2013, 11:10:25 PM...I really would like to see both "free" ends of I-70 transferred to the PTC.  It would allow a lot of fixing-up along the western section (where so badly needed), and if the eastern part between Breezewood and the Maryland border were to come under PTC jurisdiction, then I think we could say "bye bye" to Breezewood.

The western segment of I-70 is already being improved. For the remainder of this decade, I-70 between Washington and New Stanton will be reconstructed to modern Interstate standards. You can get some information on current and future projects here. (Unfortunately, they don't do a very good job of photo-documenting the progress.)

jeffandnicole

Since disbanding the PA Turnpike Commission would probably have to go thru the governor, and since the governor appoints most of the highly paid commission members, it's not going to happen.  Even those politicians that write the bills to disband the commission know it's not going to happen - they just want some potential campaigning material. 

The problem with I-80's tolling proposal is that they kept saying the money would go to mass transit, which the feds prohibited. And after the original application was denied, PA proposed to toll 80 again...and again said the money would assist with mass transit!  And again, the proposal was rejected. Deadbrained politicians at their finest.

PAHighways

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2013, 11:10:25 PMIf Pennsylvania were to abolish the PTC, then what? 

PennDOT presumably would do like some other states (Florida, New Hampshire and Massachusetts come to mind) and create a Bureau of Turnpikes as a separate department under PennDOT management, along with all or very nearly all of the staff that used to work for the PTC.

All of the plans to kill the PTC that have been discussed just say that the roads would become PennDOT property, but don't go into much detail as to behind-the-scenes operations.  The PTC would probably just become a division, perhaps "District 7" which was supposed to be Philadelphia County's own district.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2013, 11:10:25 PMThough I really would like to see both "free" ends of I-70 transferred to the PTC.  It would allow a lot of fixing-up along the western section (where so badly needed), and if the eastern part between Breezewood and the Maryland border were to come under PTC jurisdiction, then I think we could say "bye bye" to Breezewood.

The Washington-to-New Stanton section of I-70 is planned to be upgraded, as much as it can be, over the next decade (http://www.i-70projects.com).

As for Breezewood, it will never change, with or without a PTC.  The business owners care about one thing, and it is not continuity of an Interstate.

Ned Weasel

Quote from: PAHighways on September 12, 2013, 06:12:52 PM
As for Breezewood, it will never change, with or without a PTC.  The business owners care about one thing, and it is not continuity of an Interstate.

Actually, it has changed:

https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.999389,-78.236394&spn=0.001068,0.002642&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=39.999389,-78.236394&panoid=6h_HCvFMZ0Ci5WH4WPNEEg&cbp=12,69.74,,0,6.85

I don't know whether anyone has pointed this out yet, and it caught me by surprise.  There used to be three lanes for WB I-70/EB US 30, without a center turning lane.  I think the center turning lane helps, because it takes left-turning traffic off of the left-hand thru lane of EB I-70.

I know it's not the change many people have hoped for, but frankly, I've long thought incremental changes such as this could be an effective way of addressing the problem, rather than just hoping for a bypass that may never come.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

PAHighways

Improvements to US 30, including new signals and reconfigured lanes, were the consolation prize after the direct connection was dropped.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2013, 08:33:18 AM
The problem with I-80's tolling proposal is that they kept saying the money would go to mass transit, which the feds prohibited. And after the original application was denied, PA proposed to toll 80 again...and again said the money would assist with mass transit!  And again, the proposal was rejected. Deadbrained politicians at their finest.

It wasn't just that most of the I-80 toll revenues were to go to mass transit. It was that the a very large percentage of the toll dollars were to be diverted to mass transit employees in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (both rather far from I-80). 

Had the proposal been to fund mass transit in the I-80 corridor, then it might have been acceptable, though I cannot imagine where there would be much demand for transit, given the low population density and the lack of population along much of I-80 in Pennsylvania.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: PAHighways on September 12, 2013, 06:12:52 PM
As for Breezewood, it will never change, with or without a PTC.  The business owners care about one thing, and it is not continuity of an Interstate.

The only sure way to remediate Breezewood and others is for Congress to make the elimination of them a condition of toll road bonds retaining their exemption from federal taxes.  That would quickly get rid of all of them, for the PTC cannot afford to have interest on its bonds suddenly become subject to federal taxes.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Mr_Northside

Quote from: stridentweasel on September 12, 2013, 10:43:57 PM
I know it's not the change many people have hoped for, but frankly, I've long thought incremental changes such as this could be an effective way of addressing the problem, rather than just hoping for a bypass that may never come.

I don't know there would ever be a "bypass" per say.   Probably just a couple of ramps from the Breezewood spur to SB EB I-70, and WB-I-70 to the spur towards the Turnpike mainline.


I don't have opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything

mc78andrew

One other point on this from the financial side of the equation.

The states current brilliant move is to lever up the turnpike authority and basically use the funds for the states transportation spending (44 act). 

To put this in basic terms, it's like you forming an entity and borrowing money in that entity's name and then just sending that money to your personal bank account. 

This is a great way to fund yourself without putting new debt on your balance sheet.  Until the day it doesn't work anymore.  On that fateful day, the political class will have to decide whether to default on the turnpike's debt, or assume it onto the states balance sheet.

In the meantime the party lives on.  The political elite know how fun this party is and will not vote to end it by merging penndot and the turnpike authority before they absolutely have to.

If this sounds familiar to you, note that Wall Street calls this off balance sheet financing.  Ask people who worked for Lehman brothers and they tell you that there really is no such thing, but it certainly seems like there is while the party is going. 

Forget about the graft and other idiotic things that go on within this agency.  Sooner or later this thing comes under the state's realm if the 44 act continues for another few years.  Until then, why stop the cash flow party and assume the authority's existing liabilities onto the state's balance sheet by merging it into penndot?  Fannie Mae and Freddic Mac are another set of classic examples of what the state of PA will eventually do in a take over while Lehman brothers represents option "B" of filing this authority for bankruptcy after its credit card is maxed out. 

ARMOURERERIC

I just noted that on the PA Pike website, the project page for the widening/reconstruction for MP12-14 is up.  This includes the replacement of the Beaver River Bridge and the reconfiguration of the PA 18 interchange.  Early action bridge reconstruction of 2 RR bridges and a local road bridge are underway. 

http://www.paturnpike.com/constructionprojects/mp12to14/default.aspx

cpzilliacus

Quote from: mc78andrew on September 13, 2013, 09:45:02 PM
One other point on this from the financial side of the equation.

The states current brilliant move is to lever up the turnpike authority and basically use the funds for the states transportation spending (44 act). 

To put this in basic terms, it's like you forming an entity and borrowing money in that entity's name and then just sending that money to your personal bank account. 

This is a great way to fund yourself without putting new debt on your balance sheet.  Until the day it doesn't work anymore.  On that fateful day, the political class will have to decide whether to default on the turnpike's debt, or assume it onto the states balance sheet.

The curious fact here is that the bond markets and credit rating agencies seem to be fully aware of the PTC selling debt and then just shipping the cash off to PennDOT (to be spent on things that have nothing to do with the  Turnpike's network), yet they keep purchasing PTC bonds (which I assume are not "full faith and credit" bonds - in other words, the bondholders do not have recourse to Pennsylvania taxpayers in the event of a default).

Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

mc78andrew

#638
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 29, 2013, 05:43:22 PM
Quote from: mc78andrew on September 13, 2013, 09:45:02 PM
One other point on this from the financial side of the equation.

The states current brilliant move is to lever up the turnpike authority and basically use the funds for the states transportation spending (44 act). 

To put this in basic terms, it's like you forming an entity and borrowing money in that entity's name and then just sending that money to your personal bank account. 

This is a great way to fund yourself without putting new debt on your balance sheet.  Until the day it doesn't work anymore.  On that fateful day, the political class will have to decide whether to default on the turnpike's debt, or assume it onto the states balance sheet.

The curious fact here is that the bond markets and credit rating agencies seem to be fully aware of the PTC selling debt and then just shipping the cash off to PennDOT (to be spent on things that have nothing to do with the  Turnpike's network), yet they keep purchasing PTC bonds (which I assume are not "full faith and credit" bonds - in other words, the bondholders do not have recourse to Pennsylvania taxpayers in the event of a default).



You are correct, the market is still purchasing pa turnpike bonds, but at a decent and ever widening discount (higher yield) as the credit metrics continue to deteriorate.  You are also correct that pa turnpike bonds are secured by the toll revenues of the road way and not the state. 

It's just hard to say what will happen here in the end game.  Would the state let the entity file for bankruptcy and then merge it into penndot (bond holders lose).  Or would they absorb/take-over/bail-out the authority and support its existing debt?  It will be an interesting bankruptcy court fight if it's the former.  If they choose that route, the bonds will get smoked and hedge funds with serious legal teams will buy them on the cheap and sue.  Their argument will be interesting since the authority has no apparent recourse to stop the syphoning of cash. Thus, you could argue that the 44 act already constitutes a tacit take over. 

I am not a lawyer though.  So who really knows?  A lot of it depends on who owns the bonds when they want to default.  Not sure that defaulting on the existing debt only to take over all operations and future matainence is that much better than continuing to pay the bonds and taking over all operations and future matainence or expansion.

The ratings agencies are paying attention. A3/A- is the worst credit rating of any of the major original thru toll roads...not talking about all the suburban ones that have popped up linking housing developments.  It'll be BBB before you know it. 

Mr_Northside

Turnpike officials to present 6 options to fix aging Somerset County tunnels

Looks like they're back at it again... which makes sense cause the tunnels aren't getting any younger.
I can't believe it's already been 12 years since the last major discussions.  It will be interesting to see how possible costs will have risen.
I don't have opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything

jemacedo9

I drove eastbound today from the new Exit 320 to the NE Extension, and noticed that they are new foundations poured for new BGSs (and BBSs for the Valley Forge Plaza).  I couldn't tell if there was also work being done for the sign bridge right at Exit 326.

I find it interesting, in that at least the 320-326 stretch is due to be under construction soon.

ALSO, on the NE Ext, traffic is shifted to the newly-constructed lanes in both directions the length of the MM20-26 widening section.

MASTERNC

Just saw my first mixed mode (Cash & E-ZPass) exit lane on the mainline Turnpike at Harrisburg East.  It always annoyed me they couldn't make lanes mixed mode for exit lanes like most toll authorities have (the NJ Turnpike was the same way but changed a year or two ago to accept E-ZPass in all lanes).  Hopefully this will expand, but of course, AET will make this moot.

Flyer78

There have been mixed-mode lane use in the past, especially at the smaller plazas (Wilkes-Barre, for example). I think they try to avoid it due to the risk of an inattentive driver rear-ending a cash customer. The automated plazas farther north on the Extension also have mixed-mode lanes.

vdeane

On the Thruway they solve that problem by requiring ALL traffic to stop (not just cash) in mixed lanes.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Flyer78 on November 27, 2013, 04:30:15 PM
There have been mixed-mode lane use in the past, especially at the smaller plazas (Wilkes-Barre, for example). I think they try to avoid it due to the risk of an inattentive driver rear-ending a cash customer. The automated plazas farther north on the Extension also have mixed-mode lanes.
Quote from: vdeane on November 27, 2013, 05:36:11 PM
On the Thruway they solve that problem by requiring ALL traffic to stop (not just cash) in mixed lanes.

While that fear is there, in my experiences the fear is overstated.  Not only have I not seen rear-enders in mixed-mode toll lanes, people tend to give a bit more space in case someone stops.  And when someone stops, it's not like they're slamming on the brakes - they're simply slowing down like any normal person would approaching a toll booth, stop sign, etc.  It has definitely improved the traffic flow in the interchanges.  Heck, people tend to rear end others in cash-only lanes, when everyone knows the car in front of them is stopping.

On the other hand, it seems on a daily basis on the highways I'll see people on the shoulder after a minor rear-end collision in normal congestion.

Like most things - mixed mode lanes have been around for many years, and the fears people exhibit don't equal the reality. 

MASTERNC

I should have noted it was the first manned lane I saw with both cash & E-ZPass capability.

As for the rationale for having mixed-mode lanes, it prevents all the weaving at the toll plazas to find the "cash only" or "E-ZPass Only" lanes.  I can imagine that would cause more accidents than rear-ending someone stopped to pay cash in a mixed-mode lane.

Flyer78

MASTERNC, I was also speaking of cash & E-Z Pass lanes.

I also agree the fear of toll plaza accidents is overstated, I remember the HAR specifically warning about it happening in mixed-mode lanes.

The non-widespread use of mixed-mode exit lanes on the Turnpike is annoying when queuing behind large trucks that are slowing down (safely) to go through the lanes, especially at the barrier tolls as the cash lanes sit increasingly empty.

roadman

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2013, 11:10:25 PM

PennDOT presumably would do like some other states (Florida, New Hampshire and Massachusetts come to mind) and create a Bureau of Turnpikes as a separate department under PennDOT management, along with all or very nearly all of the staff that used to work for the PTC.

MassDOT does not have a separate Bureau of Turnpikes (or equivalent sub-agency).  Rather, jurisdiction of the Mass Turnpike/I-90 now falls under the individual District offices responsible for the section of I-90 that runs through their area.  While the MassDOT "merger" resulted in an additional District (District 6) that covers the Greater Boston area, District 6's responsibilites extend beyond the Turnpike Extension and the former Metropolitan Highway System (which consisted mostly of the I-90/I-93 tunnel system).
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

Compulov

Stupid question... isn't the equipment needed installed in all lanes on the PATP? If so, do they actively disable it in cash-only lanes when they're staffed? If not, is there any reason you *can't* just go through any cash lane with E-Z Pass?
I personally hate mixed-use lanes, but that's entirely due to my own discomfort with just kinda blowing past a toll collector without giving him money or even rolling down the window. It just feels weird.

briantroutman

Quote from: Compulov on December 17, 2013, 12:47:26 PM
Stupid question... isn't the equipment needed installed in all lanes on the PATP? If so, do they actively disable it in cash-only lanes when they're staffed? If not, is there any reason you *can't* just go through any cash lane with E-Z Pass?

It appears the answer is, surprisingly, yes–they do disable the E-ZPass equipment in cash only lanes. According to the PTC (http://www.paturnpike.com/ezpass/personalfaq.htm#entered), if you enter through an E-ZPass lane] and attempt to exit through a cash only lane, the human toll taker at the exit point will charge you the "lost ticket" rate (maximum possible toll), but you can request a form to get the overpayment refunded.

To intentionally disable the equipment that's ALREADY THERE and thereby incur $25 in administrative costs to refund a $10 toll seems incredibly stupid to me. I can understand them wanting to discourage mixed cash/E-ZPass traffic through a lane because of the potential for speed differential, unexpected stops, and collisions, but disabling the equipment is ridiculous.



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.